Why dont we do this with Acacia? - GoFuckYourself.com

rebel23 · 11-12-2003, 07:12 PM

see article for context:
http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5106...l?tag=nefd_top

"A substantial outcry from a widespread segment of the affected industry has essentially raised a question of patentability with respect to the 906 patent claims," Stephen Kunin, the USPTO's deputy commissioner for patent examination policy, wrote in his order for re-examination. "This creates an extraordinary situation for which a director-ordered examination is an appropriate remedy."

rebel23 · 11-12-2003, 07:17 PM

another quote from the article:

"The thing that's exciting to me is that the (US)PTO sort of made the ruling on the basis of how much interest there is in this issue on the Internet," said Dale Dougherty, a vice president of online publishing and research at Sebastapol, Calif.-based publisher O'Reilly & Associates, who posted news of the USPTO's decision on the O'Reilly Web site. "And it seems that they felt they had to respond to it."

does this whole Acacia episode not constitute significant interest on the internet, worthy of a quick re-examination of their patent?

Theo · 11-12-2003, 07:20 PM

interesting for sure

Theo · 11-12-2003, 07:25 PM

i would like to see the opinion of impai on this one. What's the process for having a patent re-examined for validity?

rebel23 · 11-12-2003, 07:28 PM

there is more coverage here of that particular case:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33945.html

Granted, it's a high profile one, but so is this Acacia bullsh*t..

I just hope FTP/IMPA see the thread, I know people are bored with the whole Acacia issue at the moment

ravener · 11-12-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rebel23
another quote from the article:

"The thing that's exciting to me is that the (US)PTO sort of made the ruling on the basis of how much interest there is in this issue on the Internet," said Dale Dougherty, a vice president of online publishing and research at Sebastapol, Calif.-based publisher O'Reilly & Associates, who posted news of the USPTO's decision on the O'Reilly Web site. "And it seems that they felt they had to respond to it."

does this whole Acacia episode not constitute significant interest on the internet, worthy of a quick re-examination of their patent?

What you are missing is that the target of the Eolas patent is the sacred cow of the Western World --- Microsoft. If the adult industry has 1/100th of the lobbying power in Washington that MSFT does, we'd have the USPTO all over Acacia as well.

Until Acacia goes after Microsoft, Apple, and AOL, I wouldn't count on much help from the same dick faces that approved the patent in the first place.

rebel23 · 11-12-2003, 07:33 PM

ravener, I suppose you're right.. and TBL is also a rather high profile figure.. but still, I wish these bigger companies would wake up because if Acacia gets away with what they're doing to the adult industry then they're certainly next...

hottoddy · 11-12-2003, 07:36 PM

Mechanism for invalidating a patent.

35 U.S.C. Section 301
35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art.

Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.

ravener · 11-12-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hottoddy
Mechanism for invalidating a patent.

35 U.S.C. Section 301
35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art.

Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.

<i>the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent.</i>

So what good does that do? Sounds like more paperwork for the sake of more paperwork. What am I missing here?

FightThisPatent · 11-12-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rebel23
I just hope FTP/IMPA see the thread, I know people are bored with the whole Acacia issue at the moment

Ya, i have been tracking those stories... the problem is not the $1,000 filing fee, the problem is having the money to pay for patent attornies to gather and present prior art to the examiners.

The usual hold time is 3-6 months from the filing of a petition request... this Eolas case got turned around in 1 week to get the USPTO to look at it... due to public outcry.

Yes, public outcry does work... some great folks have volunteered their time and efforts to FTP to write up PR statements that we are going to be targeting mainstream to get attention to the issue very soon.

Press Release is written and is in final edits.... hopefully with all the recent news about various patent cases, that media outlets will be more tuned to running more stories about patents.

So where's the money to fund a re-examination request?

-The Defendant's money are all tied up in their litigation.

-IMPA doesn't have the money since webmasters are not flocking to join and support...

-Fight the Patent Foundation is but an abstract idea (as evident by the pledge count)

-I have only just begun studying Patent Law in my goals to take the Patent Exam so that I can participate directly with USPTO in invalidating patents....

I think it's great that more and more webmasters are:

1) learning about Acacia
2) taking it seriously
3) paying attention

My motto for FightThePatent.com is:

Get informed, Get Mad, Get Active. Fight the Patent!

I think we have the "get informed" part covered with all my posts and all the other webmasters contributing their thoughts.

Given the colorful language used in posts, i know the "get mad" part is there...

So now we are left with "get active".... that means doing something.. not talking about it.

You have 4 choices:

1) give to the Defense Fund to help the defendants pay the attorney bills

2) become a member of IMPA

3) pledge to Fight the Patent Foundation and if enough webmasters pledge to reach the goal, then you will see some action.

4) do nothing

Fight the Number 4!

rebel23 · 11-12-2003, 08:29 PM

you're doing a good job dude

awareness is certainly growing, I just wish the Patent office would take an interest!

FightThisPatent · 11-12-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rebel23
awareness is certainly growing, I just wish the Patent office would take an interest!

But who is going to provide the USPTO with the new prior art?

They don't just got out hunting themselves.. you have to lay it out for them.

You have to go to them with prior art that was not brought up before and help argue the points to invalidate the patent.

This takes patent attorneys and prior art.

The defendants have prior art for their cases...and i have found some as well..

If they shoot you down, it gets harder to keep going back and getting their attention....they are already swamped with patent-pending cases and other re-examination requests.. you really need to have everything airtight to take the best swing at it.

