Quote:
Originally posted by FightThisPatent
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!
|
Google and Overture sell advertising to sites with video and those sites pay Google and Overture, therefore they are infringing.
I'm surprised Acacia hasn't gone after hosting companies and billing companies as well.
They might also go after ISPs for making money by allowing their customers to infringe.
Anyone who is making money on Acacia's "patent" is infringing, right? That would probably include Google because they sell advertising or traffic to sites that are infringing.
What is the difference between an adult site selling traffic to ARS and Google selling traffic to ARS or to another site who sells that traffic to ARS?