Latest pre-Markman Hearing court docs

[FightThePatent]

Latest article: Stand By Your Man, or Woman, or Software:

http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/StandByYour.html

Latest Pre-Markman docs filed on 1/20 are on the left hand column.

I read through the docs, and it does give insight as to how the wording and usage of language can be pivotal to ones case.

Fight the Twang!

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction on GFY:

... When did Acacia ever contribute anything or help create anything?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I understand your points.. but the way that Patent Law works now, is that you don't have to create anything... you can get patents on ideas that have never been created.

You can get process patents that can be as silly as making peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

You can get business method patents like how to sell peanut butter sandwiches from a stand on the side of the road.

You can sit on your patent for a long time as Unisys did with the GIF patent....

Lemelson is a whole subject matter on its own.. but may provide future precedent (good or bad) for patents with all the various patents his foundation is licensing.

Alot of people have been saying that Acacia didn't even invent the patent, or that the patent doesn't have any software or hardware.. while i agree with those setentiments, they are not relevant to this patent abuse case.

What is relevant is Acacia's interpretation of their patent to be broader than what the patent states, and to interpret wildly in its applications to internet-based audio/video.

The defendants recent court docs focus on the language of the patents and try to show the judge how the claims made today are not relevant to the defendants.

All the while, the clock ticks on the attorney bills... further evidence of how much money companies lose (and attorneys gain) every year for frivilous lawsuits.

Hopefully the new Director for USPTO (young guy) will make some changes.


Fight the Long Posts!

[FightThePatent]

posted on Yahoo ACTG board:

porntales wrote:

"It would appear that they are going for the "patent is valid, but only for a specific closed system". That has interesting implications for those companies that have already licensed, and still allows Acacia a potential revenue stream from PPV closed cable systems.

The most interesting is at the end of the third document, where the original claims of the patent inventors are touched on in a document filed with the government. It clearly shows that there are certain things integral in the patent (I don't want to say DMT, as that is a fabricated term attempting to support the broad stretch) that are just not required for internet usage, such as buffer storage for later playback, library of original documents, fixed ID codes for documents, etc. It would appear that the extensions of the patent are based on this original setup, and cannot be removed without creating a vague, meaningless, and non-unique system.

It would be interesting to attempt to build the system as described in the original patent. I see a library of original documents, a bunch of machines to encode them, storage devices to handle the uniquely identified documents, a transmission system that then sends them to a remote storage device, where the document is later played back in real time (after complete reception). I see a system that requires human intervention, to load the original documents into the encoding systems (there is no mention that the system would be able to keep digitized copies of these original documents... it appears they would have to be rescanned / encoded / read / digitized / photographed / other before each use, as the UID is assigned at this point in the system."




I responded with:

"The patent is supposed to be like a blue print that details the parts of the invention.

I would envision that a computerized arm is used to access the library to then begin the digitization, compression, storage, etc...

In my article "Beam me up Scotty! Acacia's Patent Claims invention of teleportation
(http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/Teleportation.html)

I cited that musical instruments could be in the library and teleported to the end user.

Acacia Pumpers responded to my article and saying that what they meant was the digitization of the musical instrument's sounds *yeah right*

In the Defendants recent court filing, they made reference to the "instrument" wording, and how Acacia interpreted that to mean "live music" rather than a physical instrument *yeah right*.

Alot of interpreting going on...

Another interesting note is the defendants claims of estoppel in what Acacia originally stated as the infringement claims by the defaulted defendants from earlier on, and what they are claiming now...


I agree with your analysis that given the court docs, the defense is based on the wording of the patent, and how the patent describes a closed system that no one uses today, especially any of the defendants.

While there is certainly alot of prior art to refer back on, it seems the challenging of the actual language of the patent is the method of undoing the claims.

Feb 6th is not that far away.. while i cannot attend the opening day, I will certainly be getting frontline reports to share."


Fight the Copy and Paste!

[FightThePatent]

After various chats with mainstream companies, it has sparked my latest article:

Goodwill Hunting
http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/Backyard.html


For those link-challenged or have short attention spans, here is the summary/ending to the piece:

"For any company that steps forward to help in this battle (whether it be Microsoft, Real, Apple, or any other company looking to make a public stand against patent abuse), they will surely receive "goodwill points" for helping to fight against what is so patently wrong.

The one line summary:

If you have audio or video on your website, then the patent abuse problem is in your backyard."



Fight the ADD!