Acacia - GoFuckYourself.com

boobmaster · 07-22-2003, 06:42 PM

OK, I have a few questions about this.

They are asking for 2% of your gross. Does that mean 2% of ALL gross revenue you earn in this business or 2% of the gross revenue earned from sites with streaming videos on them? I have pay sites with videos but a significant % of my income comes from Adult Check Gold sites where I don't use any videos at all. And why is it 2% of the gross? That seems extremely unfair.

Second, why are they asking for recurring fees instead of a flat fee of, say, $100.00? If they charged everyone a hundred bucks they'd still make a bundle and would'nt have to pay their lawyers all that money to take people to court.

Third, did Acacia actually create the technology for streaming video or did they just buy the patent in order to make money?

Fourth, do they want 2% from the webmaster AND 2% from the company he purchased the video rights from? If the producer has already paid the licensing fee why should the webmaster have to pay it again? How much fucking money do they need?

Fifth, are they going to want 2% from affiliates who simply promote sponsors that have video content? I can't believe that they would try to do that since it is so friggin' ludicrous.

Didn't someone try to get a patent for hyperlink technology a few years back? What happened with that?

I wish they owned the patent on SPAM.

And finally, is there no end to corporate greed?

freeadultcontent · 07-22-2003, 06:48 PM

1. Yes.
2. Cause they make more and are lawyers.
3. Bought.
4. Everyone pays, they want it all.
5. Yes.
6. No there is not.

Mr.Fiction · 07-22-2003, 06:50 PM

Shouldn't someone turn around and sue Acacia for something?

Can they just wildly claim they own everything, even when they don't? Is there some system by which companies being harassed can get money from Acacia once Acacia loses?

Fletch XXX · 07-22-2003, 06:51 PM

cheers.

AM Jeff · 07-22-2003, 06:53 PM

I asked the same thing over at the Pond..I been curious myself.

For what I have read...it sounds BS to me.
If that the case..gonna open up alot of doors for lawsiuts where people claim this and that.

I don't see how they can get away with this, but I maybe wrong. maybe they can.

freeadultcontent · 07-22-2003, 06:54 PM

Yup, and OJ did not kill his wife. We can always trust the legal system.

Mr.Fiction · 07-22-2003, 06:59 PM

When Cohen was threatening to sue everyone with "sex" in their domain name, didn't someone get a judge to step in and order him to leave people alone?

KRL · 07-22-2003, 07:00 PM

AdultKing · 07-22-2003, 07:03 PM

I'm in Australia, I wonder when Acacia will come after me

Personally if I was some of the people at Acacia I would probably be considering increasing my personal security. There is no doubt that when you start trying to meddle with peoples revenue steams that one or two will get a little crankier than others.

As far as I know, Logie-Baird came up with the idea of sending video from one place to another using wires or radio. Until Acacia can show me otherwise I wont be caving into them.

Lets see all the earlier examples of sending video from one place to another.. slow scan tv, television, telephonic fax, radio fax. Computer based examples of sending moving images, well obviously alot of the stuff we used to do with microcomputers in the early 1980s (no matter how rudimentary) predates Acacias patents.

As far as responding to litigation goes , I'd be looking toward the people who supply me with the technology to deal with video online. Apple, Adobe, my internet providers. These people have made technology available to me to use, encouraged me to do so, they have a part in this somewhere.

The one thing this will do, I hope, is show to the world that patent law needs to be balanced against the common good. This applies to genetic patents and the like. Acacia and companies like them provide no benefit to society. They're akin to leaches.

boobmaster · 07-22-2003, 07:04 PM

How often do patents get ruled invalid? Has this ever happened before?

If they actually developed the technology then at least it would be understandable for them to want a piece of the pie. But if they just manipulated the system and bought the rights, then they should rot in hell along with Qsay and Uday.

How the fuck did this happen in the first place? How much cock did they have to suck? They must have excellent oral skills.

Tipsy · 07-23-2003, 03:39 AM

Just a quick thought on this. If the unbelievable happened and the patents were upheld in court would there then be a case against people like microsoft for damages? After all, they (along with a few other companies) pushed streaming stuff hard and almost made it impossible not to use it if you are in business on the Internet. I'm obviously pretty ignorant on US law but given much of the crap that goes to court it seems that may be a possibility.

Either way although I understand MS and others not wanting to be associated with defending 'smut peddlers', for them to not jump in at this stage when overturning the claims should still be at least a little straightforward if expensive, seems crazy.

Tipsy · 07-23-2003, 03:41 AM

Oh - and on the hyperlink thing above...

Yes there was an attempt to claim ownership of 'hyperlink technology'. It went to court in the UK I believe and the claim was rejected.

Scootermuze · 07-23-2003, 04:21 AM

What's really stupid is...

You can't patent something if you didn't invent it, but you can turn around and buy patents that you had nothing to do with..

Patents are looked at as the same as real estate in that manner..

Kind makes patents a joke...

