|
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Acacia Media currently owns over a dozen patents covering the use of
"streaming media", such as video files and audio/MP3s, including
*original* content. Note this issue has *nothing* to do with copyrights
whatsoever...this affects *all* use of any streaming media by anyone!
Currently, Acacia Media has been targeting the adult industry with
patent infringement letters and lawsuits. Acacia Media has chosen to
target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target,
but make no mistake, Acacia Media is targeting EVERYONE who uses, or
even merely links, to any "streaming media" content...
Including individals! Thousands of people have recently received legal
notices from Acacia Media to cease using/linking to video and audio
content and further to sign manditory license agreements, as well as
make hefty royalty payments to them well into the distant future!
See more details regarding their crazy, but legally abusive patents:
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main.htm
While many folks may not care for the adult industry, if they, along
with the help of many others, don't take on and beat Acacia, much of
the adult industry will find itself at the mercy of other patent
holders, PLUS most "mainstream" companies, AND even *individuals* too -
thousands of legal notices have already been sent out to individuals!
Persons who merely have webpages linked to "streaming media" ARE in the
sights of Acacia Media ... even linking/embedding "streaming media" in
EMAIL may likely be considered a violation - Acacia Media is ruthless!
Acacia Media isn't the only company on the prowl...if Acacia Media is
sucessful, there's a whole swarm of other entities that have zillions
of other questionable patents ready to pounce on both industry and
individuals alike with their patent infringement claims and manditory
licensing.
Acacia Media needs to be stopped hard...their patent claims are a
*direct assault on freedom of speech and expression*...
For example, if one make an *original* video or audio recording and
wishes to distribute/sell it on the internet, Acacia Media is demanding
a percentage of the proceeds; distributing "streaming media", even if
for free, likely requires an expensive license from Acacia Media too!
Please read up on this issue and contact your state and federal
representatives. The Acacia Media "streaming media" patents must be
stopped...if they are not, expect to pay more for your internet access
(Acacia is demanding continual royalties), more for products/services,
and have less choice and freedom...in Acacia Media's twisted world, one
has to pay them money to make, share, or even merely link to "streaming
media", such as video and audio/MP3s.
For more related information, please see CNET - http://news.com
When searching Google, Yahoo, etc use the key words: ACACIA PATENT
(be sure to also search under News and Groups - click the respective
menu tabs at top of search window in Google to access)
While patents are an obsure subject, vague, overly broad, and abusive
patents hurt everyone. Please learn more about this issue, tell others
about it, and contact your state and federal politicians - demand they
actively work to reform patent laws, especially in regards to Acacia
Media's patents.
In closing and to reiterate again...
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Ron Bennett
p.s. please distribute this message far and wide, and inform others!
|
| |
| |
Ron Bennett wrote:
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Acacia Media currently owns over a dozen patents covering the use of
"streaming media", such as video files and audio/MP3s, including
*original* content. Note this issue has *nothing* to do with
copyrights
whatsoever...this affects *all* use of any streaming media by anyone!
First of all, "Streaming media" is a term. No one entity has a patent on it.
Perhaps Acacia would like to challenge microsoft and "real media" in the
courts?
Both have patents on their media and or presentation devices.
If I have a simple link to "streaming media" on my site, Acacia had better
understand that they do not control the internet and the use of it. They are
going to find out very quickly that filing frivilous lawsuits without merit
is going to be very very expensive on their part and will probably go broke
before they win one case.
I hope that if any of these alleged lawsuits make it to courts, the judges
tell Acacia to go back to law school.
|
| |
| |
Wading in the muck of alt.politics, I noticed that Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> had posted some drivel on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:26:38
GMT
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Acacia Media currently owns over a dozen patents covering the use of
"streaming media", such as video files and audio/MP3s, including
*original* content. Note this issue has *nothing* to do with copyrights
whatsoever...this affects *all* use of any streaming media by anyone!
Currently, Acacia Media has been targeting the adult industry with
patent infringement letters and lawsuits. Acacia Media has chosen to
target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target,
but make no mistake, Acacia Media is targeting EVERYONE who uses, or
even merely links, to any "streaming media" content...
