Acacia loophole?

that's the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 3 minutes.

Waiting for a contribution from you amp

Oh was Rich posting earlier?

yes

LOL, and this was the funniest thing I've read in days

<img src="http://www.gofuckyourself.com/images/smilies/NEW/338.gif" width="468" height="420">

"On Demand" is dictated by when the user clicks the button or link to play the video. It has nothing to do with when you actually play it. You could set a timer for 10 minutes, but, it would boil down to, the surfer would see the video as a result of clicking on your link.

Something that may work, is to simply stop streaming. Zip the files up, and force the surfers to download and unzip the files before viewing.

Acacia is a non issue - An expensive one. Not including prior art, in a nutshell their patents don't apply to computer transmission, FTP, hosting software, etc. The download on demand for internet transmission use TCP/IP protocols that were in place and existed before Acacia became a company.

This doesn't even take into consideration that they can't sue us - the end user of copyrighted software by a dozen different companies including Microsoft, Real Media, Adobe, and many others. I'm using copyrighted software to create and deliver such videos. They don't even have a legal right to sue me.

Look into it carefully and you'll see they claim to cover that too as essentially the video is compressed and then streaming to your PC in a zip file albeit one you have to manually uncompress to see.

There are no viable methods that they don't claim to hold the patent for. Of course it's all BS but gonna cost you to prove so.

If ignorance is bliss, the christian raptures during the Second Coming of Christ will be nothing compared to you.

It's not ignorance - I'm caught up right in the middle of it, and I've seen all of the paperwork.

This lawsuit goes much further than is publically spoken about on the boards; This includes download (TCP/IP), FTP, and hosting companies as well - All of which was established before Acacia existed.

I'll be surprised if this doesn't get thrown out of court.

TomsPics,

Your idea won't help at all with the Acacia patent, because it is written so broadly to include streaming of video as well as downloading of video.. doesn't matter if it is "on demand", "random delayed on demand", etc.

Your idea is more applicable to USA Video's patent.

For those that have just been focusing on Acacia, USA Video's patent overs the downloading of video from a server, in less than real time.

What does this mean? They claim that if a 90 minute video can be downloaded in 80 minutes, that's considered "less than real time", and therefore you owe them a license fee.

Sound ridiculous??? Read more about USA Video at :http://www.fighthepatent.com/v2/USVO.html

They are currently suing Movielink.com

One possible solution (in thinking along the lines that presented abouve) around USA Video's patent claims (besides nailing it shut with prior art) is to throttle your server so that a video download takes atleast 1 second longer to download then the length of the video.

Oh, and don't forget to read up on SightSound on my website as well..they claim owning the patent to the paid downloads of audio and video files as evident by their 3+ year lawsuit with CDNOW/BMG.


Fight The Patent!

I wish that were the case, but unfortunately, Acacia seems to think that if you bundle up 1 or more audio/video files into an archive, and FTP or HTTP download, then you are still infinging upon their patent.

They offer a "content producer license" that specifically covers this method...



Fight the Patent!

Actually, their patent infringement claims cover all of the points you brought up.

Their patent is a "process patent" that describes the process of content that has been digitized into a compressed file, stored on a server, transmitted to a PC for playback.

They don't talk about any specific technology.. so whether you use TCP/IP, Zmodem, X.25, satellite, etc these are just transport mechanisms that fall into their "process patent".

Even the use of FTP to download an audio/video file is considered infringement..... which is great news for people me hunting for prior art.

If we can demonstrate that people used FTP to download an audio/video file prior to 1990, then that's prior art !

Already found some prior art for this, and always looking for more evidence to provide to the defense side. The more overwhelming the pile of evidence is, the better the case.


Fight The Patent!

reading about this shit really floors me. are they just banking on inept and completely computer illiterate judges or what?

Actually, they can.

Patent Law gives the patent holder the right to sue anyone that is using their patent.

It does seem absurd that a webmaster who is using third-party technology like M$ or Real, be liable for infringement.

Read the EULA that comes with these software...buried in there somewhere are disclaimers about this kind of stuff, that gets them off the hool.

Acacia can make MORE MONEY by getting individual websites to license their technology rather than attacking the big boys and be stuck in court for 4 years.

Don't forget, using a web server, ftp server, BBS server, etc are ways that files can be transferred to your PC for viewing, so it's not limited to streaming software.

Having an .mpg file on your server for download, doesn't use any streaming technology, just uses HTTP for the transport, and that's an infringement of acacia's patent.

Sux huh?

This is the reason why I started FightThePatent.com to bring awareness and to help find prior art to invalidate these kinds of patent abuse cases.

Fight The Patent!

They are banking on the fact that webmasters will roll over when shown a patent.

They were banking on the fact that people like me wouldn't step in to take the time out of my own busy life, to help find prior art.

They thought they did their prior art homework, but they must not have hired any techies to do the research, cuz a techie would have easily pointed out areas for prior art.

Fight The Patent = techie


They did not take into account that the adult industry is a community that shares information and can organize.

Major news from Fight The Patent coming next week on the fight against patent abuse.


Fight The Patent!

>Fight The Patent = techie

Insane techie that I'm conviced does not sleep OR has figured out how to code in his sleep...

hehheheheheh... i just happen to be able to type fast, and be able to sneak to my computer whenever my wife isn't looking...

believe me, she complains about all the time i spend on fighting patents, but she also understands that it's the right thing for me to do.

Fight the Patent! (and thank my wife for letting me do it )

What I don't get is this:

Digital video is ultimately 0's and 1's - binary data. So wouldn't their claim boil down to wanting a piece of every piece of data transferred over the Internet - including text, cached files, etc...?

