View Single Post
Old 10-26-2003, 03:15 PM  
FightThisPatent
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,090
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

This "patent" and the way it's being enforced makes Google just as "guilty" as anyone else. Maybe some individuals over there would be willing to help with prior art - even if they don't do it in "offical" Google capacity.

If I am interpreting your post correctly, I think you are refering to the issue of linking to websites (sponsors) that have the video content?

If this is the case, Google isn't involved..because they are not getting any commissions from the sponsors. Linking to somewhere is not the issue, as I have seen people post about.. the issue is linking to someplace that has video that you get a commission for the sale of some item over there.. this puts you in as a "contributory infringer" if the sponsor had not licensed the patent.

Sex.com links to websites that have video content (because websites pay for the listing), but since they are not deriving commissions for people who pay memberships to the infringing sites, then they are not affected.

Luke Ford article about Sex.com and comments about Acacia: http://www.setgo.com/article.html?id...b384a9be3511bb




Fight the Patent!
__________________

http://www.t3report.com
(where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com
| ICQ 52741957
FightThisPatent is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote