Bambi911xx

"Video on demand isn't limited to box-office hits. Sports highlights, music videos and movie trailers are staples on numerous websites. Huffman said USA Video wants a licensing fee based on use, which means companies would pay it each time somebody watches a video clip"

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,55026,00.html

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought acacia has the patent for video clips???

Bambi911xx

USA Video also says

"I believe it is very important to our future
and to our shareholders. Because the patent covers video
transmitted via a telephone network, we believe it applies to
most, if not all, video carried on the Internet."

http://www2.cdn-news.com/scripts/ccn.../19/42814.html

MMMM Doesn't that sound like what someone else's claims their patent can do?

twistyneck

Jesus Christ it just keeps getting better.

Bambi911xx

Yeah the patent office is full of twits if you ask me!

Bambi911xx

Don't worry there's more!

"USA Video, a unit of USA Video Interactive, was awarded the patent, called "Store and Forward Video System," in July 1992; it broadly covers a method for Internet users to request and receive "a digitized video program for storage and viewing," according to the complaint. Movielink, which sells digital copies of films for download from its five partners including Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Viacom's Paramount Pictures, violates this patent on the basis of its service, the complaint says. "

Then you can check out movieink and see it's videoclips!

http://movielink.com/commerce/detail...id=&navCount=0

Kinda funny huh ? ;-)

Bambi911xx

oppps sorry for got the link to the quote I quoted them on

http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-996442.html

Mr.Fiction

1992?

Acacia should sue them!

twistyneck

Then it would seem that Acacia and these guys have more or less the exact same patent. wtf?

Bambi911xx

Thats the point!!! :-) Thats not legal is it?

Mr.Fiction

There are probably ten more patents out there covering the same thing.

They all cover something so obvious that it should not have been patentable in the first place.

Any idiot in 1975 knew that people would be watching video on computers in the future, why were these idiots allowed to patent it?

They are not claiming a specific technology, which might be acceptable, they are claiming the whole process of video over a computer network.

Why are people allowed to patent broad non-specific things like this in the first place?

Bambi911xx

Nice choice of words I like that word Obvious let's say it again ;-)

This is why I like that word so much in order to obtain a patent the patent can't be obvious ...read the last paragraph close,

"Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent


In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: ?(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 application for patent in the United States . . .?


If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it has been in public use or on sale in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.


Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable. "

That is what the USPTO says.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#whatpat

Bambi911xx

Oh an one more thing according to USPTO USVO filed first by a few days haha see:

Acacia Patent 5,132,992

says: July 21, 1992 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/5,132,992

USVO says: Patent 5,130,792 July 14, 1992

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/5130792

and they filed a year before acacia did.

WiredGuy

The plot thickens...
WG

__________________
I play with Google.