Twenty-one e-learning companies signed up for the DMT license for the June 30th deadline in this Acacia PR.

A Yahoo ACTG poster posted a comment which I responded with the following to share with the readers of FightThePatent.com:

mofojb wrote:
" Eventhough you are 99% sure ACTG can't win the patents, I feel that if they do, and all of those royalties are paid to them, well, you add it up. If they lose, c'est la vie. It's only money. "

There are many groups of people that are affected by frivilous pursuits:

1) Shareholders of ACTG - money spent on litigation is expensive, especially since Acacia has opened up a new front with the cable companies, and waiting to see if the class action lawsuit gets approved. Ask Dorman, he seems to be tickled pink with all the billing he is doing to Acacia. In the end, it's the lawyers who make out, so it's no wonder why they love to litigate and rack up hourly bills.

c'est la vie, it's your investor dollars.

2) Businesses who have to defend their businesses in court, eat up profits from their companies. With tighter margins, competition, and other business factors, litigation does detract away from a companies focus. The arguement then to just pay up a license and not fight is a very disturbing action by the perpatrator.

c'est la vie, it's just money that normally would have went back into the company to fund jobs.

3) Innovators who create new services have to deal with broad patent claims from patents that were from a time before technology was practical. Interpretations of patents of old technology and how it applies to new technology shows off creative imaginations. The end result is that innovation is stifled in the face of frivilous patent infringement claims.

c'est la vie, it's only money that would have created new jobs, new opportunities, new technologies, and money for those that actually make a product.

4) Patent holders in the same space can now target companies that licensed from another company. Companies are then faced with licensing to multiple patents for the same functionality.

c'est la vie, it's just money that adds on a patent tax Cost of Goods Sold

5) Patent Office - that with approved patents on inventions that are purely ideas, with no substance, that it challenges the credibility and sanity of the patent office. More people will be encouraged to "patent everything", not only further over-running the application queue, but creating more frivilous lawsuits that feed back into everything above.

c'est la vie, it's only money.

From a Streaming Media elearning listerv:

"Acacia is seeking licensing fees of $1.25 per home per year for cable subscribers to video-on-demand services; $1 per home per year for digital cable subscribers and 50 cents per home per year for analog cable subscribers."

On the recently filed lawsuits against the cable industry, some interesting news gleamed from a recent court doc.

From the court doc:

"Acacia has not yet served the summons or complaint in the newly-filed action on any of the defendants. Acacia has learned today that defendants Comcast has filed a declaratory relief action against Acacia in the District of Delaware. Acacia intends to seek to dismiss, or in the alternative, transfer that case to this Court. Except for Comcast, Acacia does not intend to serve the summons and complaint on any of the defendants for at least thirty days to provide time for Acacia to commence or continue patent licensing discussions with each of those defendants."

So Acacia tried to get cable companies to come to the table, they don't see eye to eye, then they file a lawsuit, and then they hold off on summoning them so they can do more discussions?

Great marketing tactics.... It seems the cable guys are just as "unreasonable" as the Adult Industry Defendants.

What's also interesting with the cable lawsuit is that it proves the ridiculousness of their filing for a class action lawsuit for only porn companies.

The recent lawsuit filed against the cable companies clearly shows that everyone is infringing, so there should just be this one huge class that lumps everyone in.. including Microsoft, Real, and Apple.

With the conclusion of the Markman Hearing by the end of July, expect the licensing machine to be running on overdrive to "convince" companies to license the patent before the bottom drops out.

Oncloud8 has a service to provide Patents in PDF form for $0.49 each. The Acacia patents can be found by clicking here. I can see the value of having a PDF (with images embeded) of a patent document rather than the electronic text version found at USPTO.

I am not affiliated with the oncloud8 website and I am posting this relevant link for those that might find value in their offering.

Acacia PR announces that Acacia is suing Cable and Satellite providers.

"Acacia Media Technologies Corporation subsidiary has filed a Complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of Acacia's DMT patents against 9 cable and satellite companies. Companies named as defendants in the lawsuit include Comcast Corporation, Charter Communications, Inc., The DirectTV Group, Inc., Echostar Communications Corporation, Boulder Ridge Cable TV, Central Valley Cable TV, LLC, Seren Innovations, Inc., Cox Communications, Inc., and Hospitality Network, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox that supplies hotel in-room entertainment). "

Looks like the talks to convince the cable companies to license broke down. There were rumours before that the cable companies were pulling together to form their own defense group, looks like the rumour was true.

