toggle

AAPL Stock: 570.56 ( + 13.59 )

Forgent sues Apple, others over DV patent

updated 08:05 pm EDT, Thu April 22, 2004

Forgent sues Apple


). Forgent says intellectual property business has generated approximately $90 million from licensing of the 1987 patent to about 30 different companies worldwide, but did not specify the damages against each company; the company says it has sought to reach agreements on numerous occasions with all these companies, but has been unable to come to terms with any of the defendents.

Other defendents include Adobe, Agfa, Axis, Canon, Concord Camera, Creative Labs, Dell, Eastman Kodak Company, Fuji, Fujitsu, Gateway , Hewlett-Packard, IBM, JVC, Macromedia, Matsushita, Onkyo, PalmOne, Panasonic, Ricoh, Riverdeep, Savin, Toshiba and Xerox.



Forgent says the Patent relates to digital image compression, and fields of use include any digital still image device used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital still images such as digital cameras. However, the '672 patent extends beyond digital cameras and includes many digital still image devices such as personal digital assistants, cellular telephones, printers, scanners and other devices used to compress, store, manipulate, print or transmit digital still images. Forgent says it has the exclusive right to use, license and enforce all the claims under the Patent in all fields of use involving digital still image compression.


"Forgent is committed to developing all of its assets and technologies to maximize shareholder value. We believe we will prevail in this litigation as the '672 Patent is valid, enforceable and infringed," said Richard Snyder, chairman and CEO of Forgent. "It's unfortunate that despite the many opportunities these companies have had to license the patent, they have all declined to participate, leaving us no alternative but to litigate.


by MacNN Staff

(8)

TAGS :

 industry
toggle

Comments

  1. cebritt

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2000

    0

    Forgent is a nothing...

    ...but a one trick pony. This patent is their only asset. Their law firm gets half of everything they extort out of companies. Once this patent expires in a few years, they'll be out of business. I hope Apple, Adobe, Dell, HP, IBM et al bleed them dry in court.

    It reminds me of a Clint Eastwood line from Outlaw Jose Wales. Jose asks the bounty hunter why he does what he does and he says, "Man's gotta do somthin' for a livin'."

    Jose Wales replied, "Dyin' aint much of a livin' boy."

  1. miksu

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Mar 2004

    0

    Insane...

    Those folks gotta be completely insane/stupid. They actually claim they own IP for "all kind of still image compression"? Is my JPG desktop wallpaper, which happens to be compressed and still, patent infringement, unless the graphic software company paid license fee to Forgent? Am I taking illegal photos with my digicam?

    Their claims are unbelievably stupid and have no chance of success, unless judge is completely moron on technical side of things. This kinda reminds the case, where company few years ago claimed they have patented Internet. Claim was based on patent describing some kind of links. Didn't Hypercard have page linking, back in the 80's? Aren't all menu functions on software kind linked :) Even book indexes are "links" :D

    If U check Forgent's site, they make some kind scheduling management/meeting automation system. I think at least IBM and possibly Apple could counter sue, as they have all kind of applications for same thing. Propably everyone has at least heard of Lotus (IBM) Domino. Novell has GroupWise, however, Forgent isn't suing them. Maybe IP misuser is actually the guy suing others for misuse?

  1. dthree

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 1999

    0

    what?

    I thought they were suing about jpeg, not DV.

  1. dthree

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 1999

    0

    heh

    If they wanted to make a claim for jpeg, maybe they should have actually TOLD the committee:

    http://www.jpeg.org/faq.phtml?action=show_answer&question_id=q3f042a5e42fd8

  1. testudo

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    Re: insane


    This kinda reminds the case, where company few years ago claimed they have patented Internet. Claim was based on patent describing some kind of links. Didn't Hypercard have page linking, back in the 80's? Aren't all menu functions on software kind linked :) Even book indexes are "links" :D


    Actually, it wasn't the internet, it was 'the web'. The patent basically covered the concept of using links to be able to navigate through a document or series of documents (i.e. hyperlinks). I don't remember exactly who claimed it, but I believe it was one of those Enclyclopedia on CD with hyperlinks and such. And as such, they got a patent, which of course was so generic it pretty much covered anything with a link to something else in it.

    I don't think they got far in extorting money, but its hard to say.

    This is different then, say, unisys, who had the patent on the compression scheme used in GIF images. They actually invented it (or had its rights for something), and generally didn't enforce it until the late 90's, most likely when an accountant and a lawyer got drunk together in a bar and came up with the idea.

    This sounds very reminiscent of the Imatec lawsuit on Colorsync in the late 90's, where you had a company that had NO business, suing apple over a patent they bought or received in some vein, trying to get 1.1 billion out of apple.

  1. sribe

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jan 2003

    0

    Doesn't look like JPEG

    dthree says:

    If they wanted to make a claim for jpeg, maybe they should have actually TOLD the committee

    I think it's worse than that. I'm a software engineer who groks exactly how JPEG & MPEG compression work. I admit I don't know how read "patentese", but it appears to me that the patent in question does not cover any technique used in either. I think what is happening is that Forgent has a patent covering a very specific technique for eliminating redundancy between video frames, and is trying to claim the patent covers all techniques whose description includes some of the same key words. I don't know whether they're inept enough to actually believe this patent is much broader than it is, or whether they're unscrupulous enough to know it doesn't cover JPEG and just hope that companies would rather settle than to spend the money proving non-infringement. Either way, if I'm right the big companies should all be funding a joint defense effort.

  1. sribe

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jan 2003

    0

    other insanity

    testudo says:

    Actually, it wasn't the internet, it was 'the web'. The patent basically covered the concept of using links to be able to navigate through a document or series of documents (i.e. hyperlinks). I don't remember exactly who claimed it, but I believe it was one of those Enclyclopedia on CD with hyperlinks and such. And as such, they got a patent, which of course was so generic it pretty much covered anything with a link to something else in it.

    I don't think they got far in extorting money, but its hard to say.

    You're running together a couple of cases. A company that made an encyclopedia CD-ROM (but not even the first one), Compton's I think, got a patent that was so broad it literally covered all "multimedia". When they tried to enforce it against competitors, the whole industry objected and the patent reviewed the patent and overturned it.

    British Telecom was issued a patent on something similar to hyperlinks, but for a system of dumb terminals connected to a mainframe. When they tried to claim that this covered the WWW and sued, the judge ruled that the patent did not cover hyperlinks on the Internet and did not allow the case to go to trial.

    This is different then, say, unisys, who had the patent on the compression scheme used in GIF images. They actually invented it (or had its rights for something)...

    Not that different. Someone else altogether invented the basic technique and published it without any thought of patenting it. An employee of Unisys made a minor (and to my mind not terribly non-obvious) improvement and then Unisys patented the result.

    Now your recollection of Imatec matches mine ;-) No business, a patent that only covered grayscale luminence matching, and an attempt to lay claim to all color matching techniques ever invented.

  1. dthree

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Apr 1999

    0

    hmm

    sribe, thats pretty interesting. Maybe the reason they DIDN'T submit patent information to the JPEG committee is because they knew it would be laughed out of the room.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

 
close
Photo
toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

MacNN Sponsor

Recent Reviews

iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker

iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...

Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover

One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...

Logitech UE Air Speaker

If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...

toggle

Most Commented