1989 Video from AT&T Labs "Pandora" project defeats Acacia patent claims!

Very interesting...Gotta bookmark this thread for sure...

Anything for the attention

<BI><B>WooWoo!!!</B></BIG>
Between that video clip and the PDF file, every claim within the Acacia patent(s) is covered except for the end user being able to replay the downloaded clip later and having features such as Fast Forward, Slow-Mo, etc. in their player. However, I think that could be easily surmised from existing applications at the time, if not covered in some other aspect of their work.

Also, that PDF file was published Jan 12 1990, not quite a full year before when the original patent was filed, Jan 7 1991. There ought to be earlier publications that cover all this though (some are referenced in that paper).

I don't need Acacia to get attention.
I can do that on my own very well - thanky you very much.
It appears you need me to get attention though.
Don't fuck with this thread.

besides the simpson already doing it...... the defense attorney already have this lead.

it's still a great effort on squirt's part and it was great chatting with ya Squirt on the phone this evening.

here are some areas to poke around for prior art searches:
http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/Searching.html


Fight the Patent!

Brandon ...
may I suggest you post like this ...

Doh! Just dropped my communications society membership for standards association and the computer society.

Think I can get at it through the computer society library though.. what a fucking mess their fucking sites are.

"GIF89a files (not animation or cartoony, but using digitized images in a loop to make a video-like presentation)"

Hundreds of thousands of webmasters did this ...
IMO

i'm surprised that Bell Labs the owner of thousands of patents did not patent this

i believe this article is more geared towards real-time voice, in devising a protocol that could handle the latency issues of breaking up voice into the tcp/ip packets.

acacia's patent doesn't cover real time streaming or live video/audio conferencing (which has been around way, way before acacia's filing date).


Fight the Patent!

That points out a lack at the present time- a definitive clearinghouse that shows what areas have already been researched, so people aren't wasting time running down the same deadends others have before, as well as some sort of coordination of examination of possible avenues of exploration.

It's all fine and good that there is such an interest and willingness to look for prior art on this matter, but a more effective approach is always the coordinated effort.

Very cool video... nice find!

When we talked on the phone you hadn't seen this video.. or the pages it linked to .. nor is anything pertaining to what I've found listed on the http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/Searching.html And I'm sure that HomeGrown would have let all us know if this smoking gun existed. When I spoke to Far-L on the phone he never indicated this and hadn't seen the video either.

It's been a long day so I know I'm missing something here. Time for some dinner

Oh and what does this mean? "besides the simpson already doing it"

They probably didn't patent it because some things are sooooo...obvious ...you can not.

Cars have brakes.
Computers have an off button.

When sending "motion pictures" you want to do that in real time or less then real time.

No you are NOT missing anything ...
"supper" sounds like a good idea ...
they too need time to digest ...
give them a few days or so ...

Well there is a listing at http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/Searching.html to give people guidelines on what to look for and what's been found... something better could be put into place.. time will tell if that effort is even needed in this case ;)

I was put off by that response to your find as well, it seemed to disparage the attempt. Sending the minions back out to dig deeper ought to be done without slighting previous efforts, IMNSHO.

BangBang: Acacia needs to loose!





excellent work squirtit!

BTW Brandon you told me on the phone I should come here and post for bragging rights then you post that they already have this lead?

Something isn't right here... care to explain?

I guess I'm thinking along the lines of something more explicit, like having a project management forum in place.

For instance, there's a TON of material that is NOT on-line and can only be researched by going through IEEE and ACM documents from the 80's at libraries. I have access to the UNO library and would be willing to devote an afternoon each week to this. However, I'm wary of spending the hours that would be entailed to find that I had simply rehashed efforts that already have been made.

Agreed

And those of us who are doing this research have lives, other responsiblities and bills to pay. I'm doing this to help all of us.. I think there might be a good reason Brandon said that... maybe something to help the defense.. I dunno. I'll reserve judgment until I get more info from him.

You have bragging rights ...
trust me ...
I've read every Acacia post on this board - I am aware of.

Brandon has to spin things too ...
Let him do his job and believe his personal ICQ's...

Yeah I feel ya on that one... better to talk to Brandon and find a specific thing to look for so there is no misinterpretation and you don't waste time.

I just want to know how he has access to a defense lawyer after business hours. That's a trick I've never managed...

- Finally Fucking Owned! Finally!

jDoG

Yeah I was thinking the same thing

Excellent, very excellent work my man! This looks very promising!

jDoG

People are starting to pay attention ...
he is only one person - let him do his job.

GFY is 24 hours a day ...
He has people he must consult with ...

Actually, I see I'll need to speak with Todd tomorrow about this. Brandon's OK as far as that goes, but it's become <I>very</I> apparent that I should work with the defense w/o intermediates.

Thanks !

Great find,let's see how we can use the whole thing.

Imagine if you could find a perfect example of prior art, but it turned out to be a video of hardcore anal sex. How funny would that be?

geoworks ...

Yeah ... brainstorm.. think of what can be done!

Now THAT would be prior ART !!

I don't know who Todd is but whatever it takes..... I think a press release should be blasted out !!!

Awesome Find!!

Let Brandon do his work.
If you blast out a press release (already done - it's posted on GFY) ....

you don't give him an opportunity to "control" things ....

slow down

BTW - PersionKitty ... I appologize ....

I didn't think so, you've got ICQ.

I dont buy it
this wasnt abvious in the 80s
and Bell Labs have patents on everything they've touched and nothing in video streaming ??

Either way this video is PROOF that this technology existed. Bell Labs isn't an Acacia

Go have supper ....
it appears you did a good job tonight ...

This will be remembered tomorrow ...
I won't let this thread die.
Take a break ..

Awsome find Squirtit and really hope that this fucks the leaches that would bleed us.

If it does you will become a bit of a legend in the industry?

Ok.. bed time for me here.. I'm in Australia and it's late.. hope to see more info in the moring when I check back.. which will be afternoon your time.

What time do you go to bed?

It's presently 7.30pm in Sydney

hahah I was thinking the exact same thing.. I had to check my clock to make sure I hadn't missed several hours... I'm assuming he's on a webmaster sleep cycle.

it seems pretty damaging to Acacias patent claims.


--------------------------------

"Prior Art" as definined in US Federal Law

Title 35, United States Code, Section 102

Sec. 102. - Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b ) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

(c ) he has abandoned the invention, or

(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or

(e) The [1] invention was described in -

(1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b ), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effect under this subsection of a national application published under section 122(b ) only if the international application designating the United States was published under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty in the English language; or

(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that a patent shall not be deemed filed in the United States for the purposes of this subsection based on the filing of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a); [2] or

(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or

(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or

(2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other