ACACIA - Real Old Timers Please Read

Analog is just a digital mathematical wave.
Who the hell can patent math?
I've yet found anyone who explain to me why I should negotiate with Acacia for any reason. I just don't understand it.
You want me to pay what?

The format of the video clip you found is in MPEG and could have been digitized in many different ways. Given the quality of the clip, they probably were showing the video from a film projector and had a video camera filming the screen. Then they digitized the file into MPEG format.

The GL format wouldn't have supported the quality of video that you see today. Back then, graphics would have been 2-8 bit, and would have been very blocky looking... no where near the quality that we have today.

try reducing an image/picture down to 16 colors, and that's about what it would have looked like. not much to get excited about from a video quality stand point, but back then, it would have been very cool to see moving naked pictures.

If you do contact these people, i would ask them if they ran a BBS back before 1991. After they say yes, then ask them if they had digitized video clips on their BBS. After they say yes, ask them if they still have those files and the player that was used to view the clip.

Then, you (or some attorney) needs to review the clips to somehow prove that the clips were indeed dated back to pre-1991. could be a copyright notice on the video, etc. They didn't have 2257 records back then, so it makes the authentication process a little bit harder.

okay ... I will try ...

Then, you (or some attorney) needs to review the clips to somehow prove that the clips were indeed dated back to pre-1991.

no ... I am expecting IMPAI.org to do that ...
I can barely keep my own website going ..

...
could be a copyright notice on the video, etc. They didn't have 2257 records back then, so it makes the authentication process a little bit harder.

I will make friends (fingers crossed) and do my best ...

cya ... my son is home ...
POOF

I personally feel that there's a ton of overlooked prior art for this patent. I mean, just looking at the "Other References" given, it seems the original inventors ignored practically anything that wasn't already covered by other patents.

Compare that to patent # 5,410,343, which has a huge listing of prior works on hypermedia.

And, since I feel that what we do with video is based more upon a hypermedia model than any solution to having to "go get a video cassette", it's within that area that I've begun to get serious in my search. I'll be at the UNO library next week pulling up a number of those and other referenced documents along those lines.

Only problem is, at this point, I see the need for some sort of "clearing house" that keeps track of promising lines of investigation and what specific documents have been found and examined. Otherwise, we're going to end up with a lot of duplication of effort...

Going by their patent and their practice of suing websites, you don't have any room to negotiate.

They will tell you that they have patents that have been approved by the USPTO, and that your use of video clips on your website is in violation of their patent because you don't have a license.

They have a license fee structure that they will hand you, and you have 2 choices, pay it, or fight it.

If you take the patents on face value, they have a legal claim, supported by the government that prevents people from copying their idea. They have every legal right to prevent you from using the technology/product that they described. They also have the right to allow you to use their idea, for a fee.

This is where courtcases are needed to invalidate their patents. A courtroom filled with lawyers and expert witnesses will be needed to refute the patent claim(s). The easiest path to refuting the patent claims is to find cases of use of same technology/idea/product prior to their filing (ie. prior art).

This would prove that they "stole" or "borrowed" or "copied" the idea from someone else, so therefore the patent is revoked.

Now, whoever had the real idea behind this, could have patented the idea, but for whatever reason, they did not. So some people who file patents try to patent things that they know was "copied" or "stolen" from someone else, but to know they would never have patented themselves, or be able to disprove them.

The people who filed the patents probably thought they were airtight in their case, and were validated by the USPTO.

It's up to the companies fighting their lawsuit claims and concerned individuals like ourselves to disprove this patent because their idea, was not their idea, they stole it from other people.

The web could have easily been patented and everyone who has a web server could have had to pay license fees. But the "inventor" chose to release the concept to the world for the expansion of knowledge and communications.


While their patents cover transmission of data over satellite and phone lines, there is some latitude that probably extends to internet access using cable modem, T1, etc... so that's not enough to refute the patent. Plus, I believe they already have other patents filed and pending that narrows the broad language of the early patents to include internet technologies.