My two favorite "marketing" observations from Acacia is that they have $30+ million in the bank for litigation and that if Disney signed, a multi-billion dollar company, the patent must be valid.

So many pumpers and longs were waiting these last 2 quarters in hopes of seeing Comcast take a license after Disney... must be very disappointing for them to see that now these companies will band together and fight in court.

Because, as you know, the adult industry (Porn industry is now how Berman is referring to things.. interesting switch) was ONLY sued because they were unreasonable and wouldn't come to the table.

I guess the cable companies are being sued because they were unreasonable at the table in not wanting to pay the license.

Reuters reports that RealNetworks and Starz will launch an online music service.

Who will be the first to target them for patent licensing: Acacia, USA Video, or SightSound?

On Command is owned by Liberty Satellite & Technology, a subsidiary of Englewood, Colo.-based Liberty Media Liberty, a multimedia conglomerate that also owns Starz.

OnCommand recently dropped out of litigation by taking up a DMT patent license.

OnCommand settles with Acacia in this PR today:

"....the mutual purpose of settling their existing litigation..."

Kinda follows another line on Divorce: "it's cheaper to keep her".

I guess OnCommand figured it was more economical in legal fees to settle, rather than continuing the fight.

A sad resolution that corporate America is easy prey for pie-in-the-sky patent-interpreting solicitations.

In prior articles and message board postings, Acacia and its supporters have been waving the Sarnoff Research Report around as it were like a magic wand that was supposed to wash away any doubts about the patent's validity.

Turns out, that Acacia now doesn't want this report to be included in testimony.

This was sent to me:

06/03/2004 155 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' REPEATED USE OF THE SO-CALLED "SARNOFF REPORT" IN CONECTION WITH THE MARKMAN HEARING PROCEEDINGS filed by Plaintiff Acacia Media Technologies Corporation. (Dorman, Roderick) (Entered: 06/03/2004)


Click here to read the court filed objections.

Why would Acacia want this report buried? Because it reveals weaknesses in the interpreted claims.

A poster on the Yahoo ACTG board asked me this question:

"would you sign a $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 licence fee or pay hundreds if not more than a million dollars to go to court to prove invalidity or non-infringment,with no guarentee of outcome..which would you do? be honest..... "

My honest reply:

There is such thing as corporate consciousness out in the business world that options that might make accounting sense are not always the driver to decisions being made.

Paying money to anyone for a bogus notion is extortion by any name whether it be legal or not.

Let's get this major misconceptions cleared up.

An individual company does not have to shoulder the financial burden of spending upwards of one million on litigation.

Since there is a common foe, it is perfectly reasonable for companies to band together.

This was effectively demonstrated by the businesses who came together to fight against PanIP at www.YouMayBeNext.com

They pooled their resources together to battle against PanIP, including fiing for patent re-exam, and gained success for their efforts.

Companies that band together will have to spend money in a group defense. The cost of a common defense is by most accounts, cheaper than the licensing fee they would have to pay if you run the patent out to its conclusion.

So in this way of looking at, it is cheaper to fight in the long run.

The current 11 defendants against Acacia are showing that companies with modest to large revenue streams can band together and not just rollover.

If this patent really had substance and had legitimacy to it, then this would be a different story. But unlike jane's dream world, the reality is digital audio and video downloads existed prior to Yurt and Brown having their Eureka moment.. more like they were writing down what they already saw going on.

So, yes, I would fight and so would many companies sitting on the sidelines waiting for the judge to conclude the Markman Hearing.

It it not without any surprise to see more PR of companies signing. Acacia is pressing hard to get people to licensing before the July comes around.

Those that license, will be stuck paying the license, rather than joining those that are fighting.

I have heard rumours of the cable companies banding together, as well as another defense group being formed.

Resistance is growing, the claims of the patent are futile.

Sorry for the delay, I know many of you were looking for news as to what happened at the last session.