07-22-2003, 06:42 PM	#1
boobmaster So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 6,185	Acacia OK, I have a few questions about this. They are asking for 2% of your gross. Does that mean 2% of ALL gross revenue you earn in this business or 2% of the gross revenue earned from sites with streaming videos on them? I have pay sites with videos but a significant % of my income comes from Adult Check Gold sites where I don't use any videos at all. And why is it 2% of the gross? That seems extremely unfair. Second, why are they asking for recurring fees instead of a flat fee of, say, $100.00? If they charged everyone a hundred bucks they'd still make a bundle and would'nt have to pay their lawyers all that money to take people to court. Third, did Acacia actually create the technology for streaming video or did they just buy the patent in order to make money? Fourth, do they want 2% from the webmaster AND 2% from the company he purchased the video rights from? If the producer has already paid the licensing fee why should the webmaster have to pay it again? How much fucking money do they need? Fifth, are they going to want 2% from affiliates who simply promote sponsors that have video content? I can't believe that they would try to do that since it is so friggin' ludicrous. Didn't someone try to get a patent for hyperlink technology a few years back? What happened with that? I wish they owned the patent on SPAM. And finally, is there no end to corporate greed?

07-22-2003, 06:48 PM	#2
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	1. Yes. 2. Cause they make more and are lawyers. 3. Bought. 4. Everyone pays, they want it all. 5. Yes. 6. No there is not. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

07-22-2003, 06:50 PM	#3
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Shouldn't someone turn around and sue Acacia for something? Can they just wildly claim they own everything, even when they don't? Is there some system by which companies being harassed can get money from Acacia once Acacia loses? __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

07-22-2003, 06:51 PM	#4
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	cheers. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

07-22-2003, 06:54 PM	#6
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Yup, and OJ did not kill his wife. We can always trust the legal system. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

07-22-2003, 06:53 PM	#5
AM Jeff Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: The House Of Rage Posts: 1,320	I asked the same thing over at the Pond..I been curious myself. For what I have read...it sounds BS to me. If that the case..gonna open up alot of doors for lawsiuts where people claim this and that. I don't see how they can get away with this, but I maybe wrong. maybe they can.

07-22-2003, 06:59 PM	#7
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	When Cohen was threatening to sue everyone with "sex" in their domain name, didn't someone get a judge to step in and order him to leave people alone? __________________ Don't be lazy, protect free speech: ACLU \| Free Speech Coalition \| EFF \| IMPA

07-22-2003, 07:00 PM	#8
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	__________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

07-22-2003, 07:03 PM	#9
AdultKing Raise Your Weapon Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Outback Australia Posts: 15,601	I'm in Australia, I wonder when Acacia will come after me Personally if I was some of the people at Acacia I would probably be considering increasing my personal security. There is no doubt that when you start trying to meddle with peoples revenue steams that one or two will get a little crankier than others. As far as I know, Logie-Baird came up with the idea of sending video from one place to another using wires or radio. Until Acacia can show me otherwise I wont be caving into them. Lets see all the earlier examples of sending video from one place to another.. slow scan tv, television, telephonic fax, radio fax. Computer based examples of sending moving images, well obviously alot of the stuff we used to do with microcomputers in the early 1980s (no matter how rudimentary) predates Acacias patents. As far as responding to litigation goes , I'd be looking toward the people who supply me with the technology to deal with video online. Apple, Adobe, my internet providers. These people have made technology available to me to use, encouraged me to do so, they have a part in this somewhere. The one thing this will do, I hope, is show to the world that patent law needs to be balanced against the common good. This applies to genetic patents and the like. Acacia and companies like them provide no benefit to society. They're akin to leaches.

07-22-2003, 07:04 PM	#10
boobmaster So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 6,185	How often do patents get ruled invalid? Has this ever happened before? If they actually developed the technology then at least it would be understandable for them to want a piece of the pie. But if they just manipulated the system and bought the rights, then they should rot in hell along with Qsay and Uday. How the fuck did this happen in the first place? How much cock did they have to suck? They must have excellent oral skills.

07-23-2003, 03:39 AM	#11
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Just a quick thought on this. If the unbelievable happened and the patents were upheld in court would there then be a case against people like microsoft for damages? After all, they (along with a few other companies) pushed streaming stuff hard and almost made it impossible not to use it if you are in business on the Internet. I'm obviously pretty ignorant on US law but given much of the crap that goes to court it seems that may be a possibility. Either way although I understand MS and others not wanting to be associated with defending 'smut peddlers', for them to not jump in at this stage when overturning the claims should still be at least a little straightforward if expensive, seems crazy. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

07-23-2003, 03:41 AM	#12
Tipsy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: See sig Posts: 6,989	Oh - and on the hyperlink thing above... Yes there was an attempt to claim ownership of 'hyperlink technology'. It went to court in the UK I believe and the claim was rejected. __________________ Ignorance is never bliss.

07-23-2003, 04:21 AM	#13
Scootermuze Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 4,513	What's really stupid is... You can't patent something if you didn't invent it, but you can turn around and buy patents that you had nothing to do with.. Patents are looked at as the same as real estate in that manner.. Kind makes patents a joke...