Acacia question............

sarettah · 10-24-2003

Ok, I have been following the Acacia thing from afar for a while...
Last night I spent several hours catching up on the latest threads, etc..

Have a question for anyone out there who might know...

If I am reading things right... Affiliates (us, tthe small fry) might be hit by Acacia for sending traffic to someone who streams video on their site.. Is that right first of all ?

Now, if that is right, it seems to me that that particular strategy will fail... If I send traffic to someone who is streaming video and that site is licensed by Acacia, then absolutely no patent infringement occurred...

If I send traffic to a site who is streaming and not licensed and my arrangement with the site is anything but revshare, then I earned ny income by selling the traffic and in no way was it derived from streaming video and therefore, again no patent infringement on my part occurred.

If I send traffic to a site that is streaming and my arrangement is revshare then it can logically be assumed that if the site made money from the streaming then some of my money was derived from streaming, however, in court the most they would be able to hit me for is that percentage that could be somehow associated with the streaming....

Am I reading this right... Because this sounds like nothing but a big scare tactic on Acacia's part....

Anyway, i will probably not get a letter but I was astounded when the epi[phany hit and I realized what the tactic being used was.....

Sometimes these things gotta

before I clue in........

mojobill · 10-24-2003

OH.. make it even MORE complicated.....

You send traffic to a site.. that has streaming provided by ANOTHER company.... THAT company is actually doing the streaming.... not you... not the site you promote.... the site you promote simply links TO the company that does the steaming....

Now... according to what I've been seeing.... You get hit by Acacia... the Sponsor gets hit by Acacia, AND the actually streaming provider gets hit by Acacia....

that aint double dippin.. thats TRIPLE dippin....

WTF is up with DAT???

sarettah · 10-24-2003

lolol.....

I have one more level for you.....

The company streaming are usually doing it:

1. As a file that feeds a proprietary software product on the users end (win media, quicktime, real, etc) that is licensed to the user...

2. Or is using a proprietary 3rd party scheme that they are licensed on....

So, a good defense lawyer could probably force this through logic that the only ones who have violated a patent in any way are the software companies that provided the technology via a license.....

Paul Markham · 10-25-2003

I will make it simpler for you.

You have a website, you are likely to be a target of Acacia. They are working on the basis you will cave in rather than come out fighting.

10-24-2003	#1
sarettah Stay Out Of The Box Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the ozone Posts: 10,318	Ok, I have been following the Acacia thing from afar for a while... Last night I spent several hours catching up on the latest threads, etc.. Have a question for anyone out there who might know... If I am reading things right... Affiliates (us, tthe small fry) might be hit by Acacia for sending traffic to someone who streams video on their site.. Is that right first of all ? Now, if that is right, it seems to me that that particular strategy will fail... If I send traffic to someone who is streaming video and that site is licensed by Acacia, then absolutely no patent infringement occurred... If I send traffic to a site who is streaming and not licensed and my arrangement with the site is anything but revshare, then I earned ny income by selling the traffic and in no way was it derived from streaming video and therefore, again no patent infringement on my part occurred. If I send traffic to a site that is streaming and my arrangement is revshare then it can logically be assumed that if the site made money from the streaming then some of my money was derived from streaming, however, in court the most they would be able to hit me for is that percentage that could be somehow associated with the streaming.... Am I reading this right... Because this sounds like nothing but a big scare tactic on Acacia's part.... Anyway, i will probably not get a letter but I was astounded when the epi[phany hit and I realized what the tactic being used was..... Sometimes these things gotta before I clue in........ __________________ Free Adult Webcams

10-24-2003	#3
sarettah Stay Out Of The Box Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Lost in the ozone Posts: 10,318	lolol..... I have one more level for you..... The company streaming are usually doing it: 1. As a file that feeds a proprietary software product on the users end (win media, quicktime, real, etc) that is licensed to the user... 2. Or is using a proprietary 3rd party scheme that they are licensed on.... So, a good defense lawyer could probably force this through logic that the only ones who have violated a patent in any way are the software companies that provided the technology via a license..... __________________ Free Adult Webcams

10-25-2003	#4
Paul Markham Members Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 309	I will make it simpler for you. You have a website, you are likely to be a target of Acacia. They are working on the basis you will cave in rather than come out fighting. __________________ A mix of Amateur, Retro, Teens, UK Porn Stars, UK Page 3 girls and Hairy Pussy. All shot by me in the 80s and 90s. ICQ 213327873, Skype paulmarkham1

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-24-2003	#2
mojobill Thinks Negative Rep Points on GFY Matters Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Michgan Posts: 686	OH.. make it even MORE complicated..... You send traffic to a site.. that has streaming provided by ANOTHER company.... THAT company is actually doing the streaming.... not you... not the site you promote.... the site you promote simply links TO the company that does the steaming.... Now... according to what I've been seeing.... You get hit by Acacia... the Sponsor gets hit by Acacia, AND the actually streaming provider gets hit by Acacia.... that aint double dippin.. thats TRIPLE dippin.... WTF is up with DAT???