The last Markman Hearing (May 18-19) was originally scheduled for 3 days, and was concluded after the 2nd day. Judge Ware had heard what he needed from both sides.

Rather than wait for another session in July, Judge Ware said he would release his decision on the ten disputed claims as he came to a conclusion on each item.

He said that when he has a decision on a claim/term, he would release it to the parties for review, and then make his final ruling on that particular claim/term.

The judge has not made any decisions at this time, and once the first decision has been made, you will read about it here.

in the Acacia PR released today:
"....announced today that its Acacia Technologies Group has entered into a License Agreement for its Digital Media Transmission ("DMT") technology with Capella Education Company. "

At about $5,000/yr for video streaming, it's certainly cheaper to settle than fight, for those making this "business decision".

For other companies being "solicited" for similar deals, there is a growing movement to not become the start of a serial victim of patent abuse.

Companies that think they settled for cheap, have added themselves to the guest list for new patentees to target.

While there are thousands of distance learning, education, and corporate entities out there that if you rolled them all up and charged $5K/year, it would amount to nice chunk of v-chip change, but the problem with that pie-in-the-sky accounting is that the judge will be making his rulings about the Markman Hearing.

His decisions on definitions and words will be released as he comes to a decision on each one, with all open items resolved by late July.

Companies watching this case should realize that many of the claims will most likely be knocked down, making the remaining claims open to prior art, and also work-arounds.

An eventual non-infringement verdict for the defendants would not be an invalidation of the patent, so therefore those that have licensed for peanuts, will have to continue to pay peanuts until they break the contract to contest it.

Acacia Offers License Agreement Option to eCollege Clients

".....This offer provides an option for eCollege clients to enter into a license agreement on favorable economic terms."

"Based on client feedback, and given the complexities in dealing with patent infringement, we are serving as an advocate on behalf of our clients to provide options for them to resolve this matter on favorable financial terms and in a way that best meets their individual needs," said Oakleigh Thorne, chairman and CEO of eCollege. "We do not endorse Acacia's claims, and are not recommending our clients take any particular approach, but rather are providing our clients with the appropriate information so they can make their own informed decision."

Today begins a three day legal marathon for the third session of the Markman Hearing. It is speculated by some that the judge may make some rulings on the definitions that Acacia has presented and the defendants have challenged.

The final ruling is expected by late summer with the outcome potentially leading to the defendants to be non-infringing. Such a verdict would mean that the DMT patent does not apply to the Internet, but leaves it open to target cable and satellite.

Lots of media companies will be listening and talking about Acacia at the Acacia Panel:

"Acacia Research Patents: What You Need to Know

If you use streaming media on your web site or are in the business of providing streaming media services you may have received a letter from Acacia Research. This California-based holding company claims to own patents on streaming, downloading, and just about every form of digital audio and video distribution, including pushing MP3s from peer-to-peer groups, streaming newscasts from Internet radio sites and delivering movies through cable networks. Hear first-hand from legal experts about what your options are and how other corporations are handling this issue."

The Acacia panel goes on today at 4pm (EST).

Webcast

Comments on the webcast:

Berman did a good job in making Acacia sound like they were the victim in all of this of people stealing their property.

Many inaccuracies in his story.

The one that stands out the most is how he said they have their engineers research every potential licensee to fully understand through public means if they are infringing.

Sounds good on paper, but in reality, there were many documentable cases of people receiving the "infringement letter", and NEVER HAD AUDIO OR VIDEO ON THEIR WEBSITE.

Acacia seems to have gotten ahold of a webmaster list and used it to blanket out mass email (spam).

No research or verification was done, especially when some of these receipients called in to say why they were infringing, and they didn't even have what website that had the "infringement" in their database.

Another time, an attorney called in onbehalf of someone that had received a letter and talked to Berman directly. Berman asked for the person's name, and the attorney gave it to him and he looked them up in the database.

He then asked what their website was, and the attorney responded, you're supposed to be able to tell me that.

"How is my client infringing?" the lawyer said. Berman could not answer and was blaming that the database had a problem or something. Seems like there are alot of "database" problems.

The turn out to the panel was pathetic, maybe about 20 or so at the midpoint and down to like 10 at the end.

