ACACIA vs SCO
 

Excerpt from an article:


Rather, Weiss thinks that immediate payment isn't wise because the burden of proving that fees are required should be on the SCO camp and not on the user.

But what to do if, as a Linux user, your shop gets a letter from SCO raising issues about use of Linux and its own copyright claim? According to Weiss, the "user only has to respond in some way [to indicate] that they acknowledge being at the end of the threat."

Indeed, Weiss said the response might go on to note "that they are at this point unclear and uncertain about what the claims are, that no judgment has been rendered in a court, and that SCO needs to clearly state [its] case and show proof."

Weiss noted that SCO hasn't yet won any cases in court that clearly give it the right to extract fees from Linux users. So, in that sense, he added, asking for clear proof and evidence of any license claim makes sense. "Otherwise, any company that gets a letter in the mail stating they've violated intellectual property (IP) could be paying license fees to quacks."



Acacia's patents have been proven in court to be enforceable or are Adult Companies settling for "peace of mind"?

Acacia's patents have not been tested in court. Right now they are essentially squabbling over definitions. This squabbling could end up meaning that their patent does not apply to the internet in which case they are done with us. Short of that, it will continue to drag on. People are settling to avoid expensive legal bills, not because a judge has told anyone that they have to pay anything to Acacia. Something like that anyway.

I think the difference is that Acacia actually has the bit of paper to back it up... SCO is just talking out their ass, and most of the code they've come with so far has been proven to be not their's (or released later under the GFL) anyway.

Actually, i believe it's the opposite. SCO has alot of contracts and agreements, etc that we don't know about. I am not saying that SCO has the cat in the bag on the linux stuff, but there is way more to that story than the Acacia one.

A case in point.. you think JPEG format is available for all to use? There is a company called Forgent that has the patent claims on JPEG

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-945735.html

http://pmt.sourceforge.net/SVG-patents/jpeg.html



Acacia has a piece of paper patent that they purchased and broadly interpreted to mean more than it says. The only paper they have to back it up is that companies are licensing the thing and giving them the green paper.

There are 11+ adult companies defending against Acacia in court. Next court session is April 9th.

Alot more mainstream companies are finding my website and looking for info on defending their companies.


The RIAA is one of SCO's targets.


Fight the Bullseye!

acacia is going nowhere. the DMT patent is not (and will not be) recognized all over the world.

the internet is an international medium, it is not controlled by USA law.

there is already a viable workaround that is legal even IF the DMT patent is declared valid.

that's why in the final analysis, acacia will give up trying to shakedown webmasters and concentrate on other forms of streaming if their patent is declared valid.

my money says the DMT patent will be declared invalid due to prior art, but even if it is declared valid it won't stick with the internet.