Acacia Conspiracy Theory 101 [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

Far-L

10-22-2003, 06:12 PM

Here are the facts...

Acacia has...

demanded customer lists as part of its licensing package...

employed members of the adult internet industry as consultants...

made confidentiality promises that it has broken...

continued to characterize its V-chip patent as valid despite losing in a Summary Jugment...

been involved in an investigation for connections to securities improprieties...

Here are the theories...

Acacia is...

in league with some of the industry "players" to bring more patents down on the industry and create a monopoly that would shut out all the "Young Turks" that have hurt their existing market share so substantially...

the consultant(s) is/are being paid a percentage of licensing revenue...

will not keep future promises or create ambiguous settlements open to unfair interpretations...

going to lose the DMT patent faster than they lost the V-Chip...

manipulating stock success with support from some adult industry "players"...

I know in some ways the facts and the fictions of theories seem to blend together but it is important to keep them separate and distinct from one another and not allow one to influence the interpretation of the other. Nor is it recommended for facts to be considered in any other light than as simply a basis for developing new theories as a constructive manner of seeking and determining new facts. So, while the relationship between facts and theories may further confuse the distinction between the two, we urge the reader to look upon the facts exclusively and develop the theories further on thier own...

I think the riddle of the Sphinx posed to Oedipus must conclude this discourse on searching for truth in a world of presumptions and lies...

"What walks on four legs in the morning, two in the afternoon, and three in the evening?"

By saving the city... are we not also going to destroy ourselves?

The plot thickens... find out what happens in the next quarter/chapter/act...

Last edited by Far-L at Oct 22 2003, 02:21 PM

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 06:27 PM

I am not a big fan on conspiracies.... I think most are hairbrain schemes from crazy people.

However, in this case, based on my OWN snooping around, I am coming to the conclusion. in my opinion, that some big players in this industry are in collusion with acacia, to try and eliminate competition and to personally profit. ( through stock or more business).

I also think this is the first step, that other patents are going to be tried to be enforced against the industry.

An enterprising attorney might have a very nice CIVIL RICO case... It is time the light it put on all of these deals for everyone to see.

Of course, this is all my opinion, I could be wrong.

Opti

10-22-2003, 06:28 PM

We need names! Name Names!!! :matey:

Far-L

10-22-2003, 06:32 PM

I am sure it will be as R_n said... "when the truth comes out, you will all be surprised..."

FightThePatent

10-22-2003, 06:34 PM

oh, oh, oh, i got a conspiracy theory Mister Cot-tah....

A GFY poster thought I might be working for Acacia.... .so that Acacia makes money from the license and gets the rest of the money from people who are pledging to fight against them.

Yes, i know its GFY...

:headwall:

Fight the Patent!

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 07:14 PM

Reading up on Civil RICO causes of action....

Far-L, it is my opinion, that this is something you should have attorneys to look into.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm

A nice article, the title " RICO: Businesses' Best Weapon Against Bribes, Kickbacks and Other Forms of Corporate Corruption "

http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/articles.asp

*KK*

10-22-2003, 07:22 PM

I wonder if Berman and the boys are smart enough to actually be in collusion with anyone in this business. They might be getting a big surprise as well as anyone else...

BradShaw

10-22-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 02:35 PM
I am not a big fan on conspiracies.... I think most are hairbrain schemes from crazy people.

However, in this case, based on my OWN snooping around, I am coming to the conclusion. in my opinion, that some big players in this industry are in collusion with acacia, to try and eliminate competition and to personally profit. ( through stock or more business).

I also think this is the first step, that other patents are going to be tried to be enforced against the industry.

An enterprising attorney might have a very nice CIVIL RICO case... It is time the light it put on all of these deals for everyone to see.

Of course, this is all my opinion, I could be wrong.
I agree. The same big players who have caused visa to crack down, are working with acacia. Coincidence, I do not think so. They may be scum, but you never hear them called stupid.

baddog

10-22-2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 02:35 PM

An enterprising attorney might have a very nice CIVIL RICO case
now that would be interesting, you should patent that idea

baddog

10-22-2003, 07:42 PM

hmmm, maybe I need to do some more reading, never heard of a civil RICO before

Hooper

10-22-2003, 07:44 PM

rico has been applied civily plenty of times.

i dont think there is any law on the books that could do more damage to this industry.

if ashcroft and his cronies had a brain they'd attack biz practices, not the naked pictures.

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Hooper@Oct 22 2003, 06:52 PM
rico has been applied civily plenty of times.

i dont think there is any law on the books that could do more damage to this industry.

if ashcroft and his cronies had a brain they'd attack biz practices, not the naked pictures.

It was used to get the Catholic Church for protecting the molesting priests. It was used against anti-abortion foes who were blocking clinics. It was used by someone against celeb sites.

All successes.

baddog

10-22-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Hooper@Oct 22 2003, 03:52 PM
rico has been applied civily plenty of times.

i dont think there is any law on the books that could do more damage to this industry.

if ashcroft and his cronies had a brain they'd attack biz practices, not the naked pictures.
hmmm, well . . . it looks like it has been attempted more than it has succeeded . . . RICO has some pretty specific standards, but apparently some clever usage also.

Well, I like tolearn something new every day, and looks like this is mine for the day :wnw:

Squirt

10-22-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Far-L@Oct 22 2003, 02:20 PM
Here are the facts...

Acacia has...

demanded customer lists as part of its licensing package...

employed members of the adult internet industry as consultants...

made confidentiality promises that it has broken...

continued to characterize its V-chip patent as valid despite losing in a Summary Jugment...

been involved in an investigation for connections to securities improprieties...

Here are the theories...

Acacia is...

in league with some of the industry "players" to bring more patents down on the industry and create a monopoly that would shut out all the "Young Turks" that have hurt their existing market share so substantially...

the consultant(s) is/are being paid a percentage of licensing revenue...

will not keep future promises or create ambiguous settlements open to unfair interpretations...

going to lose the DMT patent faster than they lost the V-Chip...

manipulating stock success with support from some adult industry "players"...

