Quote:
Originally posted by swingerman
IF there is no technical difference between the digital transmission of a video/sound file and any other file, their patent is useless anyway and you don't need to find prior art.
|
the major problem with this patent, is it's not about technology or anything tangible of an invention, it's a process patent, that is based on the idea of digitizing, compressing, storing, transmitting, and viewing...
that's essentially what the patent says... a more technical summary is:
The process of storing compressed video in a libary for distribution over a distributed network (optionally at the request of the remote user)
I think that when the USPTO reviewed this patent, they granted it because the process involves a person taking content, digitizing it, then the rest...
But Acacia claims that even if you buy your content from somewhere else, you are still part of the 'process'.
Someone else started the process with the digitizing and compressing, and then when you got the file, you took care of the storing and transmitting...and the end user is involved in the playback.
Yes, it is quite absurd from a technology/computer literate point-of-view.. but Acacia is just one company to deal with.. SightSound's patent involves the paid downloading of an audio or video clip... ..and USA Video's claim is over downlaoding video faster than real time.. so a person on broadband, downloading a video from a server will cause the website to be infringing, but a dial-up person won't make the website infringe??
USA Video is suing Movielink.com over their patent claims.
Fight The Patent!