People are not taking Acacia seriously, which is a bad thing, not because the patent has teeth, but because the baby is teething on businesses using very questionable "marketing" attempts.

ClubJenna.com was sued by Acacia on December 18, 2003. They have officially announced their joining of the defense group.

In the beginning, Club Jenna was considering settling, but it appears that ACTG management was pushing a little bit too hard in trying to "sell" the patent, that Club Jenna decided to join the smackdown.

Salesman 101, if you have to push hard to convince people you have a good product, chances are you don't have a good product.

Below is an excerpt from an AVNonline.com article:

"Acacia is making a blatant attempt to target the adult industry in its effort to extract unwarranted fees for alleged infringement of its patents," Jameson said. "I don’t think people realize the implications of what Acacia is trying to do. If Acacia succeeds in intimidating adult site owners, they will move to mainstream sites and begin charging fees that will have to be passed on to everyone who uses the Internet."

A common question asked is where does it mention INTERNET in the DMT patent?

The more recent claims amended to the patent probably have the word internet in it and are with the USPTO waiting for review, as mentioned by ACTG management in different news outlets.

As a patent holder, they do have the right to amend the patent, usually to narrow the claims, rather than to broad them. It is conceivable that the current patent (the '992 patent) can be knocked down to not apply to the internet, but the latter patents upon approval, could come back.

If the original patent were invalidated, then all the other patents would fall down. This is why companies who are sitting on the sidelines should be more proactive in the fight with the current defendants.

Just like the companies that fought against PanIP patent and got a non-infringement release, the current defendants could get a non-infringement verdict, leaving the patent intact.

This means not only could Acacia target Cable for the current patents, but could possibly come back to the internet companies with later approved patents.

The current defendants are not moving towards invalidation of the patent, a more costly endeavour, but going for non-infringement of the patent as it relates to the internet.

Given the update to my article Reference This! it does seem that audio/video patent holders like Microsoft, Real, and Apple should really join in to help the defendants fund the push for invalidation, or else, face Acacia on their own.

The next Markman Hearing is scheduled for May 18 - 20th.

PanIP is another patent wielding company that has taken their e-commerce patent and tried to "solicit" and "market" businesses to license the patent.

A group of businesses targeted by PanIP banded togeter at http://www.YouMayBeNext.com to share financial resources in defending against a common foe.

From their website:

March 22, 2004

PanIP has dismissed its case against the PanIP Group Defense Fund, Inc. and its individual members in exchange for a waiver of the attorney fee award granted to the PGDF. The PGDF did not take a license of any kind from PanIP.

The outcome of their case runs in parallel to the current defendants against Acacia. The PanIP patent may be dead in the water to other internet sites due to their outcome.

This is a great example of how businesses can band together against patent wielding companies. Their outcome is further proof that there is such a thing as patent abuse, and that just because a person has a patent, doesn't mean that what they are telling you, matches what the patent actually says.

The SightSound patent is up for sale as reported by this article.

As written in the article:

Today, the company's value is in its patents, which Mr. Sander said cover the sale of entertainment online in the United States. The company believes it, or its buyer, should get a monetary return on every song and movie sold online in the United States.

One paradox is that companies like Acacia and USA Video claim ownership to downloading of digital audio and video, and here you have SightSound saying their patent covers the PAID download of digital audio and video. Quite bizarre.

In the real estate world, it's Location, Location, Location. In the patent world, it's Prior Art, Prior Art, Prior Art.

I have been contacted by several new defense patent firms in the last two weeks. For defense patent attorney firms, I share the prior art found by myself and many volunteer searchers at no charge. Contact me for information.

Below are some documents that should be useful:

docs between New Destiny and Acacia

pre-markman position papers from both sides

additional court docs filed 9-Feb

The prior art searches that myself and
other searchers were doing revolved around digital audio/video found on BBS. Prior art that more closely matches what the actual patent says was found by the Fish & Richardson attorneys... plus i heard there was an old voicemail system that was very close.

From the defendants side papers, you will note that much of their position in the first Markman Hearing session is based on the definition of "remote location"... one that might ultimately convince the judge that the patent does not apply to the internet.

