12clicks vs. Fight The Patent

round 200!

200 + 1

With all due respect,

If it wasn't for brandon and his determination I never would of even bothered to search for prior art,he has a way of comming across that makes people like me want to get involved,and it's my opinion the more people involved at this point the better!

Think about it...someone out there could have a ton of prior art sitting on some dusty old computer in their basement and they could come across his site.
Or someone who knows someone who may have information for prior art can inform that person!The more he and IMPA and adult webmaters, content providers ect. get the word out the more chances we have of kicking some butt!

I just think it's a time to band together and fight this as a whole instead of trying to destroy a peer whose only intentions are to meet the same goal,that being invalidating a patent that effects us all adult and non adult alike.

And I read how some of you don't really care about main stream , but whose to say 2 years from now you will have that same opinion if your company decided to go that way!?

<now for fun use of icons! which one shall I pick;-)

The proposition of this post was to give 12clicks a chance to expose me for whatever he thinks I am (fraud, scam artist, etc).

In the terms outlayed at the outset, I posted the resolution that if he could expose me for being a scam artist, then he has done justice onbehalf of all webmasters.

If I have been able to truthyfullly explain myself and my efforts, and there is not hint of a scam, then i expected him to pledge $100.

12clicks has stated that he sees no reason for my efforts, nor would ever make a pledge and additionaly, not able to "expose" me for whatever his personal agenda was.

Since it's so easy for him to raise $250K, and that prior art is easy to find, I suggested he propose his own solution instead of just criticizing mine.

This thread is now closed by me.

While it would be nice to say it was a draw, I concede that I have lost this debate not by 12clicks' efforts, but by the fact that the pledge counter had not increased significantly because of my answers.

For those that support me and my efforts, I have not been deterred by any of this.....only reinforces the point, that you can't please everyone.

Thanks for all those that asked questions, your participation was appreciated!


-brandon

I have checked every pdf and every claim they state on this page for the use of video in zip files, it does not exsist that I cna find:


http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/te...t_adultent.htm


So I am going to continue offering video zip file downloads when webmasters purchase content but I will keep the streaming samples off the site.

If anyone can prove it includes video in zip files please point me to the right words that say it, thanks.

That was a helluva lot of work for a lousy hundred bucks!

Berman answers this in his YNOT interview at http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html


YNOT NEWS: In your previous YNOT NEWS interview you said the following: ?Our content provider license covers teaser clips on the content provider's Web site and the one time ftp transfer of content files.?

When you mentioned ?one time ftp transfer of content files?, is it infringement of your patent if the video files were compressed into a ZIP file for downloading, rather than just the AVI or MPG file? Is it infringement if a person transferred / downloaded a ZIP file that didn't have any audio or video files, and why?

Rob Berman: Our patents cover the transmission and receipt of digital content. Digital content is transmitted and received via the Internet by being encoded, compressed into a series of addressable data blocks, and stored. The content is then sent to a remote location, decompressed, and played on a computer or other receiving device. This is the process covered by our DMT patents.

Everything about our technology is outlined in the patents. In exchange for making this information publicly available, the United States Patent Office grants a monopoly to the patent owner for a period of 20 years from the filing date of the patent. That is why Acacia has the legal right to determine who gets licenses, and which companies do not.

Zipping a file is a way of further compressing a file. To determine whether the transmission and receipt of a zipped file is covered by our patents, it is necessary to look at the underlying file that is being zipped. If the file consists of audio/video content, the transmission and receipt of the file is probably covered by our patents. If the underlying file consists of still photographs, it is probably not covered.

This is their entire scope of reasoning...

WTF is "probably"???? He apparently doesn't even know what the damned patent covers.

It's funny how, in the interview he says, "probably", where in the letters sent to anyone and everyone.. it says you are infringing....
So which is it?

I think that means he'll sue your butt and let a judge decide.

Hmmm... I guess that's why they call it "probate".