Including individals! Thousands of people have recently received legal
notices from Acacia Media to cease using/linking to video and audio
content and further to sign manditory license agreements, as well as
make hefty royalty payments to them well into the distant future!
See more details regarding their crazy, but legally abusive patents:
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main.htm
<snip idiot's rambling>
From the website you posted "Acacias DMT technology is supported by 5 U.S.
and 17 International patents."
Their patent is on the DMT technology that THEY created, not all types of
streaming media you half-baked dip#@($.
|
| |
| |
In article <Xns94202D9CAAA7Cnomorebushin2004@216.168.3.44>,
antispam@spigotspam.biz says...
Wading in the muck of alt.politics, I noticed that Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> had posted some drivel on Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:26:38
GMT
<snip idiot's rambling>
From the website you posted "Acacias DMT technology is supported by 5 U.S.
and 17 International patents."
Their patent is on the DMT technology that THEY created, not all types of
streaming media you half-baked dip#@($.
You obviously haven't read up on the Acacia issue...
Please read a bit more about what Acacia Media claim to own and you'll be as
surprised and concerned, as numerous others are, regarding Acacia's attack on
many internet standards, many of which are "open" standards (Acacia didn't
develop/patent any of them), which people have been using for many years...
Acacia truly believes, for example, the use of virtually most ANY video or
audio format on the internet is a violation of their patents...yes, really!
Acacia's patents cover the use of "streaming media" in general - the patents
are overly broad, vague, and being used in an abusive way to "shakedown"
anyone using / linking to video, audio, MP3s, etc anywhere on the internet.
Please read more about how one can patent vauge business methods before
replying here again. This *is* a serious issue and Acacia's patents are an
abuse of the patent system and hurts many people and the internet itself.
Lastly, since you claim to be so knowledgable about Acacia and patent law,
explain in more detail what their "DMT" is? -what do their patents cover?
Ron Bennett
|
| |
| |
Ron Bennett wrote:
In article <Xns94202D9CAAA7Cnomorebushin2004@216.168.3.44>,
antispam@spigotspam.biz says...
Wading in the muck of alt.politics, I noticed that Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> had posted some drivel on Sun, 26 Oct 2003
03:26:38
GMT
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Acacia Media currently owns over a dozen patents covering the use of
"streaming media", such as video files and audio/MP3s, including
*original* content. Note this issue has *nothing* to do with
copyrights
whatsoever...this affects *all* use of any streaming media by anyone!
Currently, Acacia Media has been targeting the adult industry with
patent infringement letters and lawsuits. Acacia Media has chosen to
target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target,
but make no mistake, Acacia Media is targeting EVERYONE who uses, or
even merely links, to any "streaming media" content...
Including individals! Thousands of people have recently received
legal
notices from Acacia Media to cease using/linking to video and audio
content and further to sign manditory license agreements, as well as
make hefty royalty payments to them well into the distant future!
See more details regarding their crazy, but legally abusive patents:
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main.htm
<snip idiot's rambling>
From the website you posted "Acacia's DMT technology is supported by 5
U.S.
and 17 International patents."
Their patent is on the DMT technology that THEY created, not all types
of
streaming media you half-baked dip#@($.
You obviously haven't read up on the Acacia issue...
Please read a bit more about what Acacia Media claim to own and you'll
be as
surprised and concerned, as numerous others are, regarding Acacia's
attack on
many internet standards, many of which are "open" standards (Acacia
didn't
develop/patent any of them), which people have been using for many
years...
Acacia truly believes, for example, the use of virtually most ANY
video or
audio format on the internet is a violation of their patents...yes,
really!
Acacia's patents cover the use of "streaming media" in general - the
patents
are overly broad, vague, and being used in an abusive way to
"shakedown"
anyone using / linking to video, audio, MP3s, etc anywhere on the
internet.
Please read more about how one can patent vauge business methods
before
replying here again. This *is* a serious issue and Acacia's patents
are an
abuse of the patent system and hurts many people and the internet
itself.
Lastly, since you claim to be so knowledgable about Acacia and patent
law,
explain in more detail what their "DMT" is? -what do their patents
cover?
