Every week, I look at a software patent that’s been in the news. You can see previous installments in the series here. This week, we’ll consider this patent, “Computer controlled video system allowing playback during recording,” which a company called Forgent apparently believes entitles it to royalties from the PVR industry. Here is the abstract:
A teleconferencing system with capability to store incoming multiple medium messages for later retrieval and playback is disclosed. The system includes a communications multiplexer which, in normal mode, receives the incoming message and routes the message to various output functions, including video, audio, and computer display. In store mode, the communications multiplexer receives the incoming message and communicates it to disk storage, for example by way of direct memory access. During playback, the communications multiplexer receives data from the disk storage, and controls its communication to the various output functions, in the same manner as during receipt of a normal incoming message during an interactive teleconference. As a result, multiple medium messages may be stored for later retrieval, with the playback appearing in the same manner as a conventional teleconference message.
This patent covers a device that’s capable of recieving, storing, and displaying various types of data. Unless I’m missing something, such a device is generally known as a “computer,” and I’m pretty sure that computers capable of manipulating audio and video content were invented well before 2001.
Moreover, almost all of the features described in this patent are core components of any modern operating system. Modern operating systems are adept at accepting data from a variety of different sources and routing them, as appropriate, to storage or to output devices. Using a technique called “multitasking,” they can store one file to disk while simultaneously streaming another file to an output device.
Once a general-purpose technology (like data storage and retrieval) has been invented, straightforward applications of that technology (like video storage and retrieval) are clearly obvious. I mean, once somebody has invented the hammer, we wouldn’t grant a patent on using that hammer to pound a particular kind of nail, would we?
Update: Incidentally, Forgent appears to be something of a patent troll. They’re the same company that claimed back in 2002 that they owned a patent covering the JPEG format. Forgent settled in one such case back in November.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.