According to patent laws, they have every right to build upon their patents....so they usually start out broad, then they watch to see how technology and the market place evolves, then they jump right back in, take/steal those ideas, and claim then in additional patent filings as amendments to their prior patents.

So to fight it, means refuting the original patents.

Another thing we can do is to lobby congress (and the president) to change the USPTO practices (even abolishing it), but that's a long way off from happening.

[...stand by ... I am reading your post now ..]

I didn;t read all this, but I ran BBS' back in the late 80's early 90's I beleive I asued to ahve some files that where .gl's. now of course jsut last year I tossed MOST if not all my old backups, that will teach me for tryin to break my old pack rat ways. But I'll dig though boxes in the office tonite, see if I can find anything. I will also track down some old BBS'er that aren't in the biz see if they have anything kicking aorund.

...TEXT DELETED ...NOT READ YET ..

What the heck does "prior art" have to do with this.
I don't understand ... please explain "prior art".
No - please DEFINE - "prior art". And why does this thread keep coming back to "video" and "graphics" ... when they are just information like any other type of information.

Did you take a look at that site though? It's like a freaking museum.

Since we are all arm chair patent attorneys, it's easy for the real patent attorneys to be laughing at our efforts since we are "amateurs"....... i am sure that the attorneys that have been hired to defend the adult websites will be able to do the patent research and pick apart those findings....

what they may not be able to do, is to be able to reach out to the BBS "old school" community to find the real evidence. I am sure ACACIA's patent attorney team already poured through all of the possible file patents (they make reference in an article where they were sure they had their "ducks in a row" before they came out swinging). I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a crack team of attornies who have already scoured the patent archives.

If they had some "old school" techie on their team, this person would bring up the potential holes like i have presented, by looking back to the BBS days.

They probably are already prepared for their attack on the "evidence" by putting the burden of proof on the defendant attorney to prove the file was made prior to 1991. This requires much more documentable evidence than just the original file date, since that could be forged. And, that the file itself could have been forged. So even if the file showed copyright 1990, it's still not conclusive enough. This is where the company that produced the clip needs to be tracked down to give testimony and other documentable evidence of the creation of the file.

We have over a decade of time where records could have been lost and companies folded.

THe BBS operators (SYSOPS) that i knew back in the day, are all working at other jobs and no longer running BBS. So i am trying to track them down in other ways to find them, to see if they may have archived files or in contact with other SYSOPS.

The BBS approach is just one way to try to find prior art. Looking at Bell Labs, with all of their innovation, could be ways to uncover prior art. If someone knows a friend that knows a friend, etc to talk to people inside Bell Labs, that could help to uncover technology that they created that some techie guy heard about and just copied the idea in the patent.

While IMPAI.ORG is one place you can turn to to hand over your leads, i would also volunteer myself as one archive of the leads/evidence by emailing me at brandon @at@ asacp.org

I have to put this disclaimer in now, ASACP does not have an official position on this issue at this time. ASACP is concerned with stopping CP on the web, and this ACACIA issue does not fall into the charter.

Since I am already disclaiming, i might as well be plugging.

If you are as passionate about stopping this ACACIA patent as your views on stopping Child Pornography and the explotation of children on the internet, please support ASACP by becoming a member at www.asacp.org

There was one called Bountyquest. But it looks like it's closed up shop.

You know what ... this thread is going by so fast ...
it sounds like a freaken technical issue ...

Some of the "lawyer brains" in here shoud find precedents on WHEN & WHY previous patents have been overturned...

I keep reading and I still don't understand yet - why I should negotiate with Acacia.

That's my summary.

"Prior Art" in laymen terms means evidence that a patent edidea has already been publicized or used prior to the patent that was filed.

