No more JPEGs - ISO to withdraw image standard

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html">http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html</a><br /><br />Would one of you reading this in Austin, Texas, go give the CEO at Forgent a smack upside the head? I can't believe those greedy fools are trying to take control of the JPEG format - Unisys and GIF was bad enough, but this is downright stupid. Patents were created to protect the inventor from the Big Guys, not to give the Big Guys a stick to chase others around with. Hey Forgent, listen up: try making a real product and selling it to earn an income for your company instead of trying to live off an ancient patent like some deadbeat teenager living with his mom. <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif" /><br /><br />"The ISO standards body will take the unprecedented step of withdrawing the JPEG image format as a formal standard if Forgent Networks, a small Texan company, continues to demand royalties on a seventeen-year old patent. The Register has spoken to representatives of both the JPEG committee and Forgent Networks this week. According to Richard Clark, JPEG committee member and JPEG.org webmaster, Forgent's royalty grab - coming after two decades of royalty-free use - means that ISO is obliged to withdraw the specification.<br /><br />"Under ISO terms, formally you can only have a standard you can implement on free or RAND terms. "Reasonable and non discriminatory (RAND) terms are typically published, and the same for everyone. It's clear that Forgent's claims are not RAND. $15 million doesn't sound like free to me, and Forgent is not publishing the terms of their licensing."

[Duncan]

This has got to be a bluff call... the backlash against Forgent will make the backlash against British Telecom over the hyperlinks patent look like being kind!

[Ed Hansberry]

This has got to be a bluff call... the backlash against Forgent will make the backlash against British Telecom over the hyperlinks patent look like being kind!
I was just thinking the same thing - though Xerox should definitely keep their suit against Palm going. :wink:

[jmulder]

What I hate about these 'royalty grabs' is that they always seem to come up after years of public domain usage. Didn't they realize that the world's JPEG was using their JPEG technology (if indeed that is the case)?

I think the US Patent office needs to recognize 'historical rights'. When I bought a house in Oregon, there were drainage issues from my neighbor's property onto mine and some others'. The ruling of the court was that despite the fact that he had been draining onto undeveloped property he didn't own for several years, I had no right to stop him from doing it because he had 'historical rights'. The previous owners hadn't tried to stop him from doing it, so I had no right to stop him myself.

If Forgent didn't defend their patent 10 years ago when JPEG became popular, IMO they have no right to try to defend it now.

Rant over,

Jim

[nirav28]

Small company, in this day and age can't generate revenue in uncertain economic times. So they have to resort to this. I remember when Unisys started that whole GIF fiasco. Those were booming days. I guess they wanted to make a quick buck off the explosive growth of the web. Corporate america and the patent mess that we're under amazes me.

Is this the end times???

[Julio]

Hello all,

Whereas I am not an expert in patents, I have had to deal with them to some extent. I recall being told by an IP lawyer at one point that patents had to be continually defended or the owner of the patent was deemed to have effectively "abandoned" the patent.

So, I agree that this must be a bluff because I don't think that a court of law would uphold the patent.

my $0.02

Julio

[Will T Smith]

Hello all,

Whereas I am not an expert in patents, I have had to deal with them to some extent. I recall being told by an IP lawyer at one point that patents had to be continually defended or the owner of the patent was deemed to have effectively "abandoned" the patent.

So, I agree that this must be a bluff because I don't think that a court of law would uphold the patent.

my $0.02

Julio

I concur,

This was an impression I got from a patent attorney giving a lecture to programmers. One cannot simply "lie low", and then sue I long, long time afterwards.

The good news is that the burden of proof lies upon the patent holder. Furthermore, collecting royalties will be an impossible task as there are just WAY TOO MANY people to sue.

[Steven Cedrone]

collecting royalties will be an impossible task as there are just WAY TOO MANY people to sue.

I think that they already managed to collect money from some Japanese companies:

From C/Net:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-945686.html

Moreover, the firm has been able to persuade two Japanese companies to ante up cash.

In April, it signed a deal to license the patent for $15 million with a large, though unnamed, Japanese digital camera player, according to company filings and to an industry expert.

In May, Forgent signed a "multimillion-dollar patent license" with Sony for the compression technology, the company said in a press release and in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Jeffrey Dabbs, a research analyst with San Antonio-based financial research firm Kercheville & Co., estimates the actual fee to be between $17 million and $18 million.

"They think there is $100 million that they can get from Japanese companies," said Dabbs, who owns stock in Forgent.

Steve

[BevHoward]

Cash'n'Carrion Reg Shop

[juni]

Sadly, it is a valid lawsuit, I think. Like the gif-case - companies who want to implement gif-support into their apps have to pay a fee, or be sued if caught.

Although - they have the right to the jpg format only until year 2004.

Anyone remember when British Telecom claimed to own the patent to the html-format?

[Jonathon Watkins]

Anyone remember when British Telecom claimed to own the patent to the html-format?
Umm - that case is still ongoing isn't it?

[possmann]

You are right Jason - that guy needs a slap in the head - or, as we have said during bayonet drills: "Butt stroke to the head - HOOAH!".

What an idiot. Who could have ever thought of that?!?! I also agree that seeing that they havent defended that pattent - what legal ground do they have now?

ISO out to slap these guys around a bit before caving.