Acacia Research first came out with Round One of their Patent Licensing schemes with the V-Chip patent.
They managed to convince TV manufacturing companies to the tune of $25M to license their patent. It wasn't until Sony decided to battle them in court, and won, that the V-Chip patent licensing spree came to an end. While the V-Chip patent has since expired (and defeated by Sony with a non-infringement verdict), Acacia is still appealing for prior infringements on other TV manufactuers.
Round 2 is going on right now with the DMT patent that claims the ownership to downloading of audio/video from the web. The bogusness of this patent is being tracked (along with other patent abuse cases) at my website of http://www.FightThePatent.com
The DMT Patent suffered a big loss due to the Markman Order, where the judge found many of the claims to be indefinite, and suggested to the current adult entertainment defendants to file for summmary judgement (more info on the website).
Round 3 is now with this hotspot patent that was purchased from Lodgenet (one of Acacia's early DMT licensees - do unto others as they have done to you).
The tactics used to solicit liceneses in DMT patent look to be the same as with this one. Talking about how they have $30M in the bank to litigate, etc.
The HotSpot patent is not as broadly targetted as the DMT patent, where the patent infringement is on a much fewer set of companies.
While this HotSpot patent does not affect most internet users, it does burden the companies that we might use, that are claimed to be infringing.
Your prior art posts and finds will be greatly appreciated by the companies who have to face the decision of fighting the patent or paying the license.
If the patent claims are bogus, in that there is prior art, then this Round 3 patent is another example of patent abuse, taken on by a company that has demonstrated consistent tactics of wielding an interpretted patent to intimidate businesses to cave.
Catch up on the latest news about Acacia at www.FightThePatent.com and their quest for media dominance on the web and on cable.... the problem for them is the prior art and the broadness of their claims.
For those amateur-arm-chair prior art searchers like me, prior art instances of digitized audio or video must have a date stamp prior to May 1990.
Acacia's claims are so convoluted, it's like they are throwing up anything and hoping to see what sticks.
At one point, they say that audio/video systems that have timecodes (ie. Real, WMV, quicktime) are covered, which would mean MP3 is fine, but then they claim that audio w/o timecodes is covered.. can't have it both ways.
So glad to read that EFF is now looking into patent abuse cases.... including one (Acacia) of three that I am tracking at my website
There does need to be an (grassroots) effort to get that dusty prior art sitting on the shelf and presented to the USPTO for so many technology related patents that shouldn't have been granted.
-brandon
http://www.FightThePatent.com
Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.
The current defendants against Acacia's DMT patent (which covers the process of downloading audio/video from a web server) will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.
When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.
FightThePatent.com provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.
Patent abuse cases in the audio/video realm (Acacia, SightSound, USA Video) are being tracked on the website.
Anyone have some insight into downloading audio/video files from a BBS prior to May 1990,
feel free to contact me.
A sampling of potential prior art by me and and some volunteer prior art searchers at:
http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/PriorArtFound.htm l
More info about Acacia Research, SightSound, and USA Video at:
http://www.FightThePatent.com
While BountyQuest.com was a for-profit company to find prior art and closed down... I have started the proposal to create Fight The Patent Foundation, 501c3 non-profit organization that extends my current one-man crusade against patent abuse at http://www.FightThePatent.com
More details at http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/FTPF.html
I would be interested to hear from those that are interested in helping out with the vision.
I have a pledge drive to raise money to start the foundation going...
Fight the Patent!
A system for monitoring user activity in an instant messaging session on a computer network periodically sends an activity message to other participants in the instant messaging session if the user has actively entered data during a first predetermined time interval. The system periodically sends a new activity message at intervals corresponding to the first predetermined time interval so long as the user is actively entering data during each time interval. If the user has not entered data during the first predetermined time interval, the system will not send an activity message. Other participants in the instant messaging session receive the activity message and generate an activity indicator on their respective displays. The computer receiving the activity message displays an activity indicator on the computer display in response to receipt of an activity message and starts a timer to measure a second predetermined time interval. If another activity message is not received within the second predetermined time interval, the activity indicator is deleted from the display.
So the sending of the text message, or being able to view someone type the letters as you type, is not what they patented.
As soon as you start typing in a chat box, a signal is sent to the recipient to let them know the other person is typing.... ICQ had this feature early on, but M$ may have them beat on the date.
Prior art to invalidate the M$ patent needs to have documentable proof before July 21, 1998 (have to go back one year before the patent application date).
Use this date as the first test of potential prior art.. if what you found existed after this date, then it won't help to count as prior art.
I share everyone's sentiment about possible prior art existing before M$ patent.... and what is needed is to document the prior art (much like what many have posted on here), and to be used/given to any defendants that M$ sues.
Also, petitions to USPTO can ask for re-examination of the patent.
I am currently focused on finding prior art against Acacia, SightSound, and USA Video. All three companies have some kind of claims over the streaming/downloading of audio/video files from a (web) server.
If you heard digital audio or saw digital video prior to 1990, check out http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/Searching.html for prior art searches i am currently working on.
I provide my assistance to defendants for free.. being a tech head, these patent abuse cases pissed me off enough to get involved. Patents have their place, but patents that have prior art is bad. Patent holders who are wield patent infringement claims (which do not appear to be valid given prior art) and licensing agreements to companies who don't have the financial backing to fight a patent claim is Patent Abuse!
I will be expanding my activism to other areas like the IM patents, PanIP, etc..... (bringing my post back to the thread topic *grin*).
Fight The Patent!
Slashdot Mirror
Acacia Research first came out with Round One of their Patent Licensing schemes with the V-Chip patent.
They managed to convince TV manufacturing companies to the tune of $25M to license their patent. It wasn't until Sony decided to battle them in court, and won, that the V-Chip patent licensing spree came to an end. While the V-Chip patent has since expired (and defeated by Sony with a non-infringement verdict), Acacia is still appealing for prior infringements on other TV manufactuers.
Round 2 is going on right now with the DMT patent that claims the ownership to downloading of audio/video from the web. The bogusness of this patent is being tracked (along with other patent abuse cases) at my website of http://www.FightThePatent.com
The DMT Patent suffered a big loss due to the Markman Order, where the judge found many of the claims to be indefinite, and suggested to the current adult entertainment defendants to file for summmary judgement (more info on the website).
Round 3 is now with this hotspot patent that was purchased from Lodgenet (one of Acacia's early DMT licensees - do unto others as they have done to you).
The tactics used to solicit liceneses in DMT patent look to be the same as with this one. Talking about how they have $30M in the bank to litigate, etc.
The HotSpot patent is not as broadly targetted as the DMT patent, where the patent infringement is on a much fewer set of companies.
While this HotSpot patent does not affect most internet users, it does burden the companies that we might use, that are claimed to be infringing.
Your prior art posts and finds will be greatly appreciated by the companies who have to face the decision of fighting the patent or paying the license.
If the patent claims are bogus, in that there is prior art, then this Round 3 patent is another example of patent abuse, taken on by a company that has demonstrated consistent tactics of wielding an interpretted patent to intimidate businesses to cave.
A copy of the Markman Order was made publically available on my website on the evening of July 12th.
a ry.html
http://www.fightthepatent.com/MarkmanOrder.pdf
My cliff notes version: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/MarkmanOrderSumm
-brandon
A copy of the Markman Order was made publically available on my website on the evening of July 12th.
a ry.html
http://www.fightthepatent.com/MarkmanOrder.pdf
My cliff notes version: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/MarkmanOrderSumm
-brandon
Catch up on the latest news about Acacia at www.FightThePatent.com and their quest for media dominance on the web and on cable.... the problem for them is the prior art and the broadness of their claims.
For those amateur-arm-chair prior art searchers like me, prior art instances of digitized audio or video must have a date stamp prior to May 1990.
