Comments on: “The unlucky troll” https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/the-unlucky-troll/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:12:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: OBQuiet https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/the-unlucky-troll/comment-page-1/#comment-11643 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:12:05 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=6119#comment-11643 Meanon,

“And it seems unclear as to why ‘audio/visual data’ should be treated as a special case of data in general, which tends to be auditory or visual if it is to be used by a person!”

I agree. Aren’t ASCII and Unicode, when combined with a font dictionary really just byte compressions of the character glyphs?

]]> By: Mark Biggar https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/the-unlucky-troll/comment-page-1/#comment-11642 Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:12:51 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=6119#comment-11642 This patent: “US patent 5,253,341, ‘Remote query communication system’, granted October 12, 1993” is one of those software patents where if you walked up to any random software engineer and showed it to him, the response would be “Duh!, how else would you do that” and so fails the non-obvious test. Besides, every NASA dead space probe from Mariner one has use that technique to transmit back pictures, so it probably fails prior art as well.

]]> By: meanon https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/the-unlucky-troll/comment-page-1/#comment-11641 Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:43:48 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=6119#comment-11641 I think the Forbes article is in reference to US patent 5,253,341, ‘Remote query communication system’, granted October 12, 1993. Not JPEG per se, but a general claim to query-based retrieval and client side decompression of ‘audio/visual data’. Which seems strange, because Compuserve was offering compressed image downloads since the mid ’80s. And it seems unclear as to why ‘audio/visual data’ should be treated as a special case of data in general, which tends to be auditory or visual if it is to be used by a person!

]]> By: Bill Poser https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/04/the-unlucky-troll/comment-page-1/#comment-11640 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:09:27 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=6119#comment-11640 Something is screwy here. The basic jpeg patent was issued in 1987, was owned by a company called Forgent, and was invalidated in 2006. What is the 1993 patent to which this refers? The date is about right for JFIF compression, but that was developed by a consortium of companies, not two individuals, and is to my knowledge unpatented. It isn’t clear to me what this article is talking about.

]]>