Profiting From A Vague Patent HOWTO

tunabomber writes "IEEE Spectrum has an in-depth article about the rise of Acacia Research Corporation and its plan for enforcing its patent on 'Digital Media Technology' (which seems to lay claim to any technology that transmits audio or video digitally for entertainment purposes). You may recall that there was a story on Slashdot over a year ago about Acacia's threats and subsequent lawsuits against some small adult entertainment companies regarding their violation of the patent. There was also an Ask Slashdot posted a while back by the owner of one of these companies who had received a letter from Acacia Research demanding that they pay licensing fees. Both Slashdot stories asked how long it would be until Acacia went after the big media companies. Well, they finally did last week. It appears that Acacia just had to get enough companies (Disney and Virgin Radio, among others) to pay licensing fees before they could afford a legal adventure against the big guys. DirectTV, Comcast, Echostar, and Charter Communications are some of the defendents. Let the fireworks begin!"

Comments

I doubt it's as bad as it sounds...

[ncurses]

I did some googling, and they hold the same patent in Japan and Europe. It seems like Europe has a pretty good record of not approving silly patents.

I can't find the actual text of the patent. I tried searching the patent search engine dealy linked to in the original article, but I couldn't find it. Could someone link to it?

And the reason they call it a patent of a HOWTO is because I do not believe Acacia Research Corporation has actually implemented the streaming video stuff that they patented. I don't think it's as broad as it sounds, but it does sound a lot like patenting an idea.

Re:Prior art

[91degrees]

Were they compressed, stored, transmitted and then decompressed? And were they audioand/or video files? Looks like this is what's needed.

So you need to see if the first ever digtially transmitted compressed audio or video file predates this patent.

I suspect it does. There must have been countless zipped audio samples on bulletin boards by 1992.

Re:When the patent is ruled invalid...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well no. They couldn't have been sued and lost, because the validity of the patent would have been tested in court during their trial.

No, the people who would lose are the ones who settle. Since they didn't fight it, they basically said "here is free money, stop annoying me." Most settlements don't include agreements about if this patent should "go away." Though frankly, I would want to make sure my lawyer worked like hell to get it in.

Now I'm curious. Disney's lawyers are as infamous (or infamouse) as IBM's. What are they doing settling out of court for an iffy patent?

Re:With lawsuits being the "In-Thing"

[The I Shing]

Al Gore's gonna be suing over his invention of the Internet

This might be a bit off-topic, but my curiousity is piqued.

Where exactly can I find a reliable source that quotes Al Gore as having said that he invented the internet?

I mean, I read that, in 1999, he stated in an interview, "'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet," by which he meant securing funding for it, but nowhere have I found, outside of message board posts, that Al Gore actually claimed to have invented the internet itself.

I read that he told a House committee about the internet in 1989, remarking, "I genuinely believe that the creation of this nationwide network will create an environment where work stations are common in homes and even small businesses." Geez, what a crackpot!

Re:dumb and obvious Q for the IANAL among us...

[jkabbe]

A smart attorney would probably require a clause in any licensing agreement that would void the agreement if any claims of the patent are voided by the USPTO or a court. Otherwise, no, you're out of luck.

Re:Prior art

[ronaldb64]

Were they compressed, stored, transmitted and then decompressed? And were they audioand/or video files? Looks like this is what's needed.

So you need to see if the first ever digtially transmitted compressed audio or video file predates this patent.

I suspect it does. There must have been countless zipped audio samples on bulletin boards by 1992.

There sure was. Remember the Commodore 64? There were tons of "demo's" out for them, doing stuff with a C64 it was never intented for (try and get that picture out of your head). Most of them sported soundtracks, and definately had something aking to video.

Unless my memory is failing me, that was in the mid-80's. And one of the main distribution media for those files were BBS's... Can Mr. Rogers say 'prior art'?

Prior art is mentioned in the patent!

[saintp]

From the patent text: "wherein the transceiver means receives the information via any one of telephone, ISDN, broadband ISDN, satellite, common carrier, computer channels, cable television systems, metropolitan area networks, and microwave."

They gave a list of 9 instances of prior art, right in the patent! Any time you stream media, this patent covers it. So, for instance, the telephone (invented 1876), the television (patented 1948), and "computer channels" (Z3 built in 1941) all operate primarily (exclusively!) by the means described in this patent.

Inconceivable!

Still, it should make the defense a little easier when Acacia has been nice enough to catalogue prior art for us! It's like shooting wealthy, very well-defended ducks in a barrel.