I have been tracking Acacia's patent abuse claims for the last 7 months and can provide defense attorneys with insight and information since I stand at the crossroads of this Acacia Saga.

Yawwn...seems like Combimatrix has more legitimate things going on, even though I don't understand what they do.

Posted an article titled: The Dos Towers which is based on the conference call and observations about the internet and cable sectors that are faced with alleged patent infringements.

Listen in on how the numbers still don't add up.

Acacia Research Corporation Earnings Conference Call (Q1 2004)

Scheduled to start Wed, Apr 21, 2004, 4:30 pm Eastern

Click here to listen to the webcast.

EFF, finally stepping in from their PR:

an excerpt:

"Patents traditionally only targeted large commercial companies," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "Now bad patents are threatening non-profits, small businesses, and even individuals who use software and Internet technology." These threats target non-commercial personal use, such as building a hobbyist website or streaming a wedding video to your friends.

".....streaming a wedding video to your friends" that would be the DMT patent they are referring to.....

Acacia DMT patent already on their target list.

The second Markman Hearing seemed to have gone very well for the defendants.

If you were present for the April 9th session, you would have heard how Acacia's broad interpretations of many phrases in the patent will start to nail the coffin shut on themselves.

Terms like remote locations, storing items, library means, identification and coding, and the assignment of unique identification codes for the retrieval of data will be issues that the judge will rule that will determine Acacia's fate.

Given two eyewitness accounts, it would seem that the Acacia defense team's argument sounded very shaky when they say it outloud.

I am sure their definitions of "library" and "remote locations" sounded good on paper and in their heads, but saying it outloud... they have to wonder if the judge would ever laugh outloud, or the judge's technical consultant who has to listen to the spin.

The court has set up many more sessions over the next 3 months.

Many new faces were seen at the April 9th Markman hearing... probably more interest from cable companies who are watching this case due to Acacia's solicitation of them to license the DMT patent.

The defendants are arguing that the terms of the patents do not cover the internet, therefore going for a non-infringement verdict. Given the court agreeing with their position, it would mean the patent does not apply to the Internet, but still applies to cable.

ACTG spinners are now saying that cable is where the money is at, despite early Yahoo ACTG board posts that the DMT patent would own the internet, deriving countless millions in revenue from internet websites.

Their tune has changed recently, probably realizing that this battle will be lost.

Cable companies have not come to rally in support of the defendants, and have instead, chosen to sit on the sidelines. I have been contacted by three firms that represent cable companies, so I know they are watching.

The cable companies should band together much like the current defendants. They could pool their financial resources together, so that one company doesn't have to shoulder the financial burden of litigation.

If the cable companies supported the defendants, then the defendants could push forward for invalidation of the patent, not just going for non-infringement, since they already have court time and prior art. This would quicken the time to having the patent completely squashed.

If you want to know how you can help support the defendants, contact me. All information is held confidential.

What will be interesting for the judge to take into consideration, is a point that the defendants brought up at the feb 6th Markman Hearing:

Microsoft v. Multi-Tech case.

The Federal Circuit limited Multi-Tech's claims to only telephone communications and not "Internet communications" because the patent did not mention the Internet, even though the claims were broad enough to cover the Internet.

The court's opinion

Well written article about the need for patent reform, and I'm not just saying so since I was quoted in the article:

Wired News

This friday is the 2nd session of the Markman Hearing, where one of the main issues at hand is the definition of "remote locations".

Acacia dreamers contend that the language in the patent means a person at their computer connecting to a "remote location" to retrieve the digital audio/video.

Both the defendants and the actual reading of the patent show the phrase "remote locations" to mean using a telephone to order the video, that is to be displayed at a "remote location" on some television (ie. a person could call from work to order the video for home).

It is the terms and phrases in dispute that will be resolved by the Markman Hearing sometime in Summer (there is one more session after the April 9th one).

If the judge concludes that the termsn "remote locations" does not apply to the internet, you'll see Acacia standing a foot or two shorter as the legs get knocked out from under them.

For a microcosm of hidden agendas, brainwashing, outright stupidity, and Acacia stock pumpers doing spin, you can visit Yahoo ACTG Message Board.

