Editing JPEG (section)

===Patent controversy===
<!-- Courtesy note per [[MOS:LINK2SECT]]: [[Patent troll]] links here -->

In 2002, [[Forgent Networks]] asserted that it owned and would enforce patent rights on the JPEG technology, arising from a patent that had been filed on October 27, 1986, and granted on October 6, 1987: {{US patent|4698672}} by [[Compression Labs, Inc.|Compression Labs]]' Wen-Hsiung Chen and Daniel J. Klenke.<ref name="cnet"/><ref>{{cite news |title=Forgent's JPEG Patent |url=https://pmt.sourceforge.io/SVG-patents/jpeg.html |access-date=13 July 2019 |work=[[SourceForge]] |date=2002 |archive-date=13 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190513043628/https://pmt.sourceforge.io/SVG-patents/jpeg.html |url-status=live }}</ref> While Forgent did not own Compression Labs at the time, Chen later sold Compression Labs to Forgent, before Chen went on to work for [[Cisco]]. This led to Forgent acquiring ownership over the patent.<ref name="cnet"/> Forgent's 2002 announcement created a furor reminiscent of [[Unisys]]' attempts to assert its rights over the GIF image compression standard.

The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and were of the opinion that they were invalidated by [[prior art]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html |title=Concerning recent patent claims |website=Jpeg.org |date=2002-07-19 |access-date=2011-05-29  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070714232941/http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html |archive-date=2007-07-14 }}</ref> a view shared by various experts.<ref name="cnet"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.algovision-luratech.com/company/news/patentquarrel.jsp?OnlineShopId=164241031081525276 |title=JPEG and JPEG2000&nbsp;– Between Patent Quarrel and Change of Technology |access-date=2017-04-16 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040817154508/http://www.algovision-luratech.com/company/news/patentquarrel.jsp?OnlineShopId=164241031081525276 |archive-date=August 17, 2004 }}</ref>

Between 2002 and 2004, Forgent was able to obtain about US$105 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004, Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent. In addition, Microsoft launched a separate lawsuit against Forgent in April 2005.<ref>{{cite web|title=Graphics patent suit fires back at Microsoft|publisher=[[CNET News]]|first=Dawn|last=Kawamoto|date=April 22, 2005|url=https://www.cnet.com/culture/graphics-patent-suit-fires-back-at-microsoft/|access-date=2023-01-20|archive-date=2023-01-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120140214/https://www.cnet.com/culture/graphics-patent-suit-fires-back-at-microsoft/|url-status=live}}</ref> In February 2006, the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] agreed to re-examine Forgent's JPEG patent at the request of the Public Patent Foundation.<ref name="reexam">{{cite web |title=Trademark Office Re-examines Forgent JPEG Patent |website=Publish.com |date=February 3, 2006 |url=http://www.publish.com/c/a/Graphics-Tools/Trademark-Office-Reexamines-Forgent-JPEG-Patent/ |access-date=2009-01-28 |archive-date=2016-05-15 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515113624/http://www.publish.com/c/a/Graphics-Tools/Trademark-Office-Reexamines-Forgent-JPEG-Patent/  }}</ref> On May 26, 2006, the USPTO found the patent invalid based on prior art. The USPTO also found that Forgent knew about the prior art, yet it intentionally avoided telling the Patent Office. This makes any appeal to reinstate the patent highly unlikely to succeed.<ref>{{cite web |title=USPTO: Broadest Claims Forgent Asserts Against JPEG Standard Invalid |website=[[Groklaw.net]] |date=May 26, 2006 |url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526105754880 |access-date=2007-07-21 |archive-date=2019-05-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190516201650/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526105754880 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Forgent also possesses a similar patent granted by the [[European Patent Office]] in 1994, though it is unclear how enforceable it is.<ref name="ep266049">{{cite web |url=http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP266049 |title=Coding System for Reducing Redundancy |website=Gauss.ffii.org |access-date=2011-05-29 |archive-date=2011-06-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612114555/http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP266049  }}</ref>

As of October 27, 2006, the U.S. patent's 20-year term appears to have expired, and in November 2006, Forgent agreed to abandon enforcement of patent claims against use of the JPEG standard.<ref name="surrendered">{{cite web |title=JPEG Patent Claim Surrendered |publisher=Public Patent Foundation |date=November 2, 2006 |url=http://www.pubpat.org/jpegsurrendered.htm |access-date=2006-11-03 |archive-date=2007-01-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070102145054/http://www.pubpat.org/jpegsurrendered.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>

The JPEG committee has as one of its explicit goals that their standards (in particular their baseline methods) be implementable without payment of license fees, and they have secured appropriate license rights for their [[JPEG 2000]] standard from over 20 large organizations.

Beginning in August 2007, another company, Global Patent Holdings, LLC claimed that its patent ({{US patent|5,253,341}}) issued in 1993, is infringed by the downloading of JPEG images on either a website or through e-mail. If not invalidated, this patent could apply to any website that displays JPEG images. The patent was under reexamination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from 2000 to 2007; in July 2007, the Patent Office revoked all of the original claims of the patent but found that an additional claim proposed by Global Patent Holdings (claim 17) was valid.<ref name="GPHLaw1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week30/OG/html/1320-4/US05253341-20070724.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602141045/http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week30/OG/html/1320-4/US05253341-20070724.html|title=Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 5,253,341|archive-date=June 2, 2008}}</ref> Global Patent Holdings then filed a number of lawsuits based on claim 17 of its patent.

