Ken: I appreciate where you are coming from and I am glad that you don't think I am accusing you of anything because I am not.

For the sake of clarifying my current confusion; however, I do recall an exchange between us on another thread where you said that you were not involved in the deal that was made. You stated that the decisions came from higher up for what all those companies finally settled for. I know you are not able to be specific about the deal, but I wonder if there is any way for you to elaborate on this dichotomy in the interest of clarity and to prevent anyone from getting a false impression.

In the meantime, just looking at the history here, Acacia did and does continue to ask for that infomation from other potential licensees. Right now there are plenty of people stepping forward to say that there is only one way that they could have been found... Even if it is not Hustler/Vivid/Wicked that does not mean that some other "player" did not do the dirty deed done dirt cheap. Look at all the people independently stepping forward to say that there is only one way they would have gotten a letter because the addressee info was so specific.

I know every Acacia licensee is hesitant to say that they sold out their "affiliates" (our definition...) but sooner or later I am confident the truth will emerge. Then the people that worked to make those programs rich will find out how appreciated their efforts really were.

Listening to their misleading "lawyer-speak", Acacia seems to define "affiliates" differently. Under their definition, they can easily go after those webmasters that we call our "affiliates". IMO, Acacia considers them all to be independant contractors, not actual legally defined "affiliates", and viable for licensing. There is obviously a method to their madness.

All I can say for those that did actually turn over their customers, and now are trying to lie about it, that is not the way to run an ethical business.

I won't be surprised at all when the truth comes out. Nor will I be surprised when we all find out who is on Acacia's payroll as a "consultant" helping beat the industry over the head with these abusive business practices.

I turned my rose colored glasses in and exchanged for a pair of binaculars to the future of this affair some time ago.



Last edited by Far-L at Oct 23 2003, 07:28 PM

and this is where Acacia is really double (and triple) dipping regardless of what they say

Acacia wants to have a feed provider pay license fees, then paysites like myself pay the license fees for linking to feeds provided by feed providers and then have the free site operators pay license fees because they link to paysites

Thats why I laughed (from shock) when Berman said Acacia would not double dip (maybe he meant Acacia was going right to the triple dip)

and let the record show I have received 4 notices from Acacia (2 packets and 2 letters)

See ya in court (unless you want to make me a real sweetheart heart deal - something like 10,000 shares of Acacia stock, lifetime free license and lifetime indemnity for all affiliates in all my programs)



Last edited by Vick at Oct 23 2003, 11:19 PM

Maybe he meant, he doesn't double-dip with his chips into the dip.

:rokk:

Fight the Patent!

Far-L,

The decision to settle was made by Hustler and Vivid independently. However, once they decided to settle, they asked us to review the settlement agreements and provide our input, which we did. One of our primary concerns was that our decision to settle did not have a negative impact on our affiliates.

I agree that something stinks and it is possible that someone leaked info to Acacia. I can only speak for Hustler and Vivid when I say that it was not us.

I've worked long and hard to build a solid reputation in this industry. I certainly wouldn't put my own ass on the line if I wasn't 100% sure about what I was saying.

I'm sure the truth will come out at some point. When it does, everyone will know that Hustler and Vivid did NOT sell out their affiliates. That will never happen.

Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

Far-L,

The decision to settle was made by Hustler and Vivid independently. However, once they decided to settle, they asked us to review the settlement agreements and provide our input, which we did. One of our primary concerns was that our decision to settle did not have a negative impact on our affiliates.

I agree that something stinks and it is possible that someone leaked info to Acacia. I can only speak for Hustler and Vivid when I say that it was not us.

I've worked long and hard to build a solid reputation in this industry. I certainly wouldn't put my own ass on the line if I wasn't 100% sure about what I was saying.

I'm sure the truth will come out at some point. When it does, everyone will know that Hustler and Vivid did NOT sell out their affiliates. That will never happen.

