Why Acacia will ultimately lose the battle

Drink some beer.. will ya... you're not yourself today.

I have a Sony video camera where I can plug it directly into my computer and download the video. How in the hell could they have a patent on that?

I've had a splitting headache all day.... one of those that just won't go away.

They don't and this is precisely where their argument falls down.

I hold the patent for text on message boards

Oh shit. Now I'm screwed.

I hold the patent on orgasms. Please send me $100,000 dollars by the end of the year to make up for the years of unlicensed orgasms you have mad use of.

You think you're screwed? Amp has 23558 posts.

they own streaming video.. what a joke, that's like owning car driving.

sure, if they owned some specific code or software they might have a case.

so.. someone could put a patent space travel or radio communication.. sheesh..

you guys are in for a rude awakening and a hard education about the way intellectual property is defined and protected in the united states.

I haven't had an orgasm in five years. Do I still have to pay?

Acacia can

Acacia will ultimately lose because they patented something that was already in the public domain. It's like receiving the patent for the hyperlink when it was already in use.

I don't know all the details of acacias claims, but in 1990, its doubtful that many in the public had even heard of email, the "web" consisted of gopher and lynx with no w3c extablished yet, ncsa mosaic was still a twinkle in Andresen's eye, and video streaming was NOT public domain.

Furthermore, a "specific technology implementation" is absolutely not necessary for it to be a valid technology or business process patent.

Finally, as far as "you may as well patent radio communication", guess what:
over 4,100 patents issued to 66 radio pioneers, in radio and television between 1830 to 1980...
Everything is new technology at one point... thats why people spend 100s of thousands of dollars to get patents.



But what the fuck do I know?
------------------------------------

Acacia Research software patent claim for streaming media

United States Patent No. 5,130,792 covers, among other things, Store-and-Forward video and was filed in February 1990 and issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 14, 1992. The patent is a pioneering patent in the field of video-on-demand and Internet video with little prior art and has been cited by over 185 subsequent patents. In 1999, USA Video Interactive was awarded similar patents in England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Canada, and has patents pending in Japan.

Claim 1 of the patent is the principal claim covering the services and products of many electronic video distribution enterprises. This claim describes a system or process for electronically transmitting video programs to remote locations over switched networks and comprises the following components: i) a central data facility with stored digital compressed versions of video programs; ii) a request interface that receives requests for video programs from remote locations over the network and communicates them to the central data facility; iii) a distribution interface that initiates connections with remote locations over the network in response to requests received by the request interface, then transmits the compressed versions of video programs from the central data facility; and iv) a receiver at the remote location for receiving, storing, and playing the video programs in real time on a video display.

The video distribution models covered by the scope of the patent include:


a.. Video delivery directly from a central server facility using the Internet or other connectivity medium.
b.. Video delivery whereby the video is first downloaded from a central server to any intermediate device, such as an edge server or a cache server installed on a local area network, and then distributed.
c.. Video downloads to any end-user digital storage devices for later access, such as digital media recorders, set-top boxes, or computer hard drives.
Analyses of the patent and its file wrapper have validated its applicability to many video distribution models being employed today.

Probably a very stupid question.. but here it goes.

Could someone in theory setup a non-us host for the sole sake of hosting/streaming video in order to side step this Acacia US patent claim?

on top of that, they are claiming the right to be paid for the same patent, on the same vid several times.. 1st the content producer has to pay, then the webmaster, and than any webmasters that link to that vid... I mean where dose it end..? will they claim the people that D/L it, are breaking their patents next and the ISP's have to charge a patent fee for any thing you may D/L ?

am I going to start hearing "all your website are now belong to us"?

It would be one thing if this happened back when Al Gore invented the internet, but years and years later, you can't just claim everyone owes you money... I think in the end these guys will go broke after all the webmasters file suits aginst them, for loss of income.


Maybe people should start sueing them, and start eating up their legal funds.

In 1999, USA Video Interactive was awarded similar patents in England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Canada, and has patents pending in Japan.