Acacia's claims are so convoluted, it's like they are throwing up anything and hoping to see what sticks.
At one point, they say that audio/video systems that have timecodes (ie. Real, WMV, quicktime) are covered, which would mean MP3 is fine, but then they claim that audio w/o timecodes is covered.. can't have it both ways.
-brandon
Who will be the first to target Real/Starz for patent licensing: Acacia, USA Video, or SightSound?
-brandon
Learn more about audio/video patent holders
So glad to read that EFF is now looking into patent abuse cases.... including one (Acacia) of three that I am tracking at my website
There does need to be an (grassroots) effort to get that dusty prior art sitting on the shelf and presented to the USPTO for so many technology related patents that shouldn't have been granted. -brandon http://www.FightThePatent.com
one of the 151 patents that got invalidated was the one where a kid's father patented swinging sideways on a swing.
More info on this patent that got invalidated by the USPTO here
Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.
The current defendants against Acacia's DMT patent (which covers the process of downloading audio/video from a web server) will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.
When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.
FightThePatent.com provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.
Patent abuse cases in the audio/video realm (Acacia, SightSound, USA Video) are being tracked on the website.
Anyone have some insight into downloading audio/video files from a BBS prior to May 1990, feel free to contact me. A sampling of potential prior art by me and and some volunteer prior art searchers at: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/PriorArtFound.htm l
More info about Acacia Research, SightSound, and USA Video at:
http://www.FightThePatent.com
While BountyQuest.com was a for-profit company to find prior art and closed down... I have started the proposal to create Fight The Patent Foundation, 501c3 non-profit organization that extends my current one-man crusade against patent abuse at http://www.FightThePatent.com More details at http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/FTPF.html I would be interested to hear from those that are interested in helping out with the vision. I have a pledge drive to raise money to start the foundation going... Fight the Patent!
from M$ patent:
A system for monitoring user activity in an instant messaging session on a computer network periodically sends an activity message to other participants in the instant messaging session if the user has actively entered data during a first predetermined time interval. The system periodically sends a new activity message at intervals corresponding to the first predetermined time interval so long as the user is actively entering data during each time interval. If the user has not entered data during the first predetermined time interval, the system will not send an activity message. Other participants in the instant messaging session receive the activity message and generate an activity indicator on their respective displays. The computer receiving the activity message displays an activity indicator on the computer display in response to receipt of an activity message and starts a timer to measure a second predetermined time interval. If another activity message is not received within the second predetermined time interval, the activity indicator is deleted from the display.
So the sending of the text message, or being able to view someone type the letters as you type, is not what they patented.
As soon as you start typing in a chat box, a signal is sent to the recipient to let them know the other person is typing.... ICQ had this feature early on, but M$ may have them beat on the date.
Prior art to invalidate the M$ patent needs to have documentable proof before July 21, 1998 (have to go back one year before the patent application date).
Use this date as the first test of potential prior art.. if what you found existed after this date, then it won't help to count as prior art.
Fight The Patent website
I share everyone's sentiment about possible prior art existing before M$ patent.... and what is needed is to document the prior art (much like what many have posted on here), and to be used/given to any defendants that M$ sues. Also, petitions to USPTO can ask for re-examination of the patent. I am currently focused on finding prior art against Acacia, SightSound, and USA Video. All three companies have some kind of claims over the streaming/downloading of audio/video files from a (web) server. If you heard digital audio or saw digital video prior to 1990, check out http://www.FightThePatent.com/v2/Searching.html for prior art searches i am currently working on. I provide my assistance to defendants for free.. being a tech head, these patent abuse cases pissed me off enough to get involved. Patents have their place, but patents that have prior art is bad. Patent holders who are wield patent infringement claims (which do not appear to be valid given prior art) and licensing agreements to companies who don't have the financial backing to fight a patent claim is Patent Abuse! I will be expanding my activism to other areas like the IM patents, PanIP, etc..... (bringing my post back to the thread topic *grin*). Fight The Patent!