Consider two things:

1. IMPA has already filed a counter suit against Acasia. There is a link to it somewhere in all this discussion.

2. Since your proposed suit does not go after the patent at all..... you are in essense saying :yes, Acasia has a patent, but it doesn't apply to us? That is not the main message.

I realize you all feel 'out of the loop, because you have jumped on the bandwagon months after things have been going on. It would be a good idea if JMM would come to the board once again and give you an update - in detail - what has been going and and WHEN. They have been doing it as they have went along, but it has not gained your attention. NOW would be a good time for a detailed update!

My thoughts exactly......Anyone want to start a website and put up some cash to collectively fight this bullshit....We all worked hard to get what we have....All I can say is typical legal fucks hard at work trying to take OUR money. I won't have time to read this whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating what has already been said, sorry. Collectively we can ALL fight this, I would hope.

I will contact my legal reps and see what they have to say...:2 cents:

:thumbsup

I don't have a TGP myself but i think your on the right path..... post the donate paypal addy.

Piling in with the people already fighting this does seem to be the best scenario.

They already have the top patent firm in the country on this. F&R already knows this patent inside and out and has a ton of work already done. Starting with someone else seems...less than optimal.

Dividing the industry even more into "small time people" vs "big time people" vs "Acacia" doesn't sound like a good idea.

Pool the resources and get it taken care of once and for all.

There has to be a way for the free site guys to pool with the D11 (or whatever they're called), help them fight the patent itself while also getting the advice they need to deal with these letters, and not spending extraneous money on things that don't concern them right now.

Or maybe not. Don't know. Seems like with all this money that's flying around and a single common enemy it should be possible without fragmenting even more and playing even more into Acacia's hands.

i think the message would be: whatever patent your claiming applies to us, by your own definition of what is covered doesn't apply.

why not get a high-end patent attorney with a lot of juice rather than an internet attorney? this is more a patent issue than an internet issue - after all, acacia is going after cable tv stations, too.

it seems to me it might be a good idea to get a second suit against acacia going - besides, the second attorney might have an entirely different approach.

I certainly hope Choker works out something with the existing defense group, Acacia probably saw from the git'go that this industry was balkanized to the extend it couldn't make a united stand against it and that's why it focused on us first.

My take on this is that Acacia is just one of many threats to the open standards we've benefited from on the Web. There'll be others down the road and there others that are watching right now to see exactly how we respond before they move in with their claims to a peice of the pie.

Remember, the saying is not "there are good reasons to split up at times", it's

"United we stand, divided we fall".

I'm waiting on HG to post so I can call him. I still think the idea of a class action lawsuit for harassment and extortion is the best route to go for TGPers. 500 webmasters at $100 each would be $50k. That should be enough. Someone mentioned that rarely does the winner in a lawsuit like this get attorneys cost from the looser. Well in a lawsuit you have to sue for money. Why not sue for our attorney costs plus a little more. Whatever more we get put towards further defense? If we loose the case do we really loose it?

I see all these posts "Acacia suck me" "Acacia fuck off" etc. Well if you really want to get that message to Acacia, a class Action lawsuit would do it pretty damned good IMO.

well ... harrassment could be a relative term. extortion would probably have to be proved. all they've REALLY done so far is sent out information packets "requesting" you to sign.

it WOULD however be good to get a legal opinion on the matter for IF and/or WHEN people start getting socked with legal action. that way everyone has a good idea of what is involved, what legal recourse is available and what it'll cost. ya never know --if it's the IMPA bunch: they may be able to say flat out -> it's bullshit. it may also add a little fuel to their fire about what acacia is claiming and then re-claiming for the scope of their patent.

Interesting

I am not sure about "harassment" but extortion is a felonious crime. Pick up the telephone and call any criminal attorney...read the contents of the Acacia letter and he will tell you if they may be committing "extortion" and/or "harrassment".

I have read the content of the letter sent out by Acacia and it does not appear to constitute "harrasment" and/or "extortion"...to this laymen.

If we won a extortion lawsuit, it would be a big defeat for Acacia. First it would show everyone that porn sites can defeat Acacia.
It would also give others fighting the patent ammo, Acacia would be guilty of using extortion in order to enforce what they believe is a valid patent.

If we lost a extortion lawsuit, we show the world that we will fight back. Acacia would not have any new ammo. All they would be able to say is that their letter and tactics were not considered extortion.

Either way a lawsuit like this would not be the end of the Acacia fight. But we have to start somewhere.

choker, call JMM This is too important for you not to.


from JMM's post,
"If anyone would like to talk to me about this, feel free to call my cell phone at 909-232-3396 and I will be happy to explain why we NEED your support, we need your $$$, but we DONT need yet ANOTHER organization."

No it would be pointless IMO if someone believes they have a legitimate legal claim against you you can?t file a suit against them for attempting to collect on it. Well actually you can, but you would probably be laughed out of court. The only way you could prove a case like this would be to prove that their patent is invalid, and that they had knowledge that their patent was unenforceable against you under any legal theory. The best way for you to make a difference is to do something that isn?t already being duplicated. Namely, hire a good reputable law firm to investigate if it is possible for them to enforce their patent against people that simply link to movie galleries. Then based upon that information you can make an informed decision as to where you want to go next.