In its first two lawsuits following the reexamination, both filed in Chicago, Illinois, Global Patent Holdings sued the [[Green Bay Packers]], [[CDW]], [[Motorola]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Orbitz]], [[Officemax]], [[Caterpillar Inc.|Caterpillar]], [[Kraft]] and [[Peapod]] as defendants. A third lawsuit was filed on December 5, 2007, in South Florida against [[ADT Security Services]], [[AutoNation]], [[Fanjul brothers|Florida Crystals]] Corp., HearUSA, [[MovieTickets.com]], [[Ocwen Financial Corp.]] and [[Tire Kingdom]], and a fourth lawsuit on January 8, 2008, in South Florida against the [[Boca Raton Resort & Club]]. A fifth lawsuit was filed against Global Patent Holdings in Nevada. That lawsuit was filed by [[Zappos.com]], Inc., which was allegedly threatened by Global Patent Holdings, and sought a judicial declaration that the '341 patent is invalid and not infringed.

Global Patent Holdings had also used the '341 patent to sue or threaten outspoken critics of broad software patents, including Gregory Aharonian<ref name="GPHLaw2">{{cite web|author=Workgroup |url=http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/rozmanith/index.en.html |title=Rozmanith: Using Software Patents to Silence Critics |website=Eupat.ffii.org |access-date=2011-05-29  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716123228/http://eupat.ffii.org/pikta/xrani/rozmanith/index.en.html |archive-date=2011-07-16 }}</ref> and the anonymous operator of a website blog known as the "[[Patent Troll Tracker]]."<ref name="GPHLaw3">{{cite web |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196762670106 |title=A Bounty of $5,000 to Name Troll Tracker: Ray Niro Wants To Know Who Is saying All Those Nasty Things About Him |website=Law.com |access-date=2011-05-29 |archive-date=2010-11-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101121012911/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196762670106 |url-status=live }}</ref> On December 21, 2007, patent lawyer Vernon Francissen of Chicago asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the sole remaining claim of the '341 patent on the basis of new prior art.<ref name="GPHLaw4">{{cite web |last=Reimer |first=Jeremy |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-hunting-trolls-uspto-asked-to-reexamine-broad-image-patent.html |title=Hunting trolls: USPTO asked to reexamine broad image patent |website=[[Arstechnica.com]] |date=2008-02-05 |access-date=2011-05-29 |archive-date=2008-12-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081208145656/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-hunting-trolls-uspto-asked-to-reexamine-broad-image-patent.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

On March 5, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed to reexamine the '341 patent, finding that the new prior art raised substantial new questions regarding the patent's validity.<ref name="GPHLaw11">[[commons:Image:2008-03-05 USPTO Determination Granting Reexam of 5,253,341 C1.pdf|U.S. Patent Office&nbsp;– Granting Reexamination on 5,253,341 C1]]</ref> In light of the reexamination, the accused infringers in four of the five pending lawsuits have filed motions to suspend (stay) their cases until completion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's review of the '341 patent. On April 23, 2008, a judge presiding over the two lawsuits in Chicago, Illinois granted the motions in those cases.<ref name="GPHLaw55">{{cite web |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080427/143205960.shtml |title=Judge Puts JPEG Patent On Ice |website=Techdirt.com |date=2008-04-30 |access-date=2011-05-29 |archive-date=2011-11-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111114020657/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080427/143205960.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref> On July 22, 2008, the Patent Office issued the first "Office Action" of the second reexamination, finding the claim invalid based on nineteen separate grounds.<ref name="GPHLaw66">{{cite web |url=http://techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0337491852.shtml |title=JPEG Patent's Single Claim Rejected (And Smacked Down For Good Measure) |website=[[Techdirt.com]] |date=2008-08-01 |access-date=2011-05-29 |archive-date=2019-11-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191128051716/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0337491852.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref> On Nov. 24, 2009, a Reexamination Certificate was issued cancelling all claims.

Beginning in 2011 and continuing as of early 2013, an entity known as Princeton Digital Image Corporation,<ref name="PDICTroll">{{cite web |author=Workgroup |url=http://www.princetondigitalimage.com/ |title=Princeton Digital Image Corporation Home Page |access-date=2013-05-01 |archive-date=2013-04-11 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130411084058/http://www.princetondigitalimage.com/  }}</ref> based in Eastern Texas, began suing large numbers of companies for alleged infringement of {{US patent|4813056}}. Princeton claims that the JPEG image compression standard infringes the '056 patent and has sued large numbers of websites, retailers, camera and device manufacturers and resellers. The patent was originally owned and assigned to General Electric. The patent expired in December 2007, but Princeton has sued large numbers of companies for "past infringement" of this patent. (Under U.S. patent laws, a patent owner can sue for "past infringement" up to six years before the filing of a lawsuit, so Princeton could theoretically have continued suing companies until December 2013.) As of March 2013, Princeton had suits pending in New York and Delaware against more than 55 companies. General Electric's involvement in the suit is unknown, although court records indicate that it assigned the patent to Princeton in 2009 and retains certain rights in the patent.<ref name="PDICTroll2">{{cite web|author=Workgroup |url=http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2013/04/hps-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack.html/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160309142416/http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2013/04/hps-motion-to-dismiss-for-lack.html  |archive-date=2016-03-09 |title=Article on Princeton Court Ruling Regarding GE License Agreement |date=3 April 2013 |access-date=2013-05-01 }}</ref>