If i filed a patent claim that said that i am going to patent toilet paper, and the date of my filing was 2003, and assuming the patent office never used toilet paper because their heads were always up their a** and granted me the patent, someone could prove that toilet paper existed before 2003 by showing some kind of evidence.

This is called "prior art", and the evidence would be used to prove my patent was not original, and therefore it would be revoked.


ACACIA's patents are specific to audio and video. If they were trying to cover any transmission of digital work, then this would not be a case since we have so many "prior art" references like the GIF format. Their patent is more specific about digitized audio and video that is transferred from one location to another for viewing, rather than relying on having the video tape to view.

They didn't patent "TV signals" because that is in real time. They are referring to audio and video that was captured to tape, then digitized, then was able to be transferred (like through satellite or phone lines) to another location....


Their patent was very forward thinking, since their patent arguably is the idea behind "pay per view". Previously recorded material that was digitized and transmitted through cable for viewing on a tv that utilized a cable box to decode the data.

so the guys at tivo, cable, real audio, everyone... are all targets for this patent. The big guys should be supporting the adult webmasters now, but they are going to sit back and let the adult industry be the soldiers that go into battle first.

We need to "Save Ryan's Privates" by defeating these claims/lawsuits. Mainstream won't send a fruit basket if we are able to stop them, it's pretty much a thankless job... but i for one, am taking up the cause and being a Private Dick, in trying to find whatever investigative leads i can find.

Prior art includes any and everything that was published within the field of the patent before filing for it. That can be broken down into two parts, the prior art that was acknowleged by the PTO at the time of the application and that which was overlooked.

Because of the limited resources of the PTO, there is always going to be prior art that was overlooked. There are two question about that body of work:[list=1][*]Is any of it germaine to the validity of the patent as a whole?[*]Can any of it be used to invalidate or narrow specific claims of the invention?[/list=1]

As to why it keeps coming back to "video", because they are saying that by offering video files, we are infringing on their patent.

for those tuning in now, start with page 4 ( http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...0&pagenumber=4 ) and read forward.

Alot of people prior to me jumping in, posted some great comments as well, so if you want to get the full picture, start with page 1, otherwise pages 4&5 will bring you up to speed (in my opinion).

and yes, it is a huge freak'n technical issue that involves lots of lawyers and lots of money to defend. The issues aren't that simple.

If you have been served with C&D papers or a lawsuit, your lawyer should be explaining these things to you.. but, they charge by the hour.... so we are all trying to put in our thoughts and share info to get better educated.

Most attorney's won;t jump into these threads and give their opinions... since i am not an attorney, i can freely share my ideas, whether ignorant, misinformed, or just plain out wrong.

True, but you can still go through the site using the Way Back Machine! Well over 90% of the site is archived there and it's a lesson in how to bust patents successfully to peruse it. They even had a Patent Glossary and a Tutorial: How to Find a Winning Prior Art Document that's still accessable!

ASACP_CTO ....
I don't want to be rude ... but this is now a 16 hour day for me ...
I will contact that domain ....
and I will continue to try to help ...
and I know right now to some ... I should continue ...
but I don't have the energy right now ...
I'm getting old ...
DOUBLE POOF ...

I don't know how relevant this is but a patent

EP 0355697:
Multimedia bidirectional broadcast system.

was filed with the european patent office by Hitachi LTD on

1990-02-28

"The present invention relates to an image communication/bidirectional broadcast system such as a broadband ISDN or a cable television, and in particular, to an advertisement or commercial base bidirectional broadcast system capable of coping with various needs of subscribers for programs and advertisement."

http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/0355/697/

similar patents filed in 88 89 and 91 can be found @ http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/ep/1988.en.html
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/ep/1989.en.html
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/ep/1991.en.html

here's another excerpt from the patent....