Firstly I'd like to say that I'm following this thread and its progress and i'll be in touch as things begin to develop further

now onto other things
I've been searching for legal presidence in regards to linking laws pertaining to PATENTS. I've only found one so far and it deals with a hyperlinking patent that in no way is similar to our needs
(it describes a system in which multiple users, located at remote terminals, can access data stored at a central computer. The data is received by the remote terminals via the telephone lines)

however while reading, I found that it gives an excellent description of how they determine 'infringement':
Now am I being blonde here or does Acacia hold a patent on hyperlinking one site to another?
Not that I know of and if thats the case, how can any linkers be infringing??
My take on this subject: You can only infringe on a patent itself, you cannot infringe by way of "offering access to" .. unless your patent is FOR 'offering access to'. Their patents are for the 'process of', and do not cover 'access to, via a hyperlink', therefore no infringement.

Moving along, in reguards to hyperlinking lawsuits, so far I've found them dealing with copyright, trademarks, and first amendment types only

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html
""Deep linking has an official seal of approval now that U.S. District Judge Harry Hupp has ruled that websites can legally provide links to any pages on all other sites.""

Deep linking is different from what we are doing
deep linking = linking to specific areas of a website that is copyrighted, without the copyright owners permission
affiliate linking = linking to specific galleries or sponsor programs with their full cooperation, encouragement and knowledge to the extent that they've given us user names and passwords as permission

If deep linking has been ruled as legal ... well you see the picture :)

here is a link if you guys want to research a bit
http://www.linksandlaw.com/courtdecisions-usa.htm

So what if they have an illegitamate claim as if they send a letter to me in Canada were there is no patent?

holy cow after rereading that *I* hardly understood what I was saying! lol

anyway, long story short, they do not hold a patent on hyperlinking to their device

We all know its absurd but the fact remains (as choker mentions) that many have received these letters.
I'll back a group that takes acacia to task on this but i'm hoping we can consolidate the efforts with the D11 gang

if the acacia patent was to be considered legit, still it is up to a court or representatives of a court to determine exactly what the patent did or didn't cover. acacia's claim is their patent is EXTREMELY broad, covering everything vaguely relating to streaming.

if their patents were upheld fully, they would not be guilty of extortion, nor is one letter harrassment.

showing the powers that be that the patents cannot exist in this wide a scope is very important, imo. having those patents either discredited, or more likely, fine-tuned so that there they cover clear smaller areas is the thing here as i see it.

the person to do this would be a patent attorney. and there is no reason a second organization of webmasters cannot work with the first (impa). but if they were to do so, maybe they would all need a say on what attorney, what publicist, and what tack would be taken.

impa is doing great work as far as i know, but the point is that i don't know that far. is the attorney they have chosen the best for this case? does he have extreme knowledge of patents and how they work, with strong secondary knowledge of the internet? what is his experience in these areas? same question about the publicist - i haven't seen much about this fight, and i've read about publicists that really get things noticed.

seems like this would be good stuff to know before deciding whether you want to support an org with a program of action in this area.

I think that Chokers idea is better for the small webmaster, for a donation with IMPA you get access to their website, for a class-action suit you could end up getting $$$ from Acadia.

It is a different claim. The claim as I see it is (You the linker are inducing the direct infringer (the sponsor) to infringe. The inducement to infringe is a different legal theory than direct infringement. As I explained in another thread, I don?t think the linking case is that relevant for a couple of reasons 1. That cased didn?t deal with patent law 2. It was dealing with a different type of relationship between the linker and linkee.

You would have to prove 1. Their claim was indeed a bogus claim. 2. That one letter is actionable harassment in your jurisdiction. 3. That you suffered some sort of harm as the result of the harassment. If you throw the letter in the trash can and never hear from them again you haven?t suffered any harm legally speaking.

Great post Vicki. Yes Ithink the TGPers first priority should be in fighting the claim that they are in violation for mere hyperlinking. We should work with IMPA. I'm trying to get ahold of HG now. Some other ideas guys have thrown at me...

Getting template responses to the letters together so guys can respond to them.

If it comes to Acacia actually filing the lawsuits, getting all the required documents together for guys to use.

Making up detailed recommended course of action for guys being sued.

Setting up a attorney advice BBS for paying members of this "group". Part of the problem is not knowing what is what. If we went to a monthly membership thing, have a attorney answer unlimted questions from the paying members.

