Offering licenses for White Labelling Technology
 

Back in 2003, my company developed a method for customizing the displays of our affiliates webpages while delivering our content. We wrote the code, paid for the attorneys, and filed our patent. Consequentially, I have a patent on "White Labelling" technology that I am interested in licensing.

When I questioned GFY members concerning the licensing of an internally generated patent (as opposed to an externally acquired patent like Acacia), the threads post indicated that I should go forward developing a licensing scheme.

Link to GFY thread

The relevant information concerning the patent:

Patent 7,464,332

DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTING THE APPEARANCE OF A VIEWER DISPLAYING DIGITAL CONTENT

The present invention is directed to devices, systems and methods for selecting the appearance of a display on a viewer that displays the output of a digital content server. Include tags, in html display, output custom or default information determined by the presence or absence of a unique identifier. In the event of perl-generated html, find and replace routines locate specific include tags and replace the include tags with custom or default information determined by the same unique identifier that dictates the selected viewer appearance. Accordingly, a vendor's web page may display content from a host's website while preserving the look and feel of the affiliate's web pages.

Filed: November 18, 2003
Granted: December 9, 2008

USPTO Link to Patent

I think that many sites may be in violation of various elements of my patent. I am currently offering very generous terms.

If you would like to acquire a license, I can be contacted at Licensing (at) aaanews.com.

Thank you for your interest.

is this a joke?

Would I provide a link to the USPTO if it was a joke?

so are you going to be Acacia II?

No, I haven't threatened anyone. My company developed and paid for the patent.

seems a bit obvious, everything is I guess obvious in hindsight, but hard to believe that first use of this "invention" was 2003... :2 cents:

But it applies to everything from iPhone to XBox and Wordpress and its themes.. How can something like this be patented?..

The claims give value to the patent.

chuckle.... :upsidedow

Hey, you gotta start somewhere.....Just remember that you saw it here first and had the opportunity that I am currently extending.

No offense but that patent will never hold... I, personally, have prior art to your patent by three years...

I noticed there is no mention of using JavaScript in your patent... :error If you are falling on hard times right now I wouldn't put much effort into enforcing this patent. Just about anyone could invalidate this patent in court.

"Although the invention has been described with reference to several exemplary embodiments, it is understood that the words that have been used are words of description and illustration, rather than words of limitation. Changes may be made within the purview of the appended claims, as presently stated and as amended, without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention in all its aspects. Although the invention has been described with reference to particular means, materials and embodiments, the invention is not intended to be limited to the particulars disclosed; rather, the invention extends to all functionally equivalent technologies, structures, methods and uses such as are within the scope of the appended claims."

After researching some previous patent information, and cases, seems like a patent that may fall into the 'common sense' category.

Sounds similar to this patent and judgement: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009...il-patent.html

white labels go back to before 2003 so just because the USPTO awarded means nada, especially considering all the other obvious patents out there

yes, the use of skins go back before 2003; but, the patent does not address the use of skins. The technology is different as I understand it.

I don't know shit about this subject, but this thread reminds me of the people who take their dead grandparents crap to Antique Roadshow thinking it's some significant relic worth thousands, and then find out that it's a garage sale knock off.

Good Luck - I guess

or a national treasure. Thank you.

Here's a newsgroup posting from back in March 2001. Prior art. I'm sure others can find more examples.

http://groups.google.com/group/free.... 82387e1c96bff

Ron

The claims ARE the invention.

Yes, you are correct.

so you waited until 2010; the best time of the adult industry to start charging people license fees? should have did it when acacia sent those letter to everyone on matrixcontent's list.

I have to use and protect the patent or lose it.

This is your opportunity to get in on the ground floor. Also, I'd consider partnering if the conditions were right. I am open to suggestions at this time.

Just saying...give it some thought.

does'nt seem so :2 cents:

His goal is to basically fuck everyone here... I wouldn't wish him too much luck :winkwink:

What a fucking joke, have seen prior art in 1992 at least. These kinds of patents make the patent system a joke.
In Swedish patent law we have (or used to have at least) something called "uppfinningshöjd" it means that the patent filed needs to be more then a logical derivation of publically available information. And you can't file a pure software patent either in Sweden.

Gee, this is the support I get for doing the right thing. :Oh crap

I'm not a patent troll, I developed the patent for my own business, and have been on GFY for many years supporting our common efforts.....and, I have no desire to "fuck everyone" or anyone for that matter.

I simply put my cards on the table and made an offer. What you choose to do is up to you.

Your goal is to steal money out of other peoples pockets because you *think* you invented this technology, which you did not. What exactly is this "right thing" you speak of?

Shove your patent up your ass lol

First, I never said I have a patent on "White Labeling."

Second, I agree that white labeling was around before I filed my patent.

Third, my patent covers only one method of white labeling.

Fourth, before I made an offer on GFY, I asked the people on here what would they do in my situation......and, the consensus was go for it.

and lastly, if I was going to "steal" money.....I could have just sent out C&D letters to suspected infringers or assign the patent to a third party for a share of what they collect.

You are way off base, Prog......but, you and your attitude give me something to think about.

Hahahahahahaha! Go away.

It is a good job you didn't try to get a patent on "explaining clearly what you want", because you probably wouldn't have been successful based on this evidence.

but in your first post

He has a patent on white labeling technology.

I am open to suggestions, dialog or brainstorming. Any legitimate offer will be given fair consideration.

I assume that you have some idea of the value of my patent to your operations.

Any constructive feedback is always appreciated.:thumbsup

So you have patented remote CSS triggered by a cookie in 2003 and you think that will stick in court? BTW, the claims in the patent are flawed, claims 12-15 should reference to claim 11 not 1. Besides lots of misspellings and you are using different names for the same thing to make appear more complex than it is.

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. I would laugh at your C&D just like I'm laughing at you now. You are doing exactly what ACACIA did and trying to EXTORT money from companies who use "your" technology. As I said before... shove your patent up your ass and go fuck yourself. Clear enough?

you should have done it, maybe that way someone would of payed a buck or two

Its a mixture of specific things and vagueness that gives anyone you try to pursue room for getting out of it. Don't fully understand how you could patent something already in public use either.

Milambur, good eye for detail.:thumbsup

I compared the online version to the version that was originally published and the published version is correct. You caught a USPTO typo. I will get the online version of the patent corrected ASAP.

As far as the patent being in public use at the time I filed for the patent, I worked with and evaluated a number of of online shopping carts and related publishing programs and everybody was using skins. Nobody had a dynamically created CSS file that could be custom configured by a database in which the affiliate webmaster could log in and set their own values for customizing their pages from my servers.

I did extensive research myself and paid plenty for the patent attorney to do prior art searches. Personally, I think the patent is solid.

Again, thank you for catching the typo.

Due to the error on the patent being caused by the USPTO, the patent's numbering error appears to qualify for a Certificate of Correction which makes it as if the patent were originally issued with the corrected text according to my attorney.