Fig. 1-2 is a schematic block diagram showing a broadband ISDN
broadcast system 2 according to the present invention including a
video buffer in a subscriber system;
Fig. 1-3 is a schematic block diagram showing a broadband ISDN
broadcast system 3 according to the present invention including a
video buffer in a broadcast station or head end;
Fig. 1-4 is a schematic block diagram showing a broadband ISDN
broadcast system 4 according to the present invention including a visual command feature;
Fig. 1-5 is a schematic block diagram showing a broadband ISDN
broadcast system 5 according to the present invention including a
system with a user support function;
Fig. 1-6 is a schematic block diagram showing a broadband ISDN
broadcast system 6 according to the present invention including a
system with a video mail function;

worded so that I can't understand a fucking thing!

Peace

Oh, and for people that aren't familiar with using the Way Back Machine (the greatest invention since sliced bread IMO!), once you've accessed an archived page and see a link from it that looks interesting, go ahead and click it. When you get a "Cannot find server or DNS Error" page, no problem. Just highlight and copy the url that's in your address bar, go back to the Way Back Machine and enter it to see if that page is archived as well.

Well ASACP_CTO, thanks for saying what you did, but please keep in mind it really is Home Grown Video & www.impai.org. I just happened to be an initial target along with 4-5 others last year.

Everything you find relevant or even think may be relevant should be sent off to the impai people. They are the ones who are taking it to the court room.

Yes Acacia may and probablly is reading this thread along with many others that are talking about them. So posting our finding is a double edged sword, yet at the same time it is not like Acacia can go back and erase what was there before their patent was issued.

This is a very technical case, and yes arm chair lawyers do no real good. Hence why this thread was started, it is not about how to defend or beat them, or why their patent is invalid. This thread is about discovery of prior art from people like myself who used it every day long before this patent was issued.

It will be a very expensive legal battle, and what this thread is doing is actually reducing some of those costs. Keep in mind for every hour of research we do looking up or finding prior art is one less hour that the impai has to pay a researcher to do. So everyone continue on, donate cash if you can, or time if you can not. Trust me it all matters.

Nice lead, thanks!

Here's a listing of US patents that reference it.

great post, this patent is what patents should be like, specific to the invention that was created, and not some broad statements.

I am sure ACACIA will be able to argue that this patent doesn't infringe on their patent, and more likely this patent probably references their patents.

i don't believe we will find the "smoking gun" in old patents.. since lawyers on both sides would have already found those themselves.

our "smoking gun" is more like a civil war pistol, hidden away in great great grandma's attic waiting for some kid to come along and find it and shoot someone's eye out.

ya, but we are talking about some HUGE $$$ issues here, so it would not be out of conspiracy and paranoia mindset to think that evidence could be removed by 2 guys named Butch and Hank who can only type with 2 fingers and have to use a dictionary to spell "ok".


i would not post any direct information leading to prior art, to give the defense attorneys and researchers the chance to investigate the lead and track down the appropriate people.

Any leads that i get, i will direct to Home Grown Video and IMPAI as well. Still trying to track down my BBS SYSOP leads....

Wow! That is a most excellent resource.

Did you see this on that page? Isn't this what you're looking for?

http://web.archive.org/web/200206150...er/winner1.htm

Ahhh, but what about using the "Other References" cited in similar patents to track down possible prior art? Doing a search on early multimedia/hypermedia patents is bringing listings of dozens of publications that may have a bearing on this.

Oh, hell yeah! Too bad BountyQuest apparently got caught in the Dot Bomb implosion a few years ago and folded. They seem to have filled a great need perfectly at the time.

<SMALL>Hmmm, I wonder if their contact info is still any good after such a short period of time and if one of the individuals involved could be interested....</SMALL>

Almost all early multimedia patents I've checked make a reference to 'prior art' checking all the references is like building a family tree that goes back to the middle ages... with all the webmasters reading and contributing to this thread the 'smoking gun' will be found and acaia shot in the f*cking head with it!

Peace

Exactly, and what we're doing is an internet application of multi/hypermedia. Their patent may well be valid but it could be found that the attempt to apply it the way Acacia has chosen is outside of the intended scope of the invention. This is termed "patent misuse or abuse" and there's a good body of case law on the matter.

