Acacia Showdown at the Patent Corral

[FightThisPatent]

The Markman Hearing that was heard to not be happening or not of any significance is being held:


February 6, 2004
10:00 am
Court Room 9A
Judge James Ware



Location

Southern Division:

Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse
411 West 4th Street
Santa Ana, California 92701


It's open to the public. I won't get to be there, but I will some sources providing me with observations of the events.


Markman Hearing Primer:
http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/PreMarkman.html


-brandon
www.FightThePatent.com

[raceman]

msg me I have something interesting ICQ 117151486

RACEMAN

[FightThisPatent]

The outcome of the Markman Hearing will be for the judge to get final definitions on the words and claims used by Acacia.

Best case for Acacia, the judge agrees with their terms that the patent applies to the internet, and the court case starts with providing prior art, etc.

Best case for defendants, judge rules that the claims don't apply to internet video, then move to summary judgement or something like that.


The markman hearing could last a couple months.. who knows what fireworks may be fired off, but you can be sure that i will be reporting it!


Fight the Fuse!

[rebel23]

>Judge James Ware

didnt he do the MS case? where i have heard his name..

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by rebel23
>Judge James Ware

didnt he do the MS case? where i have heard his name..

I think he is the judge that handled the sex.com domain hijaacking case.



Fight the Cohen!

[Paul Markham]

Strange how this has lost everyones interest.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by charly
Strange how this has lost everyones interest.

People are reading the thread, just not posting.. since there isn't much to say except "go defendants"....



Fight the Lurkers!

[raceman]

I'll bump it ...........

btw great chatting to youtoday brand0n





Lots of good stuff

[twistyneck]

Thanks for the update.

[p1mpdogg]

Originally posted by charly
Strange how this has lost everyones interest.

eat shit you dumbass.

Acacia rocks!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by raceman
btw great chatting to youtoday brand0n

brand0n is another board poster.

i'm brandon (without the zero for the o)






Fight the Confusion!

[WebDork]

Go defendants. Glad someone is out there putting their balls and $$$ on the line.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by p1mpdogg


eat shit you dumbass.

Acacia rocks!

Hope you time your sell order before everyone else dumps the stock on bad news.

Do you want me to give you advance notice before i post any info i get starting tomorrow on the case?


sike



Fight the Grade Skool!

[JDog]

Hmm, that's right next to me! I could go tell them to go fuck em selves in the ass!

jDoG

[pussyluver]

Thanks Brandon for all you've done.

Ignore pimpdog, he's prolly drinking.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by JDog
Hmm, that's right next to me! I could go tell them to go fuck em selves in the ass!

jDoG

I believe there will be some media there tomorrow.. you could run around with a GFY t-shirt and yell out 'Acacia Sux' ... maybe you'll get your 15 minutes of fame in this Acacia Saga story




Fight the 14:59!

[crockett]

good luck at the hearing

[pussyluver]

Better yet, have them served with a suit at the hearing. I've seen that done.

[Hooper]

Originally posted by p1mpdogg


eat shit you dumbass.

Acacia rocks!

gona give walmart legal, mcdonalds legal, 7-11 legal, mercedes legal and write a long letter to the ftc about your thieiving cigarette sales scam.

wannabe.

[venturi]

Food for thought...

The Milking Machine.
Some entity obviously owns the patent on the technology/machinery used for mechanically milking cows, right?
And manufacturers of milking machines likely have to pay a royalty to that entity.
But, do farmers have to pay the patent owner to USE these machines? NO.

And this is where ACACIA is fucked in the head, IMO. I as a content producer (hypothetically speaking) USE software to create streaming video; software I purchased from a vendor/manufacturer who in their product utilizes the technology in the patent. Using the Milking Machine scenario applied to this it would seem obvious to me that the companies that build software/hardware to create tools to stream video are liable to the patent royalties, but I as merely a consumer of said products am not.

[digifan]

Yes, go defendants!

[Raven]

Originally posted by venturi
Food for thought...

The Milking Machine.
Some entity obviously owns the patent on the technology/machinery used for mechanically milking cows, right?
And manufacturers of milking machines likely have to pay a royalty to that entity.
But, do farmers have to pay the patent owner to USE these machines? NO.

And this is where ACACIA is fucked in the head, IMO. I as a content producer (hypothetically speaking) USE software to create streaming video; software I purchased from a vendor/manufacturer who in their product utilizes the technology in the patent. Using the Milking Machine scenario applied to this it would seem obvious to me that the companies that build software/hardware to create tools to stream video are liable to the patent royalties, but I as merely a consumer of said products am not.

