Quote:
Originally posted by Carrie@Oct 26 2003, 02:30 AM
What's that saying about the devil you know vs the devil you don't know?
It's all about video. Have you guys checked out the patents "waiting in the wings" at all? Other folks have said that the following two companies are waiting to see what happens with Acacia before moving in on the adult industry. I completely and vehemently disagree.
Unlike Acacia, these guys went *straight* for the big players and as such, they're both currently embroiled in some heavy and expensive court battles. They're not waiting to see what happens with Acacia - they could care less. They're waiting to see what happens with their own court cases and not being stupid by spreading themselves and their working capital out too thinly by attacking multiple targets at once.
SightSound
SightSound has a patent for paying for a download of audio or video, and unlike those cowards Acacia, they went *straight* for the big boys. They're currently in court with BMG Music *and* CDNow. No low-hanging fruit for them.
If they win, might as well toss pay-per-view out the window.
But also any credit card purchase online!
While I couldn't get much info from SightSound's website as it's broken, I did find this in a Wired.com article:
"A federal magistrate recently expanded the scope of a patent originally filed to cover the purchase of music and movies over telecommunications networks to also cover Internet credit card purchases. That gives SightSound tremendous leverage in its licensing negotiations, even though the issue is still on appeal in federal court."
USA Video
And then USA Video has a patent very close to Acacia's but it is written very broadly - basically it covers the storage of compressed video and audio on a server, transmission of that data to a receiving computer in *faster*-than-real-time, and then playback of that audio/video file *in* real time. They're also taking on a big boy - MovieLink. (Made up of Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Metro Goldwyn-Mayer, Universal Studios, and Sony Pictures Entertainment.) Also they're not going for licensing fees. They want a *permanent* injunction (meaning take movielink down forever), treble (triple) damages, compensatory damages, and all of the legal fees and such paid by Movielink if USVO wins.
Also unlike Acacia, they *do* specifically mention Flash and PowerPoint on their site, as they feel their patent covers this. They also specifically mention Video on Demand *and* broadcasts of live video. These are the DRM guys (digital rights management) and they *do* actively develop software to work with their patent, and sell it. Their big product MediaSentinel is supposed to be out before the end of the year. They already have a couple of other products in the market. They filed for their patent in '90 and were awarded it in '92.
Boding even more ill is that one member of their Executive Management is a lawyer for Fish & Richardson, the best patent attorneys in the country and the same firm that IMPA has hired to fight Acacia.
The thing that I found extremely cheeky about their site is that they state "The patent is a pioneering patent in the field of video-on-demand and Internet video with little prior art and has been cited by over 185 subsequent patents."
So basically they admit that there *is* prior art, yet they're going ahead with suing Movielink.
The only saving grace that I could find in their original patent claim is that they continually reference the data being transmitted over PHONE lines and make no forward-looking statements to other internet access such as cable, satellite, or fiber optics. That being said though, they might address these issues in further add-ons to the patent (or later patents entirely that hinge on the first), I didn't go through and read those.
Larry Walters
Yes, our very own Lawrence Walters, free speech attorney, who has made himself a home in the adult industry and frequently posts articles updating us on gov't and legal actions that could affect us.
Larry has patented age verification.
With the gov't once again looking over enforcing the COPA law which *requires* any naughty material be placed behind some type of system of age verification, this one could be just as large as the two listed above.
But if you're one of Larry's clients, he'll let you use the technology scott-free. Infringe my patent and pay me, or become my client and pay me. Arrghh.
And on *none* of these sites could I find any specific mention of what the licensing fees would be should they find you to be infringing on their patents.
|
OH Carrie I am SO GLAD you picked up on this!
In Chokers thread on GFY I said as much as I could ( without slandering Walters ) about this issue.
I had an age verification script that I had my friends at EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) create when I saw a need for Wembasters to have this tool. It was to be free for everyone and help ease the tension felt by all from the COPA issues. Then I came accross a post on Ynot from Walters about his "BirthdayVerifier" script. I noticed his was a php script.. mine was javascript. The script I used is the same type as on the
http://www.budweiser.com site and has been around since the early '90's. Larry's script is here:
http://www.birthdateverifier.com/
I contacted Larry and here is a SMALL bit of our correspondence:
This was sent to me by Larry Walters on 9/15/2003
"When did you release it? It may infringe on my patent, but we can work something out if it does. Can I see a link to where it appears?"
Part of another email that same day:
"If you show me where to find it, I can give you my thoughts on whether it is infringing on my patent rights."
I do have a copy of all of the emails if there is any question as to the validity of my statements.
Another thing to think about is why would a first amendment attorney being patenting scripts?
After seeing Larrys name mentioned on a
GFY thread I brought up my past experience with Larry.. his response?
"I don't know what my age verification script (
www.birthdateverifier) has to do with the discussion, but for the record, I have not threatened anyone with any infringement claims relating to that invention. This is just something that I let my clients use free of charge. "
As you can see from my email snippets above, it's clear where Larry is coming from. Also he forgets to mention that part of his promoting the script is that you can use it if you become a paying member of his firm.. because he has to "consult" you regading COPA. His quote above makes it seems as though it's free.
Then later in the thread he states "Aww, c'mon. You know we're a necessary evil. Nobody likes the sharks until you need to sick us on your enemy. Like they say, the only good lawyer...is YOUR lawyer!"
In closing, basically because of more email correspondence with Larry I decided to scrap the script. I didn't want to deal with a legal issue regarding a free script in a different programming language. It was very clear where Larry was coming from.
Thanks again Carrie for noticing!