Choker: i didn't say not to file anything. i simply said talking with an attorney would be a good idea. but from everything i've seen so far, those "information packets" probably wouldn't be called extortion. to file suit just on the information packet you would have to prove extortion.

but --if it comes down to acacia calling "linking" to either a site providing so called "patent infringing" materials, or linking to another site which in turn provides a link an "infringing activity" and wants a licensing fee is when it would be legal time. and it could be in the form of "joining in" with the IMPA action to invalidate the patent, or to get a specific ruling on the linking issue itself. there's lots of prior rulings concerning linkage to materials. a ruling of that sort in this specific instance would:

a) get TGP/List sites off the hook.
b) take a chunk out of what acacia is claiming their patent covers. it seems their patent has gone from the actual storage and transmission of some sort of content to now any method what-so-ever of somehow accessing that content. if it were approached legally just from the "linking and requiring a license fee to do so" point of view that WOULD take a little bite out of their bark.
c) teach `em don't fuck with Choker :1orglaugh

another thing to consider would be how does one determine who has licensed the alledged patented technology and who hasn't? how would a TGP/List owner ever know if they're unknowingly "encouraging patent infringing activities" if they don't have a list of sites/companies which signed and paid? they would have to make that list "public" ...

There is really not a lot a TGP can do other than arm themselves with knowledge. If you get the question answered about the linking then you have enough knowledge to make a decision Do I want to fight the validity of the patent itself or do I simply want to settle.

I agree with most of what you say, but I think it is important to make a distinction the claim isn?t linking is a violation of their patent the claim is (I believe) your inducing someone else (your sponser) to infringe by linking to their gallery.

Spike's number is 949-716-8080, if that helps.

actually --there's a third option: pull the plug. shut it down. i've been contemplating the fee structure and what it appears they're saying. just for providing "a link" to a site --i have to pay them 2% of gross/$1500 ?! how do i know "what" the sponsor site provides or what percentage of commisions are based on "streaming content"? or does that mean i need to sign up with Hustler and promote only them? sorry ... but IMO Hustler appears to be one of the companies that COULD have taken on this fight, HAD the resources AND the reputation to do it and they ... rolled over. and no offense to Hustler --y`all did what you thought was best ...

Yes, its comparing apples and oranges
but the point is that I've been able to find no legal presidence, and when there is no legal pres ... they use the closest ones they can find along with existing laws.

there are no laws pertaining to hyperlinking to a site that is under litigation for patent infringement, nor is there a law that says hyperlinking to a site that IS infringeing, is illegal.

how bizarre that they (acacia) would even tread uncharted waters
actually imho after the research and findings i've seen, I doubt they will *shrug*

I'm waiting on his call back now :thumbsup

Yeah, we can all agree that Acacia sucks hind tittie!

Unfortunately, patent law is one of the few areas where you have "reverse burden of proof". Basically, what that means is they don't have to prove you're infringing, just claim that you are, and then YOU have to prove that you AREN'T. Fucked up, I know, but that's how it works!

Wait, who is Spike? I called this number and left a message 909-232-3396 Isn;t this HG's number?

If HG = HomeGrown, Spike is who you want to talk with. If not, what does HG stand for?

Ahh, I see, that's JMMs number. DOH!

Try Spike's, he might be available and can speak for the defense team as well.

Hi Choker and all closely following this thread.

Granted I own a paysite but I would like to offer the following analogy:

This Acacia thing is just like buying a car in 1995 and having a company sue you 8 years later for the use of "bucket seats" in that car because they hold the patent. They could claim that you sat in a "bucket seat" while delivering pizza and made money from tips etc etc. In turn they could also sue the pizza chain for hiring people that had "bucket seats" in their cars to deliver.

Would it not make sense that all companies offering digital video transmission systems would license this technology so that the people using it would be free and clear of royalties?

I realize that many are thinking the same thing (albeit with different analogies) and that is why you are here and trying to organize. I see this as yet another very deliberate and concerted effort against the industry so our differences (between serving and linking) should probably take a back seat in order to overcome the overall onslaught. However, your effort.....your call.

If paysite people are welcome in this effort I will gladly participate and contribute.

http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...203/page2.html

According to Acacia statement free sites are not going after free sites

Under our current licensing model, free adult entertainment sites that do not have audio / video content and send traffic to affiliate programs do not need a license from Acacia. Even though these sites are potentially liable as indirect infringers (for sending users to sites that stream audio / video content using our patented process), we are licensing the owners of the affiliate programs for these infringing activities.

Now considering that Free sites are indeed getting these letters, this is sounding more and more like extortion to me.

Rob Berman: If a company contacted me alleging patent infringement, I would contact the company to find out exactly what I am doing to allegedly infringe the patent. Then I would determine if those acts are important to my business and what it would cost to stop the infringing activity.


Sounds like we all need to follow Acacias own advice on this. If we get a letter contact them and request in EXACT details how they think we are violating their patent.

Someone asking you for money that has what they believe to be a legal claim against you is not extortion.

choker - what acacia told me on the phone is that free sites linking to free sites ARE inducing... and thereby liable to pay their license fees.

After they publicly state they will not seek payment from me? Besides it would be up to a jury to decide if it is or not.

true enough, but it still seems to be that disproving the validity of this patent would be the best solution.

wasn't radio a streaming entertainment medium for 100 years before acacia?

Yes but on this interview he stated the opposite. Purposely trying to confuse the industry? Telling them first they are not included then later telling them they are? Trying to divide and confuse everyone until at last they are scared and confused so they just sign the deal? Sounds like extortion to me. One thing anyone can tell you that has been in a civil trial........ANYTHING is possible and things can swing in a different direction in a second.