So, if Acacia does actually have the patent and it's upheld, then the software manufacturers are the ones who pay for the license, which then gets added to our cost of using said software. That makes sense to me.

Dear FTP, is there anything you DONT fight?

Fight the Fuse!
Fight the Cohen!
Fight the Lurkers!
Fight the Confusion!
Fight the Grade Skool!
Fight the 14:59!

[pornkitten]

This is lame, who the hell wants wants to give away more money? All the people who say Acacia is so great, so if I buy a patent for something you own tomarrow and tell you that you owe me 10% of your money you will give it to me just like that? Um.. okay. I all for NOT paying more.

[Rorschach]

Bump for hopefully fucking Acacia in the ass.

[venturi]

Originally posted by Raven


So, if Acacia does actually have the patent and it's upheld, then the software manufacturers are the ones who pay for the license, which then gets added to our cost of using said software. That makes sense to me.

Yup, pretty much. IF the application of the patent to the Internet is upheld, and I have my doubts it will, then yes the manufacturers of software that utilizes the patent should be the ones held liable for royalties. And as with all other similar situations we the consumer will be passed on that royalty fee in the cost of consumption of the end product. But, the cost to us each would be diluted by the sheer numbers of end users/consumers.

Fight the Trickle Down! (Sorry, Brandon, I couldn't resist)

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by bdjuf
Dear FTP, is there anything you DONT fight?

I don't fight for luv.


Fight the Time-You-Took-To-Copy-Every-Tagline!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Raven


So, if Acacia does actually have the patent and it's upheld, then the software manufacturers are the ones who pay for the license, which then gets added to our cost of using said software. That makes sense to me.

If the court finds the defendants to be infringing upon the patent (and assuming you have your umbrella out when the pigs start flying and dropping sh*t) , it would not make the software companies responsible for licensing the patent.


Software developers make the technology that this DMT patent requires. Any single piece of the process like the encoding or the streaming server, etc.. is not infringing.

The person that infringes is the one that takes content and uses technology and a network (ie. internet) to distribute that digital file to others (ie. webmasters).


It just so happens that all the major players that make software also use their own technology with serving up content, so in a round about way, the big software players would have to pay a license for the content they stream.


It is possible that the judge could rule that the terms used in the patent like "remote locations" and "storage library" are transferrable to the internet. This "victory" for Acacia is not bad news, it just means the judge has set a standard for what the words and definitions of the claims mean.

The next step would be to go to court and start presenting arguments and prior art.

If the judge rules that the words and definitions used by Acacia do not apply to the internet, then it would be a major blow to Acacia...since the defendants will most likely ask for a Summary Judgement hearing, and they go to court to get the non-infringing verdict.

A non-infringing verdict could mean that all websites that use audio/video would be free from Acacia, but cable/satellite would still have to deal with them.

And don't forget, that USA Video is out there eyeing all those that signed with Acacia.....

And lastly, let's not forget the companies that signed with Acacia.. it remains a curious point that when there is a non-infringement verdict, if they have to CONTINUE to pay the license, unless they breach contract and they have to go to court INDIVIDUALLY to get out of the contract.

There won't be a Fight the Legally Binding Agreement despite the patent found not to be applicalbe to the internet . com for those folks.



Fight the Long Posts!

[JunkyardDog]

As long as they are reading and supporting the IMPA then thats a good start.

[Raven]

Thanks for the explanation, FTP.....

As a writer, I appreciate long posts.

[Mr.Fiction]

Good luck to all the anti-Acacia lawyers!

[com]

fight the power!

[FightThisPatent]

AVN summary of events leading up today:

http://www.avnonline.com/issues/2004...020504_6.shtml




Fight the Patent-Ya-Babeeee!

[fuckerWAD]

Originally posted by Raven


So, if Acacia does actually have the patent and it's upheld, then the software manufacturers are the ones who pay for the license, which then gets added to our cost of using said software. That makes sense to me.

This is where I think the problem will be addressed. They will not win today. Real, Quicktime, and Microsoft are the ones that will have to pay. They are the ones that stream the data, in other words the software does the work, not the data. The data just sits there unless it is told what to do. The data is the content... the poke flicks.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by fuckerWAD


Real, Quicktime, and Microsoft are the ones that will have to pay. They are the ones that stream the data, in other words the software does the work, not the data. The

yes, but data (content) is part of the process... so those companies don't infringe on the patent.. until they themselves apply content to their delivery mechanism (which they do).