Ron Bennett
I actuall took the time and effort to read some of the patent information.
The most recent one appears to be the same as the original.
As many of the techinques they claim as their's, has been used on the
internet well before the patent was issued, they can not claim that
technology as infringement.
Quite frankly, I do not agree with granting patents to software to begin
with.
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
Copyright is for the written word. Which is precisely what software is.
Acacia will soon find out that the courts will not believe their arguments
that they own exclusive rights to "ALL" streaming media.
|
| |
| |
Not going to the issue of whether the patents in question are valid
or not, but correcting two mistakes ...
In article <bnhh8a030ni@enews4.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
As many of the techinques they claim as their's, has been used on the
internet well before the patent was issued, they can not claim that
technology as infringement.
Close, but not right. It makes no difference what was in use at the
time the patent finally issues. The only important times are when
the invention is completed ("reduced to practice") and when the
first patent application disclosing the invention is filed.
You can't get a patent on an invention known or used by others in
this country or described in a printed publication anywhere in the
world before the completion of the invention by the applicant.
You can't get a patent on an invention in public use or on sale in
this country or described in a printed publication anywhere in the
world more than a year before the filing of the patent application.
See 35 U.S.C. 102.
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
Patents can also be for ways of doing things. The first United States
patent was for a new way of manufacturing potash. Originally, these
were termed an "art" but are now called a "process."
|
| |
| |
Lee Hollaar wrote:
Not going to the issue of whether the patents in question are valid
or not, but correcting two mistakes ...
In article <bnhh8a030ni@enews4.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom>
writes:
Close, but not right. It makes no difference what was in use at the
time the patent finally issues. The only important times are when
the invention is completed ("reduced to practice") and when the
first patent application disclosing the invention is filed.
Yes it does matter. If you can not show that you were in fact the sole force
behind the idea, and no one else was using anything similar, you might not
get that patent. It would depend on how unique yours is.
What if Mr. Bell had seen Mr. Gray's "telephone" publicy demonstrated in
various places before he decided to "invent" it? Once Mr. Bell acquired the
patent, Mr. Gray could then persue Mr. Bell for the ownership of that
document and Mr. Bell would be forced to turn it over as he did not invent
it. But merely "stole" the idea.
History shows us that both were working on the same concept and Mr. Bell
beat Mr. Gray to the patent office by a mere 1 hour. Is Mr. Bell a thief?
No. As they were working independently on the same project.
What was already in use does matter to a degree. In order to acquire the
patent, the process, as you call it, must be unique enough so as not to be
confused with what already is in use. Or, have some type of improvements on
the process.
You can't get a patent on an invention known or used by others in
this country or described in a printed publication anywhere in the
world before the completion of the invention by the applicant.
You can't get a patent on an invention in public use or on sale in
this country or described in a printed publication anywhere in the
world more than a year before the filing of the patent application.
But does that give you the right to patent someone else's idea that has
already been in wide use as acacia claims?
See 35 U.S.C. 102.
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
Patents can also be for ways of doing things. The first United States
patent was for a new way of manufacturing potash. Originally, these
were termed an "art" but are now called a "process."
The patent was for the machinery involved.
Then why isn't html patented? It is a process of converting code to a
formatted web page.
I have a great-granfather who was an inventor. 3 of his inventions are in
common use today that you would recognize right off. He basically invented
the "reversible differential", the process by which is copper and steel are
joined together, as in that quarter in your pocket, and the first "tire
tread". The tire tread idea was on steel farm tractor wheels but the concept
was carried over to rubber tires.
Not to mention a whole host of farm implementing machines which includes a
type of corn picker and a hay bayler.
|
| |
| |
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:bni00g0hgj@enews4.newsguy.com...
Lee Hollaar wrote:
Yes it does matter. If you can not show that you were in fact the sole
force
behind the idea, and no one else was using anything similar, you might not
get that patent. It would depend on how unique yours is.
