Getting mainstream attention to Acacia and others

[FightThePatent]

With the addition of a new writer (welcome Shar!) for FightThePatent.com, we will be pushing to get mainstream attention.

Feel free to post/send today's PR statement to those you know who can help to get the word out.

http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/PR-1117.html

This is the start of a series of PR statements, so any help in spreading the word is greatly appreciated. Please email me to know what sources you know that accepted the PR...so I can start to create a mailing list for the next articles.

Thanks in advance,
brandon

ps. some FTPF supporters are emailing this PR statement to their customers to see if some of them might be connected to media (you never know who just might be one of your members)

[Frank]

I've been thinking about all this patent stuff and have an observation to make...

Remember how Webfather built an empire on .com domains? He used to spend hours each day "down the mines". So effective was he that many companies decided they simply couldn't do business without one of his domains. So, for a price, they would acquire the domain and then go on to do good business, and Rick would buy another car ; )

It seems to me there's a parallel whereby patent companies register as many patents as they can hoping to license just a few of them to make their money. Some companies will decide they cannot do business without one of these patents and will license it and go on to do good business.

Now, of course, when you were NOT THE FIRST to invent something (as many people believe Acacia wasn't) then you should lose your patent. But if you validly got awarded a patent trhen why not make some money from it? Even if it's something as obnoxious as Amazon's 1 click purchase system. So far it appears to be standing for them - and if nobody else defeats their claim? Well, they could license it (although I bhelieve that has not happened yet).

So the moral of this story? If you have an idea, patent it. You may be able to license it or sell the patent later.

... I guess you can't blame Acacia for trying.

BTW This is not a post supporting Acacia's case - Personally I think there's far too much prior art - so I hope they lose thier patent.

- Frank

[FightThePatent]

Originally posted by Frank@Nov 17 2003, 06:50 AM
But if you validly got awarded a patent trhen why not make some money from it? Even if it's something as obnoxious as Amazon's 1 click purchase system. So far it appears to be standing for them - and if nobody else defeats their claim? Well, they could license it (although I bhelieve that has not happened yet).

I agree with you 100%.

FightThePatent.com and the proposed Fight the Patent Foundation is not anti-patent, just anti bad patents.

If Yurt (the inventor of the patent that Acacia purchased) actually invented something, and there was no prior art, and a court system validated the claims, then yes, the patent holder has every right to benefit from their Intellectual Property.

If this were the case with Acacia DMT patent, then Acacia would not be an issue.. there are thousands of patents that get licensed each year, and are factored as a COGS for a product.

It's such a joke for Acacia to reference the patent as being "technology". Technology involves software and hardware, created by people. There is no technology in the patent. Inventions do not have to be tangible objects, they could be processes like vulcanization.

But given my experiences and research, the patent claims are broadly interpreted from the patent, and the actual patent itself does not claim ownership to such ideas as downloading audio/video from a web server as evident by prior art.


Fight the Fire!

[Mike AI]

From Yahoo:

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/031113/actg10-q.html
_______________

THE ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP HAS INCURRED LOSSES IN THE PAST AND EXPECTS TO INCUR ADDITIONAL LOSSES IN THE FUTURE.

The Acacia Technologies group has sustained substantial losses in the past. We expect the Acacia Technologies group to incur significant research and development, marketing, general and administrative expenses. As a result, we expect the Acacia Technologies group to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

+++++++++++++++++

"THE ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP FACES INTENSE COMPETITION, AND WE CANNOT ASSURE YOU THAT IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL.

Although the Acacia Technologies group believes that Acacia Media Technologies has marketing and licensing rights to enforceable patents and other intellectual property relating to video and audio on demand, the Acacia Technologies group cannot assure you that other companies will not develop competing technologies that offer better or less expensive alternatives to those offered by Acacia Media Technologies. In the event a competing technology emerges, Acacia Media Technologies would expect substantial additional competition."

++++++++++++++++++++++

"THE ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP MAY FAIL TO MEET MARKET EXPECTATIONS BECAUSE OF FLUCTUATIONS IN ITS QUARTERLY OPERATING RESULTS, WHICH COULD CAUSE THE PRICE OF AR-ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES STOCK TO DECLINE."

++++++++++++++++++++

"THE ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP'S REVENUES WILL BE UNPREDICTABLE, AND THIS MAY HARM ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION."

++++++++++++++++++++

"THE V-CHIP TECHNOLOGY PATENT HELD BY THE ACACIA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP EXPIRED IN JULY 2003, AND IF THE GROUP DOES NOT DEVELOP OTHER RECURRING SOURCES OF REVENUE, ITS FINANCIAL CONDITION WILL BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED"

+++++++++++++++++++

[FightThePatent]

Some info concerning patent re-examination request like the one that is being done against the Eolas patent (Microsoft lost in court to Eolas for allowing IE to use embeded programs like Flash). The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has petitioned the USPTO and the USPTO has accepted the request.

Usually takes 3-6 months after filing to be addressed. Due to public outcry, the request took 1 week and the USPTO Director personally approved the re-exam request!

Information gathered from talking to several patent attorneys on re-exams:

The patent examiner will spend about 15 hours total on the re-exam..which is alot more time than is spent on the actual patent(!!!) before coming to a preliminary decision, before then talking to the patent holder.

A person or company pays the filing fee (about $1,300) and then needs to have a patent attorney craft explanations of prior art to invalidate the patent claims. The estimate cost is about $30k-$50K for the whole process in attorney time, not to mention money spent to find prior art.

A completed document is filed to the USPTO...and then the examiner reviews the information and discusses with the patent holder. The review is one-sided..only the patent holder is allowed to discuss the prior art points with the examiner.

The process could take 6-8 months (or longer) before a final decision is made.

If the prior art is solid and the patent holder cannot explain away the evidence, then the patent is revoked and invalidated.

It is better to argue in court with a judge, then to take your chances with submitting a document to the USPTO. Atleast with a judge, you can argue your points....with the re-exam, there is not discussion.

The downside is that the patent holder can continue to gain new licensees of their patent, until the final outcome has been determined.



Fight the Delays!

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by FightThePatent@Nov 17 2003, 12:40 PM
Some info concerning patent re-examination request like the one that is being done against the Eolas patent (Microsoft lost in court to Eolas for allowing IE to use embeded programs like Flash). The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has petitioned the USPTO and the USPTO has accepted the request.

--- snip ---

Usually takes 3-6 months after filing to be addressed. Due to public outcry, the request took 1 week and the USPTO Director personally approved the re-exam request!The process could take 6-8 months (or longer) before a final decision is made.

Since the Acacia hearings aren't even until April, I'm sure we could all live with a 6-8 month delay ... so let's get the movement to reexamine the Acacia patent going ... citing the Eolas precedent.

Btw, here's a fact: The patent office has ordered such re-examinations only 151 times since 1981 and issues about 180,000 patents each year. Came from here: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525038018,00.htm

As to places to get attention, I'm shocked that so far Tech TV hasn't been contacted ... Screen Savers, Tech Live and Unscrewed should all have had interviews with Spike or someone by now IMHO. So that's one place I would strongly suggest becomes aware of Acacia ... hell, I've seen a million other reports on all of those shows about all the other patent whores, but never Acacia cause no one let's them know.

[girlgeek]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by Dravyk+Nov 17 2003, 01:59 PM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 AM..