Are You gonna be paying twice for the same thing? - GoFuckYourself.com

Bambi911xx · 10-29-2003, 10:45 PM

"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 · 10-30-2003, 12:19 AM

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 · 10-30-2003, 12:21 AM

Jesus Christ it just keeps getting better.

Bambi911xx · 10-30-2003, 12:22 AM

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

Bambi911xx · 10-30-2003, 12:50 AM

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 · 10-30-2003, 12:51 AM

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

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

Mr.Fiction · 10-30-2003, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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 ? ;-)

1992?

Acacia should sue them!

twistyneck · 10-30-2003, 12:53 AM

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

Bambi911xx · 10-30-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

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

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

Mr.Fiction · 10-30-2003, 12:58 AM

Quote:

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

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 · 10-30-2003, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

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 · 10-30-2003, 02:41 AM

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 · 10-30-2003, 08:18 AM

The plot thickens...
WG

10-29-2003, 10:45 PM	#1
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	Are You gonna be paying twice for the same thing? "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???

10-30-2003, 08:18 AM	#13
WiredGuy Pounding Googlebot Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 34,484	The plot thickens... WG __________________ I play with Google.

10-30-2003, 12:19 AM	#2
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	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?

10-30-2003, 12:21 AM	#3
twistyneck So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hanging by the neck until dead. Posts: 4,660	Jesus Christ it just keeps getting better.

10-30-2003, 12:22 AM	#4
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	Yeah the patent office is full of twits if you ask me!

10-30-2003, 12:50 AM	#5
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	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 ? ;-)

10-30-2003, 12:51 AM	#6
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	oppps sorry for got the link to the quote I quoted them on http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-996442.html

10-30-2003, 12:53 AM	#8
twistyneck So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hanging by the neck until dead. Posts: 4,660	Then it would seem that Acacia and these guys have more or less the exact same patent. wtf?

10-30-2003, 02:41 AM	#12
Bambi911xx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: upstate ny Posts: 157	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.