Slashdot Mirror

First, for this to mean anything at all, they need to get participation from the companies with the biggest patent portfolios. This includes companies such as Microsoft. It's not going to happen. Without their participation it's meaningless.

Second, even if they do get every single Fortune 500 company to join in the fun it won't help because there will always be small companies that make a play for some cash with a patent attack. We all know about a small I'm-not-dead-yet company coming from nowhere with a lame copyright suit. There are also some tiny companies with no products that come out with pure-play patent shakedown business models. Are these guys going to join in the pool? That's where the real threat is.

No, the real answer is this:

• Sourcecode can't infringe on patents. Only distributed products can possibly infringe on a patent. Therefore those who are involved only in sourcecode (ODSL) don't need to worry about patents. That's a question for distributors like RedHat, etc, who do have the resources to fight patent fights or license the patents.
• Software patents don't exist in Europe. Why worry about a problem that doesn't exist?
• We would be better served by a League of Patent Justice to defend the Earth than by some kind of pool. This League of Justice would do things like fight against frivolous patent shakedown claims, and also put out bounties on finding prior art. There almost always is prior art for all these claims.

----------------
mobile search - try it on your phone

Ooooo....this reminds me of a Dateline show that I saw, where the father was trying to teach his daughter about patents. Anyways, in the end, the daughter patented the playground "swings."

No, it was swinging sideways on a swing. (Covered on Slashdot, even. Sheesh, you must be new.)

Also seen here, here, and here.

Or do you also have to pay a pr. stream fee on top of that too for the codec?

The use of certain codecs (e.g. MPEG-4) may lead to fees in some situations. Additionally, a few companies (e.g. Acacia) are making grabs for cash regardless of what software, transports, and codecs are used.

A copy of the Markman Order was made publically available on my website on the evening of July 12th.

http://www.fightthepatent.com/MarkmanOrder.pdf

My cliff notes version: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/MarkmanOrderSumma ry.html

-brandon

A copy of the Markman Order was made publically available on my website on the evening of July 12th.

http://www.fightthepatent.com/MarkmanOrder.pdf

My cliff notes version: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/MarkmanOrderSumma ry.html

-brandon

Fight the Patent

Internet Media Protective Agency

Who will be the first to target Real/Starz for patent licensing: Acacia, USA Video, or SightSound?

-brandon

Learn more about audio/video patent holders

The concept of fading by decrease or increase in alpha-channel, but based on a timeout value? Genious!

Fight the Patent

The law is at fault, not the blood-sucking corporations, who go unpunished for way too many things because of, you guessed it, the law. Who makes the law? Hmm.. I wonder..

So glad to read that EFF is now looking into patent abuse cases.... including one (Acacia) of three that I am tracking at my website

There does need to be an (grassroots) effort to get that dusty prior art sitting on the shelf and presented to the USPTO for so many technology related patents that shouldn't have been granted. -brandon http://www.FightThePatent.com

one of the 151 patents that got invalidated was the one where a kid's father patented swinging sideways on a swing.

More info on this patent that got invalidated by the USPTO here

Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.

The current defendants against Acacia's DMT patent (which covers the process of downloading audio/video from a web server) will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.

When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.

FightThePatent.com provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.

Patent abuse cases in the audio/video realm (Acacia, SightSound, USA Video) are being tracked on the website.

Prior art to invalidate the M$ patent needs to have documentable proof before July 21, 1998 (have to go back one year before the patent application date).

Use this date as the first test of potential prior art.. if what you found existed after this date, then it won't help to count as prior art.

Fight The Patent website