I know in some ways the facts and the fictions of theories seem to blend together but it is important to keep them separate and distinct from one another and not allow one to influence the interpretation of the other. Nor is it recommended for facts to be considered in any other light than as simply a basis for developing new theories as a constructive manner of seeking and determining new facts. So, while the relationship between facts and theories may further confuse the distinction between the two, we urge the reader to look upon the facts exclusively and develop the theories further on thier own...

I think the riddle of the Sphinx posed to Oedipus must conclude this discourse on searching for truth in a world of presumptions and lies...

"What walks on four legs in the morning, two in the afternoon, and three in the evening?"

By saving the city... are we not also going to destroy ourselves?

The plot thickens... find out what happens in the next quarter/chapter/act...
" manipulating stock success with support from some adult industry "players"...

I have seen it first hand. (http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=l&board=7080497&tid=acri&sid=7080497&mid=22532)

They even openly post on GFY about their stocks with Acacia and future trends.

I had no idea this industry was so cut throat back stabbing as this. I mean.. sponsors turning in the guys making them money? And this IS HAPPENING (http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=188892)

Now I feel insecure.. who wants to make alliances with me not to screw me over and make lots of money together?

By the way I'm Squirtit from Ynot and GFY .. this is my first post in this forum.

Last edited by Squirt at Oct 22 2003, 04:36 PM

Rolo

10-22-2003, 09:02 PM

Sponsor(s) given info about their affiliates to Acacia - thats a bad move, and will probably hit them like a ton of bricks, if it should ever be known which sponsor(s) are behind this...

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 09:12 PM

Rolo what if the program who gave the info away doesn't care, because they are no longer in business?

Squirt, good to see you here.... I read this on Yahoo, thought it made a lot of sense, and is apparently written by someone who is not in the porn biz

new problem for Acacia
by: investbluechipper2 10/19/03 01:11 pm
Msg: 22561 of 23042

I now have 200 shares and I'm watching the adult webmaster boards carefully for signs maybe of a move to get mass licensee signups, this trend does not bode well:

from yesterday:

You see, if acacia had spent more time actually doing research on who they were trying to shake down they would find out that perhaps 85% of their potential licensees don't make a living wage using their "DMT" technology. Maybe the average adult webmaster made some serious money at one time, but the problem is acacia is hitting the webmaster group about 4 years too late. VERY FEW webmasters make even 50K/year, and even less make over 100K/year. Of course if they had really done research they would find out about general traffic trends in the adult market. The business is very soft, traffic is mostly down (in the aggregate) and doing research on alexa would have shown them that.

But the fancy first printing on coated stock is already in the mail. So acacia thinks let's put a good face on this, do some quick damage control, and see if we can save this.

So they do an under the table deal with 47 licensees. And it's a PR stunt which everyone with any sense sees right through.

After all, acacia is dealing with a group called adult webmasters. These are guys that sell PORN for a living. If anything this is a demographic that doesn't easily do what it's told...if anything this is a demographic of independent-minded mavericks who have mostly an outlaw mentality.

I suspect that the movers and shakers of acacia are mostly ivy league college boys in their 30's. They have not lived long enough to know much about the HISTORY of organized pornography in the United States. True, porn today in America is fairly mainstream, run 95% by fairly mainstream people...but 5% of the money in porn is controlled by a VERY unsavory bunch.

Imagine what would happen if Tony Soprano was asked for 2% of his take. Don't believe me? check the history, and listen to the US Dept. of Justice. There is an element in the USA adult business that has criminality attached to it. It is small, but it is there. Check the history of the players. Some of them do not settle things in a courtroom. Some of them still have their hands in adult. Go back to a major city just a few years ago where people were murdered and adult bookstores and buildings were burned down. Check the history.

"low-hanging fruit"? Maybe not. And some fruit that might be dangerous to pick.

And then there is the other problem with the acacia business model. The sheer number of the litigants.

And now it appears that acacia cannot collect license fees just by mailing demand letters. They already tried that and met with abject failure. The simple fact is that acacia will have to SUE tens of thousands of mostly modest income webmasters, obtain judgments, and then collect on the judgments. This is a daunting, even impossible task due to the sheer number of litigants.

Read carefully now. Here is how a lawsuit works.

1. You must be served properly with a summons and complaint. Mailing you a fancy packet means nothing, it is a SALES piece. Do not come on this or any other board and say you received a packet or ANY communcation from acacia.

2. If you are sued, respond to it. You will probably lose in court unless you want to spend plenty of $ on a specialist patent attorney. DON'T spend the money, appear in pro per and demand a jury trial. You will still lose eventually, but acacia cannot sue 10,000 webmasters all over America who actually appear in pro per. It's not cost effective for them. They are betting you will be intimidated to pay. Show them wrong, force them into court and appear in pro per on every little case. It is your constitutional right and it will break their back faster than anything else you can do.

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 09:21 PM

There is a lot of interesting reading on the Yahoo group:

technical expert on this topic
by: dope_fx (27/M/My Nehbohood)
Long-Term Sentiment: Sell 10/18/03 02:16 am
Msg: 22492 of 23044

Make sure to read it all and not pick it apart the bits and pieces to try and make your arguments hold water. Acacia is screwed and that is fact their patent is not worth the paper which it was printed and they waited far to long to enforce it regardless.

----------

Company tries to lay claim to streaming patents
By Jason Meserve
Network World Fusion, 01/02/03

Acacia Research Corp. is attempting to make money the old fashioned way - lawsuits. The company claims its patent on Digital Media Transmission covers just about all streaming media and now its trying to enforce the patent to collect royalties. Acacia is first going after Internet porn sites, known for their cutting edge (and profitable) use of new Web technologies. While some may argue that waiting until a technology becomes really big before enforcing a patent is bad business, big online streaming players such as Radio Free Virgin are ponying up the dough to keep Acacia at bay.

TrackBack

Comments
Read the posting about the Acacia Research patent. I'd like to provide some relevant information that I hope will help the businesses involved in this patent licensing shakedown. I've produced a 17-page bibliography (in MS Word format) that contains the abstracts for many pre-1992 technical publications regarding internet audio and video, live or VOD. These document references may provide all of the legal evidence needed to invalidate the Acacia video related patents. (Plz email me if you'd like a copy of the bibilography.

