Thanks ! :thumbsup

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?

:glugglug

geoworks ...

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

Now THAT would be prior ART !! :1orglaugh

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

Awesome Find!! :thumbsup

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. :thumbsup

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

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. :thumbsup

What time do you go to bed?

It's presently 7.30pm in Sydney :glugglug

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.

:zzwhip

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

Bastards!!! :1orglaugh I was real tired and absolutely beat! Couldn't sleep though so I'm gonna have a couple drinks :glugglug

:thumbsup

Did they actually release who there researchers were?

This could lay them very open to the counter claim that they did not do there research properly, or did they do it at all. Someone find out who their researchers were and what they actually did, if they didn't do there job properly and just tried to push this through, they could end up on the wrong side in a court case.

We need to get this info out to Spike and see what he can make of it. Let's put Berman out of business as a lesson to anyone else who thinks we are pussies.

We owe Sqirtit for this work, want some content for free mate?

Good work on the prior art....

ditto,
even though I scratch "mate"
;-)))

:thumbsup
Squirtit, you're the man!

A very good fine.

This really kind of scares me though to see this stuff posted on a public board as it gives Acacia a lot of time to figure out away around it....and even more time to prepare some 'arguments' for the judge.

The last thing you want is for Acacia to know what ammunition is going to be released upon them in court.....and that's just making Homegrown's fight that much harder to win. I bet Acacia reads this board daily and laughs at us as they sit here collecting info on how their attackers plan to attack. I know i would. Just something to keep in mind.

On another note, I also remember hearing an interview where they were "patching" up the holes in the patent on a constant basis. Keep in mind that whatever is said here is just giving them more ideas to use to patch up their patent before it goes to trial. Weather that's true or not, who knows.

New information is always exciting. But there's a time and place for it. Acacia is after the adult industry and you know they're watching the biggest adult webmaster board closely. This is not the place to post this stuff, and right now is not the time to publicize new finds that will give Homegrown a harder fight in the end. Just an opinion and my 2cents.

None the less, this is a great find for sure. Nice work.

My brother was at college for computer sciences back in the mid 70s, he said all they did not the Internet was swap porn files with other students around the world.

This fellow seemed to be on the track in early 80s...

http://www.chiariglione.org/leonardo/publications/


Sincerely,
~Mark XXXPhoto

Great one Squirtit :thumbsup

Also onlymovies has a good point about this post perhaps we could have this thread deleted and continue discustions on a Usename/Password protected area?

I found these links and thought they were very interesting. It shows the direction we were headed in as far back as the early 70's and late 60's:

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc508.html
http://www.dei.isep.ipp.pt/docs/arpa-Introduc.html

And this was highly interesting but i'm just not sure how to find the actual trial records from this case so that I can find the dates that he posted a playboy picture for download. He was arrested in 1993 by the FBI for piracy and part of the charge was for having this photo available on the bbs but it doesn't say what dates the photo was available: http://www.pixi.com/~irvdili/page-22.htm

related link: http://timeline.textfiles.com/1987/

OH Yeah, and there is this one also. I think this is really promising:
New NODELIST Distribution Method
by Ben Baker, Fido 100/76

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the nodelist is becoming
quite large. If there is no satellite link, it takes about four
and a half minutes to transmit NODELIST.A59 at 2400 baud, and
nearly eight minutes at 1200 baud. It took OVER eight minutes at
2400 baud to send it via satellite to Hawaii!

We now have about eight hundred nodes in the nodelist. If
we assume an average of six minutes transmission time per node,
that's about eighty hours a week to distribute a new nodelist to
everybody! If only ten per cent is long distance, that's still a
non-trivial sum we're giving Ma Bell each week! In order to
reduce the overhead of nodelist distribution, we are making a
change to the distribution format.

NODELIST.A73 will be a particularly fat nodelist archive
file. It will contain some extra files which are very important
to you. The complete contents of the file are as follows:

COORD.073
NODELIST.073
NODEDIFF.073
EDITNL.ARC consisting of
EDITNL.COM
EDITNL.DOC

NODEDIFF.073 will be a file which represents the differences
between NODELIST.066 and NODELIST.073 in a rather simplistic edit
command format. EDITNL is the program which can construct
NODELIST.073 from NODELIST.066 and NODEDIFF.073. It will be
instructive to compare the sizes of the NODELIST and NODEDIFF
files.


Source http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/FIDONET...S/fido0309.nws

It seems to me that the defense attorneys could take this information and send it to the patent office, if it in fact proves prior art, and have Acacia's patent revoked.

It could easily be shown that the patent was granted without merit.. and I would think that they would have no choice but to pull the patent rights.

I think Acacia will be bright enough to register if they need to.

Plus I think you will find there is such a thing as "discovery". What this does, is show Acacia what they are up against and now they have decided to go after the universities they are in for a tougher time.

Anyone bothered to ask Ken what he thinks of this? He showed how much of a team player he is one week, then the next he sees what the little guys can do.

I bet he's going to be the webmasters kicking toy at the next convention he show up at.

most likely this goes all the way back to Stanford and DARPA Net, its just a question of finding some evidence of it.

DARPA Net was an off shoot of the ARPANET and like I said they have documented work back into the late 60's and early 70s of work with audio and video on the internet. Check out the links I posted.

in fact, it may prove to be easier to track down some of the people who helped start all this. Most of the people who worked on ARPA and developed ARPANET in the late 60's and early 70's were professors at UCLA, MIT, University of Minnisota, Stanford and other universities. they are probably easy to find.

it seems hard to believe that they would not know of very early examples of audio/video on the web... and be able to offer supporting documents that prove it since everything was very well documented.

hehe. sorry. i did not read your post.

but you are right,... everything is very well documented. its just a question of finding everything.

i seriously doubt that their interest stopped at simply sharing documents and it seems quite logical that audio/video would be a natural next progression.

absolutely AWESOME squirtit!

I do have to say one thing though, think of this as war tactics (or even a game of chess). When you give the opposition the edge of knowing your future moves, you are also giving the opposition the edge of countering that move and winning the battle. I do NOT want to throw cold water here but its pretty obvious which boards are being watched :(

I wish there were some way to keep these incredible finds behind a secured area, yet still list things we need to find ...... then after all is said and done give the credit openly to those who gave so selfishly of their time and efforts (like squirtit)

and one final thought, there should be no need for a court case if the legal team fighting this deems it as 'proof' (which is looking good :D), all they need to do is present it to the researcher involved at the patent office - or his immediate supervisor


reguardless of all i'm trying to contain myself from breaking into a HAPPY DANCE!

The "we must not post prior art examples" argument has been rehashed before. The only way it can hurt the defense team is if any of the defendents begin actively participating, which could open them up to additional law suits besides that of infringement.

As far as Acacia being aware of what is being said here, take it for granted. It's already been shown that they are not only aware of these forums in general but are actively monitoring them.

But, the fact is, prior art is prior art. If it exists, their patent will either be invalidated or the claims will be narrowed in their interprtation and application. It's not going to matter if they know about it now, next week or a year from now, prior art is simply not something than they'll be able to "argue away" once it surfaces. And neither is there going to be a "last minute surprise" pulled in the courtroom that will turn the tide one way or the other. That only happens on Perry Mason.

These open discussions, pats on the back, and feedback amongst ourselves about prior art is not only the right thing to do, since it encourages others to join in on the search, but it's the BEST thing to do, since it may well take the wind out of Acacia's sails before they ever get to the courtroom.