Slashdot Mirror


Acadia Streaming Patent Contested

Anonymous Coward writes "Since last year Acadia Research has sent hundreds of letters to various porn web sites to arrange royalty deals, picking on the small fry before trying to take on well-heeled companies such as Disney. However, many small fries refused, and now 40 firms have joined forces and are embroiled in a suit with Acadia. Fish & Richardson (a prominent intellectual property law firm) have taken their case. The best part? CEO Paul Ryan's obvious sour-grapes-syndrome, he goes from describing the web porn industry as a "billion-dollar industry" where the money is to a "sideshow" that's "maybe 1% of our potential revenues". Check it out here"

37 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Amazon by kmac06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, Amazon plans to sue every site on the internet that uses cookies, as well as Microsoft for allowing sites other than Amazon to stores cookies.

    1. Re:Amazon by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "This is a travesty to the legal system," complains E. Michael "Spike" Goldberg, chief executive officer of the company that owns HomeGrownVideo.com, a site featuring amateurs performing various sex acts in their homes and other creative locales. "They've made a business model out of a loophole," he says of the broadness of Acacia's patent claim. "It's like they're trying to patent breathing."

      Acacia may have tried to patent breathing, but the /. crowd got there first...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  2. Forbes by leviramsey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This isn't the first Forbes anti-excessive patents article they've run... as a matter of fact, I've seen links to a couple already on Slashdot. Could Steve Forbes be pushing for patent reform to be a Republican plank in '04 (especially if he decides to run again...)?

    1. Re:Forbes by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure that Bush will be the runner for the republicans come 2004, but that may change depending on how this war goes. However, If Forbes (or anyone else) where to run and have Patent Office reform as an issue, I would definitely listen. I think that it is time for the Gov't to get back in touch with the people. (now, to get back on topic)

      Your right, a LOT of slashdot articles are all about excessive patent frenzies, but it really is an important issue. Myabe some of you out there are saying, "Heh, it's just a bunch of dirty porn sites..." (some of you are going, "OH NO! This might mean the end of my favorite site!!!") and this ignorance about the world around us is very worrisome. One of the things I love about slashdot is that much of the communtiy knows of the problems we face today and wish to seek action. Especially in this case. So many sites run streaming video these days, and I would personally loathe Acadia for any damage it does to the already struggling internet economy.

      People just want to make money, and that is good. People want to make money at the expense of everyone else, that is bad.

      --
      YOU SUCK BALLS!
    2. Re:Forbes by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Could Steve Forbes be pushing for patent reform to be a Republican plank in '04 (especially if he decides to run again...)?

      And court the all-important geek vote? Steve Forbes has about zilch political credibility aside from the soabox afforded to him by his publishing companies and the fortune that those companies provide him. He certainly won't be able to mount a primary challenge against a sitting president if he runs as a republican, and running as a third party candidate pretty much ensures that he'll be the butt of late night talk-show host jokes for the length of the campaign and that his supporters will look like cranks.

  3. yet one... by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 3, Interesting

    more case of Patents gone crazy. The patent office was designed to protect ones ideas and STIMULATE growth, not to allow people to suddenly restrict the use of a VERY commonpractice. I can't say that I'm too pleased with their lawsuit, but I do appreciate the nuances. If I created something, I'd sure as hell want to keep it protected and to earn royalties. Yet at the same time, this is abusing the system. They have a patent on something. That something becomes common practice. That patent becomes lucrative. Company suddenly goes after people using common practice. And they go really low, because they beleive that the porn industry, made of lots o lil fishes, won't be able to defend themselves. After all, the court will just frown down on these "dispicable" people (hey, everyone needs to make a living).

    I am all for patents, and for protecting your ideas. but I am also for the expansion of ideas and the advancement of us all. So poo-on-you Acadia!

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
    1. Re:yet one... by gregmac · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That raises an interesting idea. Shouldn't the onus be on the patent owner to enforce their patent when someone else first starts to violate it? Sitting on your hands for a few years while many companies violate your patent, then suddenly decided you want to collect on them is akin to entrapment.

      By waiting, you're simply allowing more people to violate the patent and increasing the overall payoff for yourself when you go to file suit against all the companies (as opposed to doing it to the first one and stopping future patent violations).

