[Acacia News] This is f*cked up

[FightThePatent]

I've been battling it out with Yahoo posters on the Yahoo board who continue to post their ignorance (and sworn love) for Acacia.

Recent development of news has revealed that HomeGrown Video had a license via Voice Media who was running their program. The Yahooligans jumped in to argue with me that 2 previous AVn articles mentioned this fact (Ira Rothken, attorney for Voice Media was cited for the comments).

Below is my summary post to condense the news:



In both the AVN articles presented, it was Ira Rothken (attorney for Voice Media) that made the statements about HomeGrown having a license.

The patent license is a confidential agreement that HomeGrown has no access to. If Ira said back then they had a license, HomeGrown had no way of knowing or verifying.

It was only recently through discovery in their dispute with Voice Media did it become clear to HomeGrown about what Voice Media had done.

So what Ira said can be taken as speculation, because HomeGrown had no facts. It appears now that HomeGrown has alot of facts about this issue.

What's more interesting is that the patent license should have some auditing/documentation appendix to list out the domains and what revenue comes from each domain, in order to compute licensing fees. If this is true, then HOMEGROWNVIDEO.COM would have a line item with revenue generated from the "use of the patent", with appropriate fees applied.

So Acacia management would HAVE to have known this fact.

So EVEN NOW, that this fact is presented, why is HomeGrown a defendant when it appears they have a license?

My recap:

1) HomeGrown was sued by Acacia

2) About 2 months later, CE Cash/ Voice Media was sued


3) CE Cash / VoiceMedia took a license

4) CE Cash/ Voice Media acquired a license for HomeGrown

5) Recent discovery between conflict of HomeGrown and CE Cash revealed that HomeGrown had a license but never knew about it

6) HomeGrown is STILL the lead defendant in the case for PATENT INFRINGEMENT by Acacia.

Now then, a defendant doesn't have to ASK to be dropped from a lawsuit. If the grounds for the lawsuit are no longer there, the plantiff should be dropping them.

Why is HomeGrown STILL a defendant when Acacia KNEW that they had a license?

My conspiracy theory is that Acacia thought that Homegrown had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and once they found out they didn't, they had to keep going with the story.

So HomeGrown has been spending 6 digit numbers to DEFEND ITSELF in a patent infringement case, where they had a patent license (and didn't know about) and Acacia continues to rack up their legal bills as the lead defendant.


Fight the Words of Mass Documentation!

[FightThePatent]

From http://www.FightThePatent.com

30 Second Summary: Acacia

Update: 11-Mar

The outcome (court doc) of the multi-district panel is that all the cable lawsuits are rolled up under Judge Ware in Northern District.

Judge Ware is currently handling the porn/internet defendants in Central District, and it seems up to him about whether he will combine the cases or not since there are many overlaping claims, and the fact that prior art for the internet claims will apply to the cable ones.

Next court date is March 24th, where the judge will probably be exploring the cable and internet cases and decide how to proceed from there.

Now that this stalling action has been resolved, the defendants can push forward and resume their filing for Motion for Summary Judgement.

For those that read the Markman, Judge Ware said TWICE that the defendants should file for Summary Judgement.

---------------------------------------

It turns out that Homegrown Video / New Destiny, who is being sued by Acacia for patent infringement, actually has a patent license (though unbeknowngst to them until recently).

The company that was managing their operations negotiated a license that included HomeGrown Video.

It remains to be seen why Acacia didn't drop HomeGrown from the lawsuit.

Besides not understanding technology and making up interpretations of patent claims, it appears that Acacia has sued a company that has a license.

Ranks right up there with the RIAA suing a dead person.


Fight the lack of an RSS feed!

[Mike AI]

Very interesting information. Thanks for update FTP!

[JR]

funny when people are alleging that they are incomepetent, bullying, wreckless and blindly targeting people who are not obligated to obtain a license and so on... then its revealed they are suing people who already have a license.

that can't help their position. :)

[Far-L]

Originally posted by JR@Mar 15 2005, 12:38 PM
funny when people are alleging that they are incomepetent, bullying, wreckless and blindly targeting people who are not obligated to obtain a license and so on... then its revealed they are suing people who already have a license.

that can't help their position. :)
Imagine our surprise...


:biglaugh:

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Far-L+Mar 15 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Far-L @ Mar 15 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@Mar 15 2005, 12:38 PM
funny when people are alleging that they are incomepetent, bullying, wreckless and blindly targeting people who are not obligated to obtain a license and so on... then its revealed they are suing people who already have a license.

that can't help their position. :)
Imagine our surprise...


:biglaugh: [/b][/quote]
I can... LOL

Not long now ...

[FightThePatent]

ACTG stock pumpers on the Yahoo board were wondering that if Spike knows they had a license via Voice Media, why doesn't he contact Acacia to let them know about it.

I chatted with Spike about this issue just now, and he said that Berman has been aware for a long time. He talked to Berman on the phone about this a year ago.

HomeGrown had some speculations that something was going on with Voice Media, but Berman would not confirm nor deny it about a year ago.

It was only recently in depositions with Voice Media that it became factually clear to HomeGrown that something was indeed going on with licensing.

When I asked him why he doesn't let Acacia know of their "clerical error", he responded that it's not his duty to let the plantiff know they have the wrong defendant, and the fact that he had already talked to Berman about this issue, so it would just be repeating what was already known by Acacia.

So here it is now, as it was a year ago or so ago, Acacia had knowledge that HomeGrown had a license but has continued to name them in a lawsuit.

Now that Spike's side has been answered, seems to me the question to Acacia is still, "why is HomeGrown a defendant in this case?".



Fight the Geraldo!

[FightThePatent]

In this Press Release (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=4&u=/nm/20050316/wr_nm/tech_microsoft_burst_dc&sid=95573503)

"Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) will pay Burst.com Inc. (Nasdaq:BRST - news), a developer of software for streaming audio and video over the Internet, $60 million to settle a patent infringement and antitrust lawsuit, the world's largest software maker said on Friday.

Santa Rosa, California-based Burst said in a 2002 lawsuit that Microsoft had infringed on its patent for sending audio and video content over the Web....."



Hey there, Burst's patent was for sending audio and video content over the web.... isn't that what the DMT patent is about?

Oh the paradox.

What is burst.com doing that ACTG not doing? Spending over $3M in legal fees to deal with pornographers and here comes Burst.com to swoop in and get a whopping settlement.

Maybe having Microsoft settle, will mean Microsoft would be easy to rollover with the DMT patent.

Fight the Bubble Bursting!

[kath]

Agreed... thanks for the update. Nothing with Acacia surprises me anymore...

:ph34r: