Does anyone worry about Acacia anymore?

[Bill]

Well, as fast connections become the majority, as everyone knows, video will become the dominant form of content for marketing.

But the Acacia patent case hasn't been settled, it almost seesm to have stalled, and from what I've heard, more and more mainstream companies and universities and such are buying licenses.

Still, movie site and gallery builders don't seem to be worried about possible punitive fees and multiple year licensing fees in the future.

Do you just figure you'll be out of the business and unable to find before they get around to puting liens on you for the fees?

[Jim]

I am shitting my pants about it
I worry about it as much now as ever.

[Bill]

I didn't know you built with video Jim. Would I have seen any of your sites somewhere?

[Jim]

I don't want to put up my fuck you 2257 site again Bill. Actually, I really don't want to get in to it again.

[Bill]

Dude, dealing with a business like Acacia is a totally different beast than dealing with a regulation change that was clearly in defiance of earlier court rulings.

Acacia only wants to monetize it's assets. The only question there is wether prior art makes the asset unworthy of patent protection.

But, I note your position, altho, it doesn't sound like you ever got the Acacia letters, and therefore aren't on the list.

[Jim]

Oh WTF..I'm sorry Bill. When I read Acacia, I thought you meant 2257.

I apologize...

[cd34]

There is a simple way that all of the current video on demand people can get around it... basically, run the videos in a loop, let the person come into the feed at a particular scene (i.e. if you have 5 different start points, etc)

The patent itself (and I really think they screwed HotelNet) only covers where there is a click to request the video. Remember that they sued Sony and got their butt handed to them. A broadcasted show is excluded. This is one of those where someone needs to stand up, like Homegrown has, and fight it. The alternative is not allowing videos to be streamed, but to allow the person to download the zip which is unzipped and played. Because the video players open up when the content-type is set and the video is viewed immediately, that is the key to their case. We could always change the server headers so that videos pulled up the save dialog box, which would also circumvent their patent. Circumvention of their patent then becomes a separate legal issue.

Personally, I figure this is like the Eolas patent -- the patent office granted it because they didn't understand high-tech, Acacia got a few people to buy licensing and thus set precedent, then proceeded with their war chest to request licensing from companies that wouldn't fight it. When someone did eventually fight, their claim would be: Look, 5300 companies reviewed our documentation and licensed with us, obviously their attornies agree with our right to this patent, this one company is fighting, it is obvious that they are just trying to get away without licensing and should not only pay licensing, but, pay punitive damages.

Homegrown will hit back with -- the licensing fees are rediculous, the patent is unfounded and will sue for restraint of trade. Until the case is decided, no matter what, the Patent Office cannot review the patent for its validity.

And just remember, without Amazon having invented affiliate marketing, where would the adult industry be today?

[Bill]

Sparky, that almost implies that if you said, on a gallery, that you do not permit streaming, that all clips must be downloaded before playing, that you might have a pretty good defense against punitive fees.

"Your Honor, my client never permitted streaming, and therefore is not liable under the terms of this patent".

[Bill]

I'd especially like to hear from people that actually build with movies.

[Tommy]

2 or 3 months ago they send out a bunch of scare letters again

the letter said they have decided to move forward with the court case
and warned that webmasters have a legal responsibility to either license or make sure they are not violating the patent
even during the litigation

first of all I don't think they can decide weather or not to move forward with the lawsuit, sooner or later this is gonna get settled
but i think its in acacias best interest to put it off as long as possible

I am sure they are gonna lose and they are gonna lose big

Ill tell ya one thing, these guys are great with the bullshit





I see this whole thing as a big stock scam

the owners of the companies are all attorneys so for litigation they bill their time to the company for any litigation,

I think acacia makes most of its money by selling stock

so the more they sue and make outrageous claims the more they get their names in the paper...

stupid investors see the press and think this company is gonna control all video on the internet and on TV etc etc
then of course they buy the stock

the more noise they make the more stock they sell
more lawsuits= more dollars for the attorneys = more stock sold which in turn = more money for the attorneys

[tickler]

I know there was something a few months back about congress wanting to ban(their words) "Patent Trolls". Apparently the reporter couldn't get a comment from the head honcho at Acacia

[Bill]

Well, by the same analogy, if they are all lawyers they know that the executives (and eventually the board of directors) can be held liable for falsely inflating their claim to assets, so they have to have reason to believe they might win.