For all the "entertainment" that goes on the board, I have created my own commercial:

Cost to register multiple yahoo profiles: $0

Cost to get a clue: $0.02

Net worth of empty non-factual posts: useless

For reading about pie-in-the-sky posts and "up by $xx by whenever", there are pumpers, for facts, observations, and opinions and everything else relevant, there's FightThePatent.com

ZDnet article

"The patent agency's preliminary decision, if upheld, also means that Microsoft will not be required to make changes to its Internet Explorer Web browser that would have crippled the program's ability to work with mini-programs that work over the Internet, such as the QuickTime and Flash media players. "

Miami Herald article

"In a potential threat to a Chicago inventor's $521 million jury award against Microsoft Corp., U.S. patent examiners have made a preliminary finding that his patent never should have been issued."

(note to Chicago Tribune and Miami Herald, in the article it was written "Tim Behrners-Lee, who some refer to as the father of the Internet". Tim Berners-Lee is the father of the World Wide Web. The father of the Internet is widely recognized as Vint Cerf)

Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.

The current defendants against Acacia will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.

When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.

FightThePatent.com provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.

A message board poster to the Yahoo ACTG board posted that Acacia's website had been updated to include Oral Roberts University licensing the patent.

The link to the news item can be found here. (click NO to installing the Office Automation popup window).

DMT Licensees

CinemaNow
Disney
General Dynamics Interactive
Grupo Pegaso
LodgeNet
NXTV
Oral Roberts University
24/7 University
Virgin Radio
Internet Streaming Companies (108) [translation, porn companies]

Looks like Hustler's name wasn't "clean" enough to be listed with names like Oral and Virgin.

I received an email from a website that received a "marketing packet" of Acacia material with a nice cover letter from Karlton C. Butts (VP of Licensing) that this website was infringing upon their patent.

The packet was the same as the earlier rounds with the CNET article.

This website has been getting alot of visitors, from Fortune 50 companies to many notable names.

If your company has been approached by any patent holder in this audio/video space, please feel free to contact me. I provide information and prior art finds for FREE.

All information is held confidential and private. What you see posted on this plog (patent log) and in my articles are more generic and I never disclose confided information. I have been at the crossroads of these patent abuse cases for 7+ months and I have never betrayed anyone's trust, especially those that admitted to me that they settled with Acacia.

Seven attorney firms have contacted me so far, and for each, I provide them with insight and the found prior art that I and several concerned individuals have found.

It has been said about Comcast as a haven for porn since they run alot of porn channels.

Disney being squeeky clean in their family-friendly appearance might have an issue.

I guess Disney didn't take into account that Acacia is a partner in Porn.. deriving revenue based on the success of porn businesses to the tune of 1-4% of gross revenue.

Maybe with this new found relationship with Disney and Acacia, maybe Acacia should introduce Disney to the porn companies that handle streaming video.. they know the technology and how to handle high traffic.

Maybe could do their own Paris-Hilton-Directed video stint into porn.. Minnie does Dallas.

Many have commented to me that more and more companies need to be made aware of these patent issues. I responded to their points that there is attention to these issues by people visiting this website and mainstream media covering the news. But being informed and mad is just 2/3 of the way to doing something about it.

To take a line from GI Joe, "knowing is half the battle".

The other half is "doing".. and by all accounts, both the adult biz and mainstream aren't interested in "doing" anything unless they are directly sued.

There is clearly a need for a proposal like Fight The Patent Foundation that seeks to inspire people to come forward with prior art, to inspire expert witnesses to come forward to testify, and to assist any company seeking to stand against a patent abuse case with the grassroots support and evidence to help knock the patent claims.

In addition, patents can be directly challenged at the USPTO. Found prior art along with a patent attorney to write up the petition, could help to stop bad patents at the source, rather than waste businesses millions of dollars each year on litigation.

The grassroots approach to finding prior art is at a low cost. Couple thousand dollars worth of prizes and a website can be created to reward people who submit prior art.

Additional money is needed to hire patent attorneys (or have some that will volunteer) to evaluate that targeted patent cases and evaluate the prior art submissions.

Even more money is needed to retain a patent law firm to petition directly with the USPTO.

Unless more companies get targeted for patent infringement by Acacia, SightSound, or USA Video, I am afraid the movement to fight against patent abuse will be stuck head first in the ground.

