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?"
this is where you'll find the best people to fight for more porn on the internet.
slightly naughty
teehee
I shall tell you, after I get an account for your slightly naughty website! ;)
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
You might try contacting the people at http://www.youmaybenext.com/ since they're dealing with the same issue, just a different patent.
0 5/21 21249&tid=155l e.pl?sid=02/10/22/01 5241&tid=155
Slashdot articles on that topic are at
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/artic
The fact that none of their patents actually contain the word "Internet" is rather telling, though.
Start one. I have also made three videos (of the non pr0n variety, sorry) and provided them for download. I guess that makes what I'm doing illegal too. This patent stuff is going far beyond ridiculous. The sad part is that this was filed in 1992. I can't even think of any prior art. That doesn't make it valid, but it does make it hard to fight. Jeez.
Random and weird software I've written.
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.
Random and weird software I've written.
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.
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.
Trying to get a first post with something that looks like usefull informations?
United States Patent N 5,132,992 Audio and video transmission and receiving system:
A system of distributing video and/or audio information employs digital signal processing to achieve high rates of data compression. The compressed and encoded audio and/or video information is sent over standard telephone, cable or satellite broadcast channels to a receiver specified by a subscriber of the service, preferably in less than real time, for later playback and optional recording on standard audio and/or video tape.
The patents are very broad and mostly cover the transmission of the content, not the format of the content.
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
How does this involve the internet?
Specially if the medium was fiber optic line, or even a tin can down the way.
And its not being recorded on any "video tape".
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Acacia killed the internet video porn-star.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
>First, contact the EFF. They may be willing to help you fight any court battles
:-P
:p
For gods sake, atleast read the NEWSPOST ITSELF!
I called the EFF who told me they don't specialize in patent issues and don't know what to do next.
> Use the DivX [divx.com] codec; it's free to use and produces good output. (Use the free version, not the "Pro"; you won't need the extra features.) Stick a link to DivX's web site on your page.
> I'd also include a note that MPEG isn't friendly, and that Acacia sucks.
Doooh?
And if would have followed one of the relevant links then you'd know that the patents are not talking about MPEG at all, its just the file format he uses.
The patents apply to ANY highly compressed video and or audio signal transmitted over phone/sat/cable.#
.
.
phone/cable/sat:
Does this mean I can give out my porn using wireless? - They will prolly file a patent for that one too!
If they do - point them to this post! I had the idea first - and its obvious!
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
Just ignore the letter. More than likely it is an empty threat. If it isn't, it should be very easily defeated in court simply through prior art. HTTP (I assume that is what you are using to "deliver" the video content) was invented in 1990, two full years before Acacia's first patent.
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!
X Windows is designed for a clinet* to pull the information to display applications over the network from a server. Some of those applications are video, or video like, and some of those networks use compression.
X is *really* old and has roots to 1984.
*X uses odd client/server terminology. It makse sense in an odd way, but I used the 'traditional' meening here.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
(And why no 1 year credit card?)
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
--contact the big guys yourself. If these guys get an court settlement test cases in their favor, it's going to cost a lot of the big guys serious folding money to fight the case themselves. whereas-if you can convince them to help you fight your relatively small case NOW, they can potentially save BIG BUCKS later. That's the best idea I can think of right now. These guys are fishing, but they will start taking people to court, and bet a nickle that they have a tame judge's area picked out where to file in. That's just a logic train, in war, the dude who picks the battle and terrain and goes first has the upper hand right off the bat. I haven't looked at any of the patents yet though, so no idea if their claims have any merit, but potentially this is bigger than the e-commerce patent fights if what they say is true. Just think of real player and quicktime and windows media player stuff, it would appear that all of those efforts are in violation potentially. I mean, transmitting digital content on wires? Say whut? That's a very, very broad avenue for "the internet". You might have difficulty though seeing as how you have a porn site, could be none of the big guys would want to be seen publically as "in favor of" your ....uhhh... artistic efforts on the net. In that case, seek contributions from like minded webmasters and hosts from this "industry" that will be similarly affected. There's thousands of them, a few bucks apiece donated might be prudent.
I imagine all these parties have employees who read slashdot, so they will see this thread. good luck.
...then RTFP
He already talked to the EFF, and they aren't interested in patent stuff, just copyright.
Also, the patent doesn't apply to just MPEG, it applies to any transmitted video of any format transmitted which allows the recieving party some control over access (pause, fast forward, etc).
In other words, ogg, DivX, Real, whatever are all covered by this patent, as long as they are transmitted using one of the methods described in the patent. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to mention the internet anywhere, but it does mention standard telephone, cable, or satalite. Basically, the only way to win this is to convince a judge that the internet isn't covered by any of those terms.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Ok, so we didn't learn the first time? Well, let's just give this guy some more free advertising.
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?
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
And the first thing you do is contact the EFF, and THEN you contact Slashdot. When is your lawyer getting a call, after your thrown in jail?
Isnt a patent void when you dont try to enforce it
Since a lot of adult sites are fly-by-night operations, merchant accounts for adult businesses generally disallow memberships for more than one year, as they worry about the business folding and having to refund all the money. So if you see one year options by credit card on adult sites, it's usually because they use a third party billing solution (like ibill.com or ccbill.com) who take responsability for the refunds.
yes i run a goth/punk/emo porn site.
When I looked at the url, of that linked site I knew we had already given this site free advertisement on slashdot. I didn't bother clicking it again as that's obviously another lame attempt to get the slashdot crowds on their site.
True warriors use the Klingon Google
http://www.usvo.com/tech/store_forward.html
Similar patent owned by US Video, filed before Acacia filed theirs.
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.
I'm surprised you even thought for a minute that this was a real legal threat. That letter isn't even personalized. It's just plain junk mail meant to scare stupid webmasters like you into buying a scam license. Ignore it. Ignore anything that isn't addressed to you or your company by name, and that doesn't directly threaten legal action.
And they say porn isn't educational! Thanks. I thought at first it was a typo, but I could see it repeated elsewhere on the page.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Orange County Business Journal:
p ?m sgid=17134096
Little Acacia's Lawyers Take On Big TV Makers
By ANDREW SIMONS
Engineers rule at most technology companies. At Newport Beach-based Acacia Research Corp., it's lawyers. The legal department at the small patent-holding company pulled in all but a smidgen of Acacia's $24 million in revenue last year.
The team, led by Acacia vice president and general counsel Robert Berman, has made a business out of winning or settling lawsuits against big-name TV makers it accuses of infringing on patents.
Thanks to Acacia's arm-twisting, 13 TV makers have inked licensing pacts with the company in the past year.... (Reg. req.)
http://www.cbjonline.com/index_oc.html
Silicon Investor:
Acacia's growth strategy: Hire more lawyers.
Antitrust watchdogs are busy checking out two partnerships forged by most of the big media companies that plan to sell new video-on-demand services. But the two partnerships, Movies.com and Movielink, might face an even bigger obstacle in Acacia Research, a Newport Beach, Calif. outfit that owns patents on certain technologies that enable digital streaming of music and movies over the Internet and cable television.
"We're doing an analysis to see what companies are infringing [on Acacia's patents], and then putting together a strategy to license our patents to those companies," says Robert Berman, president of Acacia's Media Technologies Group. If deals can't be made, Acacia is prepared to sue, which is how it generated much of its $25.6 million in revenues last year. Acacia has settled lawsuits and cut deals with a dozen TV manufacturers for its patents on television v-chips.
Sound familiar? In the early 20th century Motion Picture Patents Co. held immense sway in the film business until it was busted up by antitrust lawyers. More recently Henry Yuen became a billionaire in part by suing anyone he thought infringed on the patents owned by his interactive TV-guide service, Gemstar. Not only did Acacia purloin a page from Henry Yuen's patent playbook, it also stole three of the Gemstar attorneys, including Roy J. Mankovitz, a former Gemstar board member and lead in-house counsel for patent-licensing strategy.
Perhaps Yuen can sue Berman for infringing on his legal ideas.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gs
Arguably they've lost it, but not permanently. You're off the hook for previous infringement, but as soon as they notify you, you're liable from then on.
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.