Quote:
Originally posted by Squirtit
Yeah isn't it great!!! Step by step.. on video and explaining EVERYTHING to a T !!
AND as pleasurePays stated earlier:
"Prior Art" as definined in US Federal Law
Title 35, United States Code, Section 102
Sec. 102. - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b ) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
|
Just my
...
I have to start off by saying I am not on Acacia's side and everyone of you should know that by now, but I do have some wondering to do about the prior art finds (which is by the way a great job dude, keep it up).
Ok I watched both videos that were pasted here and I all I could find in them was that someone created a technology to send live video, compressed video and video emails through atm rings and networking, I could not find any claim in either video that they were sending compressed video through teh internet which is exactly waht Acacia claims in their patent is the delivery of and streaming of compressed video by way of the internet, technically an inhouse network is not the internet.
I truely hope I am wrong about this and if I am please someone point it out because I would love nothing more then to see Acacia suck on monkey nuts, but I could not find any reason in either video to invalidate their patent.
Maybe Brandon or Far-L has a better point on this then me but I was just pointing out waht I seen in the videos, hopefully someone can prove me wrong and in a hurry
