|
|
| USPTO: Broadest Claims Forgent Asserts Against JPEG Standard Invalid |
 |
|
Friday, May 26 2006 @ 10:57 AM EDT
|
This is amazing. Do you remember that the Public Patent Foundation asked the US Patent Office to take another look at the JPEG patent? Yesterday, the reexamination proceeding initiated by PubPat bore fruit: the USPTO has rejected the broadest claims Forgent Networks is asserting against the JPEG standard on the basis that the prior art submitted by PubPat completely anticipated those claims. Forgent can respond, but it seems they'll have some explaining to do, because PubPat's Executive Director, Dan Ravicher, says that the submitters knew about the prior art but failed to tell the USPTO about it. That is a very big NO. So don't let anyone tell you that efforts to find prior art are not useful.
******************************
PATENT ASSERTED AGAINST JPEG STANDARD REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE AS
RESULT OF PUBPAT REQUEST: Public Interest Group's Review Results in
Broadest Claims of Forgent Networks Patent Being Ruled Invalid
NEW YORK -- May 26, 2006 -- In the reexamination proceeding initiated
late last year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United
States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the broadest claims of
the patent Forgent Networks (Nasdaq: FORG) is asserting against the
Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the
electronic sharing of photo-quality images. In its Office Action
released yesterday, the Patent Office found that the prior art submitted
by PUBPAT completely anticipated the broadest claims of the patent, U.S.
Patent No. 4,698,672 (the '672 Patent).
Forgent Networks acquired the '672 Patent through the purchase of
Compression Labs, Inc. in 1997 and began aggressively asserting it
against the JPEG standard through lawsuits and the media in 2004. The
company has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection,
but third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by
PUBPAT, result in having the subject patent either modified or
completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.
"The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it would have
never granted Forgent Networks' '672 patent had it been aware of the
prior art that we uncovered and submitted to them," said Dan Ravicher,
PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Making matters worse here is that this
new prior art was known by those who filed the application that led to
the '672 patent, but none of them told the Patent Office about it,
despite their duty to do so."
More information about the reexamination the Forgent Networks patent
being asserted against the JPEG standard, including a copy of the Patent
Office's Office Action rejecting its broadest claims, can be found at
http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm.
About PUBPAT:
The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") is a not-for-profit legal
services organization working to protect the public from the harms
caused by the patent system, particularly the harms caused by wrongly
issued patents and unsound patent policy. To be kept informed of PUBPAT
News, subscribe to the PUBPAT News List by sending an email with
"subscribe" in the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org. To be
removed from the PUBPAT News List, send an email with "unsubscribe" in
the subject line to news-request@pubpat.org.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
WOW!
---
Open source is in the public interest![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:14 AM EDT |
Double WOW!
---
Open source is in the public interest![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
Triple wow! [and so on]
Score one for the good guys.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
| How does the idea of the long
tail relate to patents? How big is the long tail of patentable ideas
compared to the handful of developments that get anywhere commercially? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Long Tail - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 01:07 PM EDT
- The Long Tail - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 27 2006 @ 02:01 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
| Any chance of criminal prosecution for this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
Is Forgent a budding patent troll? Apart from a subsidiary that sells a
scheduling package, their only "products" are a couple of patents.
Better to nip this one in the bud before it grows into an SCO.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DebianUser on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
This looks to me like a preemptive strike by the pubpat organization against a
would-be patent troll. It seems to have worked.
I wonder if prior art ever helps once someone actually is under attack from
someone who has decided to "monetize the intellectual property
assets".
The two cases that come to mind are the Blackberry (RIM) case, and the case
reported earlier where Kodak went after Sun with some old apparently overly
broad patent they had bought. RIM seemed to lose the infringement case even
though the troll's patents were in the process of being thrown out. Sun seemed
to decide it was cheaper to pay off Kodak, and judging from what happened to RIM
it seems hard to argue that paying was a bad financial decision by Sun. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
| How to get a recommendation wrong... (18-May-2006)
"Dutton Associates
Announces Investment Opinion: Forgent Networks Strong Buy Rating Maintained By
Dutton Associates "
Link to Release
"assuming
a possible judgment of $100.0 to $200.0 million from the '672 Patent
litigation"
Never assume. It makes an...(complete the well known saying) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:52 AM EDT |
| You hear that sound, Forgent?
THAT is the sound of your license to
litigate getting revoked. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Altair_IV on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
I want to know how they know that Forgent knew about the prior art before
filing.
(I also want to know many knows you can actually use in one sentence and still
know who knew what.)
