It's no wonder that the EEC Parliment is thinking long and hard about Software Patents. What will Acacia do to companies working in Europe, will the "licensed" companies insist only those with the license can sell videos?
And as for the argument of settling and moving on until someone else brings this down for us. That is what those who have signed up are hoping. They do not want to spend the money fighting, they want someone else to do and pay for it, then they can carry on as before having paid out nothing. What would be their reaction if they knew that they could not sell videos IF Acacia lost. Nice when you can play both sides with immunity.
I think this has been a test of integrity and some have come out badly.
If you think these patents are solid, then come out and tell us what reasearch was done to reach that decision and the results. There is some confusion over whether the lawyers know if "Double Dipping" is allowed in patent cases. Maybe it's not and therefore is not required to be in a license, or can be put in very easily. Or "Double"Dipping" is legal and a concession was gained.
Or was this just a commercial decision, which was carried out by the Accountants and not the legal department. They would look simply at bottom line and little else.
It will cost xzy to fight
It will cost xyz to settle
Can we still sell videos if Acacia lose?
Can we sell videos if they win?
Morals, ethics and reputation do not show up on a balance sheet.
|