More something I been thinking about actualy.
Lets say for the sake of argument that Acacia's Patent holds their ground and we're fucked.
Now They say that webmasters promoting a sponsor are in the clear as lomg as that sponsor has a license.
On the other hand if we promote an "unlicensed" sponsor with video we need a license.
Ok, we might not agree with that, but lets take it for fact atm.
Now lets change the situation a bit:
A sponsor operates and hosts from a country where Acacia holds no patent. In that case the sponsor does not need a license, and therefor (I think) Acacia can not acuse the webmaster that promotes that sponsor from infringing since the surfer is taken to a place where the patent does not apply and since the stream or clip, zipfile with the video(or whatever) does not originate from the webmaster's site(he/she merely promotes the sponsor) That webmaster can't be held accountable in any way.
If my above way of thinking is correct that would be a relative simple and cheap way to render Acacia and their patent powerless.
Also the sponsors that would handle it that way would stand to make a lot of bling and their competition who settled take a blow.
Now Im here anon. because I'm not interested in receiving a package obviously
But I can say I'm from Europe. So any US legal eagles could give me their opinions on this?
Whatdaya think?