|
|
| JPEG Patent Claim Surrendered! |
 |
|
Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 03:55 PM EST
|
Here you go, straight from the Public Patent Foundation's press release: Forgent Networks has stopped asserting its patent against JPEG, has dropped all its pending cases that were
asserting the patent, and says that it won't file any other infringement claims based on the patent. You'll recall that PubPat challenged the patent last year and the USPTO reexamination led to rejection of the broadest claims. On its website page on the Forgent Networks JPEG Related Patent, PubPat provides the history: PUBPAT filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in November 2005 to revoke the patent Forgent Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: FORG) is widely asserting against the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the electronic sharing of photo-quality images. In its filing, PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art showing that the patent, which was issued in 1987 to Forgent's subsidiary Compression Labs Inc., was not new and, as such, should be revoked. The PTO granted PUBPAT's request in February 2006 and rejected the broadest claims of the patent in May 2006. In November 2006, Forgent abandoned all assertion of the patent. You can get the legal filing and the USPTO orders from that page. Hey, sometimes there's good news. Not all the news stories can be about somebody's corporate strategy to steal Red Hat's customers.
Here's the meat from the press release:
************************
JPEG PATENT CLAIM SURRENDERED:
Forgent Networks Ends Assertion of Patent Challenged by PUBPAT
NEW YORK -- November 2, 2006 -- The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") announced today that Forgent Networks (Nasdaq: FORG) has stopped asserting its patent against the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the electronic sharing of photo-quality images. PUBPAT successfully initiated a challenge to the patent last year and this week Forgent dropped all of its pending cases asserting the patent and stated that it would not file any other infringement claims based on the 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. PUBPAT filed its challenge to the patent in November 2005 and the Patent Office rejected the patent's broadest claims in May of this year.
"By completely ending its assertion of the '672 patent, Forgent has now finally admitted that the patent has no valid claim over the JPEG standard," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "This utter capitulation by Forgent is long overdue, but a cause for public relief nonetheless."
More information about the Forgent Networks patent formerly 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/forgentjpeg.htm.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 04:19 PM EST |
| The final group of JPEG defendants settled for $8Million this quarter. FORG
had a 43% contingency with it lawyers (Susman of Caldera v. MSFT, is the
most
recent lead).
FORG never recovered from a Markman Ruling (formal review of
claims) that
severely limited the claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 04:31 PM EST |
Ya all know the drill and how to make links click able.
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stats_for_all on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 04:34 PM EST |
| information reposted, but relevant to article lead.
Kevin McBride and
investment bank Morgan Keegan joined a South Carolina
company Affinity
Technologies in a patent troll lawsuit against mortgage
banks and other lenders
for a "loan approval" software patent.
In a July 11, 2006 announcement,
Morgan Keegan's Kim Jenkins agreed to
find $5Million dollars for Affinity
(AFFI.ob). The same announcement added
the services of Kevin McBride to the
lawsuit in exchange for a 6% contingency
share.
Kimble Jenkins was the lead
for Morgan Keegan in its arrangements with
SCOX. Keegan first contracted with
SCOX in August 2002 at the same time as
the John Wall deal. Keegan revised its
engagement letter in February 2003, to
include software license sales. Keegan
received a commission on the Baystar
Pipe.
Keegan has since (Sept 2006)
sold $1.9 million is AFFI stock to unnamed
parties.
Sources:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1007508/000115752306009358/
a5232234
.txt
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1007508/000115752306006861/
a5187856
.txt
http://www.affi.net/PressReleases/pr_2006_07_24.pdf
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Trollsfire on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 04:50 PM EST |
If you find any corrections needed in the article, please post them here so
that they can be made.
--Trollsfire [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chiark on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 05:29 PM EST |
For years Forgent has been holding companies to ransomasserting
its intellectual property because that "it has a patent that covers the JPEG
standard".
Pubpat has successfully challenged the "broadest claims" of the
patent, and now Forgent has stopped asserting its claims.
How much money did
this endeavour make, and how do the licensees feel now that the majority of the
reasons that they stumped up for a license have been challenged and found to be
subject to prior art?
I realise the license will probably be exquisitely
crafted to say, "if we're selling something that it turns out isn't what we say
it is, you can't sue us", but that strikes me as a downright unfair contract
clause and may well be subject to a legal challenge as such in UK courts of
law.
Does the USA have a similar unfair contract or unenforceable clause
legislation? Because, if it does, is it time to light the blue touch paper and
stand well back?
I really am not in any way a lawyer, and not even American
- you can tell, can't you? All the same, I do wonder how selling dubious
licenses can be legal... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 06:59 PM EST |
Whenever a company claims that it is going to monetize it's assets, look out.
This is an admission by management that the company is failing, and that barring
a miracle, the company is dead.
If you own stock in such a company - sell it - fast. If you are looking for a
place to invest, don't.
This is not to say that there aren't good solid companies selling their
expertise - IBM, Microsoft, and Sun being good examples in the IT market. All of
them have large R&D staffs, engage in continuous research and development,
and work hard to make sure that their efforts pay off. They don't have to claim
that they are going to monetize their assets - they are already doing so.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: erikschmidt on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 07:10 PM EST |
There's an excellent video of Dan Ravicher speaking to an audience of
practitioners, professors, and students about the need for patent reform. I was
at the event, and Dan is a very effective and engaging speaker.
The
video is at Tech LawForum. Full disclosure: I'm a
second-year Santa Clara Law student and I'm one of the editors of
TLF.
Unfortunately, we don't have an MPEG version of the video available
yet. We should have one up in a week or two. In the mean time, if you have WMP,
you'll be able to view the video and a synched transcript. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: llanitedave on Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 11:25 PM EST |
Wasn't that patent about to expire anyway -- it's been 19
years. What's the time limit on technology patents
anyway?
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 03 2006 @ 12:44 AM EST |
| According to Forgent's press release they settled the
remaining claims for $8 million, for a total of about $110 million of
revenue since they started selling licenses in 2002 for the patent that they
acquired in 1997.
The patent expired Oct 27, 2006, 20 years after it was
filed.
So this is only a mild victory for PUBPAT. Forgent made their money, the
patent has lived its life, and they have plans to keep going with other patents
they have bought.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
