JPEG is short for the "Joint Photographic Experts Group". It
comprises experts nominated by national standards bodies and major
companies to work to produce standards for continuous tone image
coding.
The best-known standard from JPEG is IS 10918-1, which is the
first of a multi-part set of standards for still image compression.
A basic version of the many features of this standard is what most
people think of as JPEG – and this is where Forgent is claiming a
monopoly right.
The patent is owned by Compression Labs, which applied for it in
1986, but never pursued royalties. Forgent subsequently acquired
Compression Labs and startled the computer industry in 2002 when it
announced that it would be seeking royalties relating to digital
image compression.
In particular, Forgent was interested in fields of use including
any digital still image device used to compress, store, manipulate,
print or transmit digital still images such as digital cameras.
But the patent also extended to cover many digital still image
devices such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile
telephones, printers, scanners and other devices used to compress,
store, manipulate, print or transmit digital still images, said
Forgent.
Accordingly, the company claimed to have the exclusive right to
use, licence and enforce all the claims under the patent in all
fields of use involving digital still image compression.
Over the last two years, Forgent has licensed the patent to 30
different companies in Asia, Europe and the US, generating around
$90 million in fees, but has had no success with the companies
named in last week's lawsuit, despite ongoing negotiations.
"Forgent is committed to developing all of its assets and
technologies to maximise 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.
He added: "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."
Company spokesman Michael Noonan told The Mac Observer, "The
amount of the damages will depend on each of the defendants
products and their associated revenue." He added: "It is fair to
say that we could end up asking for damages in the millions of
dollars".
