GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Fucking Acacia (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=154050)

Flow 07-17-2003 10:13 PM
Fucking Acacia
 
Cocksuckers!

http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1026_...&subj=cnetnews

Paul Markham 07-17-2003 10:15 PM
This is going to be a long and hard fight. Just wondering if the adult Internet has the stomach for it.

KRL 07-17-2003 10:18 PM
The pockets of the adult industry aren't deep enough to go head on with these guys forever. Wait till he starts fucking with Bill Gate's and Paul Allen's pockets, then we'll see a fun showdown at the OK Coral.

:1orglaugh

Flow 07-17-2003 10:21 PM
The way I understand it, they will let you use their technology if you pay them a percentage of your revenues. How nice of them!

The scariest part of that article is the part that says "bariing them from....providing advertising links to any other such sites." So what, affliates will not be able to link back to their sponsors who are using this technology illegally?

Thank God I am a part-timer and don't need the porn money anymore.

Flow

Paul Markham 07-17-2003 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by KRL
The pockets of the adult industry aren't deep enough to go head on with these guys forever. Wait till he starts fucking with Bill Gate's and Paul Allen's pockets, then we'll see a fun showdown at the OK Coral.

:1orglaugh
And what if they do not bother? What if they just decide to stick to siphoning money from the Adult Net.

You said the Net was bigger than magazines, well let them try to go up against Larry Flynt or Paul Raymond. They will also get into trouble if they take on the Adult Video industry. They could just be starting and finishing with us because of our size.

We have to dig into our pockets and fight or we are going to find this happening again.

BRISK 07-17-2003 10:30 PM
Quote:
it became clear that Acacia's targets ultimately included the biggest Internet multimedia companies, cable giants, and Fortune 500 companies
Are these companies sleeping? They might want to get in on this now before Acacia gets a foothold. $1 million spent today is better than $100 million spent tomorrow.

Paul Markham 07-17-2003 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BRISK


Are these companies sleeping? They might want to get in on this now before Acacia gets a foothold. $1 million spent today is better than $100 million spent tomorrow.
Like they are going to say. "We intend to only pick off the little guys who can't fight back"

Do you think these Fortune 500 guys do not know about this yet? If they do and have not got into the fight, maybe there is a reason for that.

BRISK 07-17-2003 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by charly
Like they are going to say. "We intend to only pick off the little guys who can't fight back"

Do you think these Fortune 500 guys do not know about this yet? If they do and have not got into the fight, maybe there is a reason for that.
What good reason could there be to sit around and wait for Acacia to win judgements against small operators that didn't have the funds to defend themselves before coming after the real money?

Paul Markham 07-17-2003 11:00 PM
So you give me the reason, I'm not a US lawyer but it could be that they know this is not going to happen to them.

Do you think we would be scraping around for money if they thought for one minute there was a chance it would happen to them?

And don't come up with the "Being associated with porn" arguement. Enough mainstream companies have been brought into this.

How long do you think the legal heads of departmant of the Fortune 500 companies would last if they are sued and it was found they could of stopped this at the beginning?

Never assume because they wear a suit, they're idiots.

BRISK 07-17-2003 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by charly
So you give me the reason, I'm not a US lawyer but it could be that they know this is not going to happen to them.

Do you think we would be scraping around for money if they thought for one minute there was a chance it would happen to them?

And don't come up with the "Being associated with porn" arguement. Enough mainstream companies have been brought into this.

How long do you think the legal heads of departmant of the Fortune 500 companies would last if they are sued and it was found they could of stopped this at the beginning?

Never assume because they wear a suit, they're idiots.
When did I say they were idiots?

Mr.Fiction 07-17-2003 11:05 PM
Quote:
Yesterday, someone posted a link to an article titled: "Broad Patents on Streaming Media Upheld", which reported that Acacia had won a preliminary injuction against 5 companies as a result of default judgements entered against those companies for infringing on Acacia's patents.

There was much speculation on this and other boards. Some said "Acacia won round 1", others said, "A judgement is a judgement and this helps Acacia".

Let me take this opportunity to briefly discuss actual facts.

1. A judgement is not a judgement: The preliminary injunction, and the default judgements mean nothing. These judgements were entered against companies who never responded to the lawsuits. No evidence was heard or presented. In FACT, these judgements were NOT a ruling on the merits of the case by the district court judge, rather they are default judgements entered on the docket as an administrative action by a clerk of the court.

2. The defendants never showed up: That's right, they weren't even there. These judgements, and claims that they somehow uphold the patents, mean nothing. A good analogy would be when a boxer is ruled victorious because his opponent never showed up.

3. The 5 defendants could still fight: Yep, default judgement. Should these defendants change their minds and decide to fight, the judgements and injunction are typically removable as a matter of course.

As I said yesterday, the judgements against the 5 defendants and the preliminary injuction, neither hurt, nor strengthen our case. No evidence was heard, no evidence was presented. It was a non-event.

These judgements and preliminary injunction are along the lines of Acacia's apparent posturing to pick on little companies unable to defend themselves, even to the point of not being able to afford to file an answer.

The defense group, and The IMPA, remain committed in their beliefs that the patents are NOT valid, and we will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, our business, and our industry, to prove our position in a court of law.

http://www.impai.org
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...postid=2044232

Paul Markham 07-17-2003 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BRISK


When did I say they were idiots?
You are right I appolagise. Should have said;

Don't assume they don't know what they're doing.

Hooper 07-17-2003 11:23 PM
Whoever posted this is a fuckin moron.

Default judgements mean nothing. All it means is that those companies were likely waiting til they *really* got pressed to either settle or fight.

I did notice that lace was listed on there.. which was a bit odd. Perhaps david lace is giving up on the adult net?

Not responding to a lawsuit is a poor strategy.

BRISK 07-17-2003 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Hooper
Whoever posted this is a fuckin moron.

Default judgements mean nothing. All it means is that those companies were likely waiting til they *really* got pressed to either settle or fight.

I did notice that lace was listed on there.. which was a bit odd. Perhaps david lace is giving up on the adult net?

Not responding to a lawsuit is a poor strategy.
Why is he a moron for posting this? I appreciate being kept up to date on whats going on.

Overreact much?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123