Quote:
Originally posted by RocHard
It's not ignorance - I'm caught up right in the middle of it, and I've seen all of the paperwork.
This lawsuit goes much further than is publically spoken about on the boards; This includes download (TCP/IP), FTP, and hosting companies as well - All of which was established before Acacia existed.
I'll be surprised if this doesn't get thrown out of court.
|
I'd also be surprised if the patents are held to be valid as they are currently trying to be enforced by Acacia. But that has nothing to do with your original posting, which is filled with misinformation and innaccuracies. Though you're certainly entitled to your opinions, when you state them as fact you do no one any favors.
Quote:
|
"<I>Acacia is a non issue - An expensive one.</I>"
|
Since we are talking about something that, one way or the other, will affect our entire industry and has currently shown enough power to close down at least one enterprise through court injuction, how is this a "non issue"? And, as a businessman, I feel anything "expensive" is certainly an "issue", in fact- the more expensive it might be, the more of an issue I regard it!
Quote:
|
"<I>Not including prior art,</I>"
|
STOP!!! Please be specific as to what "prior art" you're not going to include? Is this a reference to prior art that invalidates one, some or all of the claims of the patent? Or is this prior art that establishes that the invention was in use before the filing of the patent? Or is this the prior art that proves the invention was not unique in that it could have been logically arrived at the time by someone skilled in the art? Or is this prior art that proof of its offer for sale at least a year before filing of the patent?
Now, after you've established exactly what "prior art" you don't wish to include- I'm going to have to ask: WHY EXCLUDE IT?!? Because if there is actually such a thing as any of the examples I gave, then we can all go home now, case is closed and we won.
But, until you can come up with a concrete, valid and provable example of prior art as given, then "<I>Not including prior art</I>" more correctly reads "<I>Not including something that is being actively sought by a number of people at this time to fight the patent(s) held by Acacia</I>"
Quote:
|
"<I>in a nutshell their patents don't apply to computer transmission, FTP, hosting software, etc. The download on demand for internet transmission use TCP/IP protocols that were in place and existed before Acacia became a company.</I>"
|
Well, you started off right, your case is presented in a "nut"shell. I'd also expect to find it in fruitcakes and belfries as well.
I think you should take a hint from
TomsPics and start your postings with "I don't know too much on this
expensive non issue" from now on because you definitely are not familiar with the claims of the patent(s) or you'd realize the transmission protocol doesn't even enter the picture.
Quote:
|
"<I>This doesn't even take into consideration that they can't sue us - the end user of copyrighted software by a dozen different companies including Microsoft, Real Media, Adobe, and many others. I'm using copyrighted software to create and deliver such videos. They don't even have a legal right to sue me.</I>"
|
Oh, they can't sue us. Great!!!
Please contact Far-L and Spike and the webmaster at Go Entertainment and David Lace and tell them that they are delusional. Explain your position that proves the court injuctions, orders and lawyer fees they (some of them, anyway!) are accumalating are figments of their imagination. I'm certain they'd welcome the news!
---
Summing up: Your posting gives the impression that we can safely ignore Acacia because they don't have any legal basis to sue anyone. And, not only that, but there is some sort of "prior art" that you're aware of that doesn't even need to be included.
Unfortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.