IMPA and ACACIA FAQ - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by m0rph3us
What are the effects of the patents on Canadians and how is Acacia planning to enforce their patents in Canada?

Acacia has filed patents in other countries as well, so it's not just a US-specific attack.

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fiveyes
How, specifically, does the way we present video on the internet infringe on the Acacia patent claims .....

What discussions/behavior on public forums could possibly jeaprodize the IMPA's chances in court and should be avoided (ie. specifics about prior art findings, boycott organizing, etc.)?

Any downloading of video from a web server is infringement on their supposed patent. This is not limited to streaming video. Sounds ridiculous? It is, but that's what they have INTERPRETED.

The patent does not specifically say the downloading or streaming of audio/video from a web server, they have broadly extended their patent to this area and will get the test of their BELIEF in court.

Helping to find prior art is the way to help (other than giving money). Feel free to email prior art leads to me (in addition to IMPA), as I can help to weed through what i think might be good leads.

Posting prior art leads to this message board is not a good idea.

Please read my article on Prior Art and Helping out on my website for more info. FightThePatent.com is an independent website started by me, funded by me, with nothing to gain in this except trying to do what is right.

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sexeducation
What is ACACIA doing with regards to the many Universities which are currently transmitting compressed video?

Acacia is not just targeting the adult industry.

I have one record of them sending their "licensing package" to East Michigan University for the infringement of their patents in distance learning.

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldnewbie
Is Acacia going after webmasters who merely link to other people's sites who have video, such as a paid plug-in, but have no video hosted on their own site? If so, how are they justifying this, since no actual streaming occurs from the webmaster's site?

I believe their approach, is that if you are making $$$ from the service of downloading/streaming audio/video, then you need to pay licenses.

so they put the double whammy on, by targeting you and the host that does the actual streaming.

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johny Traffic

It seems to me that you might suffer, when the big boys in the end will benefit, isnt there a way we can drag them into the fight?

i agree with you, you would think the big boys (ie MS, Real, etc) would jump in, since they have even more to lose....

if i pretend to be one of the big boys attorneys, i'd probably advise them to sit back, watch what happens, let those porn website fight it out, and once the smoke clears, we'll see where thing stand.

So IMPA and the companies that are fighting the patent claims are doing a great service to ALL websites that have audio/video, not limited to just Adult Industry.

So all those articles that you may read where the headlines read about "porn industry being sued for patent violations" must totally be ignorant...

Downloading a video clip from an adult site is exactly the same as downloading a video clip from CNN. Everyone should be spooked about this, but not enough people understand the ramifications.

So spread the word, point people to my website to help bring awareness.

FightThisPatent · 08-17-2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathan

.....
The HARDER thing to find will be STREAMING video. It is not going to be easy to find prior art that streamed video from one place to another through the internet before 1992. ......

You won't need to find prior art involving streaming video, just prior art of DOWNLOADING of audio/video from a server that has a player component on the PC that would play it.

It's a very general summary, but one that should help focus people's search.

UnseenWorld · 09-30-2003, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by venus
ya we dont understand this one, if we buy content from someone, we assume its licensed by the provider and free of litigation on our part. Its pretty screwy to purchase something from someone and then someone else tells you buy the way, you can buy it from them, but you have to buy a second right to use it from us. this isnt right anyway you look at it.
in my opinion.
the provider is suppose to have all licenses prior to be able to lease/sell it so I dont know how ACACIA can try to make someone pay twice for the same thing.

When a content supplier sells you content, you buy the right to use that content. Apparently the right to use the technology to stream the content may involve a second purchase. I think Acacia's claim is so vague as to be bullshit and I wish some of the BIG money corporations in more mainstream industries would wake up and start fighting this. What we will lose is peanuts compared to what other industries and institutions will have to pay if the patent isn't successfully challenged.

One idea: since they want to base their fee on gross profits, form a little corporation that will host the clips for you and simply make sure it doesn't make a profit. That's what a good accountant is for. Of course, maybe that won't work. That's what a good attorney is for.

FightThisPatent · 10-01-2003, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

...... I think Acacia's claim is so vague as to be bullshit and I wish some of the BIG money corporations in more mainstream industries would wake up and start fighting this. ....

What about wishing that some BIG money corporations in the Adult Industry who have the bucks and are in the leadership position to fight the patent abuse claims?

I'm sorry, some are licensing Acacia's patents. Next wish...

So who's fighting them? Companies like Home Grown Video and several others who are paying mucho $$$ to attorneys to defend theirs and EVERYONE's right to use audio or video files.

Fight The Patent!

FightThisPatent · 10-02-2003, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld

One idea: since they want to base their fee on gross profits, form a little corporation that will host the clips for you and simply make sure it doesn't make a profit.

I have heard that Acacia's licensing is 2% of GROSS or $1,500/year, whichever is greater.

So you could form a shell of a company, and still have to pay some money...then, their attornies would see that it was a shell and follow the money trail.

Fight The Patent!

GFED · 10-15-2003, 08:11 AM

08-16-2003, 12:51 PM	#51
KMR Stitch I am cool Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 14,494	50

10-15-2003, 08:11 AM	#61
GFED Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 8,120	__________________ https://www.flow.page/savethechildren