Choker: i didn't say not to file anything. i simply said talking with an attorney would be a good idea. but from everything i've seen so far, those "information packets" probably wouldn't be called extortion. to file suit just on the information packet you would have to prove extortion.
but --if it comes down to acacia calling "linking" to either a site providing so called "patent infringing" materials, or linking to another site which in turn provides a link an "infringing activity" and wants a licensing fee is when it would be legal time. and it could be in the form of "joining in" with the IMPA action to invalidate the patent, or to get a specific ruling on the linking issue itself. there's lots of prior rulings concerning linkage to materials. a ruling of that sort in this specific instance would:
a) get TGP/List sites off the hook.
b) take a chunk out of what acacia is claiming their patent covers. it seems their patent has gone from the actual storage and transmission of some sort of content to now any method what-so-ever of somehow accessing that content. if it were approached legally just from the "linking and requiring a license fee to do so" point of view that WOULD take a little bite out of their bark.
c) teach `em don't fuck with Choker
another thing to consider would be how does one determine who has licensed the alledged patented technology and who hasn't? how would a TGP/List owner ever know if they're unknowingly "encouraging patent infringing activities" if they don't have a list of sites/companies which signed and paid? they would have to make that list "public" ...