Quote:
Originally posted by Ken
As most of you know, Hustler and Vivid recently signed a licence agreement with Acacia.
|
Ken,
You must be their Publicist! If you aren't, you should be. A very well written article.
I agree with the points you made in your article (i had made similar comments earlier in another thread about how sponsors are protecting their affiliates and their business by paying the license).
As you wrote, the acceptance by Hustler and Vivid does not validate Acacia's claims... some here have interpreted that it must be true about Acacia if the "high price" lawyers told them to sign the deal.
I have to cast some doubt as to how much research was done in the "fighting" of the infringement claims.
I haven't received any emails from either company, asking what prior art that I could provide to them to help them make a more informed decision... especially since i don't charge for my efforts.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have been doing my research, I have been involved with technology and computing for over 17 years, I have seen what Acacia has described as their patent, well before their patent date...... this is why i have taken up this fight to fight against patent abuse cases.
I am not saying patents are a bad thing. They have their place in protecting IP. But if that patent had prior art and the USPTO didn't know about it, then it's a bad patent and deserves to be invalidated. Especially if it is a broadly INTERPRETED patent.
Fight the Patent!