New interpretation of Acacia patents - GoFuckYourself.com

Amputate Your Head · 10-23-2003, 04:06 PM

After careful review, they've decided that merely linking to another site that provides video or links to yet another site that may or may not provide video is simply too narrow.

It has been determined that since you are capable of purchasing a computer from any number of retailers and therefore are enabled with the ability to connect to the Internet and possibly register a domain name that you could conceivably put unlicensed video on in the future, and hence, if you are breathing you are liable to Acacia for patent infringement.

SetTheWorldonFire · 10-23-2003, 04:07 PM

I thought there was no double dipping

Amputate Your Head · 10-23-2003, 04:09 PM

i don't know anything about double dipping, but they've damn sure been dipping into the LSD when they sent me a letter.

triumph · 10-23-2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amputate Your Head
After careful review, they've decided that merely linking to another site that provides video or links to yet another site that may or may not provide video is simply too narrow.

It has been determined that since you are capable of purchasing a computer from any number of retailers and therefore are enabled with the ability to connect to the Internet and possibly register a domain name that you could conceivably put unlicensed video on in the future, and hence, if you are breathing you are liable to Acacia for patent infringement.

ACACIA = legal extortion

I think they have some balls, trying to sue everyone, and I also think someone big is backing them! I mean someone like microsoft, aol, etc...

Dawgy · 10-23-2003, 04:14 PM

considering some of the people in this industry,
im really surprised those guys are even still alive.

Dildozer · 10-23-2003, 04:21 PM

I'm curious if i'm gonna get the package, i'm in canada and i never touched video before hehehe

DiVo · 10-23-2003, 04:22 PM

I am no lawyer, but the Sony v. MPAA (aka Betamax Case) implemented a test that if there is significant non-infringing use then there is no censure.

Contributory infringement is not necessarily enough. With the DMCA, rules have changed a little in that there may or may not be recourse if it is easy to remove the infringing part of the program. This is where it gets really shady (i.e. grokster and other P2P cases).

I still cannot fathom how they could convince a judge that you can't link to third parties that may or may not infringe. Of course that is what they ruled in the 2600 case with the link to the DeCSS case.

I don't know if any of this changes anything. That is why there are judges and the appeals courts.

The central issue is always going to be that the patents ARE legal until they fail in court. All of these small but significant legal isuues would melt away if the patents were thrown out.

10-23-2003, 04:06 PM	#1
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	New interpretation of Acacia patents After careful review, they've decided that merely linking to another site that provides video or links to yet another site that may or may not provide video is simply too narrow. It has been determined that since you are capable of purchasing a computer from any number of retailers and therefore are enabled with the ability to connect to the Internet and possibly register a domain name that you could conceivably put unlicensed video on in the future, and hence, if you are breathing you are liable to Acacia for patent infringement. __________________ SIG TOO BIG

10-23-2003, 04:07 PM	#2
SetTheWorldonFire Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: California Posts: 7,444	I thought there was no double dipping __________________ www.STWOFDesign.com hit me up on icq 154206276 or Skype: JaimeGizzle

10-23-2003, 04:09 PM	#3
Amputate Your Head There can be only one Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Somewhere else Posts: 39,075	i don't know anything about double dipping, but they've damn sure been dipping into the LSD when they sent me a letter. __________________ SIG TOO BIG

10-23-2003, 04:14 PM	#5
Dawgy Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 5,856	considering some of the people in this industry, im really surprised those guys are even still alive. __________________ the revolution is coming.

10-23-2003, 04:21 PM	#6
Dildozer Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Montreal Posts: 7,519	I'm curious if i'm gonna get the package, i'm in canada and i never touched video before hehehe __________________ Spam link here

10-23-2003, 04:22 PM	#7
DiVo Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 153	I am no lawyer, but the Sony v. MPAA (aka Betamax Case) implemented a test that if there is significant non-infringing use then there is no censure. Contributory infringement is not necessarily enough. With the DMCA, rules have changed a little in that there may or may not be recourse if it is easy to remove the infringing part of the program. This is where it gets really shady (i.e. grokster and other P2P cases). I still cannot fathom how they could convince a judge that you can't link to third parties that may or may not infringe. Of course that is what they ruled in the 2600 case with the link to the DeCSS case. I don't know if any of this changes anything. That is why there are judges and the appeals courts. The central issue is always going to be that the patents ARE legal until they fail in court. All of these small but significant legal isuues would melt away if the patents were thrown out.