Corel re-animates zombie brand for patent case

Micrografx owns graphics in Android phones – and GOOGLE MAPS


Google, Motorola and Samsung are fielding new patent suits from Corel-owned Micrografx over graphics rendering, covering a slew of Android-based products as well as the Chocolate Factor's Google Maps.

Micrografx – a brand that faded from view more than a decade ago after its acquisition by Corel – is claiming that both Samsung and Google (jointly with Motorola) infringe three of its patents.

The patents are US 5,959,633, 6,057,854, and 6,552,732.

The '633 patent's central claim covers:

“1. A computerized system comprising:

  • a storage medium;
  • a processor coupled to the storage medium;
  • a computer program stored in the storage medium, the computer program operable to run on the processor, the computer program further operable to:
  • access an external shape stored outside the computer program, the external shape comprising external capabilities; and
  • delegate the production of a graphical image of the external shape to the external capabilities".

The '854 and '732 patents cover vector graphics processing over a network – with a particular eye to improving Internet graphics performance – and formed the basis of the Quicksilver product.

In its filing against Samsung, Micrografx lines up the Chromebook and a bunch of products in the Galaxy range, while its filing against Google/Motorola names products in the Nexus, and Droid ranges, along with the Moto X, Photon Q 4G, Chromebook Pixel, Chrome browser, and Google Maps. ®

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading
  • I was fired for blowing the whistle on cult's status in Google unit, says contractor
    The internet giant, a doomsday religious sect, and a lawsuit in Silicon Valley

    A former Google video producer has sued the internet giant alleging he was unfairly fired for blowing the whistle on a religious sect that had all but taken over his business unit. 

    The lawsuit demands a jury trial and financial restitution for "religious discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation and related causes of action." It alleges Peter Lubbers, director of the Google Developer Studio (GDS) film group in which 34-year-old plaintiff Kevin Lloyd worked, is not only a member of The Fellowship of Friends, the exec was influential in growing the studio into a team that, in essence, funneled money back to the fellowship.

    In his complaint [PDF], filed in a California Superior Court in Silicon Valley, Lloyd lays down a case that he was fired for expressing concerns over the fellowship's influence at Google, specifically in the GDS. When these concerns were reported to a manager, Lloyd was told to drop the issue or risk losing his job, it is claimed. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022