The Patent Office felt at the time of the patent application, that their process was novel.

Acacia has taken the patent and have created an INTERPRETATION of what they WANT the patent to mean.

Problem is that it's up to the courts to determine if what they WANT their patent to mean, is actually WHAT THE PATENT says.

And for that, defendants must spend alot of money to prove Acacia wrong.. remember, it's "guilty until proven innocent".

If Acacia could make their patent claims stick to text, etc.. I am sure they would....

Just wait for some other patent holder to come out and INTERPRET their patent to owning the 0's and 1's.



Fight The Patent!

Actually, they have been banking on the inept and computer illiterate US Government's Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It's been working too

I'd also be surprised if the patents are held to be valid as they are currently trying to be enforced by Acacia. But that has nothing to do with your original posting, which is filled with misinformation and innaccuracies. Though you're certainly entitled to your opinions, when you state them as fact you do no one any favors.

Since we are talking about something that, one way or the other, will affect our entire industry and has currently shown enough power to close down at least one enterprise through court injuction, how is this a "non issue"? And, as a businessman, I feel anything "expensive" is certainly an "issue", in fact- the more expensive it might be, the more of an issue I regard it!

STOP!!! Please be specific as to what "prior art" you're not going to include? Is this a reference to prior art that invalidates one, some or all of the claims of the patent? Or is this prior art that establishes that the invention was in use before the filing of the patent? Or is this the prior art that proves the invention was not unique in that it could have been logically arrived at the time by someone skilled in the art? Or is this prior art that proof of its offer for sale at least a year before filing of the patent?

Now, after you've established exactly what "prior art" you don't wish to include- I'm going to have to ask: WHY EXCLUDE IT?!? Because if there is actually such a thing as any of the examples I gave, then we can all go home now, case is closed and we won.

But, until you can come up with a concrete, valid and provable example of prior art as given, then "<I>Not including prior art</I>" more correctly reads "<I>Not including something that is being actively sought by a number of people at this time to fight the patent(s) held by Acacia</I>"

Well, you started off right, your case is presented in a "nut"shell. I'd also expect to find it in fruitcakes and belfries as well.

I think you should take a hint from TomsPics and start your postings with "I don't know too much on this expensive non issue" from now on because you definitely are not familiar with the claims of the patent(s) or you'd realize the transmission protocol doesn't even enter the picture.

Oh, they can't sue us. Great!!!

Please contact Far-L and Spike and the webmaster at Go Entertainment and David Lace and tell them that they are delusional. Explain your position that proves the court injuctions, orders and lawyer fees they (some of them, anyway!) are accumalating are figments of their imagination. I'm certain they'd welcome the news!

---
Summing up: Your posting gives the impression that we can safely ignore Acacia because they don't have any legal basis to sue anyone. And, not only that, but there is some sort of "prior art" that you're aware of that doesn't even need to be included.

Unfortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

that bet was already placed over 10 years ago, and they bet correctly.

The USPTO doesn't get involved in patent infringement cases, so they don't need to bet on the USPTO.

They are placing their bets on people's ignorance of patent law, and at the first showing of a patent document and a legalese letter from an attorney, that the webmaster learns a new trick... how to rollover rover.


They are betting on the fact that general counsel and CFO types in a company will make the BUSINESS decision that it's cheaper to pay than it is to fight.

We already know that both bets presented above are true.



Fight The Patent!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... has anyone posted a link to this CNET news article posted last night?

http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5081177.html

That's what I always thought. It's nice to see someone post the same opinion..

Yeah that's all true....but what I meant is the computer illiterate morons at the USPTO are the ones that give out these bs patents without any idea what the fuck they are doing. These tech companies rolled on through the PTO in the last decade getting patents for every fucking thing you can imagine, none of which are/were original, many of which have prior art or depend on other patented or copyrigthed materials and not one of those BS companies did anything with the patent but use it as bait for the next wave of "IP" companies (read fancy suits with no fucking clue) to buy them out.

Fuck them where it hurts.

The future is...

You will all be offering to send your customers video on CD's.

Unless someone manages to overturn the (rather absurd) patent claim in court.

Interesting, that you would propose this "possibility".
Expanding on that ...

Take a 60 second clip. Force it to download in 61 seconds and therefore it is NOT being viewed or transmitted in real time or less then real time.

Now - just use J-A-V-Ascript to preload the next webpage's 61 second non-real time downloaded clips?

Big thanks to Brandon at Fight the Patent for responding here!

One of USA Video's patent claims against Movielink.com is that their patent claims faster than real time downloading.

So yes, throttling or putting in some kind of buffer that makes the download take longer than real time would get around that claim.

There may be other claims as well, I just know this one.

But then again, even if you throttle your downloads, you still are infringing upon Acacia's claims.

And an interesting new/old player is http://www.burst.com

They say the have some patents for video on demand in 1989, so their patents could also extend to downloading video!

They are currently sueing M$ for working with them towards a mutual solution, that M$ allegedly took their ideas and created their own technology.....

Fight the Patent!

There are usually several ways to skin a cat.

It's no secret after ten years of Clinton that we now have a decade of "abstinence only" sex education (SEE: AdvocatesForYouth.ORG) , and considering Visa changes, and the"obscenity push" - I would really like to know who the investors are that are pushing what seems to be a "new" legal "attack front" on adult websites.

Just curious...
It just seems a little to coincidental.

I hope a good Wall Street reporter picks up on this and does some investigating.