I'm quite sure that the rest of the ICT is in process of filing/being granted... (international patent cooperation treaty)

No Mojo that won't work. Unless you plan on giving up your citizenship, pack up and leave the country.

Well isnt the Technology what they say is the issue.. and if it is.. whay wait all these years to go after people. I mean is CBS, NBD, ABC , ESPN next

Amp is on to something

The standard protection period for a US Patent is 20 years...

TWENTY FUCKING YEARS.

The point of patents is to get new technology fully disclosed to "other inventors" so that the body of knowledge will increase and technology will advance. In exchange for giving up all their information to the public, the inventor is granted 20 years of exlcusive rights to the technology. ANYONE infringing the patent during that time is a target for them to collect some form of compensation.

I'm not saying that they will succeed. Financially the industry may find a way to shut them down or suck them dry.

But thats how the system works. Don't like it? Go invent something. Then you will fucking LOVE it.

erm...rather,

I think Amp is ON something.

I told you it was a stupid question

gornyhuy.. i've never seen you before and you seem to have a lot of pro acacia posting under your belt.

Are you a moron? video "streaming" is not what their patents cover. their patents specifically cover compressed video being sent from one place to another via phone, cable or satelite and then being decoded at that location.

Zip up an avi. FTP it to your grandma. You have now supposedly violated their patents.

Also. I hate to call you a moron again. But i was personally downloading videos albeit short videos 10 seconds long that looped in 1986 via my 1200 baud modem from a local BBS. Yes i was a nerd and it was enough to spank it to. No it wasnt common. But it was damned sure before their patents were issued. Hell.. i found porn on my dad's computer in 87 cause he was on the university dial up system and had access to the newsgroups. So i'm not sure what you mean by "public domain".

Does prior art have to be physical proof of the existence? or i wonder if testimony to the use and existence of it is sufficient?

I mean. Given the way technology evolves i cant imagine that dialing up to psycho board on a 1200 baud ibm xt is really possible.

I still don't understand why these cases aren't being aimed at the companies who create the software used to stream...

instead of going after Real Media, Microsoft or Apple, these morons want to go after some fucking TGP newbie and his 2 sign ups every other day from the hun and al4a

>gornyhuy.. i've never seen you before and you seem to have a
>lot of pro acacia posting under your belt.

One threads worth? Come on...

>Are you a moron? video "streaming" is not what their patents cover...

Can't defend myself there... I started my rant by saying I don't know much about the acacia patent specifically... I just get pissed off when I hear people say that just because a patent is broad reaching and fundamental that it is automatically invalidated somehow.

>Also. I hate to call you a moron again.

Why not, it makes you sound so intelligent, and your arguments so well thought out and logical.


>But i was personally downloading videos albeit short videos 10
>seconds long that looped in 1986 via my 1200 baud modem
>from a local BBS.

I was right there with you cranking my 300 baud C64 modem up to 450 and downloading the tiniest shittiest porn video ever made. Again, I don't know the full extent of the patent, but any proof of 'prior art' and 'obviousness' is exactly the kind of thing that could take acacia down. Bitching about it in general whiney terms and swearing revenge isn't going to do shit. Counter suing won't either. You have to work the system...

RANT MODE OFF.
I'm out.

something just seems really odd about this Acacia
deal

their patents specifically cover compressed video being sent from one place to another via phone, cable or satelite and then being decoded at that location.


okay but how can you patent something when there are many ways of compressing and decoding it? mpeg, avi, real.

was their compressed video really compressed or just a bunch of low res images just joined together to simulate a video?

it would seem to have a patent on compressed video you should have specified a standard for doing so.
oi mean there are tons of compression methods and what about the actual encoding standard itself?

"business process patents" don't have to specify the actual implementation, such as a language or compression technique, they just protect the overall idea.

For example: Netflix was just granted a very broad patent for their DVD Rental business online. The patent covers any internet based rental biz, Walmart and Blockbuster are infringing to name a few.

People have the kits and the letters, unless you tossed them. Someone (though I would never recomend this) could in theory re-write the documents and packages, make them look identical to what they sent you, with alterations in names and addresses. Then make sure someone in the same city as this company drops them all in a mailbox.

