Does anyone worry about Acacia anymore?

cd34 · 2005-10-15, 04:20 PM

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 · 2005-10-15, 04:42 PM

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 · 2005-10-15, 05:11 PM

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

2005-10-15, 04:20 PM	#1
cd34 a.k.a. Sparky Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: West Palm Beach, FL, USA Posts: 2,396	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? __________________ SnapReplay.com a different way to share photos - iPhone & Android

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

2005-10-15, 04:42 PM	#2
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	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".

2005-10-15, 05:11 PM	#3
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	I'd especially like to hear from people that actually build with movies.