Latest pre-Markman Hearing court docs

[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!