I had a friend of mine look at the whole Arcacia patent and here is his reply for those that may need some fuel.
quote:
I have had a look at what they have and at their patents.
On the surface it looks good, but if anyone was to challenge the veracity of the patents, they would lose them.
T.V. broadcast is obvious prior art. VCR's have been used for years to record and play back movies etc. Cassette recorders were used to record radio broadcasts.
The only part in the patent which is new, is the usage of wires. This would not hold up because of the prior art.
The patents were also rushed through. First lodged in 1991, granted in 1992, inspection and objection periods must have been very short indeed. This sort of rush suggests that there is known unpublished prior art. The wording is clever so that the prior art would not appear on a search based on the terms used.
Would I pay a licence fee to them? No, I would prefer to spend the money challenging the patent, because I would win.
Thanks for the info, and I am sorry it has taken me so long to get to have a good look. Acacia may well be a strong company at the moment, but take away their IP and they are worthless. The compression routines are not as effective as the standard 728/729 CODECS used by MPEG etc.
I have been dealing with another company in another area, who have done a similar thing. They were granted patents in 1993 base on anamorphism. Not once does the mathematical term anamorphism appear in their patent. As a consequence they have been granted patents in a number of countries. The first instances of anamorphism appear in 1533, which is clearly prior art.
These people have been granted a patent, which basically is not worth the paper it is written on, but someone has to challenge it, otherwise they keep reaping in the licence dollars. Acacia, to me, falls into the same category.
RACEMAN