---
Monsters from the id!!
m(_ _)m[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arthurpaliden on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
What will be really interesting is what will the "56 companies that include
a wide variety of businesses, and recorded revenue of over $106.8 million in
license fees." that already licenced the patented item going to do now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PhilFrisbie on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
Those companies that caved in and gave Forgent over $108 MILLION in fees the
last three years should feel foolish ;)
Oh, and RIM should also feel foolish because their $612 million settlement was
just like hanging a sign on their back that says "Sue Me!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:21 PM EDT |
I seem to remember that when applying for a US patent you sign your name against
a statement that you have included all the prior art you know of and that you
have made reasonable efforts to discover more. Furthermore isn't this statement
made "under penalty of perjury?". If this is so should not the
inventors be expecting a call from officers of the law?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
This is good news. It will be even better if the patent office shows some
spirit and actively pursues the people who filed the patent on the perjury
angle. I've heard that this almost never happens, so patent filers think they
have nothing to fear should they fail to do a thorough search for prior art.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Laomedon on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
USPTO Issues Office Action for Forgent's '672
Patent
Majority of Patent Claims Are
UpheldAUSTIN, TX, May 26, 2006 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX News Network) --
Forgent(TM) Networks (NASDAQ: FORG) announced today that on May 25,
2006, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office issued its first
office action, a
non-final action, confirming a majority of the
claims in United States Patent
4,698,672. The action upholds 27 of
the 46 claims of Forgent's patent. Forgent
will vigorously defend the
remaining claims that were not initially upheld in
this first office
action.
"We understand this is an extended process and
we are pleased with
the progress of the patent reexamination," said Richard
Snyder, CEO
and Chairman of Forgent Networks. "We believe the remaining
claims
are also valid, and we will work directly with the Patent and
Trademark
Office to clarify and defend our position."
Forgent is currently in
litigation regarding the '672 patent with
approximately 30 companies. The
current parties include: Acer America
Corporation, Agfa Corporation, Apple
Computer, Incorporated (NASDAQ:
AAPL), BancTec, Inc., Canon, USA, Concord Camera
Corporation (NASDAQ:
LENS), Creative Labs, Incorporated, Creo, Inc. (CREO), Creo
Americas,
Inc., Dell Incorporated (NASDAQ: DELL), Eastman Kodak Company
(NYSE:
EK), Fuji Photo Film Co U.S.A, Fujitsu Computer Products of
America,
Gateway, Inc. (NYSE: GTW), Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:
HPQ),
International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM), JVC
Americas
Corporation, Kyocera Wireless Corporation, Matsushita
Electric
Corporation of America, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:
MSFT),
Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Incorporated, PalmOne,
Inc.
(PLMO), Panasonic Communications Corporation of America, Panasonic
Mobile
Communications Development Corporation of USA, Ricoh
Corporation, Savin
Corporation, Sun Microsystems Inc. (NASDAQ: SUNW),
Thomson S.A. (NYSE: TMS),
TiVo Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), Toshiba
Corporation and Veo Inc. Since the filing of
the litigation, more
than a dozen companies that were defendants have entered
into license
agreements.
Since its inception over three years ago,
Forgent's intellectual
property program has generated more than $105 million
in revenues
primarily from licensing the '672 Patent to companies in Asia,
Europe
and the United States. The '672 Patent relates to digital
image
compression used in digital image devices that compress,
store,
manipulate, print or transmit digital images such as digital
cameras,
personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, printers,
scanners,
and certain software applications. The company's patent
portfolio
includes the combined inventions of Compression Labs, Inc.,
VTEL
Corporation, and Forgent Networks, Inc.
About
Forgent
Forgent(TM) Networks (NASDAQ: FORG) develops and
licenses
intellectual property and provides scheduling software to a
wide
variety of customers. Forgent's intellectual property licensing
program is
related to communication technologies developed from a
diverse and growing
patent portfolio. Forgent's software division,
NetSimplicity, provides a
spectrum of scheduling software that
enables all sizes of organizations to
streamline the scheduling of
people, places and things. For additional
information please visit
www.forgent.com.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
Here is the question:
Forgent should have known that there was prior art that invalidated theit patent
and failed to report this to the patent office.
Forgent made public claims against several companies on the basis of the tainted
patent.
Could a lanham claim be used against Forgent for making false statements?
---
Open source is in the public interest![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
It appears that the penalty for filing a bogus patent is to make $108 million
before having it revoked 10 years later. Is that all there is to it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
| Now that it appears USPTO is finally starting to do it's job according to it's
mandate, we need to follow up by keeping an eye on senators Dianne Feinstein (D)
and Orrin Hatch(R).
As you are probably aware, Feinstein is the poster girl
for overreaching IP laws, due to her representing Hollywood.
