Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlienQ
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...ight=Prior+art
All the way back to 2003.
I can not recall what email address I sent info to.
I recall sending info to the patents relating to MPEG foundation.
It holds several patents that broke holes the claims of acacia as proofs of prior art.
|
ah yes, i remember, and i'll say the same thing as i would have responded to you.. the MPEG patents itself is just one piece of the process.
Acacia claimed:
1) digitizing content (this could be into mpeg format)
2) compression (this could be mpeg)
3) centralized server
4) user selection for download
5) playback
many different technologies are used in the process. MPEG might only account for #1 or #2. prior art needs to address all 5 major points.
so mpeg patents were not prior art, what would have been prior, is the documenation of the following using mpeg as an example, prior to may 1990:
1) content digiitized into mpeg
2) compressed with mpeg codec
3) made available on a BBS or arapanet server
4) user ability to select the file
5) playback software
Amigas had video files and were shared on BBS, which does illustrate the prior art. there are several other ones found by myself, squirit (who you were slamming in the above mentioned URL for wasting his time in the prior art search, Gateway, and others who took up the call to arms.
Fight the Clarifications!