What if Mr. Bell had seen Mr. Gray's "telephone" publicy demonstrated in
various places before he decided to "invent" it? Once Mr. Bell acquired
the
patent, Mr. Gray could then persue Mr. Bell for the ownership of that
document and Mr. Bell would be forced to turn it over as he did not invent
it. But merely "stole" the idea.
History shows us that both were working on the same concept and Mr. Bell
beat Mr. Gray to the patent office by a mere 1 hour. Is Mr. Bell a thief?
No. As they were working independently on the same project.
What was already in use does matter to a degree. In order to acquire the
patent, the process, as you call it, must be unique enough so as not to be
confused with what already is in use. Or, have some type of improvements
on
the process.
But does that give you the right to patent someone else's idea that has
already been in wide use as acacia claims?
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
The patent was for the machinery involved.
Then why isn't html patented? It is a process of converting code to a
formatted web page.
I have a great-granfather who was an inventor. 3 of his inventions are in
common use today that you would recognize right off. He basically invented
the "reversible differential", the process by which is copper and steel
are
joined together, as in that quarter in your pocket, and the first "tire
tread". The tire tread idea was on steel farm tractor wheels but the
concept
was carried over to rubber tires.
Not to mention a whole host of farm implementing machines which includes a
type of corn picker and a hay bayler.
Got any proof of these new lies, Bullis?
Path:
sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!ne
wsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.n
et!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy
..com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews4
From: "Richard" <anom@anom>
Newsgroups: misc.legal,misc.consumers,alt.politics
Subject: Re: Acacia's Patent OUTLAWS Streaming Video and Audio/MP3s!
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:30:19 -0600
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <bni00g0hgj@enews4.newsguy.com>
References: <Xns94202D9CAAA7Cnomorebushin2004@216.168.3.44>
<bngup9$pgp@library1.airnews.net> <bnhh8a030ni@enews4.newsguy.com>
<bnhkiu$6$1@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-095.newsdawg.com
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
FL-Build: Fidolook 2002 (SL) 6.0.2600.78 - 24/10/2002 21:18:29
X-no=archive: yes
Xref: sn-us misc.legal:464144 misc.consumers:353391 alt.politics:1361774
|
| |
| |
In article <bni00g0hgj@enews4.newsguy.com> "Richard" <anom@anom> writes:
Lee Hollaar wrote:
Yes it does matter. If you can not show that you were in fact the sole force
behind the idea, and no one else was using anything similar, you might not
get that patent. It would depend on how unique yours is.
What if Mr. Bell had seen Mr. Gray's "telephone" publicy demonstrated in
various places before he decided to "invent" it?
Under today's rules, as stated below, if somebody is this country
already knows the invention, before your independent invention,
you can't get a patent. If you aren't the true inventor, you
can't get a patent.
You can't get a patent on an invention known or used by others in
this country or described in a printed publication anywhere in the
world before the completion of the invention by the applicant.
But does that give you the right to patent someone else's idea that has
already been in wide use as acacia claims?
No. Read what I wrote. If the invention is known to others before
your invention, you can't get a patent.
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
The patent was for the machinery involved.
Wrong, as usual. No special machinery, just a new method of making
potash.
Then why isn't html patented? It is a process of converting code to a
formatted web page.
Because Tim Berners-Lee didn't apply for a patent?
Not every patentable invention results in a patent, particularly if
the inventor doesn't apply for one.
|
| |
| |
This is another case of Patent Office issuing bogus patent.
Unfortunately PO awards patent, and let courts sort out all the issues.
Acacia patent is too broad, and have too many known cases of "prior art".
Music/Videos has been distributed over internet from 1990, mirc 1991,
X-Windows 1980s, number of network games pre-date this patent.
ftp:sophia.fr(?) had porn and videos loaded late 80s.
But you have to have money to challenge those patens. Software patens should
be abolished, software already protected by copyrights, and TMs. This is one
of the latest group of bogus patents: "shopping card", "bots", "device, that
stores credit cards & phone numbers", "music kiosk", "1 click shopping",
"left frame with navigation links", "hyperlinks by BT", and not to mention
new Amazon patent: "site that indexes contents of books", number of google
indexing patens...
The way acacia patent written it does apply to everything. And they can
target you Richard, and you would either pay they patent fee, or spend
$20,000 defending against it.
|
| |
| |
If I have a simple link to "streaming media" on my site, Acacia had better
understand that they do not control the internet and the use of it.
Sadly enough, thats not the way they are going about this...
They are
going to find out very quickly that filing frivilous lawsuits without merit
is going to be very very expensive on their part and will probably go broke
before they win one case.
Agains, sadly enough, they have been in court numerous times... and
have won each time, but only b/c the defendant ignored everything and
failed to appear.
They have already shut down sites... but once again, primarily becuase
they have yet to actually be challenged.
I hope that if any of these alleged lawsuits make it to courts, the judges
tell Acacia to go back to law school.
And sadly still.... they've set a licensing fee that makes it more
cost-effective to just fork over the cash instead of fighting it....
of which so far, 52 very large companies (multi-million dollar corps)
have simply forked over the cash.
FWIW, I just received my very own Acacia Media warning letter in the
mail today.
|
| |
| |
Acacia has actually sent me a letter it is dated October 20, 2003 but
I just got it last Thursday. They claim is the final notice but I
have not received one letter from them prior to this one. The title
is underlined and in all capital letters:
Final Notice for introductory royalty rates and waiver of patent
infringement
They claim that they have a portfolio of 5 U.S. Patents Nos.
5,132,992, 5,235,275; 5,550.863; 6002,720; 6,144,702) and 17
International patents of which they did not bother to list those but
basically they claim that they cover transmission and receipt of
digital/audio video content via the Internet. They claim since I
provide access to digital audio/video content via my website without a
licence from Acacia I am liable to them for patent infringement.
the next paragraph states:
"As a part of our introductory licensing terms. we have been offering
waivers for certain past infringement, as well as special introductory
royalty rates." (This is like a sales pitch) They also state, "Our
offer to waive past infringement and license our patents at our
existing introductory royalty rates will expire on November 30, 2003
They also claim that they have entered into 52 license aggreements for
their DMT Technology. They claim that many major online Adult
Entertainment companies such as L.F.P.,, (owner of Hustler who filed
for bankruptcy a while ago), Interactive Gallery (a subsidiary of New
Frontier Media), Trade News Corporation (owners of the CE Cash and
Cybererotica websites) Dellwood HOldings (owners of the Sexcheck AVS,
Matrix Content, Vivid Entertainment Group, Wicked Pictures, and
Paltinum EMedia, Inc. Supposedly all of these companies have signed
with them. However, honestly I do not see why they are naming NAMES or
Name dropping. It is suopposed to make us small individual girls say,
" Like Okay... Well so like if Vivid signed then I must sign too. Ha
ha ha ah Oh my gosh." WRONG! How do we know that all of these
companies are not in on this stupid game? This is like a conspiracy,
Sadame Insane on the internet, Chicago Mobsters in the 1940's type
of shakedown.
They list their website of which I don't get I went there and I don't
see anythng like what they said in this letter.
here is all their contact info:
the letter is from
Robert A. Berman
Sr. VP Business Development and General Counsel
500 Newport Center Drive
7th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.480.8300
949.480.8301 fax
emaiL info@acaciaresearch.com
This is really stupid. They also have taken people to court already
and WON mainly because the other people do not show up. The other
thing is some judge in California has allowed them to win a few cases
and now they feel powereful. Basically If I do not sign their contract
to give them a percentage of all my sales plus give them my records
each month... by November 30th they will take me to court to have my
website SHUT DOWN.. They are not really targeting FREE sites right
now mostly Adult Entertainment, Universities, or sites that sell
information for teaching purposes. It seems to me if they are so
creative why didn't they come up with a way to TRACK the sales,
because I think it is illegal. They should make themselves an
affiliate and have people click a particular link to sign up that way
it electronically calculates without us having to give them all of our
private info. I am not going to give them a dime. I will shut my site
down first. Technically I can just sell mpegs on cd rom and lower the
membership fee. It seems like a waste of time because it is so much
easier to get the mpegs off the website.