Whoever did should be boycotted. Period

I agree 100%...

I also agree that Ken's word is gold.....

I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.

I also agree.

Maybe we finally have an issue that has touched enough people directly and pissed off enough folx to make them shun cockholsters who deserve it.

Unfortunately history says that as long as the check shows up on time webmasters will put up with most anything.[/b][/quote]
And Ill say it again...we should boycott all you fuckers that settled! And I dont give a shit if you gave up your affiliates or not. Your funding them and their efforts are to squeeze the rest of us.

And Ill say it again...we should boycott all you fuckers that settled! And I dont give a shit if you gave up your affiliates or not. Your funding them and their efforts are to squeeze the rest of us.[/b][/quote]
yup i agree

even if they are donating to impa

thats just fence sitting anyway isnt it?

KRL posted this on GFY
It applies i think

and a possible pearl ( I know from GFY? LOL)



"A shrewd old businessman once told me early on in my career,

"If there is one thing to always remember and live by in business, never believe anything people say at its face value when money is involved." "

I have exchanged emails with Buck, and his prior art references are all 1990 and beyond... not valid for invalidating Acacia's patent.



Fight the Patent![/b][/quote]
I have also spoken with Buck and have a small list of prior art references from him. He sent a more detailed 181-page reference list to Spike just two days before I found him and asked him for any info he could provide to me.

On the list that I have, the references go as far back as 1972 and there are a *ton* of them that are in the 70's and 80's.

So I'm not sure what list you're looking at, but it doesn't match the one I have.

yup i agree

even if they are donating to impa

thats just fence sitting anyway isnt it?[/b][/quote]
Its all about biz isnt it?
Might even discourage anyone else from considering to settle as well. Seems to be quite a fear since they are all settling and wanting to remain invisible...


FIGHT THE FUCKING SELLOUTS!

Last I heard there had been about 47 companies that had settled - most of them very, very quietly. Who are they? We'll probably never know them all.

But if they were known... and webmasters did boycott them (which will never happen)... imagine what that would do.
All of those smaller guys who stuck it out would suddenly be getting the bulk of the traffic and we'd have a total top-level upheaval in the business!

Now wouldn't that be something? Never happen, especially since we won't know who all of these sponsors are, but it's interesting to think about anyway.

Boycott, I dont like that word, isn't it like a legal term?
How about this, why dont we just say someone find out who has settled, post it in a public forum (pin it so it never goes away) and let webmasters decide if they would do business with any company/individual listed on it. Thier choice.
I wouldnt do biz with a sellout, how can you trust someone like that? double speaking their asses off
"We HATE Acacia, but the descision to ettle was all about business"
Fine
So is anyones descision to not do any business with you (47 companies)

spaz

If I get a packet, you can pretty much take it to the bank that CE is involved; because I don't use the other sponsors mentioned.

What I'd like to know is where there is a full list of the sponsors who have settled.

In Berman's office.

Am I wrong, or are all the webmasters being targetted just Americans? BTW, Far-L I wrote you some time ago offering to send a contribution to the cause but got no...zip...zero...nada...response. I think a lot of this problem is caused by sell outs by bigger companies. You gotta be careful of those partnership programmes. Kind of sacrificial lambs.

"I've been saved
By the blood of the lamb"
J's

I agree with this. Funny how all the big guys claimed they were going to help, even after settling - but never put money up. Makes you wonder....

They're not just Americans. Webmasters in Canada and the UK have gotten letters that I know of.

Doesn't make me wonder at all, sadly enough.

"Smart is when you only believe half of what you hear. Brilliant is when you know which half." - Robert Orben

Doesn't make me wonder at all, sadly enough.

"Smart is when you only believe half of what you hear. Brilliant is when you know which half." - Robert Orben[/b][/quote]


Drav I think you have found your calling. I read your posts on GFY. I think you should start or be a spokesman for Patent Reform Lobby!

