Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer
Just for the benefit of anyone not familiar with the Acacia situation from a few years ago, this is a completely different patent than the one they tried to enforce on us.
|
Yes, but it is back to the same game: Taking a patent for something and attempting to stretch it to cover all sorts of things that weren't specifically mentioned in the intial patent, but are even passably similar in nature.
"An advertisement system and method are provided for inserting into an end user communication message a background reference to an advertisement. In some embodiments, the background reference causes an advertisement image to be tiled, or watermarked, across an end user screen behind the text of an e-mail message or public posting"
It is also another patent that attempts to take control over a basic function of graphics display, that of a watermark, which isn't something new (even in 1998) but something that had been around for years. Watermarking an image with "yourdomains.com" would be an advertisement and therefore would be prior art on this one. Ad serving is also a prior art, so there is little in this patent that wasn't already in use.
But Acacia has made a very good profit for itself proving that the cost of fighting them in court is often higher than the fees they charge to "license" their puffed up patents.
As a side note, you realize that this could apply to any and all advertising added to or added over videos, before or after a flash movie, or otherwise overlayed in any fashion onto an image, a message, or an email?
Cha-ching. Acacia takes another one down.