This affects us all. This company must be stopped. If they have all
these patents why have they not purchased public service
advertisements and made the public aware of such nonsense?? Couldn't
they be sued for that? Also why have they not teamed with people like
Sony, Panasonic, and any company who produces software, or digital
cameras, picture cell phones. Why??? What part of the law as they did
not mention what part of the law grants them the RIGHT to sue for
royalties on a service they probably sold to someone.. That is what I
do not understand. Did they invent this stuff????? if so whom did they
sell it to??? The government?? How did they get paid??? Also I would
love to see the contracts or lawsuit info with these other companies
who signed because honestly, I dont' think that they signed Hustler
filed for bankruptcy earlier this year and it was big news in porn.
But why are they Naming names and telling what other profile companies
have signed to me it is like they are trying to make us think it is
okay. I think they are all in on it but I have no proof which is why I
would love to see the court reports.
Okay. here are some links that my hosting company gave to me:
http://news.com.com/2100-1026-1026466.html
that was one copy they sent me
http://www.xxxwebhosting.com/acacia.htm
http://www.go@$#*yourself.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=26
http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5081177.html
http://news.com.com/2009-1023-5082004.html
I hope that there is a way this company and companies like them can be
stopped.. Should the people in the United States actually this is a
world wide shake down. Should they write the congressmen, or someone I
don't know if it will do any good but seems like there should be a way
we could stop this company from this crazy insane tactic
Well good luck. I am anxious to hear what you all have to say.
Shar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Richard" <anom@anom> wrote in message news:<bnfllm0k3f@enews4.newsguy.com>...
Ron Bennett wrote:
First of all, "Streaming media" is a term. No one entity has a patent on it.
Perhaps Acacia would like to challenge microsoft and "real media" in the
courts?
Both have patents on their media and or presentation devices.
If I have a simple link to "streaming media" on my site, Acacia had better
understand that they do not control the internet and the use of it. They are
going to find out very quickly that filing frivilous lawsuits without merit
is going to be very very expensive on their part and will probably go broke
before they win one case.
I hope that if any of these alleged lawsuits make it to courts, the judges
tell Acacia to go back to law school.
|
| |
| |
Richard wrote:
Ron Bennett wrote:
Wading in the muck of alt.politics, I noticed that Ron Bennett
<bennett@wyomissing.com> had posted some drivel on Sun, 26 Oct 2003
03:26:38
GMT
Acacia Media is a direct assault on your freedom and your pocketbook!
Acacia Media currently owns over a dozen patents covering the use of
"streaming media", such as video files and audio/MP3s, including
*original* content. Note this issue has *nothing* to do with
copyrights
whatsoever...this affects *all* use of any streaming media by anyone!
Currently, Acacia Media has been targeting the adult industry with
patent infringement letters and lawsuits. Acacia Media has chosen to
target the adult industry first, since they are an easy legal target,
but make no mistake, Acacia Media is targeting EVERYONE who uses, or
even merely links, to any "streaming media" content...
Including individals! Thousands of people have recently received
legal
notices from Acacia Media to cease using/linking to video and audio
content and further to sign manditory license agreements, as well as
make hefty royalty payments to them well into the distant future!
See more details regarding their crazy, but legally abusive patents:
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_main.htm
<snip idiot's rambling>
From the website you posted "Acacia's DMT technology is supported by 5
U.S.
and 17 International patents."
Their patent is on the DMT technology that THEY created, not all types
of
streaming media you half-baked dip#@($.
I actuall took the time and effort to read some of the patent information.
The most recent one appears to be the same as the original.
As many of the techinques they claim as their's, has been used on the
internet well before the patent was issued, they can not claim that
technology as infringement.
Quite frankly, I do not agree with granting patents to software to begin
with.
A patent is basically for any work which must be manufactured by some
mechanical means outside of a typewriter, or in today's world, via a
computer reproduction.
Copyright is for the written word. Which is precisely what software is.
Acacia will soon find out that the courts will not believe their arguments
that they own exclusive rights to "ALL" streaming media.
Yeah, as soon as someone who has the two to three million dollars it takes to
fight a patent infringement case is sued and decides to fight rather than
pay..
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
|
| |
| |
|
