Slashdot Mirror


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!"

28 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a second... by XCorvis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone should patent the method for profiting from vague patents... then sue everyone profiting from vague patents.

  2. "some small adult entertainment companies" by mirko · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are there really some companies dedicated to entertaining dwarves ???

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:"some small adult entertainment companies" by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course there are companies dedicated to Dwarf related entertainment, but they are a bunch of tossers.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  3. *Grabs popcorn* by Walkiry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the age of digital cluelessness in the patent office, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. It's hard to even tell if it's a win/win situation, because if they really go all-out on something as general as "patent of a device that broadcast digital entertainment" (paraphrased), the amount of heads that will roll in the process will make the french revolution look like a cakewalk in comparison.

    Meanwhile, the sharks are rubbing their collective fins at the prospect, and ironing their armani suits no doubt.

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    1. Re:*Grabs popcorn* by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Funny
      A lawyer, as sailor, and a priest are trapped on a lifeboat. The sailor looks over the side, and say "These be shark infested waters." The priest look to heaven and asked "Help save us lord!"

      They lawyer simple whistled. Several dorsal fins stopped circuling and headed right for the boat. They stopped in a ring as the lawyer talked to them in hushed tones. The sharks skattered underwater before the boat was suddenly lifted up, and surged forward.

      The sailor gazed over the side, shocked. The sharks were carrying the boat on their backs. After a few minutes travel, they spotted land ahead. The priest said "Saint's be praised."

      The boat slid onto the beach, and the three men stepped out. As they did another school of sharks appeared, and began depositing fish on the shoreline, before swimming away.

      The priest said, "God has answered our prayers."

      The lawyer turned and said, "Nah, this is just professional curtesy."

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  4. Prior art by csoto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are an umber of "ASCII art" utilities out there that "streamed" images to teletypes and terminals way back when. Some pretty racy images at times, too ;)

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
    1. Re:Prior art by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Prior art by missing000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not only that, but modems in that age almost universally compressed content on both sides of the pipe.

      That would appear to make my online chess playing qualify as prior art.

    3. Re:Prior art by ronaldb64 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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'?

      --
      There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    4. Re:Prior art by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had a dream:

      Ten years from now, I'll be working in a large data center running primarily on UNIX variants. The company tour guide will lead his group in on the balcony, and will say, "Here are prime examples of the Berkeley Long-Hair. It's just about their feeding time."

      Then the dumb waiter opens and there's some pizza...

  5. Patent enforcement by Roryking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is it just me or do these issues only seem to happen when some no-name corporation "remembers" that they somehow invented a wide-sweeping technology? It seems that when legitmate corporations enforce patent/copyright for things they actually invented from the get-go, nobody questions it. Is it human spirit to "take what you can get when they're not looking" or are these bozos just out to make a cheap buck?

  6. Going after little guys first... by PornMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that the reason they went after the online porn industry was to establish legal precedent.

    After all, in court, isn't it simple enough to find bias against people who "harm society" to make judgements not based on the rule of law?

    -PM

  7. Re:Profit! by thedillybar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >1. Obtain vague patent
    >2. Enforce vague patent
    >3. ???
    >4. Profit!!!

    After all the articles we've read, there is clearly 1 superior way to profit. Everytime I've seen someone make one of these, this one applies. Same method. Everytime.

    1. Become a lawyer
    2. Profit

    Talk about being in high demand? There will ALWAYS be some rich asshole who wants to sue another rich asshole.

  8. Big guys? by JimDabell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    Since when are Disney and Virgin not considered big companies?

  9. dumb and obvious Q for the IANAL among us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Say this company files suit against Comcast, et al, and other big media behemouths. Comast et al will argue in court against the validity of the patent being awarded. Assume they're successful, and the patent gets tossed. What recourse does this company's previous licensors have? Are they capable of reclaiming their money?

    1. Re:dumb and obvious Q for the IANAL among us... by jkabbe · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  10. What the patent system needs by foidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is an effective deterrent against bogus patents. IE you have to pay the patent office a lofty fine if your patent gets overturned in court. However, I can't think of a system that would:
    a) get through the special interest dominated congress and
    b: Be effective at making huge companies afraid of the fine while at the same time not intimidating legitimate companies from applying for legitmate patents.
    Scylla and Charybdis...
    And yes, I do think there are legitimate software patents, for example if this company had developed it's own compression algorithm, and unique, and very specific, distribution method, then they probably deserve a patent for it, but if they just say they invented distributing entertainment digitally, then there is no basis for the patent and they should be punished accordingly.