      It's also not fair to put the onus on the other side, as there are literally millions of patents, and searching for patents on every little proccess would be futile. Espessially with some of the descriptions they have for software processes, and being able to construe them as patents on something like hyperlinks or cookies.

      --
      Speak before you think
    2. Re:yet one... by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That raises an interesting idea. Shouldn't the onus be on the patent owner to enforce their patent when someone else first starts to violate it?

      No.

      That sounds like the situation with trademarks today: if your trademark is infringed, and you don't defend it, you lose it. That's how we ended up with companies being ridiculously overzealous about trademarks. Remember KIllustrator? Remember the mailing list owner who received legal threats because someone had posted a message with the subject 'sendmail for dummies,' and it was in the archive?

      A company with an overbroad patent can screw everyone over whether they enforce it immediately or not. The only way out is not to issue overbroad patents.

    3. Re:yet one... by gregmac · · Score: 3, Interesting
      That sounds like the situation with trademarks today: if your trademark is infringed, and you don't defend it, you lose it. That's how we ended up with companies being ridiculously overzealous about trademarks.

      So? Is this really a bad thing in regards to patents? If you don't defend your patent, and over the next few years you start getting companies, formats and standards that are actually infringing your non-enforced patent, how is it fair to say you still have a right to it? You'd suddenly be putting companies out of business (RealNetworks would be hard-pressed to survive without streaming media, for one). You'd be forcing open-source initatives to pay royalties they obviously can't afford (Ogg can stream).

      So yes, if you don't enforce your patent, you should lose rights to it. Basing your business model on a misuse of the patent system - namely, making an obscure patent, waiting years for enough people to violate that patent without knowing, and then suddenly bringing them all to court and get a big payoff - should not be allowed.

      The only way out is not to issue overbroad patents.

      Yes, that's true. But there are many many problems with this. Often the patent office doesn't have people with enough knowledge to decide if a patent is too broad or not. Often patents are filed on new research where there are only a couple of people in the world that know enough about it to decide if it's overly broad - and those are the people filing the patent.

      So really, it becomes impossible to stop these patents from being filed. Instead, it should be rememebered that the patent system is designed to protect intellectual property, and not a place to make money by basically using entrapment.

      --
      Speak before you think
    4. Re:yet one... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Funny


      yet one... more case of Patents gone crazy.


      Patents GONE WILD!

      See hundreds of early, young patents exploited at www.patentsgonewild.com! TODAY!

      Sign up now and get a bonus video stream: Patented College Pipedreams! Too hot for TV!
  4. Uh Oh... by FFtrDale · · Score: 4, Funny
    Is Acacia going to file a patent application for sex, too, along with their patent on streaming video? We know that the US Patent Office hasn't been too alert about prior art...

    Yeah, yeah, go ahead & reply w/ the obligatory joke about /.ers "not having to worry about getting sued for infringement."

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
    1. Re:Uh Oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you kidding me? With as little actual work as they do I'm convinced everyone at the patent office spends 99% of their time banging chicks! That's the only explanation I can come up with. I'm guessing they'll spot the prior art on that one...

  5. Slapped...buckling... by canning · · Score: 4, Funny

    Eight firms agreed to Acacia's terms. But 40 didn't, and Acacia promptly slapped them with lawsuits. Rather than buckling, though, several of the porno sites joined together and stood their ground. Now Acacia is in the fight of its life and may even face a shareholder revolt as a result.

    Searching for sexual innuendos..... searching......

    --
    I love the smell of Karma in the morning
    1. Re:Slapped...buckling... by antibryce · · Score: 4, Funny
      Searching for sexual innuendos..... searching......

      You must be using MSN's search engine. Here's the output from Google:

      Searching...82374982734987298347289347982 Results found.

      Hope that helps. :)

  6. Note to Editors and Posters by Entropy_ah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't EVER post a story about porn sites and end it with a link entitled "Check it out here"
    You really got my hopes up :(

    --
    my other penis is a vagina
  7. How long before... by cyril3 · · Score: 4, Funny
    your bad English gets you into trouble with Disney.

    sent hundreds of letters to various porn web sites to arrange royalty deals, picking on the small fry before trying to take on well-heeled companies such as Disney.

