Does Transfer of MPEG Video Infringe on Acacia Patents?

Spooky Suicide asks: "I own a slightly naughty website that among other things makes 20 some odd videos available for download in MPEG2 and MPEG4 format. I recently received a written letter from Acacia Research telling me my delivery of video is infringing upon some of their patents and I must choose between either licensing their technology or settling this issue in court. I called the EFF who told me they don't specialize in patent issues and don't know what to do next. Obviously, if all video on the web infringes on their patent, you'd think they'd go after the big guys, but they seem to be going after little content providers who can't afford to fight them in court. I can't help but feel like I'm being shaken down by the hi-tech version of Tony Soprano, what should I do? Anyone else dealt with these guys or no of any group of people grouping together to fight this?"

Comments

Sounds remarkably similar

[Dachannien]

You might try contacting the people at http://www.youmaybenext.com/ since they're dealing with the same issue, just a different patent.

Slashdot articles on that topic are at
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/0 5/21 21249&tid=155
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/articl e.pl?sid=02/10/22/01 5241&tid=155

The fact that none of their patents actually contain the word "Internet" is rather telling, though.

Re:Change

[Cecil]

Uh, read the patent? It's not a patent on MPEG. It's a patent on internet video:

The present invention relates generally to an audio and video transmission and receiving system, and more specifically to such a system in which the user controls the access and the playback operations of selected material.

It specifically states that it relates to any compressed video, whether it is compressed during transmission, partially decompressed before transmission, or fully decompressed before transmission. Not just MPEG. It applies to Real, Ogg Theora, anything. Those are just forms of compression.

These guys have "patented" the method of sending you the video so you can pause it and fast forward it. Ooooh.

Re:Change

[labtec6]

If you've read the letter, it basically says that if you allow available video clips for viewing or download from your web site, you are infringing on their copywrights. Nothing about format. It's only that you have videos on your web site.

This patent could be slapped down HARD if they took on a large company. That's why they are going after this guys site. He's small time, probably can't afford to fight. EXACTLY the same thing as the PanIP fight that's going on. Too broad of a patent to even be inforcable, and they know it.

It's like patenting "method of moving your legs for locomotion" or some crap. It's just a given, and has been done before. But if you can't fight it, they'll get money, and sue others until somebody steps up and fights.

This all sucks.

Sit on your hands.

[WasterDave]

If these seem like the actions of a desperate fc, that's because they are. Shall we all look for our favourite quote? I like "Revenues for the third quarter of 2002 were $179,000 versus $10,831,000 in the comparable 2001 period.", although it does struggle for attention when compared to "The third quarter 2002 net loss from operations was $20,622,000 or $1.05 per share". I note as well that their licence fee income is a glorious $43k for the last quarter. Shit, I know contractors who have made that much.Their assets minus liabilities is somewhere in the region of $56M, although we can safely assume a lot of those assets aren't going to be cash in the bank.

Anyway, so it's not me getting the legal hassles, but I say stall the bastards. If you can stall for six months or so they'll just disappear off the radar. Either that or Apple, Real or Microsoft will walk round with the big stick and knock them off the radar.

Best of luck,
Dave

BTW, how much are they looking for?