Vist http://www.acaciaresearch.com/index_dmt.html to make sure that you have a thorough understanding of the patents... at least a couple of thousand times a day!

That site makes my head hurt. I really mean it, I now got a fucking headache, and my eyes are watery. I want to sue.

Even though our industry is target number 1. Even us the bullseyes have no clue. Want proof?

<center>

</center>

will the last person to leave the board please unplug the internet

Could everyone with a opt in webmaster list please make a mailing informing them of Acacia. Please!

I would rather have a few TGP site owners get a few pieces of hate mail for sending their submitters an email, than see numbers like that.

If we happen to loose or if you think it is no big deal consider this, despite what Acacia claimed about double dipping on the D$ show (which I already sent proof they are).

Content maker 2% who then sells it to:
Content broker 2% who then sells it to:
Content user 2% who then submits it to:
MGP 2% and,
TGP 2% and,
Linklist 2% and,
Toplist 2% and,
AVS 2%

Or Starting at broker (4%) by now who sells it to:
Paysite 2% who gives it to:
Affiliates 2% and continue back above at MGP.

Or lets say you run a webcam site pay per view model, with independant contractors on webcams all over the world.
Hey 2% for the site owner then:
Each chathost 2%
Affilliates who use such promo material 2%
The claim nothing with webcams, but again they told us different.

I left out search engines, unless they are adult then 2%

Remember they also want gross, and percent of entire revenue. I am sure they also will want multi site licenses. One could be looking at 20% or more of your gross leaving your pocket.

There idea of affiliate is not our model of an affiliate either. Very few of any affiliates own a portion of the sponsor as per their deffinition. Also keep in mind, gross would mean before bandwidth, before transaction charges, would not include chargebacks, NSF, ect.

The charges could go further if you factor in leased plugins, etc.

The "engineering diagrams" on that page are especially good for familiarizing yourself with the claims of the patents in question.

Keep in mind that thier claimed invention is a system of components working together to acheive its objective. Showing that the individual components were commonly in usage at the time does not make for prior art that would invalidate the patent; gears and levers have been around longer than dirt but a patent for an arrangement of them that sews clothes is still valid. What's needed is a publication that essentially described the system itself before the patent was applied for.

I've been mentioning this to the IMPA guys for awhile now.

There REALLY needs to be an informative page put up soon.

The buzz a couple weeks ago was that F&R needed to approve the IMPA page, but it had been done for awhile.


I just don't get it.

But whatever, I guess this will all come together one little ripple at a time rather than the huge tidal wave of mass awareness that I envision.

I've thought about doing this myself... I just don't have the time.

BUT, if someone out there wanted to make an Acacia Awareness link site -- with a brief intelligent summary as to what the Acacia patents cover and links to all the related press & discussions on the subject ....

That page/site would probably wind up getting a lot of traffic & press itself.

goBigtime, here's a good URL to use for IMPA in the meantime...

don't know if this is at all relevant, you'll have to tell me, but something here has stirred a memory.

during the 80s i became the manager of a plating company. prior to my employment the company did work under an R & D contract with IBM involving the application of a metallic surface to an 11" aluminum disk. these were a (then) new type of memory disk that was used to record/store and rebroadcast digital images and audio as part of an instant replay system for use by television networks at sporting events. i became aware of this as during my tenure we did some follow up work on that initial contract.

Sounds like it could have potential.... email spike at homegrown.com

a link with something about the gl format some were asking about

http://www.wotsit.org/search.asp?page=2&s=animated

Not really adding any information to this thread with this post, but was sitting here drinking my bottle of henry weinhard rootbeer, and out of the corner of my eye I see the ingrediants and the fucking word Acacia poped out. Just pissed me off again.

FYI Acacia in the ingrediants reffers to Acacia sassafras extract.