If you are not familiar with patent law, in order to meet the novelty requirement for a U.S. patent, an invention must not have been known or used by others in this country before the applicant invented it. The invention also must not have been patented or described in a printed publication in the U.S. or a foreign country before the applicant invented it. These documents are called "prior art" and show that a patented invention is either not new or is obvious and is therefore not eligible for patent protection. Those publications invalidate any and all U.S. patents that were filed one year after the document was published and that claims as an invention ANY of the subject matter that was disclosed in those documents.

So how do I know about the internet digital media technology and related patents? I was employed as a principal scientist by one the pioneers of internet content delivery, InterVU. I was the geek responsible for the design, development and deployment of the first commercial content delivery network. I'm also a co-author of one of the InterVU patents related to content delivery over the internet. ( Hey, those InterVU patents and the technology proved to extremely valuable. InterVU, the content delivery network and the patent portfolio were purchased in 2000 by a company called Akamai for $2.8 BILLION dollars! Yeah, wow, unreal...)

So being a net nerd for almost three decades now, I figure I'm fully qualified as a technical expert on this topic. Some of the relevant documents I discovered were published as far back as the 1970's. In my professional opinion, there is very little, if any, technical validity for the Acacia patent infringement claims.

I sincerely hope the document abstracts can help you with legal battle against Acacia Research. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance to you and the other unfortunate folks caught up in this litigation nightmare.

best regards,

buck

Posted by: buckminster on January 24, 2003 06:08 AM

Rolo

10-22-2003, 09:37 PM

what if the program who gave the info away doesn't care, because they are no longer in business?

That could be the case, and I´m sure that those who have done this probably have thought about what would happen if anybody found out, and decided that the possible problems are nothing compare to whatever "sweetheart", "stocks" or "cash" deal they got.

But the Acacia "stigmata" will be there forever - no matter the outcome of the Acacia patent claim.

Last edited by Rolo at Oct 22 2003, 05:48 PM

Peaches

10-22-2003, 10:21 PM

In my non-educated, non-legal opinion, it's looking more and more like those who settled with Acacia made a really bad move - both legally and professionally. :unsure:

Mike AI

10-22-2003, 10:35 PM

Another interesting post, its probably how real business is done, its is kinda depressing.....

Yahoo! Message Boards: ACTG Add to My Yahoo

< Previous | Next > [ First | Last | Msg List ] Msg #: Reply Post
Recommend this Post Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Re: Davis Look at the bottom line.
by: DavisProductions 10/22/03 07:56 pm
Msg: 23032 of 23051

I agree with you.

But aside from the FACT that the patent is bogus and the management is pond scum, let's look at the other facts:

1 - In the past 6 months the stock has gone up over 700%. There is very little short interest, so it's not short covering. It's real buying. Listen to the message of the market.

2 - The biggest players are capitulating. Only the small sites are fighting. What does Larry Flynt know that we don't?

3 - Revenue has gone up 1000% in 3 months. And the biggest licenses to date have not yet kicked in.

4 - The prospect of a large cable company like Comcast agreeing to a license could double the price of the stock overnight. A license like that would be H-U-G-E! Don't focus on the adult web sites. That is small potatos compared to the big prize --- VOD over cable and satellite. Don't forget that one of the first licensees was Lodgenet.

5 - It will take YEARS to get a court judgement invalidating the patent, if in fact the small sites fighting don't run out of money before then.

6 - Their real cost of operations is virtually nil over and above ordinary G&A costs. They don't have a product, hence no production costs other than Xerox paper and postage. That's a 100% margin busines s model.

I'm can't believe I'm writing this, and will have to go puke again afterwards. But I am trying to be objective. Seeing Hustler cave in was a wake up call. If Larry Flynt can agree to a license and call it a "business decision", then holding my nose and buying the stock is the same thing --- a business decision.

That's my story, and I'm stickin to it.

Far-L

10-23-2003, 12:47 AM

Did I ever tell you all how much I love you?

:inlove: :okthumb: :salute:

DannyCox

10-23-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 22 2003, 06:29 PM
In my non-educated, non-legal opinion, it's looking more and more like those who settled with Acacia made a really bad move - both legally and professionally. :unsure:
Maybe legally, Peaches, but I doubt professionally.

Unfortunately, the majority of webmasters don't have a clue about what's going on, and probably could care less.

These are the type of people you can screw over, time and time again, and they'll still come out and use your programs because you announce "Fifty Dollar Fridays", or any other type of hype.

A lot of us here have been around since the beginning. We've all seen the same guys screw webmasters, get caught, and just do it again. These guys know they'll lose a few webmasters, but will probably gain more in the long run due to the publicity.

Many thanks to Far-L, Spike, et al, for keeping up the fight and the pressure. My only hopes is that when this finally does blow over, the "traitors" will be unmasked, and shown the respect they deserve.

Mike AI

10-23-2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by DannyCox+Oct 23 2003, 12:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DannyCox @ Oct 23 2003, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Peaches@Oct 22 2003, 06:29 PM
In my non-educated, non-legal opinion, it's looking more and more like those who settled with Acacia made a really bad move - both legally and professionally. :unsure:
Maybe legally, Peaches, but I doubt professionally.

Unfortunately, the majority of webmasters don't have a clue about what's going on, and probably could care less.

These are the type of people you can screw over, time and time again, and they'll still come out and use your programs because you announce "Fifty Dollar Fridays", or any other type of hype.

A lot of us here have been around since the beginning. We've all seen the same guys screw webmasters, get caught, and just do it again. These guys know they'll lose a few webmasters, but will probably gain more in the long run due to the publicity.

Many thanks to Far-L, Spike, et al, for keeping up the fight and the pressure. My only hopes is that when this finally does blow over, the "traitors" will be unmasked, and shown the respect they deserve.[/b][/quote]
Sad.... but true.

Far-L

10-23-2003, 02:20 AM

Interestingly enough... we go back to the days of streaming when Intervu was still around...

