ANOTHER patent on internet audio/visual?!
 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33782.html

someone please enlighten me on how TWO companies can hold the same type of patent .. what am I missing here?!

just look at what companies run the internet backbones, so yeah I can see how telephone lines could be considered the basis for internet connections

Different companies can have the same patent in different countries.

"""Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh district court"""

this is US and Acac*a is US

Thats in the good old USA, the government has to clean up this patent crap.

Greaaaat... Just more cluster to add to the fuck.

agreed

OPERATION PATENT FREEDOM ????

:Graucho

Hmmm. Obviously Congress needs to fix this oversight.

SightSound is basically the paid download of audio/video..that's what they patent essentially claims.

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


USA Video is more interesting because they claim downloading of video is what their patent covers as evident by their lawsuit against MovieLink.com

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


Fight the Video!

I am proposing Operation: Fight the Patent Foundation
http://www.FightThePatent.com/go

this is what I'm saying, shouldn't this help in the court battle against Acacia? Showing the judge there are OTHER patents covering the same process would help to prove there is some invalidity here .... i dunno but it sure seems like a case of double whammy to me

hehehe just had a thought *eg*

wonder what would happen to the day trading of acacia stock if someone posted in their yahoo thread that another company(ies) had patents over the same thing

*whistling innocently in the air* :)

SightSound and Acacia don't have the same patents...

One way to look at Acacia's (bogus) claims is that their DMT patent supercedes SightSound.

SightSound claims that the have the patent over the PAID downloading of Audio/Video files, while Acacia claims their patent is over the downloading of Audio/Video files.

This is why the Acacia case (and USA Video) is of great concern because they are so broadly interpreted....so any company that licenses SightSound would automatically have to license Acacia and USA Video?? Sounds absurd...

Acacia wouldn't be prior art to SightSound since they were both around the same timeframes.


Fight the Absurdity!

Thats been posted more than once over there Vicki and the investors just chuckle it off. Just like they do everything else. All they see are visions of sugarplumdollars dancing in their heads., lol

Its so ridiculous that they think its fine that ac*cia didn't even follow normal legal procedures to notify webmasters of their so called infringements.

FightThisPatent, what are you actively doing to fight these patents besides posting on boards and asking for donations?

This is SO fucking insane!!! If I have video on my sites, I have to pay Acacia. If I happen to charge people to download videos on my sites, I have to pay Acacia AND SightSound (and USA Video and .....). This is maddness!!

SightSound and USA Video are currently taking the "high road" by going after large pockets....... USA Video in particular is a publicly traded stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=USVO.OB) would would definitely benefit in a stock price greater than $0.18/share right now...and maybe might decide to go after "low hanging fruit" as Acacia/Berman has said.

If you have a shopping cart, then you need to worry about PanIP.com If you use exit consoles, etc, etc, etc.... Patent litigation has been going on for many, many years.. it's just becoming more noticeable as part of a business plan. A new breed of "businesses" is to acquire patents and to strictly license them, without making any product or using the patent to protect what was tangibly created.

The sky's not falling, but there is already one big chunk called Acacia that has landed in the Adult Industry puddle.


Fight the Raindrops!

hey don't forget the patent on hyperlinking! lol

thank god that lawsuit turned out the way it did or we'd all be logging onto our homepages with nowhere else to go unless the homepage owner had paid license fees
*shaking head*
how friggin absurd, but the fact of the matter is .... its knocking at our door and we can NOT ignore it

:2 cents: