Acacia's 'patent' is against U.S law?
 

Im not clever with law - so your views eagerly awaited...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/102.html

Doesnt that apply here?

Now go prove it to a court without spending a million bucks :)

Where the real info counts is in the court room, and I am confident the defenses raised will change patent law.

I don't think the "win" is gonna be this easy based on a statute.

I don't think that is the end to the whole deal, but it sure can't hurt....good find.:thumbsup

(f)

he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or

Media

Good find Simey! There's lots more in the law books but I've got too many crusades goin' and ACACIA isn't in my sights.

From the little I understand about ACACIA didn't they 'acquire' that technology/patent NOT invent it themselves?

So the questions arise, from WHOM did they acquire it. HOW did they acquire it? Was it a direct buyout? Creditor acquisition ( famous inventions often are the victim of 'creditor' acquisitions as for some strange reason an inventor can't get money to build something so he goes into debt, into bankruptcy and gets bought out by the same companies that told him there was no money for his invention ).

There's a loophole somewhere.

Of course you right when you say 'go proove it without spending millions' but if the fancy lawyers allready fighting it proove it, isnt that enough? Wont loosing so many cases either damage their financial ability to fight the cases or better still put them out of business?

Also:

They didnt - they just stole an idea.

Surely the law must count in the courts decision or am i being young and naive??

I have to ask - what's with all the :thumbsup and 'good find' stuff that appears in these threads? If the lawyers representing homegrown et al don't already know all this very basic stuff then they are in the shit anyway. I can understand how very obscure prior art stuff may be of use but not most of the stuff posted that people seem to think is the best thing since sliced bread - it should be common knowledge to anyone lawyer involved in this case (not aimed at the guy who started the thread)

If/when they prove it sure. Once they (Acacia) lose the first case they would have even less sense than they have now to continue to pursue it. However you still gotta spend a shit load of money proving it first time around even if the facts 'seem' pretty simple.

Very true..

I think their looking like chancers just hoping people wont fight them.

For good information - go to the DMoney site and run the last show & then tune in today for the Acacia side of the story.

What you think makes sense, isn't always the way a court see things. Sometimes Justice is blind :-) It all comes down to the facts presented to the court, and how they view them against case law.

They have still not had to explain explicitly how their patent affects the streaming technology we are using today. Until that phase - no one knows at this stage exactly what the details are, and how that might affect a 'prior art defense.

You're talking about a prior art defense. I imagine it is one of the possibilities being looked at by the lawyers in the serious defenses against Acacia.

Satelite image of mt pinatubo erupting

http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/rsd/images/Pinatubo.html

Satelites broadcasting images and video back to earth.. this image was taken from the geos satelite (image taken 15 June 1991 at 7:30 am local time)

I would think something like this has been going on for a long time.. How did we get video recoreded in the space shuttles broadcasted live as it happened? It was done with satelites, digital or radio signals.. Analog and digital are not too too far off..

Ask someone at nasa exactly how the technology worked.. Or look it up in puplic records.. Something.. Anything..

Media

taken from their SEC fillings:

Acacia Technologies group's digital media transmission patent portfolio expires in 2011 in the U.S. and in 2012 in international markets.

Heres a thaught: For those of us not earning huge amounts of money, surely all we have to do is to refuse to sign. Let them sue. It costs such a huge amount to defend ourselves. Either we win and dont have to pay or we loose and go under. Either way Acacia cant get their 5%. Proceding with litigation seems a bit pointless and they must know that.

My thoughts are with this line. Data compression and transmission was invented long before they applied for the patent.

Some more reading:

http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/testim...testimony.html

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2...ic=&topic_set=


Internet Media Protective Association should team up with League for Programming Freedom (LPF) since they're both in it for the same fight: http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/

Our representation is regarded as one of the best patent firms in the world.

Greg B, those are some excellent questions and I hope you will ask those in D$'s show today.

http://www.impai.org