A employee named Chris Levy was working for them at the time...

Him and a crew came over with their "boxes" to show us how much better our live NETSHOW feed could be...

After a half an hour of delay into our scheduled start time, we took down their boxes, put ours back on and had our amazing feed with audio up in minutes.

But... of course we didn't sell our company for a couple billion dollars either, now did we?

Still, just pointing out that we go way back too and seems to me that Intervu cat is making some very interesting points in that Yahoo thread...

Paul Markham

10-23-2003, 03:09 AM

I always said that if this patent was validated it would be in Acacia and a few License holders benefit to reduce the number of people serving videos to a very small number.

From Acacia's point they can deal with a few willing partners and from the license holders, they can eliminate 95% of their competition. All they will need is "Porno Videos" in their meta tags, well not completely but promotional cost will drop like a stone.

So what is in "Vivid and Wicked's, for example" best interests? Purely as a "Business Decision"

*KK*

10-23-2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by DannyCox+Oct 22 2003, 09:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DannyCox @ Oct 22 2003, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Peaches@Oct 22 2003, 06:29 PM
In my non-educated, non-legal opinion, it's looking more and more like those who settled with Acacia made a really bad move - both legally and professionally. :unsure:
Maybe legally, Peaches, but I doubt professionally.

Unfortunately, the majority of webmasters don't have a clue about what's going on, and probably could care less.

These are the type of people you can screw over, time and time again, and they'll still come out and use your programs because you announce "Fifty Dollar Fridays", or any other type of hype.

A lot of us here have been around since the beginning. We've all seen the same guys screw webmasters, get caught, and just do it again. These guys know they'll lose a few webmasters, but will probably gain more in the long run due to the publicity.

Many thanks to Far-L, Spike, et al, for keeping up the fight and the pressure. My only hopes is that when this finally does blow over, the "traitors" will be unmasked, and shown the respect they deserve.[/b][/quote]
Optimistic there Danny, I think. :(

gonzo

10-23-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham@Oct 23 2003, 02:17 AM
I always said that if this patent was validated it would be in Acacia and a few License holders benefit to reduce the number of people serving videos to a very small number.

From Acacia's point they can deal with a few willing partners and from the license holders, they can eliminate 95% of their competition. All they will need is "Porno Videos" in their meta tags, well not completely but promotional cost will drop like a stone.

So what is in "Vivid and Wicked's, for example" best interests? Purely as a "Business Decision"
And just think...a lot of people thought my term of porn royalty was bullshit.
Gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.

Far-L

10-23-2003, 10:52 AM

How anyone can see it as a wise "business decision" to let this company with a dubious patent claim, which no one is licensing because they actually believe in the merits of it, use strong arm legal tactics to pull 150 to 200 million out of our industry is beyond me.

Truth and justice will prevail.

"it is not giving your word that counts, it is who you give it to" - Ernie Borgnine in Pechinpah's "The Wild Bunch"

Last edited by Far-L at Oct 23 2003, 07:12 AM

Peaches

10-23-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by DannyCox+Oct 23 2003, 01:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DannyCox @ Oct 23 2003, 01:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Peaches@Oct 22 2003, 06:29 PM
In my non-educated, non-legal opinion, it's looking more and more like those who settled with Acacia made a really bad move - both legally and professionally. :unsure:
Maybe legally, Peaches, but I doubt professionally.

Unfortunately, the majority of webmasters don't have a clue about what's going on, and probably could care less.

These are the type of people you can screw over, time and time again, and they'll still come out and use your programs because you announce "Fifty Dollar Fridays", or any other type of hype.

A lot of us here have been around since the beginning. We've all seen the same guys screw webmasters, get caught, and just do it again. These guys know they'll lose a few webmasters, but will probably gain more in the long run due to the publicity.

Many thanks to Far-L, Spike, et al, for keeping up the fight and the pressure. My only hopes is that when this finally does blow over, the "traitors" will be unmasked, and shown the respect they deserve.[/b][/quote]
Sadly, you're correct. Through the years it's never ceased to amaze me how people will stand back up after getting rammed repeatedly in the ass and then set themselves up for it again if they think they might make some $$$.

I guess that's why I'm poor - I refuse to get rammed more than once. :awinky:

gonzo

10-23-2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Far-L@Oct 23 2003, 10:00 AM
How anyone can see it as a wise "business decision" to let this company with a dubious patent claim, which no one is licensing because they actually believe in the merits of it, use strong arm legal tactics to pull 150 to 200 million out of our industry is beyond me.

Truth and justice will prevail.

"it is not giving your word that counts, it is who you give it to" - Ernie Borgnine in Pechinpah's "The Wild Bunch"
Far L keep tuned to Oprano...

We gonna have an interesting thread soon on the over all implications of this. I can only bust one ass a day and someone is ahead of that one.

FightThePatent

10-23-2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 05:29 PM
There is a lot of interesting reading on the Yahoo group:

I have exchanged emails with Buck, and his prior art references are all 1990 and beyond... not valid for invalidating Acacia's patent.

Fight the Patent!

FightThePatent

10-23-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 06:43 PM
Another interesting post, its probably how real business is done, its is kinda depressing.....

An oprano account could read their financial statements and make a presentation to the group.. a friend of mine briefly looked at the numbers, and it's a mess.....

his quick analysis is that ACTG has expenses dumped into it.. almost like in preparation for ACTG to end up failing, protecting the rest of the companies in their group.

Fight the Patent!

Trev

10-23-2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Peaches@Oct 23 2003, 05:08 PM
I refuse to get rammed more than once. :awinky:
Oh now stop!! your getting me all worked up :yowsa:

FightThePatent

10-23-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham@Oct 22 2003, 11:17 PM
So what is in "Vivid and Wicked's, for example" best interests? Purely as a "Business Decision"
I have heard from different sources, that the defense for companies like Hustler, Vivid, and Wicked Pictures to settle was that a small part of their business is internet-based.

That sounds true to me... but, Acacia's patents cover video-on-demand (VOD)... they already convinced LodgeNet (the leading provider of video on demand to hotels) to pay the license... so if Digital Video is more towards their core business, then they have EVERY reason to worry about Acacia.