Your description of the company sounds right to me, but to say they are a pure fraud existing only to scam stockholders, well, thats a bit hard to believe. They must be holding some kind of hand.

Certainly I was hoping the company would collapse. But, there is still the question of the patent. The patent will just be sold to someone else, and this will start all over again.

[cd34]

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.htm...&time=3yr&uf=0

just try and figure out from their stock charts where they might have started pandering for licensing fees.

There is a phrase I have in my mind, and Tommy, I think you probably know what it is based on your analysis.

[Bill]

So Chris, is your position then that there's nothing to worry about?

Do you think the patent is invalid?

[Jeka]

I don't care about Accacia because such a patent would never pass a lawsuit here in my country

[Bill]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me Jeka, and I've heard that from a few sources. If you live in a country that doesn't enforce US patents I think you are pretty much totally safe.

I've wondered if this might eventually affect hosting, tho. That is, could hosts be held liable for patent infringement if they provide unlicensed streaming video?

[Tommy]

just go read their press releases

you can see how think they spread the bullshit

why do they put out so many press releses why bullshit so much in them
why such outragous statements

because it gets attention

ya gotta admit if their patents wernt bullshit
you could get rich off their stock


of all things Acacia taught me a lesson
theres a lot of money in bullshit

[cd34]

Originally Posted by Bill

I've wondered if this might eventually affect hosting, tho. That is, could hosts be held liable for patent infringement if they provide unlicensed streaming video?

Basically, in my T&C I have to say that the material "you" agree to host is legal in your jurisdiction. I cannot censor your content if I disagree with it if it is legal. I can also exclude types of content that I might find objectionable. However, I cannot overstep my T&C and police content that is uploaded .

As for censorship, if I censor content that is hosted, and miss some content, I could be held liable for the content I missed.

As a hosting company I am treated with Common Carrier status as a result of these actions and inactions. I am no more liable for what is hosted than the phone company is for someone making an illegal drug purchase on a cellphone.

That's my attorney's view on it and he is willing to defend based on that view. There have been numerous cases regarding common carrier status for hosting companies and Internet Service providers.

As for the patent's validity, I don't believe it is valid. However, as I understand patent law and the appeal process, a case must be decided before the patent can be called into question. Infringment of the existing patent, valid or not, exists. After there has been one case, the PTO can look into the patent. Again, the Eolas Patent clearly defined this procedure.

Eolas held a patent for a way to do inline web applications. ActiveX and Shockwave would have violated this patent. Eolas sued Microsoft regarding ActiveX and won a judgement for $521 million for infringement. Microsoft could not challenge the validity of the patent until after the case was concluded. The PTO did overturn and nullify the patent due to Prior Art if I recall. I think the claim was that <embed> was meant for html, not applications like flash, multimedia, activeX and therefore, the patent was issued based on calling applications. The patent was filed in 1994, granted in 1998, nullified in 2004. Its not a quick process.

[Bill]

Well, I've been trying to decide if it's wise to work with movies again, which is what causes me to ask these questions.

I did get the Acacia letters, so I know for sure that I am on their list.

I stopped using movies in my building when the Acacia thing became serious.

The fact that no-one is saying here, "I build with movies and I'm not worried about it because..." suggest to me that people are taking a "I hope they don't get around to sueing me" attitude, and keeping their identities as secret as possible.

Altho people like Jeka, who live and work in countries that sneer at intellectual property laws, really have no significant risk, except, perhaps, for "cease and desist" letters to a host.

I'd love to hear more from US, Canadian, and UK webmasters who are building with movies.

[urb]

A man who warns you that he is about to hit you, is usually not sure of himself.
Unlike a man who just hits you without warning.

[SirMoby]

US technology companies generally make 15 times thier earnings on stock sales. So if the company is making $1,000,000 a year then they can easily make $15,000,000 by selling stock. This is a company that gets to use lots of key words in press releases such as "Internet", "Digital Media Transmission", "Licensing", etc.

Every press release is worth millions of dollars. A millions dollar agreement is worth 10 to 20 times that in investment. You can buy a lot of Senators with that kind of money.