:rokk:

Gonna be a fun time whatching all of you who are calling for boycotts backtrack when the unnamed and future settlers are revealed.

Point by Point response to above:

1. This is called "making a market" by hype (they are good at that) and zealous rookie stockbrokers. (based upon 1000% revenue increase - see 3 below)

2. Small sites are fighting? Fighting what? Acacia has not engaged in any "fight" to date. Homegrown is a small site/company? And the others that join them? Acacia is a fly on Larry Flint's ass. And besides, why not pay up and put pressure on the competion? Shake a few out. You think there was not a "special" deal there? Of course it was a "business decision"! The guy didn't pay anything worth thinking twice about I'm sure and maybe it does him some good.

3. It is not hard for revenue to go up 1000% when it was nothing in the first place. Let's get real here.

4. They can't WIN the big prize (wide opinion). You are a stockbroker aren't you????

5. It WILL take a long, long time. So wha't the hype and panic. The adult industry most likely won't be the one running out of money. Acacia will. They got a very small handfull of players under their wing. VERY small.

6. Now I know you are a stockbroker - perhaps working for a "market maker" firm. That 1/2" thick full color package that they sent us and nearly everyone else cost a pretty penny to deliver - in bulk even - not to mention all of the other stuff. Oh yah - and that low budget legal and PR team. Now, perhaps, ALL THEY CAN AFFORD these days is Xerox paper and maybe postage (no ink). Might as well send those letters blank because that's all their worth at this point.

You are right - they HAVE NO PRODUCT! They have nothing of value except their investors money which is going fast. This means that their stock has no real value. This normally means BIG crash on the horizon. If they suffer any kind of legal defeat at all - put your helmet on.

Those yuppie execs of Acacia are doing all right though I bet.

My advice: DEFINITE SELL!!!

:barfon:

Thank you, Mike. Spokesman? Hmm, perhaps. But for what? Some organisation needs to be set up (new or existing, preferably the latter) to do this correctly and effectively.

I'm hoping IMPA is interested. Far-L said they were to some degree, but when asked on GFY to what extent they would be or to contact me on this he didn't. Then again I'm sure he's busy and I'm not one to expect and instant response, so hopefully I'll get one in coming days. It's definitely the best way to nip all of this in the bud, IMHO.

I would definitely donate money to this. And, short on time as I am, possibly some time to help as well. But someone more versed in various intricacies and nuances of such a venture would have to administer and maintain a viable structure. Again, hopefully an existing association or group will make this an important part of their agenda. Would be much better that way than creating any fragmentation.

Ralph Nader has setup: http://www.cptech.org/ that includes being a watchdog on patents.

Here's another: http://www.ipjustice.org

Eff.org has a patent section, but they are way to busy to focus in this area (exchanged many email with the Chairman of the board over this).

My personal efforts are studying Patent Law to take the Patent Exam, inbetween postings, emails, ICQ, and board postings. Passing the Patent Exam would allow me to be right in the thick of things with invalidating patents directly with the USPTO.

Fight the Patent!

FTP, while they all have value, none of them address the issue I've raised, sorry.

Nader's is a "hey, look over here, this ain't right!" place. Well, ok, that's nice, but doesn't even attempt to address present issues like Acacia, which it should.

The other is an intellectual copyright place with geocentric issues mostly against the EU.

EFF has a good informational archive but no campaign or revision activism on the matter either.

Again, all good stuff. But no one is addressing patent reform. More like trying to make (if they touch on the issue at all) a broken wheel work instead of replacing the wheel. Or in this case, recalling it.

Interesting article from FoxNews on patent office - its a new article.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101480,00.html

Technology innovation is both the lifeblood of our economy and the driving force of everyday improvements in our lifestyle. But all that is threatened by problems in a government agency which few of us ever think about.





That agency is the Patent and Trademark Office (search ), where existing troubles are real and destined to get worse unless Congress acts.