And let's not forget USA Video, who's patent claims to owning the process of downloading video from a web server, also covers VOD.

I read somewhere that an Acacia-lover believed the LodgeNet deal to be worth about 50K/year.

Fight the Patent!

PornoDoggy

10-23-2003, 01:54 PM

Conspiracy, you say? We all know you can't have a conspiracy without media involvement.

well, gee ... I got an interesting piece of mail today making patently false claims that I was violated somebody's patents that included a nice glossy reprint of a CNET "news" item from back in August using "broad patents on streaming media upheld" as a headline.

Of course, a high school sophmore who's watched a total of 4 episodes (combined) of "The Practice" and "Law and Order" would have known by reading the article itself that the headline was misleading at best.

Things that make you go hmmmm ...

KevinG

10-23-2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Squirt@Oct 22 2003, 04:32 PM
By the way I'm Squirtit from Ynot and GFY .. this is my first post in this forum.
Hey Squirt. Nice to see you over here. - Kev :bwave:

FightThePatent

10-23-2003, 03:02 PM

An analogy to explain this Acacia mess:

They fictiously patented a personal transport with 4 wheels.

Someone else cited them in their own patent, but called it a car with low ride suspension.

Acacia comes out to sue the auto dealers for patent infringement of selling cars with wheels, which they say is the same as a personal transport. They could sue the manufacturer, but they have deep pockets, so they pick on the smaller dealerships that have tight margins and high overhead (ie. inventory).

In this simple example, Acacia is looking to sue everyone for a broad patent claim... the problem is that so many companies were making "personal transports" prior to their patent, that the patent claims should be invalid.

But why would the USPTO grant this fictiious patent then if there was prior art? The language in this patent was so obscure and science fiction like, talking about the ability to turn invisible, transform into a robot,etc.. that the patent office thought it was novel and new. but acacia decided to just focus on the broader claim of a car with wheels.

But some auto dealerships decided to fight..they didn't want to pay someone a licensing fee for the sales of their pimp-mo-biles. So these dealerships fight back by challenging the big bad patent.

Hope you have enjoyed this analogy to explain how absurd this Acacia patent is.

Squirt

10-23-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by KevinG+Oct 23 2003, 10:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (KevinG @ Oct 23 2003, 10:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Squirt@Oct 22 2003, 04:32 PM
By the way I'm Squirtit from Ynot and GFY .. this is my first post in this forum.
Hey Squirt. Nice to see you over here. - Kev :bwave:[/b][/quote]

:bwave: :okthumb:

Ken

10-23-2003, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Far-L@Oct 22 2003, 02:20 PM
Here are the facts...

Acacia has...

demanded customer lists as part of its licensing package...

employed members of the adult internet industry as consultants...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Far-L,

I know you are not making any accusations, but with all of the mis-information flowing around, I just wanted to clarify a few things with regard to Hustler and Vivid. Hope you don't mind....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was personally involved in the contract negotiations between Acacia, Hustler and Vivid, so I can speak on their behalf.

1. We were never asked for our customer lists and by contract, we have no obligation to give up our customer (affiliate) information. If we were asked, we would NOT give up this information under any circumstances.

2. Nobody from any of our combined organizations has been employed by or has helped Acacia in any way, shape or form. We simply settled and moved on.

Again, this is not directed at you Far-L because I know you were not pointing the finger at us, but some people have been pointing fingers without having all of the facts so I wanted to clarify.....

Mike AI

10-23-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Ken+Oct 23 2003, 09:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ken @ Oct 23 2003, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Far-L@Oct 22 2003, 02:20 PM
Here are the facts...

Acacia has...

demanded customer lists as part of its licensing package...

employed members of the adult internet industry as consultants...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Far-L,

I know you are not making any accusations, but with all of the mis-information flowing around, I just wanted to clarify a few things with regard to Hustler and Vivid. Hope you don't mind....

I can't speak for anyone else, but I was personally involved in the contract negotiations between Acacia, Hustler and Vivid, so I can speak on their behalf.

1. We were never asked for our customer lists and by contract, we have no obligation to give up our customer (affiliate) information. If we were asked, we would NOT give up this information under any circumstances.

2. Nobody from any of our combined organizations has been employed by or has helped Acacia in any way, shape or form. We simply settled and moved on.

Again, this is not directed at you Far-L because I know you were not pointing the finger at us, but some people have been pointing fingers without having all of the facts so I wanted to clarify.....[/b][/quote]

Ken, you word is gold.

Some people got letters a long time ago, before Hustler/Vivid settled. From what I have been reading, it seems that possible culprates are CE, babenet, matrix content or a combination thereof. Of course this is mere speculation based on posts I have read by people talking about their accounts with these companies.

Knowing the history of Cockholstery of the owner of CE, and babenet, it would not suprise me if not only they turned over affiliate information, but also are acting in concert with them.

Far-L

10-23-2003, 11:10 PM

Ken: I appreciate where you are coming from and I am glad that you don't think I am accusing you of anything because I am not.

For the sake of clarifying my current confusion; however, I do recall an exchange between us on another thread where you said that you were not involved in the deal that was made. You stated that the decisions came from higher up for what all those companies finally settled for. I know you are not able to be specific about the deal, but I wonder if there is any way for you to elaborate on this dichotomy in the interest of clarity and to prevent anyone from getting a false impression.

In the meantime, just looking at the history here, Acacia did and does continue to ask for that infomation from other potential licensees. Right now there are plenty of people stepping forward to say that there is only one way that they could have been found... Even if it is not Hustler/Vivid/Wicked that does not mean that some other "player" did not do the dirty deed done dirt cheap. Look at all the people independently stepping forward to say that there is only one way they would have gotten a letter because the addressee info was so specific.

I know every Acacia licensee is hesitant to say that they sold out their "affiliates" (our definition...) but sooner or later I am confident the truth will emerge. Then the people that worked to make those programs rich will find out how appreciated their efforts really were.

Listening to their misleading "lawyer-speak", Acacia seems to define "affiliates" differently. Under their definition, they can easily go after those webmasters that we call our "affiliates". IMO, Acacia considers them all to be independant contractors, not actual legally defined "affiliates", and viable for licensing. There is obviously a method to their madness.

All I can say for those that did actually turn over their customers, and now are trying to lie about it, that is not the way to run an ethical business.

I won't be surprised at all when the truth comes out. Nor will I be surprised when we all find out who is on Acacia's payroll as a "consultant" helping beat the industry over the head with these abusive business practices.

I turned my rose colored glasses in and exchanged for a pair of binaculars to the future of this affair some time ago.

Last edited by Far-L at Oct 23 2003, 07:28 PM

Vick

10-24-2003, 12:10 AM

and this is where Acacia is really double (and triple) dipping regardless of what they say

Acacia wants to have a feed provider pay license fees, then paysites like myself pay the license fees for linking to feeds provided by feed providers and then have the free site operators pay license fees because they link to paysites

Thats why I laughed (from shock) when Berman said Acacia would not double dip (maybe he meant Acacia was going right to the triple dip)

and let the record show I have received 4 notices from Acacia (2 packets and 2 letters)

See ya in court (unless you want to make me a real sweetheart heart deal - something like 10,000 shares of Acacia stock, lifetime free license and lifetime indemnity for all affiliates in all my programs)

Last edited by Vick at Oct 23 2003, 11:19 PM

FightThePatent

10-24-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Vick@Oct 23 2003, 08:18 PM

Thats why I laughed (from shock) when Berman said Acacia would not double dip (maybe he meant Acacia was going right to the triple dip)

Maybe he meant, he doesn't double-dip with his chips into the dip.

:rokk:

Fight the Patent!

Ken

10-24-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Far-L@Oct 23 2003, 07:18 PM
Ken: I appreciate where you are coming from and I am glad that you don't think I am accusing you of anything because I am not.

For the sake of clarifying my current confusion; however, I do recall an exchange between us on another thread where you said that you were not involved in the deal that was made. You stated that the decisions came from higher up for what all those companies finally settled for. I know you are not able to be specific about the deal, but I wonder if there is any way for you to elaborate on this dichotomy in the interest of clarity and to prevent anyone from getting a false impression.

Far-L,

The decision to settle was made by Hustler and Vivid independently. However, once they decided to settle, they asked us to review the settlement agreements and provide our input, which we did. One of our primary concerns was that our decision to settle did not have a negative impact on our affiliates.

I agree that something stinks and it is possible that someone leaked info to Acacia. I can only speak for Hustler and Vivid when I say that it was not us.

I've worked long and hard to build a solid reputation in this industry. I certainly wouldn't put my own ass on the line if I wasn't 100% sure about what I was saying.

I'm sure the truth will come out at some point. When it does, everyone will know that Hustler and Vivid did NOT sell out their affiliates. That will never happen.

Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

Ken

10-24-2003, 07:06 PM

mojobill

10-24-2003, 09:01 PM

Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....

Hell Puppy

10-25-2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by fatbaby@Oct 24 2003, 08:09 PM
Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....
I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.

gonzo

10-25-2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Hell Puppy+Oct 24 2003, 11:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hell Puppy @ Oct 24 2003, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--fatbaby@Oct 24 2003, 08:09 PM
Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....
I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.[/b][/quote]
And Ill say it again...we should boycott all you fuckers that settled! And I dont give a shit if you gave up your affiliates or not. Your funding them and their efforts are to squeeze the rest of us.

Forest

10-25-2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by gonzo+Oct 25 2003, 07:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gonzo @ Oct 25 2003, 07:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Hell Puppy@Oct 24 2003, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--fatbaby@Oct 24 2003, 08:09 PM
Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....
I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.
And Ill say it again...we should boycott all you fuckers that settled! And I dont give a shit if you gave up your affiliates or not. Your funding them and their efforts are to squeeze the rest of us.[/b][/quote]
yup i agree

even if they are donating to impa

thats just fence sitting anyway isnt it?

Forest

10-25-2003, 08:20 AM

KRL posted this on GFY
It applies i think

and a possible pearl ( I know from GFY? LOL)

"A shrewd old businessman once told me early on in my career,

"If there is one thing to always remember and live by in business, never believe anything people say at its face value when money is involved." "

Carrie

10-25-2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by FightThePatent+Oct 23 2003, 12:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FightThePatent @ Oct 23 2003, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 05:29 PM
There is a lot of interesting reading on the Yahoo group:

I have exchanged emails with Buck, and his prior art references are all 1990 and beyond... not valid for invalidating Acacia's patent.

Fight the Patent![/b][/quote]
I have also spoken with Buck and have a small list of prior art references from him. He sent a more detailed 181-page reference list to Spike just two days before I found him and asked him for any info he could provide to me.

On the list that I have, the references go as far back as 1972 and there are a *ton* of them that are in the 70's and 80's.

So I'm not sure what list you're looking at, but it doesn't match the one I have.

gonzo

10-25-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Forest+Oct 25 2003, 07:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Forest @ Oct 25 2003, 07:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -gonzo@Oct 25 2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by -Hell Puppy@Oct 24 2003, 11:12 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--fatbaby@Oct 24 2003, 08:09 PM
Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....
I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.
And Ill say it again...we should boycott all you fuckers that settled! And I dont give a shit if you gave up your affiliates or not. Your funding them and their efforts are to squeeze the rest of us.
yup i agree

even if they are donating to impa

thats just fence sitting anyway isnt it?[/b][/quote]
Its all about biz isnt it?
Might even discourage anyone else from considering to settle as well. Seems to be quite a fear since they are all settling and wanting to remain invisible...

FIGHT THE FUCKING SELLOUTS!

Carrie

10-25-2003, 08:37 AM

Last I heard there had been about 47 companies that had settled - most of them very, very quietly. Who are they? We'll probably never know them all.

But if they were known... and webmasters did boycott them (which will never happen)... imagine what that would do.
All of those smaller guys who stuck it out would suddenly be getting the bulk of the traffic and we'd have a total top-level upheaval in the business!