Hatch is the
poster boy for same, due to the fact that he is a manufacturer of intellectual
property. He is a capable song and hymn writer, and by pandering to ASCAP etc.
he hopes to make his first billion this way. However, someone ought to tell him
that the reason he isn't rolling in it has nothing to do with current
legislation, but more to do with lack of salesmanship.
If you go to hatchmusic.com to order the music you
get:
"404 Error - The Page you have requested cannot be
found."
With USPTO enforcing the law according to intentions, I bet it
will not take long before Hatch and Feinstein in bipartisan harmony will step up
to the plate and introduce a bill to restore the broken order. Last time I saw
them on C-SPAN they made a hash out of XM sattelite radio, pandering to the
record companies and ASCAP etc. Did you know that old fashioned broadcast radio
pays absolutely nothing in licenses? While internet streaming, and XM, Sirius
etc. pays a huge chunk of their revenue? And that the record companies wanted
even more, and have XM classified as distribution, instead of broadcasting.? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
I strongly disagree that this shows the system working to any useful
degree.
1. They have held the patent for a while, during which time they
have intimidated people to prevent them from using the technology. Even if all
the claims are invalidated, they will never be held liable for the untold damage
they have done by disallowing people for using it for that period of time, and I
see no disincentive to trying this sort of thing again just because they got
caught on this particular nuiscance patent.
2. Demonstrating prior art
is something that may not be doable in a vast majority of cases, because the
evidence is not there. Even if there was no prior art, it is likely (based upon
many examples) that it was the obvious direction to go to solve a problem but
they are apparently doing nothing to fix that.
I believe at this point,
the system is still so open for abuse, that cooperating with the Patent system
is endorsing its many abuses. It allows them to say that the submissions have
been competently reviewed, which they clearly have not.
People who file
patents should be liable for class action lawsuits at the very least with
attorneys fees paid so that there can be a strong incentive to overturn invalid
patents and not the huge legal bill hurdle and a strong disincentive to do
anything that harms others legitimate developments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
The problem in Patenting IDEAS is that probably, somewhere,
somehow, has thought up the same idea before, and wrote it
down. If you think about this for a while, it makes it very
hard to patent and IDEA, like software.
On the other hand, if you think up an IDEA, and track it
back to the original person, you are too late to have him
patent it because its already published as prior art.
I predict that in a couple of years, instead of having
"Patent Trolls" we are going to have "patent busting
trolls." These are the guys that, for a fee of course,
will Bust any software patent you want busted!
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IRJustman on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I think what's being said is that patent trolling should be made illegal.
Patent trolling is, by its very nature, fraud since organizations like Forgent
or RAMBUS don't use their patent portfolios for anything except as a cudgel to
bludgeon everyone for money. They don't actually MAKE anything with those
patents except money.
--Ian.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 26 2006 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
for an explanation of the Prior Art, read PubPats original request for
reexamination from Nov 2005:
http://www.pubpat.org/
Chen_'672_Reexam_Request.pdf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Arnold.the.Frog on Saturday, May 27 2006 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
The decision (thanks,
Anonymous!).
P. 30, para. 6:
"Moreover, there is not
sufficient evidence to show that
it was inherent in "runlength coding that
runlength code
values represent the number of consecutive
zeros".
I've tried to find a possible justification for
this
amazing sentence, and I haven't been able to come up with
anything which
isn't hopelessly fanciful and silly.
Does the man actually know what
run-length encoding
is? It sounds like a stupid question, but...
The
critical point here is that zeroes are preferentially
encoded with short codes
because they are the commonest
values. All very straightforward stuff: actually
less
sophisticated than, say, explicit Huffman encoding (which
is Tescher's
proposed approach to doing it).
Unfortunately, our man at the USPTO goes
on to bog
himself in deeper.
p. 31, para. 7
The entry 0
with highest occurrence of 5652 is
represented by length 3, while
the entry 2 with
lower occurrence of 3916 is represented by
length
3 (emphasis added). It clearly shows that
the highest occurrence of 5652
and lower occurrence of
3916 have the same length 3. This example appears
to
contradict the Requester's statements of “Tescher's
compression
technique such that those values with the
highest frequency of occurrence are
represented with
shorter lengths than those values with lower frequency
of
occurrence.”
This is, of course, preposterous. Only in
wildly extreme
cases will (say) a Huffman encoding produce different
lengths for
EVERY code, though it's possible. In fact,
Huffman encoding (in ITSELF, not in
combination with
run-length encoding, which confuses the theory a bit)
is
"optimal" for encoding successive independent
random samples from a finite
character set. If the
patentee's claims are different, they are arguably
just a
stupider version of the same, and being
stupider is surely not
patentable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
