read here: http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/Highlander.html

post here.



Fight the Paradox!

for those link challenged, here is one notable point of the article:

Porn websites that are member based (ie. monthly membership fee) could technically fall within this patent [SightSound]. Video-on-Demand sites that offer pay-per-minute or video downloads (ie. CinemaNow.com, MovieLink.com, etc) could find themselves faced with paying licenses to two or more patent holders.



Fight the Excerpts!

Patents are going to be the biggest issue on the net now. I hope Judges don't let these companies stiffle the web.

Hoovers article:
http://www.hoovers.com/free/news/detail.xh...2b20007d2dc663a

"SightSound prexy and co-founder Scott Sander said Monday that the company has already been approached by several parties interested in acquiring the patent portfolio.

"We realize that someone bigger than us might have to have these patents for the industry to really move ahead," Sander said. "We hope that with our success today the industry has entered a new era of respect for intellectual property, both copyrights and patent rights."



Fight the Portfolio!

"We realize that someone bigger than us might have to have these patents for the industry to really move ahead," Sander said.



"industry to really move ahead" ... huh? what industry?


Maybe he meant the industry of licensing patents and suing people for infringements. (if only that joke were funny)

I touched upon this subject in my article: Mo Patents, Mo Money: Making money by licensing patents at http://www.fightthepatent.com/v2/MakingMoney.html



Fight the Digging up of old Articles!

So, it's entirely possible that site owners could be paying up to 3 companies for licenses to use one technology? That sickens me.

Yes. If a company has digitized video on their website, and has either members or pay-per-view model, then Acacia, SightSound, and USA Video could have licensing claims.

It is quite absurd that a business would have to pay licenses to more than 1 patent for the same thing (assuming patent validity).


The only way to get out of this situation is either to wait for the patentees to fight amongst themselves, so that only 1 is still standing, and then everyone has to pay that one or the alternative, to invalidate the patents directly with the USPTO.

It's cheaper than fighting in court.. but it still costs money.... but no one is in the position to do that... it would take some kind of organization or foundation to do that.



Fight the Apathy!

the legal layman in me still doesn't understand why they don't go after the companies creating the SOFTWARE that enables us to stream video...

of course that would mean higher licensing fees from the software makers, so we'd end up paying eventually anyways...

I just hope that those who settled with ACACIA keep getting more hands thrust into their pockets...

People like M$, Real, and Apple make software... the software does not infringe on the patent.

The infringing is done with content + software is combined along with an end user to view/listen... this completes the process that the DMT patent claims.

An Apache HTTP server can be used to deliver an AVI. So the combination of an AVI + Apache server + end user, still completes the process.

The patent relies on third party parts to make the thing go..

The patent is the equivalent to the process of making a peanut butter sandwich. Jiffy peanut butter would not be infringing, but the mom that made a sandwich that combined all the elements would.

this is why the patent is so absurd.



Fight the Absurd!

This is tantamount to three seperate companies all saying they own the same turnpike. And I doubt anytime soon any of them will be fighting it out. That would make too much sense from our perspective. What's more likely and in each of their interest is -- proposterous as this sounds were this in the tangible world -- each company will build their own tollgates along the same stretch of road and have all the cars pay three times as much.

... Unless Congress (hah!) does something or the Courts (in 2005 or 2008) decide things. Of course it might be an empty highway by then, but hey, as long as they have all gotten their cut and enjoying their mai-tais in Bali.