Fight the Queue!

mardigras · 11-12-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rebel23

does this whole Acacia episode not constitute significant interest on the internet, worthy of a quick re-examination of their patent?

It reminds me of a few years ago when someone tried to claim a patent on .gif images.

hyper · 11-12-2003, 08:58 PM

there are other ways to invalidate the patent
which i have revealed to a few

its only a matter of time

FightThisPatent · 11-12-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mardigras

It reminds me of a few years ago when someone tried to claim a patent on .gif images.

It wasn't a claim, it was an actual patent for the .GIF format.

Unisys had the patent and was going after companies that had software that wrote the GIF format (pronounced like JIF).

The patent expired in July of this year.

Part 2 is a company called Forgent that has the patent claims JPEG....

Fight the Pronustications!

FightThisPatent · 11-12-2003, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hyper
there are other ways to invalidate the patent

There is one other way...... it's widely used by those in Delusion Land...it's actually ripped off from nature...... stick ones head in the sand... invalidates patents!

Also great for facials..the sand exfoliates as you stick your head in the sand and then again, but pulling out of the sand.

Fight the Ostrich!

Kick Ass Chat · 11-13-2003, 01:57 AM

Interresting reading

FightThisPatent · 11-13-2003, 08:07 AM

FightThisPatent · 11-13-2003, 03:23 PM

Mainstream is not immune to Acacia... OnCommand.com got hit with a lawsuit and several universities have been sent infringement notices.

This should open up new fronts on the defense against the (bogus) patent claims.

Been busy with phone calls and research.... breaking news will be posted to keep all informed..

In the meantime, webmasters should be thinking how are they going to stand and fight acacia or when are they going to start writing licensing checks.

Fight the indecisions!

Paul Markham · 11-15-2003, 08:45 AM

The time has come to stop talking and start fighting. We need to raise money to help the defense, to get the patent invalidated and prior art research.

Money is all this game is about, Berman has said how many times, "Cheaper to settle than pay"

And if you are waiting for the day when Acacia will serve Microsoft you are fooling yourselves. In the real world a bully does not take on an army when he is ripping off weaklings.

nightcrawler177 · 11-16-2003, 02:06 AM

11-12-2003, 07:12 PM	#1
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	Why dont we do this with Acacia? see article for context: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5106...l?tag=nefd_top "A substantial outcry from a widespread segment of the affected industry has essentially raised a question of patentability with respect to the 906 patent claims," Stephen Kunin, the USPTO's deputy commissioner for patent examination policy, wrote in his order for re-examination. "This creates an extraordinary situation for which a director-ordered examination is an appropriate remedy."

11-12-2003, 08:58 PM	#14
hyper Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mass Ass Posts: 5,294	there are other ways to invalidate the patent which i have revealed to a few its only a matter of time __________________

11-13-2003, 08:07 AM	#18
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	__________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

11-13-2003, 03:23 PM	#19
FightThisPatent Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 4,090	Mainstream is not immune to Acacia... OnCommand.com got hit with a lawsuit and several universities have been sent infringement notices. This should open up new fronts on the defense against the (bogus) patent claims. Been busy with phone calls and research.... breaking news will be posted to keep all informed.. In the meantime, webmasters should be thinking how are they going to stand and fight acacia or when are they going to start writing licensing checks. Fight the indecisions! __________________ http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! \| http://www.FightThePatent.com \| ICQ 52741957

11-15-2003, 08:45 AM	#20
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	The time has come to stop talking and start fighting. We need to raise money to help the defense, to get the patent invalidated and prior art research. Money is all this game is about, Berman has said how many times, "Cheaper to settle than pay" And if you are waiting for the day when Acacia will serve Microsoft you are fooling yourselves. In the real world a bully does not take on an army when he is ripping off weaklings. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

11-12-2003, 07:17 PM	#2
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	another quote from the article: "The thing that's exciting to me is that the (US)PTO sort of made the ruling on the basis of how much interest there is in this issue on the Internet," said Dale Dougherty, a vice president of online publishing and research at Sebastapol, Calif.-based publisher O'Reilly & Associates, who posted news of the USPTO's decision on the O'Reilly Web site. "And it seems that they felt they had to respond to it." does this whole Acacia episode not constitute significant interest on the internet, worthy of a quick re-examination of their patent?

11-12-2003, 07:20 PM	#3
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	interesting for sure

11-12-2003, 07:25 PM	#4
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	i would like to see the opinion of impai on this one. What's the process for having a patent re-examined for validity?

11-12-2003, 07:28 PM	#5
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	there is more coverage here of that particular case: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33945.html Granted, it's a high profile one, but so is this Acacia bullsh*t.. I just hope FTP/IMPA see the thread, I know people are bored with the whole Acacia issue at the moment

11-12-2003, 07:33 PM	#7
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	ravener, I suppose you're right.. and TBL is also a rather high profile figure.. but still, I wish these bigger companies would wake up because if Acacia gets away with what they're doing to the adult industry then they're certainly next...

11-12-2003, 07:36 PM	#8
hottoddy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: PacNorWest Posts: 3,048	Mechanism for invalidating a patent. 35 U.S.C. Section 301 35 U.S.C. 301 Citation of prior art. Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential.

11-12-2003, 08:29 PM	#11
rebel23 Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 817	you're doing a good job dude awareness is certainly growing, I just wish the Patent office would take an interest!

11-13-2003, 01:57 AM	#17
Kick Ass Chat Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 2,057	Interresting reading

11-16-2003, 02:06 AM	#21
nightcrawler177 Registered User Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 13	bump __________________ NightCrawler177