a nail in acacia's coffin?!
 

I won't post a link to the thread but because this is huge news to all of us ... I'll say that a webmaster has found some awesome prior art that might just kick acacia's patent right into the grave where it belongs!

I'll do a copy and paste of the original post (I would never do this if it wasn't already taken public, simply because I hate showing an opponent my hand of cards lol)

this was posted by a webmaster nicknamed squirtit:

I've looked at it and the documentation and DAYUM it looks like |waves| to acacia *crossing fingers*

I'm going to speak to Spike tonight and see what he tinks. But if this is not what we need I have the perfect scheme to find the Prior Art we need.

Paul

from the thread I read, it looks like Spike, Far-L and fight the patent all know about this one already - the wm contacted them asap

*crossing fingers* :)

What it shows is what Acacia are up against, not only an industry with a bloody minded attitude, used to fighting for a living, a lot of money to spend, but also a lot of resourceful guys who will make the difference.

Paul, I have already communicated to Spike and Far-l that there are standards (either ISO or IEEE) that exist for the transmission of voice and video.

Those are the best place to start, they are internationally recognized.

Alex

Example, this si how to send video over ISDN, circa 1990.

http://www-mobile.ecs.soton.ac.uk/peter/h261/h261.html

Alex

A good history of quicktime...

http://david.egbert.name/work/newmed...ory/index.html

Apple announced it is May of 1991... gotta figure at least 1 year of development time... so I am sure that Apple would have documentation back to the original idea that comes way before Acacia.

Alex

It takes a while to load, but a ton of info here on video conferencing technology.

http://myhome.hanafos.com/~soonjp/vchx.html

I am particularly fond of:

Randy Cole, "PVP - A Packet Video Protocol", Internal Document, USC/ISI, July 1981.
"The Packet Video Protocol (PVP) is a set of extensions to the Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) and consists mostly of a data protocol for transmission of video data. No specific changes to the NVP-II protocol are necessary for the PVP."

1981. packet video... (um, IP network is a packet network!). Transmission of video data.

:-)

Alex

looks like the bricks and mortar for acacia's tomb are piling up, all I can say is ... it can't be soon enough for me! *the rat bastids* :)

I had a BBS running back in 88-89 with a video player but the HD I had from that period is sitting on a shelf completely unbootable. Of course I think things from Apple and AT&T hold alot more weight anyday than some fetish vids I would have been able to show ;)

What a blast from the past Vicki. I have the feeling that the group fighting this patent have had prior art findings for a while now. I used to be in on the mailings. They have to go to court to show their cards.

What comes to mind is "so you find prior art how hard is it for acacia to patent it". I know they bought existing patents, would this olevetti company hold a patent and either sell to "a-ca-ca" or say "heh good gig they got going on maybe we should try it".

Well thinking postitively... I hope the judges are smart cookies that can be taught... cause I doubt that they will get a judge that owns a computer let alone is a tech head.

Hey sus girl :)

from what I understand, they have had several prior art submissions from webmasters .. just as RawAlex mentioned so this should get interesting very soon.

actually a lawsuit wouldn't have been necessary to overturn a patent. It's a normal proceeding to have a patent re-evaluated and their office research crew can do the deed. The rub here is that lawsuits have evidently already been filed. If the lawyers had requested the re-evaluation before that time it would have been much better cost wise - then leave more legal fees for smacking acacia upside the head in court for damages etc

I suppose time will tell

that sucks the lawyers didnt pick up on this... or was it a matter or timing on when they found the prior art?

I am VERY interested because I was in on round one of the packages being sent out. I guess becuase my paysite has the word sex in it... they did a big fat ole search on yahoo for "sex" to find who to send em too LOL

They sent me another package the day GloFarts ran off with 14,000 dollars of my money. That is another pretty funny soap opera. That was a stellar day to be an adult business! LOL

DAMAGES.... Now that has a nice ring to it...

Susanna, your company is Canadian based correct??

you might want to double check on that, I'm not sure if they hold a global patent or not .... for some reason (my brain isn't awake enough to remember where I read it) I'm thinking this is a US patent hon

if thats the case they can't touch you ... hmmm then again you say they already sent you a package, meaning they are aware you are canadian based .... hmmm well I ***THINK*** they have no hold on you

now do NOT take my word as gold, like I said ... might check with those in the know


oh btw - i'm in the process of gathering update info for sponsor specs. Thanks for all the leads *smooch*

any other paysite owners lurking if you need info updated or your sites added .. hit me up :)

Your right they dont have a canadian patent but some people have said it doesnt matter, long as I host in the usa or do any of my business there. So far I have proceeded with the hope that my Canadian status is good for something in my business. These days it seems a detriment.

They do have many countries but Canada is not one of them..

I know it doesnt pay to count chickens before they hatch, but dayum - I hope there's enough clear unambiguous prior art out there to blow Acacia out of the water.

Seems to me that if there is enough prior art evidence, and Acacia knew or should have known that they had no valid claim to a patent here, that it could go out of the realm of a civil suit into the realm of criminal law, as attempted extortion.

One can only hope...