Slashdot Mirror
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?"
by the hi-tech version of Tony Soprano. Unfortunately, there is little you can do beyond complaining to the various groups keeping track of the abuse of the patent system by IP law scumbags. Pulling all the MPEGs, and quietly finding someone to mirror them in a country not fatally fubar'd by assinine patent law is probably the best you can do.
Ask them to show you the specific patents that you are infringing and which part of the patent that you are infringing on.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Ok, so we didn't learn the first time? Well, let's just give this guy some more free advertising.
Isnt a patent void when you dont try to enforce it
Just ignore the letter. The majority of the time, organizations who send cease & desist letters *know* that they have no way to enforce their claims, and believe they can do so by scaring off the victim.
Perhaps I'm being quick to judge, but it doesn't sound like they've been on the playing field for long. Their domain name was registered two years ago. Certainly, if this is the case, they were not the first to use digital video on the Internet...
IANAL. However, this patent seems to be overly broad. This could be their downfall. My first piece of advice is to find a patent lawyer. I'd also suggest finding larger companies that offer video for download (e.g. Time Warner). They may be willing to support you.
.Anim file.
My iunqualified reading follows:
"Compressed" is a vague term, but would appear to include any compression algorithm, including LZW, and RLE. These types of file have been around before the first patent was issued - Obviously really. This patent was applied for at a time when video compression was good enough to make this feasable.
It would appear that this would cover any BBS that ever contained an Amiga
The other issue is that this would appear to apply only to broadcast and ordinary telephone services. The internet is not a broadcast technology. It is also not a telephone technology. Even if it was, this patent would appear to be for broadcasting recordable video data.
Ofcourse, IANAL, but it does seem quite silly to me. Also, you might want to ask them why they are not suing mp3.com, after all they deliver audio and video in exactly the same way, and there's probably a lot more money to be made there. I bet the shareholders won't like them going after small fish when they could have big ones, due diligence and all that...
I wouldn't just ignore it, I think you should report it to the feds... it sounds like extortion.
Are you the only one who takes junk mail seriously? Does the "BIGGER PENIS IN 12 DAYS GUARANTEED!!!11" actually work?
Or maybe you're really clever and think that this is a good way to get a bunch of lonely geeks to sign up for your website.