And don't forget that this isn't just about streaming servers, an Apache HTTP server can deliver digital content, but Apache software is not infringing the patent.. it's the webmaster who uses Apache with digital A/V content.



Fight the Problems!

[FightThisPatent]

NPR ran radio story this morning about Acacia.

Spike and Berman interviewed:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1647730


Mainstream is now very aware of this case.


Fight the Gagging when listening to Berman!

[KraZ]

Good luck!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
NPR ran radio story this morning about Acacia.

Spike and Berman interviewed:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1647730

A quote from Berman from the NPR interview:

"We do believe that these patents are broad and are being widely infringed, and are strategy is, to frankly, dip our beak and just take a little bit of money from a lot of people and we would be prefectly satisfied."


Dip our beak?







Fight the Hysteria!

[FightThisPatent]

http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/AcaciaSaga.html


This will be a running article... archiving all events related to the courtcase.. so for those interested, bookmark the article and you won't have to wade through the dribble to get to the drabble.

I'll try to update the thread with major news.. but first updates are done to the article.


Fight the Bookmarking!

[FightThisPatent]

As was posted in another thread... it is funny that NPR is streaming the audio story.. i wonder if they realize they are now infringing upon Acacia's Patent claims.







Fight the Irony!

[dig420]

Originally posted by p1mpdogg


eat shit you dumbass.

Acacia rocks!

wooooo boy.... throwing business out the window with both hands eh?

no traffic for you!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by dig420


no traffic for you!

traffic nazi




Fight the Seinfeld Spoof!

[MasterBlogger]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
The Markman Hearing that was heard to not be happening or not of any significance is being held:


February 6, 2004
10:00 am
Court Room 9A
Judge James Ware



Location

Southern Division:

Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse
411 West 4th Street
Santa Ana, California 92701


It's open to the public. I won't get to be there, but I will some sources providing me with observations of the events.


Markman Hearing Primer:
http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/PreMarkman.html


-brandon
www.FightThePatent.com

I will not report to Acacia.

Bow to the power of Brandon. : )

[rockbear]

Paul you can be sure that everybody here read your post about Acacia and are with you in this case. Keep your good work man.

I know a lot of webmaster who read your threads here about Acacia. Like Fight the patent told you they don't post but read for sure.

Paul & Fight the Patent

[FightThisPatent]

InternetNews.com covers the hearing:
http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/3309511


No updates from the courtroom yet.


Fight the Waiting!

[dig420]

Originally posted by MasterBlogger


I will not report to Acacia.

Bow to the power of Brandon. : )

shut your nasty fucking mouth, pedo

nobody wants your compliments

[Jeremiad]

I still think patents shouldn't be allowed without a working product to support it. Even if it is still in the development process, a patent should require at least a rough example or proof of an attempt at the development of the intended idea.

The US Patent Office is just another example of how money makes more money. All I need to do is document the principles behind how something works (like breathing, for example), spend the money to patent the technology, and every person in the world would owe me for the air they breathe. This is an exaggeration, of course, but it still stands true.

Acacia documented the ideas for delivering motion video and sound and patented it, and then waited for others to develop it. Isn't it ironic that RCA hasn't been sued by Acacia for inventing the television? I can still "download" or "stream" video onto my television, but apparently that doesn't count?

Acacia can kiss my ass. They served me with a "Final Letter" (which also happened to be their first correspondence) with regard to a domain that I am not the registered owner of, to offer me a settlement of a percentage of my profit, or $1500/year, whichever was more. The only way that they could have associated me with that domain is by contact with one of the affiliate programs that I promote on that particular domain. Money (or intimidation) talks, huh?

I didn't even bother to answer them. Go ahead and sue. They can spend the money to hire a lawyer here, pay for the process server, and attempt to identify me as being the person that they seem to think I am.

Sadly, they are still making shitloads of cash from the people that would rather pay out than fight, and for that, their plan has worked.

Who says you actually have to "work" for a living?

Jere.

[Houdini]

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but those involved might want to check the International Standards Organization. They're responsible for creating the OSI model in 1984, which established the standard on how data is transfered through a network. Everything, whether it be text, video, audio is all transfered the exact same way, there's no differentiation in the way data is transmitted. If Acacia claims they own the patent to video streaming, then that also means they're claiming the patent to transmitting ANYTHING through a network, because all goes through the exact same process.

[Carrie]

All of these posts and nothing saying what happened today, what the judge said?? What the hell?
C'mon folks! GFY is better than CNN! Why aren't we on top of this?

[crockett]

so what happened?