Very disturbing development in the world of patents.

The problem is if companies settle instead of fighting, it sets an informal precedent to the next targets that the patent must have validity.

BMG is a huge company with a ton of finances that it could fight the patent if it were joined by other companies, to share the burden, rather than fight alone.

The current defendants against Acacia are a perfect example of how companies can band together and share resources to take on what is wrong.

Individually, business can get rolled over by the financial expense projections of fighting a patent claim.

Viva la Defendants against Acacia.

4Q Conference Call concluded... running the spin through the Fight The Patent SpinORama Translator, satirized for your sanity.

Filed on 2/9

Very interesting part is in Fifth Affirmative Defense - Unenforceability - Inequitable conduct.

The Defense is charging that the inventors did not disclose prior art to Patent Office, and only in later patents, was prior art introduced, but aimed at backing up new claims. The idea is that the patent examiner did not take the prior art in context to the previous claims and only focused on the new claims...thus the patenters were able to say that the prior art was presented.

The Sarnoff Report was herald on Jagnotes*, Raging Bull, and Yahoo ACTG board as being proof of the validity. The defendants have the Sarnoff Report and what Sarnoff concluded is not favorable to the patent:

"....Based on our review of published material on this topic [see reference list & attachec papers], we do not consider the overall system architecture to be novel in a scientific/technological sense. Similar concepts of storing, accessing, transmitting and displaying compressed video and audio information are widely understood by researchers in the telecommunications and multimedia fields."

"Walk on water*" Sarnoff has documented almost 2 dozen instances of prior art.

*scroll down to last 2 entries. Acacia management and HMB attorney came from Gemstar... didn't some top executives get indicted recently?

Acacia Research Corporation Earnings Conference Call (Q4 2003)

Scheduled to start Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 4:30 pm Eastern (click on link above for streaming audio feed on that day)

Time to see how the numbers don't add up.

We provide a service for companies that don't have the resources" to invent technology, says Rob Berman, Acacia executive vice president.

hahahahhahah... What technology? Can someone just pick up the patent and create software that allows for digital files to be listened/viewed by a person? What about all the 160+ patents that referenced this patent? Patent Holders like InterVu created streaming products. So anyone who uses InterVu's patented software is also infringing upon a prior (and broadly interpreted) patent?

The proceedings were slow, painstaking, and focused mainly on rules and definitions that pertain to Acacia's claims to Digital Media Technologies (DMT), a process that relates to audio and video transmission and receiving systems.

Court docs filed for Markman Hearing found here.

We provide a service for companies that don't have the resources" to invent technology, says Rob Berman, Acacia executive vice president.

hahahahhahah... What technology? Can someone just pick up the patent and create software that allows for digital files to be listened/viewed by a person? What about all the 160+ patents that referenced this patent. Patent Holders like InterVu created streaming products. So anyone who uses InterVu's patented software is also infringing upon a prior (and broadly interpreted) patent?

A quote from Robert Berman (Senior Vice President Business Development and General Counsel for Acacia Research) from the NPR interview:

"We do believe that these patents are broad and are being widely infringed, and our strategy is, to frankly, dip our beak and just take a little bit of money from a lot of people and we would be perfectly satisfied."

Dip our beak?

hahahhahahahahaha

For those cinema-challenged like me, I didn't connect to the reference of "dip our beak".

The phrase was used Godfather II. Here is the screenplay. Here is the quote:

FANUCCI (Sicilian)

Otherwise the police will come tosee you and your wife and children will be dishonored and destitute.

Of course, if my information as to your gains is incorrect, I'll dip my beak just a little.

Just a little, but no less than one hundred dollars, and don't try to deceive me, eh paisan?

Friday's court appearance is for a so-called "Markman" hearing in which Judge James Ware will determine the scope and meaning of Acacia's patent claims. This means Ware will interpret the language in Acacia's patent to determine what it means and how far-reaching it is. While it's only the first step in the process, this determination will be key to the second step -- deciding whether the technology used by the defendants falls within the scope of the patent.

Mainstream is very much aware now.

A major news source for the world of streaming media who is now tracking this Acacia Saga.