Just drop one to apples legal department, Microsofts legal department, AOL/Time Warners, Real Media, Web Power (aka ifriends), and any other company with lots of lawyers.

Hope nobody ever does this though, it would probablly be illegal so I highly recomend against it.

<embed src=http://www.centex.net/~elliott/1965/help_me_rhonda_the_beach_boys.mid autostart=false>

Does it really matter? Let's just all get drunk and party!

I find it ironic that they could actually be dumb enough to use GIF files on their web site.

Sure hope they dont sue compuserve.

http://www.acaciaresearch.com/images/limeplayer75.gif

And about 100 more... http://www.acaciaresearch.com/images/

I got my Acacia "package" today, and with Amp, I don't see where I'm infringing. To use a COPYRIGHTED work is to infringe. I think "infringing" when it applies to inventions means incorporating someone else's invention into one's own and claiming their invention as yours.

didn't the GIF lock expire about a month ago? I think it's public now.

not for 4 years...



In 1987, CompuServe designed the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) specification for graphics files. The GIF specification incorporated the Lempel-Zev-Welch (LZW) compression technology on which Unisys Corporation was independently pursuing a patent filing. In early 1993, Unisys notified CompuServe of patent rights granted to LZW. At that time, CompuServe began negotiating with Unisys to secure a licensing agreement. This agreement was reached in mid-1994, and CompuServe then initiated a process to secure a similar license that would benefit its GIF developer community.

which amp are you

You're not real bright, are you?

Forgive me if looking like an idiot if I didn't read the entire thread, or missed the answer on other threads, but is ANYBODY doing anything about Acacia legally? It seems to me that minimally a bunch of biggies in this industry could keep them in court in so many places, so frequently and so protractedly that we could perhaps dry them up financially.

It seems obvious that if I USE something patented, such as the patents applying to the display device on which I'm observing the words I'm typing, I'm not infringing upon anyone's patent. Perhaps the display device's mfr is, but I am not.

Wasn't it just a year or two ago when we heard the same song and dance about JPGs and GIFs and the company that had the patent to those types of media.

I don't remember the specifics, but I am pretty sure it got tossed out of court.

Can anybody help a brother out on the details of this?


Flow

To wit?

the funniest thing about that statement is that acacia didn't INVENT ANYTHING.............

Yep, you're right. It was also tried with hyperlinks and affiliate programs.

All 5275 of your posts, but specifically the ones on this thread.

hmmm..... I understood it expired last month:

In the U.S., the patent for the Lempel-Ziv-Welch, or LZW, compression algorithm expires June 20. LZW forms the basis of the popular GIF (Graphics Interchange Format).

- ZDNet

It seems obvious to me that Acacia are trying to
rack up some wins in court with the small players
so when it comes time to take on some big players
there gonna have some court rulings in their favour
which will help with future court decisions.

As fucked up as it all is, I think that's their plan
of attack and that's why their goin after the little
guys first.

Just my

So wait..

Then you're saying that 20 years ago the process of compressing images (gif) using the LZW method was patented?

And animated gifs depicting motion were covered by that patent?

Now i guess we must just define video.


vid·e·o    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (vd-)
adj.

Computer Science. Of or relating to the production of images on video displays.

the whole Acacia thing is completely fucking absurd.

I can go out, buy a digicam, shoot video of whatever, transfer it to my computer, and send it to wherever the fuck I want.

Acacia gets 2% of that?

ROFL!!!

It'll never stand. If it does, then the Internet is done, because that means they've got control over file transfer.

I think a more appropriate approach for them would have been to go after the companies that produce the software and hardware used to CREATE the videos. After all, isn't that their entire argument? They invented it.... right? So shouldn't they be seeking license fees from them instead of people selling videos? Companies like Adobe and Sony...?

That seems to make alot more sense. That might even have a chance of succeeding if their shit is legit and upheld. But chasing after end users putting up video is just fucking ridiculous.