<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Possible blow against Forgent&#8217;s rampage?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.c10n.info/archives/343/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.c10n.info/archives/343</link>
	<description>All about the most recent compression techniques, algorithms, patents, products, tools and events.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Forgent licenses JPEG patent to BenQ America</title>
		<link>http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-983</link>
		<dc:creator>Forgent licenses JPEG patent to BenQ America</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-983</guid>
		<description>[...] This is the third such deal announced after PUBPAT announced that USPTO had confirmed that it will reexamine the patent&#8217;s validity. Other deals were with Orion Electric and Riverdeep. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This is the third such deal announced after PUBPAT announced that USPTO had confirmed that it will reexamine the patent&#8217;s validity. Other deals were with Orion Electric and Riverdeep. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Threat to MPEG-4</title>
		<link>http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-926</link>
		<dc:creator>Patent Threat to MPEG-4</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-926</guid>
		<description>[...] And as we have already seen in Forgent&#8217;s JPEG case, it is not just the high profile companies who should shiver, as soon as the lawyers are done getting the big bucks from big players, they will come for smaller players too. Even after the USPTO&#8217;s reexamination annoucment, they have licensed it to two more companies. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] And as we have already seen in Forgent&#8217;s JPEG case, it is not just the high profile companies who should shiver, as soon as the lawyers are done getting the big bucks from big players, they will come for smaller players too. Even after the USPTO&#8217;s reexamination annoucment, they have licensed it to two more companies. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: c10n.info</title>
		<link>http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-916</link>
		<dc:creator>c10n.info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.c10n.info/archives/343#comment-916</guid>
		<description>[...] Days after the USPTO&#8217;s patent reexamination request, Forgent announced that it has concluded a Patent License Agreement with Orion Electric Co., Ltd. covering Forgent&#8217;s data compression technology embodied in U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the &#8216;672 Patent). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Days after the USPTO&#8217;s patent reexamination request, Forgent announced that it has concluded a Patent License Agreement with Orion Electric Co., Ltd. covering Forgent&#8217;s data compression technology embodied in U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the &#8216;672 Patent). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