    1. Re:What the patent system needs by Rick.C · · Score: 4, Insightful
      you have to pay the patent office a lofty fine if your patent gets overturned in court.

      A more effective deterrent to bogus patents would be for the USPTO to have to pay any damages and legal costs awarded by the courts for overturned patents.

      As it stands, the USPTO has everything to gain and nothing to lose by rubber stamping everything it receives. If they had "some skin in the game" they would likely be more dilligent in their research.
      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    2. Re:What the patent system needs by octal666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, I do think there are legitimate software patents, for example if this company had developed it's own compression algorithm, and unique, and very specific, distribution method, then they probably deserve a patent for it, but if they just say they invented distributing entertainment digitally, then there is no basis for the patent and they should be punished accordingly.

      I fear to say I agree with you, to a point, al least. I think a specific technology, software or not involved, should be patentable, the problem is not with patenting thechnologies, but when ideas are patented.

      For example, the mouse, if you patent the mouse, you are patenting one implementation of a device to interact with the computer in a graphical way. If you patent a way to push a button, it's not a technology, it's an idea. Same with an algorithm, the encryption idea should not be patentable, a given algorithm should.

      The patent for broadcasting digital entertainment is an idea, and seems to be like patenting the use of water for thirst relieving.

      With all that vague patents, why anyone has patented the operating system yet?

      --
      DON'T PANIC
  11. Finally, a HOWTO that I can profit from... by lacrymology.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    I own the patents for the following vague ideas:

    1) A method for translating program source code into a machine runnable format.

    2) A method for displaying a computer's file system (see earlier patent for details) based on the top of a typical desk.

    3) A number system based solely on the numbers 1 and 0.

    4) A method for having sex with a computer (you know it'll happen one day... and when it does... I'm rolling in the cash)

    Anyone have the number for a good (i.e. slimey) lawyer?

    -m

    --

    #
    # Modus Ponens
    #
  12. Software patents for Open Source Only by starfire-1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, I feel that software patents should only be awarded if the source code is open. Not necessarily GPL'd, but open in that your competition may have a legitimate opportunity to view the design.

    Seventy five years ago, if you devised a new engine for a car, your competition could buy one, rip it apart and copy your ideas. So patents made sense. But in closed source software design, the products are black boxes that frequently can be describe only on more general terms. So we get these patent applications for abstract functions.

    IMHO, patents should only be awarded if a company is willing to open its source code to an extent. It can still be proprietary, but there must be the legitimate opportunity for someone else to be able to "look inside" to see how it works. If a company want to keep it's code closed, fine. But no patent.

    Just my two cents.

    1. Re:Software patents for Open Source Only by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Patenting software is a bit like patenting unpublished novels. You get a patent for "well, the story goes sort of like this...", and get to sue anyone who has a story that is at all similar.

      As you say, the source code goes unreleased and unpublished, so all you've got to go on is the vague description of how the "story sort of goes" to compare an potentially infringing story to.

      Imagine if this was the standard for plaigarism (which is, admittedly, under copyright law, not patents, but that's mostly because you can't patent stories - if you could, believe me, plenty of people would). Madness.

      Surely patents are for the implementation - didn't you have to provide actual design blueprints etc. if you were patenting a new kind of engine? If you have to patent it on that levl - that is, patent a particular set of source files (where obvious derivatives etc. would still be liable), then software patents might almost work. Then again, you'd largely be duplicating existing copyright law, and what would be the point?

      Jedidiah.

  13. Re:When the patent is ruled invalid... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Informative
    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?

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  14. What if everybody would do the same? by dtio · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Companies abuse the patent system by issuing patents on almost everythnig they can think of.

    Take for example IBM. They have patented everything related to object oriented operating systems under their Taligent/San Francisco project.

    They could sue Sun (J2EE) or Microsoft (.NET), and just anybody using things like Object-oriented window area display system, pat. no. 6,750,858, Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods, pat. no. 6,424,354 or Distributed object networking service, pat. no. 6,223,217, just to name a few.

    Crazy. We have to figure out a better patent system which stills protect intelectual property but also protects us from this nonsense.