    I imagine they will feel insulted at being called a well heeled porn site.

  8. The Pron Horde by Nemus · · Score: 3, Funny
    Considering the fact that theres like, what, a half a billion + websites that doing streaming video, can you imagine the sheer awesome might of a nearly industry wide class action lawsuit against these guys?

    It would be like a massive horde of little white knights rushing to breach......wait. Lets not go there.

    --
    Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
  9. Small Fry? by fishbert42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Acadia Research has sent hundreds of letters to various porn web sites ... picking on the small fry before trying to take on well-heeled companies such as Disney."

    By 'various porn web sites' do you mean the single largest online industry and the driving force behind countless advancements of the internet over the years? I think it's safe to say that Acadia Research chose the wrong 'small fry' to pick on.

  10. Slogan for the 40 companies fighting back... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 2, Funny

    No mean no!

  11. All I want... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is a royalty-free streaming video feed of the court proceedings. They promise to be quite entertaining.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  12. Simple Solution by cranos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Make them watch twenty hours of Ron Jeremy, they'll buckle quicker than Asia Carerras panties come off

  13. Why post as AC? by FFtrDale · · Score: 2, Funny

    You'd get karma points for being modded up as Insightful and Funny!

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
  14. Is the article writer trying to advertise Acacia? by happyhippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Acacia Research reported a net loss last year of $29.6 million on sales that plummeted to $882,000, from $24.6 million the previous year. If nothing else, the stock is a screaming bargain"

    No, its a screaming warning sign not to invest you idiot. And coupled with this ridiculous patent grab its a bigger warning to stay away.

  15. Let's show them how we feel! by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think every healthy, freedom-loving Slashdot reader owes these porn purveyors our thanks. Each and every one of you should go subscribe to their services tonight - remember, you're doing it to protect innovation. If this angers your wife/girlfriend, tell her it's for a good cause.

  16. Yeah. That'll work. by FFtrDale · · Score: 2, Funny
    Just as it did with liquor^H^H^H^H^H^H drugs^H^H^H^H^H umm... ?

    --
    Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
  17. Failed Business Models by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A quote that I found interesting in the article was:
    Acacia Research reported a net loss last year of $29.6 million on sales that plummeted to $882,000, from $24.6 million the previous year. If nothing else, the stock is a screaming bargain. The market values the entire company at just 43% of the $55 million Acacia has on hand in cash and cash equivalents. "All I know is I've been buying a lot of stock lately," Ryan says gamely.
    It seems to me that the business model of getting vague or overly broad patents does not provide a steady income stream. If you go to their web site you find that they still list their V-chip technology (even though they lost a patent enforcement case--guess the patent was not that important) and their biochip technology (also a loser in the courts).

    The bottom line is that there is a desperate need for patent reform. My first suggestion is a peer review process. Technology specialization has gotten to the point where I do not think a fulltime patent clerk can stay current in a field. Second, the patent process must be completed in a short timeframe. If you cannot provide a clear patent right away, then you probably do not have good idea. The current patent process has a disclosure document program that can be used to help establish precedent. It even provides for a patent pending. IMHO those two concepts provide sufficient protection of an idea. The purpose of a finite timeframe is to reduce the number of submarine patents.

    A dissenting opinion to my view can be found here.

  18. Re:Use It Or Lose It by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I know that our current patent system is set up so that, if you don't defend your patent for a certain amount of time, you can't just come back and start attempting to enforce it.

    You must be thinking of trademarks; see my comment on that. Patents cannot be lost by neglect to defend them. However, it may happen that the patent cannot be enforced in a certain case.

    If company B has been infringing company A's patent for five years, and company A knew about it all along, and then suddenly decides to sue over it, B can use as a defense that, in effect, A's ignorage of the infringement excused it.

    But if company C then comes along and infringes the same patent for the first time, A would still be able to enforce the patent on C. So patents are never lost completely, only partially under certain circumstances.

    Also, this kind of situation doesn't tend to come up very often.

  19. This is getting stupid by rf0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Haven't the US patent office worked out yet the system is being abuse? I mean as they are going for streaming media does this mean they could go for people who are downloading MP3's (legal or not). This case deserves to be kicked out of court or its going to be hell for everyone. Of course if this is allowed I'm going to patent toilet paper and then ask for 1% of everyone income. Now that would be crap :P (pun intended)

    Rus

    1. Re:This is getting stupid by D.A.+Zollinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Haven't the US patent office worked out yet the system is being abuse?

