Forbes Paints JPEG Patent Holder As A Victim
from the oh-those-poor-patent-attorneys dept
Forbes is now running an article about the history of this patent, though, oddly, they seem to take it at face value that the patent is obviously valid and that everyone who has a JPEG image should pay up. In fact, the article suggests that the patent holder (a patent attorney who got the rights from the "old and feeble" inventors) may be cheated out of the money he's owed by all these unfortunate re-examinations. Forbes doesn't seem to have any problem with someone who is doing absolutely nothing productive, yet can get a steady stream of money for a patent that really has nothing to do with JPEG images, but was merely applied to JPEGs after the fact. And, of course, Forbes seems to ignore that this is hardly the only such case. Remember, it was just a few years ago that another company, Forgent, claimed it had the patents on JPEG images and everyone owed it money. There's a serious problem here, and Forbes coverage, portraying the patent attorney who has the rights to this patent as a victim is doing a real disservice to those who are actually trying to innovate.