Now wouldn't that be something? Never happen, especially since we won't know who all of these sponsors are, but it's interesting to think about anyway.

spazlabz

10-25-2003, 08:52 AM

Boycott, I dont like that word, isn't it like a legal term?
How about this, why dont we just say someone find out who has settled, post it in a public forum (pin it so it never goes away) and let webmasters decide if they would do business with any company/individual listed on it. Thier choice.
I wouldnt do biz with a sellout, how can you trust someone like that? double speaking their asses off
"We HATE Acacia, but the descision to ettle was all about business"
Fine
So is anyones descision to not do any business with you (47 companies)

spaz

Torone

10-25-2003, 08:30 PM

If I get a packet, you can pretty much take it to the bank that CE is involved; because I don't use the other sponsors mentioned.

What I'd like to know is where there is a full list of the sponsors who have settled.

Carrie

10-25-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Torone@Oct 25 2003, 07:38 PM
If I get a packet, you can pretty much take it to the bank that CE is involved; because I don't use the other sponsors mentioned.

What I'd like to know is where there is a full list of the sponsors who have settled.
In Berman's office.

J'springer

10-27-2003, 08:00 PM

Am I wrong, or are all the webmasters being targetted just Americans? BTW, Far-L I wrote you some time ago offering to send a contribution to the cause but got no...zip...zero...nada...response. I think a lot of this problem is caused by sell outs by bigger companies. You gotta be careful of those partnership programmes. Kind of sacrificial lambs.

"I've been saved
By the blood of the lamb"
J's

Mike AI

10-27-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by J'springer@Oct 27 2003, 08:08 PM
Am I wrong, or are all the webmasters being targetted just Americans? BTW, Far-L I wrote you some time ago offering to send a contribution to the cause but got no...zip...zero...nada...response. I think a lot of this problem is caused by sell outs by bigger companies. You gotta be careful of those partnership programmes. Kind of sacrificial lambs.

"I've been saved
By the blood of the lamb"
J's

I agree with this. Funny how all the big guys claimed they were going to help, even after settling - but never put money up. Makes you wonder....

Carrie

10-27-2003, 08:20 PM

They're not just Americans. Webmasters in Canada and the UK have gotten letters that I know of.

Dravyk

10-27-2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 27 2003, 08:23 PM
Funny how all the big guys claimed they were going to help, even after settling - but never put money up. Makes you wonder....
Doesn't make me wonder at all, sadly enough.

"Smart is when you only believe half of what you hear. Brilliant is when you know which half." - Robert Orben

Mike AI

10-28-2003, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Dravyk+Oct 27 2003, 11:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Oct 27 2003, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Oct 27 2003, 08:23 PM
Funny how all the big guys claimed they were going to help, even after settling - but never put money up. Makes you wonder....
Doesn't make me wonder at all, sadly enough.

"Smart is when you only believe half of what you hear. Brilliant is when you know which half." - Robert Orben[/b][/quote]

Drav I think you have found your calling. I read your posts on GFY. I think you should start or be a spokesman for Patent Reform Lobby!

:rokk:

The Truth Hurts

10-28-2003, 12:41 AM

Gonna be a fun time whatching all of you who are calling for boycotts backtrack when the unnamed and future settlers are revealed.

MrBone

10-28-2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 22 2003, 06:43 PM
Another interesting post, its probably how real business is done, its is kinda depressing.....

Yahoo! Message Boards: ACTG šAdd to My Yahoo š

š š š< Previous | Next > š[ First | Last | Msg List ] šMsg #: š šReply š šPost
Recommend this Post šIgnore this User | Report Abuse š
Re: Davis Look at the bottom line.
by: DavisProductions š10/22/03 07:56 pm
Msg: 23032 of 23051

I agree with you.

But aside from the FACT that the patent is bogus and the management is pond scum, let's look at the other facts:

1 - In the past 6 months the stock has gone up over 700%. There is very little short interest, so it's not short covering. It's real buying. Listen to the message of the market.

2 - The biggest players are capitulating. Only the small sites are fighting. What does Larry Flynt know that we don't?

3 - Revenue has gone up 1000% in 3 months. And the biggest licenses to date have not yet kicked in.

4 - The prospect of a large cable company like Comcast agreeing to a license could double the price of the stock overnight. A license like that would be H-U-G-E! Don't focus on the adult web sites. That is small potatos compared to the big prize --- VOD over cable and satellite. Don't forget that one of the first licensees was Lodgenet.

5 - It will take YEARS to get a court judgement invalidating the patent, if in fact the small sites fighting don't run out of money before then.

6 - Their real cost of operations is virtually nil over and above ordinary G&A costs. They don't have a product, hence no production costs other than Xerox paper and postage. That's a 100% margin busines s model.

I'm can't believe I'm writing this, and will have to go puke again afterwards. But I am trying to be objective. Seeing Hustler cave in was a wake up call. If Larry Flynt can agree to a license and call it a "business decision", then holding my nose and buying the stock is the same thing --- a business decision.

That's my story, and I'm stickin to it.

Point by Point response to above:

1. This is called "making a market" by hype (they are good at that) and zealous rookie stockbrokers. (based upon 1000% revenue increase - see 3 below)

2. Small sites are fighting? Fighting what? Acacia has not engaged in any "fight" to date. Homegrown is a small site/company? And the others that join them? Acacia is a fly on Larry Flint's ass. And besides, why not pay up and put pressure on the competion? Shake a few out. You think there was not a "special" deal there? Of course it was a "business decision"! The guy didn't pay anything worth thinking twice about I'm sure and maybe it does him some good.

3. It is not hard for revenue to go up 1000% when it was nothing in the first place. Let's get real here.

4. They can't WIN the big prize (wide opinion). You are a stockbroker aren't you????

5. It WILL take a long, long time. So wha't the hype and panic. The adult industry most likely won't be the one running out of money. Acacia will. They got a very small handfull of players under their wing. VERY small.

6. Now I know you are a stockbroker - perhaps working for a "market maker" firm. That 1/2" thick full color package that they sent us and nearly everyone else cost a pretty penny to deliver - in bulk even - not to mention all of the other stuff. Oh yah - and that low budget legal and PR team. Now, perhaps, ALL THEY CAN AFFORD these days is Xerox paper and maybe postage (no ink). Might as well send those letters blank because that's all their worth at this point.