While we take patents for granted, we seldom stop to think about the overwhelmingly positive impact that patents have on our economy. Copyright industries, including the software industry, contributed $791 billion to the U.S. economy in 2001 and are growing faster than the rest of the U.S. economy, according to a key study. The licensing of U.S. patents contributed an additional $150 billion to the economy, according to KPMG. Intellectual property protections are particularly vital to innovation and investment in the information technology industry.

All this is, of course, good news. The bad news is that the Patent and Trademark Office, as currently funded, is buckling under the growing demands placed on it. Currently, more than 450,000 patent applications are waiting to be reviewed and the lag time between application for and issuance of a patent is about 27 months. This number is expected to rise to nearly 45 months by 2008 without additional resources. If the Patent Office grinds to a near halt it will not only adversely impact our economy but will also slow the introduction of new products that enhance our standard of living.

Most Americans are aware that the Patent and Trademark Office examines applications for patents and grants legal protection -- in effect, property rights -- for those who demonstrate innovation and original ideas. This patent protection is critical to business in the information technology industry. Patents are often a technology company’s most important asset and are critical to attracting investment, creating value and enabling mergers and acquisitions. In addition, patents are needed when we have to share our software or technical information widely in order to promote standards and inter-operability.

Fortunately, a fix is available. In fact, it has already been approved by the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The pending legislation to address the plight of the Patent Office is H.R. 1561 (search). There are two key provisions in the bill -- and they must be retained as the legislation works its way through Congress if the Patent Office is to be brought into the 21st century.

First, H.R. 1561 would increase the level of fees for a patent application anywhere from 15 to 25 percent depending on the technical field. The industry is widely supportive of increasing fees, knowing this will help shorten the huge delays.



This, in turn, leads to the second key provision of the pending legislation: that all patent application fees go to the Patent Office. Many Americans are unaware that the Patent Office receives all of its funding from fees paid by its users. Unfortunately, during the past 12 years, more than $650 million of these funds have been diverted to pay for unrelated government programs.

This diversion has drained vitally needed funds from a key government agency in what many now recognize as unwise public policy. Therefore, many business organizations, along with the Bush administration and leading members of Congress from both parties, are joining together to work toward passage of H.R. 1561. Support for the reform embodied in the bill is bi-partisan and widespread.

In Congressional testimony earlier this year, Commerce Secretary Don Evans said that “to support technology innovation and provide for intellectual property protection, the [Commerce] Department is working to eliminate the practice of using [Patent Office] revenues for unrelated federal programs.”

Congressman Howard Berman of California, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, called the practice of diverting Patent Office funds to other agencies a tax on innovation that should be ended. He noted that “life-enhancing, job producing” innovations are likely trapped within the application backlog at the Patent Office.

These comments represent a growing awareness that short-changing the Patent and Trademark Office stifles innovation. For the sake of consumers who benefit from this innovation, Congress should act promptly to fully fund the Patent and Trademark Office. If it does, there are no losers. More importantly, there are many winners.

Excellent article, Mike!

Now see? If we already had lobbyists in DC right now, it would be a comparitively small matter to attach a rider to an existing bill already in the process (than to initiate a new one)!

But, as usual, there's no one there on our behalf to do so. :angry:

I got this info from a patent mailing list:


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

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/10/cpreport.htm

It is :

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf

Pages 13-14 are interesting, in the way that they think that software
patents were a big mistake, although they propose nothing to try to remove
them, save for easier and cheaper invalidation procedures, which have though
no legal certainty as they will be in charge of the USPTO itself...

Chapter V is most interesting, as the problems are stated, ... with no
workable answer provided.

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


Fight the Patent!

I wonder if they'll take any of that re-directed funding they get back from HR 1561 and use it to hire some real technology gurus to review the pending patents having to do with internet technology.
I know... quit dreaming. Any funds they get back will immediately go into buerocratic (sp?) bullshit and will never make its way down to the level of hiring officers or giving them raises.