  15. this is good! by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, this is GOOD. Let the big companies keep getting hosed by the patent system. Let them see how patenting IP and having closed source propietary software will constantly hose the ability to "do your work" and just keep costing money and money and money and money and be a serious PITA to actually DO anything. Eventually, doing anything even remotely fun, interesting, or productive will be so expensive that the system will crash and burn under it's own bloat. Let it become unprofitable to use patents and restrictive copyrights. Let them keepdoing what they are doing. The lawyers and licensing fees alone will start to make companies just stop being involved with it, eventually it might even get through to some legislators noggins that the patent and copyright system is completely broken and has been broken for a long time. It won't end until joe user all the way to joe big company needs to have a lawyer on a tether with them all the time, and just have their paychecks direct deposited to the lawyers account, and the lawyers cut you a small chump change allowance.

    In other words, let it burn! I feel the same way about this as I do vulnerable windows machines. The quicker it gets to a ridiculous level of unusability level the quicker it can be fixed with a REAL fix which is a total replacement system, because sure as snot they won't fix it until then, just keep applying patches that just make it worse, because they refuse to address the core issue, which is intangible thoughts shouldn't be patented in the first place. It was an INSANE precedent to let the first intangible anything get patented.

  16. Small hole to drive a truck through by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Turns out one of the key objectives of this patent:

    A still further object of the present invention is to provide a picture and sound transmission system wherein the selected audio/video material is sent over any one of several existing communication channels in a fraction of real time to any location chosen by the user that has a specified receiver.
    Seems to me that all current broadcasters I know of that are listed in the suit fail to meet this criteria of sending the signal in a fraction of real time, and hence, bye bye lawsuit. I wish they would, but I have to record only one show at a time, during the broadcast window, and cannot record anything else during that broadcast window, hence, I believe they fail to infringe upon this patent. of course, the obligatory: IANAL.
    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  17. And the history books will document... by orbitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    how the American economy, fat off the progress and profit made over the previous 120 year span, became so selfish and greedy that it ate itself in the early periods of the 21st century. At which time, it labouriously rolled over, farted, then died.

    If you are reading this from any part of the world aside from the United States, you already know this history. Hell, you're living it. That's why you hate us. That's why you either shake your head in disbelief or merely point your finger and chuckle. You see the black muck that is the personification of the stereotypical American. From outside the bubble, man, that is one ugly sight.

    No one can argue that it is sickening how members of a rich society are able to chuck their conscience and morality out the window and shamelessly take advantage of a hampered and flawed system. All this without a hint of concern on how their actions may be affecting the lives of millions of unwitting countrymen. But, what is often overlooked is the long term detrement these actions have on the American economy.

    Based on this kind of crap, who in their right mind would ever consider basing a business, of any type or any size, in the United States anymore? Even the stallwarts of the ecomony are picking up and moving. Offshoring is a big a problem as most folks think it is, regardless of what the "industry insiders" have to say about it.

    If asshole "business executives" and their brigades of lawyers are further allowed to get away with this type of behaviour, who is going to be left? Folks in the service industries, that's it. And they'll be catering to people from other countries who stopped by for a visit to see all the carnage. And where do you think these idiots who are causing all the problems will be? Not here, that's for damn sure. They'll be at their beach house on some remote island far, far away from the garbage they left on the curb.

    This isn't about being conservative or liberal, black or white, rich or poor to us normal folks. This is about a few talentless nasty bottom feeders ruining the most powerful economy in modern history.

    Well, gee, thanks. Maybe I can have a slice of apple pie with the dung heap you're feeding us. That should make it all better.

  18. Re:Yes, this was illustrated quite nicely... by Almost-Retired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, they could either do that, knowing full well the jerk is gonna have their ass in court because the broken finger didn't heal straight and they want evidence they did it according to accepted procedure, or simply refuse to service him. Either way, he/she is a liability they simply cannot afford.

    That day is coming, the medical profession really has no alternative. Most of them have no problem with the real part of the damages if they screw up, but the awarding of punitives that are often 100x the real, or more, by a court system that thinks medicine should be absolutely infallible, all neatly defined etc etc, is the real shame of our american justice system.

    Medicine, and its diagnosis and delivery are still more art, prior experience and instinct than hard fact, a situation thats slowly changeing with the ever less instrusive methods of seeing whats wrong inside the body coming online, but those methods generally cost money, lots of it. And they have to be paid for. If you are outputting 75% of the gross income in malpractice insurance, thats just that much less to spend on keeping uptodate, so its a self-defeating spiral.

    If refusing service to a lawyer saves the potential of having the rates raised by another $100k next year, thats $100k that could be used as a downpayment on a cat scanner or similar gear. It makes perfect sense to me.

    Cheers, Gene