      The problem is, that the US Patent Office sees itself as a government profit center. It has no desire to correct any abuses because it doesn't see abuses, it sees all the money it is raking in with the fees it charges in granting and maintaining patents. To make any kind of reform in the USTPO, a major paradigm shift needs to occur within the USTPO concerning its place in the United States Government.

      We may all agree that the place of the USTPO is to encourage innovation by rewarding those who perform the research nessessary to create advancements. It is my belief that this was the original purpose of the USTPO. In 1980, The United States Supreme Court broadened the scope of what is patentable - allowing "anything under the sun that is made by man" to be patented. Then again in 1998, the scope was broadened even further allowing "methods of doing business" patentable.

      We are now seeing the fallout of these decisions. Individuals and corporations patenting ideas and concepts that previously were not patentable, irregardless as to any prior art of such ideas or concepts. Perhaps someone should patent the idea of a corporation or a business and sue anyone who would use a patent as a cudgel to extort a small organization instead of using it for its intended purpose - defense of inventions from those who would profit from their research.

      --
      I haven't lost my mind!
      It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
  20. Re:God bless US of A! by FreeQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    God i'll sue him Rotacorpse© was my idea ...

  21. Re:God bless US of A! by product+byproduct · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave.

    Hmm, maybe that was the plan.

    1. Install an alternator inside Thomas Jefferson's grave.
    2. Abuse the patent system.
    3. Sell the electricity generated by the alternator.
    4. Profit!!!

  22. Re:Here are the actual patents by gjb6676 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm a dumbass, I found them. All the patent numbers are listed here

    Here are the 5 US Patent Office Links:
    # 5,132,992
    # 5,253,275
    # 5,550,863
    # 6,002,720
    # 6,144,702

  23. When was this patented? by Sandman1971 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone know when this was originally patented? I can't seem to find it at the Patent Office online. I remember watching streaming video/audio in Real Player around 95, and videoconferencing in 90-91 (which is streaming video). Unless they patented this in the early 80's, there's TONS of prior art to this.
    Hmmmm, maybe I'll patent the idea of prior art. Wonder if it's been tried already.

    Prior Art: The process of which indicates if an already existing patent and/or use was already pre-existing. If anything remotely acts/looks/operates/functions to/like anything already existing, they are in violation of this patent.

    --
    It's better to burn out than to fade away
  24. A bit of infantilism in Forbes by panurge · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Did anybody else notice the rather prurient tone of the Forbes article? The baby talk about people taking their clothes off, and the "you wouldn't want to know"?
    How many of their readers need to have explained in baby talk what streamed video porn might be about? And then there's the suggestion that a law firm had to be persuaded to take the case. Let's just explain this. The way you "persuade" a law firm to take your case is, you offer them enough money.

    The writer seems to be uncomfortable that porn companies are involved. But it's hard to understand why they should be any worse ethically than gun companies, liquor companies, and certainly tobacco companies, and they spend huge amounts of money on lobbying and litigation to protect their interests.

    Anyway, they are to be applauded. Acacia is basically (in my admittedly incompetent opinion only) a loser company with a business model based on a protection racket, and has tried to set the price of being left alone at a level low enough that its victims will pay rather than litigate. They have chosen to litigate, and that increases the chance that this kind of thing will fail in future. Which is good for innovation and the economy. And, as I suspect the Democrats will be saying in 2004, it's the economy, stupid.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:A bit of infantilism in Forbes by Bostik · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I found the ending quote of the article quite hilarious. A company that both provides and distributes porn flicks, saying "We don't need a partner for years and years."

      That must be just too accurate a description of their clientele.

      --
      There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
  25. Fish & ... by pfl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey!

    Where are Cage & McBeal?
    What's the deal with Fish and that other guy? That "Richardson" seems suspiciously like "Richard"...

  26. It really takes talent . . . by taustin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . . . to invent a business model that let's the porn industry make you look sleazy.

    These people claim to have patents on digital cell phones. I wonder if they realize that yet.