GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Nathan · 08-01-2003, 04:34 PM

hey,

it seems to me the main problem here is that a lot of people do not understand how patents work.

The point of a patent is to get something for yourself that you had the idea for first. If you register an idea of a process like they did before such a process was ever done by someone else you have a patent. Even if someone else had the same idea, you are the person that registered it first, so you got it.

Now, having the idea gives you one simple right: You can do whatever the heck you want with it and deny ANYONE using your idea to use it. Or you can ask them to pay money to use it. Of course no silly amounts I guess, but still, you can basically deceide HOW you want to make money of it. Logically Acacia chose to make money from the best point possible, the webmaster. Because they are the ones making the most money. Why get a Content provider to license a process for streaming video just because they HAVE video for sale. They are not streaming it, they do not have to pay. Also, why ask them to pay money when ACACIA perfectly knows that webmasters buy their stuff and make a profit from it, logically it makes more sense to ask money from the webmaster then.

As far as I understand there are basically two ways to protect against such Patents. You have to find either Prior Art or convince the courts that the Patent is too broad and is therefor not really a unique idea that should be patentable.

Prior Art simply put would be anything that was used or done before the patent was issued or filed that fits a patent claim. That prior art would invalidate the claim. This basically means, if we can prove that before 1992 there was someone out there that had a video on a FTP server and let people download it then ACACIA can not make you pay for doing that. I am not sure if it would also invalidate their claim on letting people download stuff from a web server, but I'm quite sure it would.
So probably it would remove any of their rights to ask people that offer Videos for download in any form, be it via the Web or via FTP or usenet or email, for licensing fees. So in my oppinion this should be no problem to remove from their patents.

The HARDER thing to find will be STREAMING video. It is not going to be easy to find prior art that streamed video from one place to another through the internet before 1992. But then again, a lot of universities out there, so it could very well be found.

But there is stuff from around 1980 that MIGHT be even possible to invalidate the streaming part, but I have to investigate that some more.

This all of course is just my oppinion and I am no lawyer and am not giving any advice.

08-01-2003, 04:34 PM
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	hey, it seems to me the main problem here is that a lot of people do not understand how patents work. The point of a patent is to get something for yourself that you had the idea for first. If you register an idea of a process like they did before such a process was ever done by someone else you have a patent. Even if someone else had the same idea, you are the person that registered it first, so you got it. Now, having the idea gives you one simple right: You can do whatever the heck you want with it and deny ANYONE using your idea to use it. Or you can ask them to pay money to use it. Of course no silly amounts I guess, but still, you can basically deceide HOW you want to make money of it. Logically Acacia chose to make money from the best point possible, the webmaster. Because they are the ones making the most money. Why get a Content provider to license a process for streaming video just because they HAVE video for sale. They are not streaming it, they do not have to pay. Also, why ask them to pay money when ACACIA perfectly knows that webmasters buy their stuff and make a profit from it, logically it makes more sense to ask money from the webmaster then. As far as I understand there are basically two ways to protect against such Patents. You have to find either Prior Art or convince the courts that the Patent is too broad and is therefor not really a unique idea that should be patentable. Prior Art simply put would be anything that was used or done before the patent was issued or filed that fits a patent claim. That prior art would invalidate the claim. This basically means, if we can prove that before 1992 there was someone out there that had a video on a FTP server and let people download it then ACACIA can not make you pay for doing that. I am not sure if it would also invalidate their claim on letting people download stuff from a web server, but I'm quite sure it would. So probably it would remove any of their rights to ask people that offer Videos for download in any form, be it via the Web or via FTP or usenet or email, for licensing fees. So in my oppinion this should be no problem to remove from their patents. The HARDER thing to find will be STREAMING video. It is not going to be easy to find prior art that streamed video from one place to another through the internet before 1992. But then again, a lot of universities out there, so it could very well be found. But there is stuff from around 1980 that MIGHT be even possible to invalidate the streaming part, but I have to investigate that some more. This all of course is just my oppinion and I am no lawyer and am not giving any advice. __________________ "Think about it a little more and you'll agree with me, because you're smart and I'm right." - Charlie Munger