You are right - they HAVE NO PRODUCT! They have nothing of value except their investors money which is going fast. This means that their stock has no real value. This normally means BIG crash on the horizon. If they suffer any kind of legal defeat at all - put your helmet on.

Those yuppie execs of Acacia are doing all right though I bet.

My advice: DEFINITE SELL!!!

:barfon:

Dravyk

10-28-2003, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Oct 28 2003, 12:37 AM
Drav I think you have found your calling. I read your posts on GFY. I think you should start or be a spokesman for Patent Reform Lobby!
Thank you, Mike. Spokesman? Hmm, perhaps. But for what? Some organisation needs to be set up (new or existing, preferably the latter) to do this correctly and effectively.

I'm hoping IMPA is interested. Far-L said they were to some degree, but when asked on GFY to what extent they would be or to contact me on this he didn't. Then again I'm sure he's busy and I'm not one to expect and instant response, so hopefully I'll get one in coming days. It's definitely the best way to nip all of this in the bud, IMHO.

I would definitely donate money to this. And, short on time as I am, possibly some time to help as well. But someone more versed in various intricacies and nuances of such a venture would have to administer and maintain a viable structure. Again, hopefully an existing association or group will make this an important part of their agenda. Would be much better that way than creating any fragmentation.

FightThePatent

10-28-2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Dravyk@Oct 28 2003, 01:56 AM
But someone more versed in various intricacies and nuances of such a venture would have to administer and maintain a viable structure. Again, hopefully an existing association or group will make this an important part of their agenda. Would be much better that way than creating any fragmentation.
Ralph Nader has setup: http://www.cptech.org/ that includes being a watchdog on patents.

Here's another: http://www.ipjustice.org

Eff.org has a patent section, but they are way to busy to focus in this area (exchanged many email with the Chairman of the board over this).

My personal efforts are studying Patent Law to take the Patent Exam, inbetween postings, emails, ICQ, and board postings. Passing the Patent Exam would allow me to be right in the thick of things with invalidating patents directly with the USPTO.

Fight the Patent!

Dravyk

10-28-2003, 02:11 PM

FTP, while they all have value, none of them address the issue I've raised, sorry.

Nader's is a "hey, look over here, this ain't right!" place. Well, ok, that's nice, but doesn't even attempt to address present issues like Acacia, which it should.

The other is an intellectual copyright place with geocentric issues mostly against the EU.

EFF has a good informational archive but no campaign or revision activism on the matter either.

Again, all good stuff. But no one is addressing patent reform. More like trying to make (if they touch on the issue at all) a broken wheel work instead of replacing the wheel. Or in this case, recalling it.

Mike AI

10-28-2003, 06:46 PM

Interesting article from FoxNews on patent office - its a new article.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101480,00.html

Technology innovation is both the lifeblood of our economy and the driving force of everyday improvements in our lifestyle. But all that is threatened by problems in a government agency which few of us ever think about.

That agency is the Patent and Trademark Office (search ), where existing troubles are real and destined to get worse unless Congress acts.

While we take patents for granted, we seldom stop to think about the overwhelmingly positive impact that patents have on our economy. Copyright industries, including the software industry, contributed $791 billion to the U.S. economy in 2001 and are growing faster than the rest of the U.S. economy, according to a key study. The licensing of U.S. patents contributed an additional $150 billion to the economy, according to KPMG. Intellectual property protections are particularly vital to innovation and investment in the information technology industry.

All this is, of course, good news. The bad news is that the Patent and Trademark Office, as currently funded, is buckling under the growing demands placed on it. Currently, more than 450,000 patent applications are waiting to be reviewed and the lag time between application for and issuance of a patent is about 27 months. This number is expected to rise to nearly 45 months by 2008 without additional resources. If the Patent Office grinds to a near halt it will not only adversely impact our economy but will also slow the introduction of new products that enhance our standard of living.

Most Americans are aware that the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications for patents and grants legal protection -- in effect, property rights -- for those who demonstrate innovation and original ideas. This patent protection is critical to business in the information technology industry. Patents are often a technology company’s most important asset and are critical to attracting investment, creating value and enabling mergers and acquisitions. In addition, patents are needed when we have to share our software or technical information widely in order to promote standards and inter-operability.

Fortunately, a fix is available. In fact, it has already been approved by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The pending legislation to address the plight of the Patent Office is H.R. 1561 (search). There are two key provisions in the bill -- and they must be retained as the legislation works its way through Congress if the Patent Office is to be brought into the 21st century.

First, H.R. 1561 would increase the level of fees for a patent application anywhere from 15 to 25 percent depending on the technical field. The industry is widely supportive of increasing fees, knowing this will help shorten the huge delays.

This, in turn, leads to the second key provision of the pending legislation: that all patent application fees go to the Patent Office. Many Americans are unaware that the Patent Office receives all of its funding from fees paid by its users. Unfortunately, during the past 12 years, more than $650 million of these funds have been diverted to pay for unrelated government programs.

This diversion has drained vitally needed funds from a key government agency in what many now recognize as unwise public policy. Therefore, many business organizations, along with the Bush administration and leading members of Congress from both parties, are joining together to work toward passage of H.R. 1561. Support for the reform embodied in the bill is bi-partisan and widespread.

In Congressional testimony earlier this year, Commerce Secretary Don Evans said that “to support technology innovation and provide for intellectual property protection, the [Commerce] Department is working to eliminate the practice of using [Patent Office] revenues for unrelated federal programs.”

Congressman Howard Berman of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, called the practice of diverting Patent Office funds to other agencies a tax on innovation that should be ended. He noted that “life-enhancing, job producing” innovations are likely trapped within the application backlog at the Patent Office.

These comments represent a growing awareness that short-changing the Patent and Trademark Office stifles innovation. For the sake of consumers who benefit from this innovation, Congress should act promptly to fully fund the Patent and Trademark Office. If it does, there are no losers. More importantly, there are many winners.