AOL Launched for Mac. in 1989... Prior Art???
 

The history of AOL

Aol launched it's Mac service in 1989 ( see timeline above )

Anyone remember the ANIMATED aol graphic back then?

Were they using "you've got mail" then? both are expamples of prior art for sending video and sound over the internet. I remember many animations on their early service.

Am I the only one?

Anyone have more input here?

Yea, but that was just a graphic - not video! Somebody owns the patent on that!

jDoG

AOL 1.0 had no animations. With the right account you can still access AOL 1.0 from a Keyword.

u elite aolers... i swear

Gif89 or animated graphics fall within the guidelines of their patent ( or so they say )

That is why FLI animations and others are examples of prior art.

Thought this might be a lead.. but maybe not.

I wasn't on AOL in the beginnings of it so wasn't sure.

And Qlink said "Let there be AOL!", and so it was.

Qlink is the bigger threat. :2 cents:

I think folks are getting carried away with things that are not germane to the patent. Animation is not video, just as Bart Simpson "Don't have a cow, man" Mac SND files or AOL's "You've got mail" sound bite are not digital audio in the way the patent seems to intend it.

If all these things people are coming up with now are truly prior art, then NASA's transmission of the first lunar landing would also be prior art, not to mention all the transmissions from the Pioneer spacecraft, etc. All that stuff was digital video sent to a computer server and then distributed to remote locations for viewing. Duh!

It's great that people are finding all these artifacts, but after watching Acacia's stock go up another 20% after the Pandora find was published on the boards, I've got to wonder what the hell it will take to convince people other than those who are being threatened by it. Anyone who shorted the stock after all the prior art started to get posted had their head handed to them. Which is totally surreal! So much for "efficient market theory".

The patent text is at http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/pat05132992.htm for anyone who wants to know what kind of insidious BS we are dealing with. For prior art to invalidate the patent, it has to duplicate ALL of the claims.

:2 cents:

By the way, the original Quantum service was graphics-based, and allowed Commodore 64 users to play games online back in 1985. While it's not full motion video, it SHOULD have be an example of the OBVIOUS direction technology was going.

This whole thing is going to boil down to the personal biases of whatever judge is assigned to handle the case. And that's a bitch.

Actually a digital animation is a movie. A video is just a bunch of animated pics shown one after the other. Rather it be drawings or with a camera.

The coverage of the moon landing doesn't fall under the patent, because it was live and not over telephone wires. It was not a video that you could watch when ever you wanted either (video on demand). You might want to read what the patent says to see what is covered under the patent and what isn't.

The example of the moon landing was not to say that it is prior art, but that it would be prior art if all the stuff people are posting is also prior art.

Animation is not a movie. But some movies are animated. Whatever.