Its kinda like getting dumped in a relationship and turning on the radio and only hearing those type of songs. GRRRRR!

I have a small webmaster mailing list I'll get something out ASAP

I also had a BBCmicro for a short while around 1985... I think... (don't quote me) but I think the BBC used to send software via the TV (after the regular programs had closed) we had to record it onto tape!

acacia seem to be including text and software in their patent if you check:

http://www.acaciaresearch.com/dmt/dmt_visdep.html

The IMPAI website does seem a bit sparse on info, but i am sure that is due to some legal issues, since they are forming an association that may appear to be "conspiring" to get people to not pay ACACIA's fees.....

Since HomeGrownVideo is head-deep in this issue, they cannot be as vocal as the readers/posters on this board, but WE can.

I am almost finished with an article that I am contributing to Xbiz.

We do need a centralized place to give information as well as guidance as to what we can do to help. IMPAI can't go this far, but an independent website can.

If there is a webmaster out there that doesn't have any audio or video clips on any of their websites, and would have no possible case against them from ACACIA, then if that webmaster could sponsor this website (ie. get a domain name and put up the website), then I for one would contribute articles, links, and discussion on how WE can help.

This website should get alot exposure as a source for adult industry to get a no-holds-bar reading of what is going on as well as for mainstream to become more aware of this issue, since they are next. I for one would be pushing mainstream media to visit it.

Any webmaster that has the resources to handle this contribution, please feel free to contact me at brandon @at@ asacp.org

The criteria being you don't have any audio/video clips on your website(s) so that you don't suddenly find yourself slapped with a C&D, graphics design to make the site look professional, server capacity to handle spikes in traffic.

I have started a new thread about brainstorming for a new domain name to help document the issues.

Contribute your domain name ideas over there (it should be one of the top topics) to keep the thread going, as well as to contribute some ideas.

If you have been following this and other threads on Acacia and Prior Art, then you would have seen me posting under ASACP_CTO. I have moved over to this posting name.

In response to webmasters needing to know more about this issue and what they can do, i have constructed a website at http://www.FightThisPatent.com that i will be updating with news and articles to help keep the webmaster community informed.

I am not forming an organization like IMPAI, so what i present won't have any antitrust issues. I'm doing this because this patent really pisses me off, and helping to fight this patent is one way to try and affect positive change.

The website is complementary to IMPAI when their site goes up. I've already chatted with Spike at Home Grown Video as a source to submit the prior art leads that i am working on, and any leads that people may submit to the website.

I'll post breaking topics and issues to GFY so that everyone can get a chance to make their comments.

Bump

Also a reminder anything you come across drop me an e-mail.
[email protected]

Gemini can you e-mail me [email protected] I wanted to know if you found the machine and disks?

E-mail me I have a link where you can upload the files. [email protected]

If you guys put up a bounty (a la Bountyquest) for, say, $2M to the person or persons who find the prior art needed to invalidate the patent, you'd probably get what you need in a hurry.

Considering the BILLIONS of dollars at stake if these guys successfully hold on to their patent, $2M seems like pocket change. Hell, that's probably the cost of legal fees for just one company to fight them, let alone an entire industry (or the entire internet!!).

OR.... concerned people like me, and the many who have posted their interest in trying to fight patent abuse, take time out of their own busy lives to find prior art to help the defense patent attorneys to fight the case.


.... all without asking for a dime.

yes, bountyquest was successful with helping to find some prior art, i actually talked to a guy that won one of the prior art contests and got his rewards.

I agree! But that poll over at AVN shows the general lack of awareness of the issue. There's a handful of activists, mostly consisting of the larger sites being threatened, and a few (a FEW!) others who are genuinely outraged over this. Post a bounty and I'm sure you will be getting a ton of people combing through their old files that would not otherwise be motivated to do so. It's like Powerball ... if there was no jackpot, no one would play. Juice the stakes enough to make it noticed, and the whole country is watching.