Does Transfer of MPEG Video Infringe on Acacia Patents? 83
Spooky Suicide asks: "I own a slightly naughty website that among other things makes 20 some odd videos available for download in MPEG2 and MPEG4 format. I recently received a written letter from Acacia Research telling me my delivery of video is infringing upon some of their patents and I must choose between either licensing their technology or settling this issue in court. I called the EFF who told me they don't specialize in patent issues and don't know what to do next. Obviously, if all video on the web infringes on their patent, you'd think they'd go after the big guys, but they seem to be going after little content providers who can't afford to fight them in court. I can't help but feel like I'm being shaken down by the hi-tech version of Tony Soprano, what should I do? Anyone else dealt with these guys or no of any group of people grouping together to fight this?"
you've come the the right place (Score:2, Funny)
slightly naughty
teehee
Re:you've come the the right place (Score:2)
There is no such problem ... (Score:1)
Ask yourself - in all honesty either they are well within their rights to ask you to pay for this technology, or they are well out of line and have no rights to tell you to pay to use this technology.
If they have a legitimate right then back down and pay up.
It they have no legitimate right and they are trying extortion then you are being terrorized and must fight back with overkill. It is the only way to handle terrorists.
Send them a letter that says you feel that this is an act of terrorism and if they to not immediately cease and desist you will take their continued action as positive affirmation that they are terrorists that are terrorizing you, and that you will treat any further terrorist acts with the same vehemont reaction that terrorists deserve.
If they keep it up, burn down their office buildings, find out where they live and burn down their homes, burn down their lawyer's offices and find out where their lawyer lives and burn down his home too. Burn their cars, too.
Fighting terrorism means having the will to do what the other guy won't.
Put up, or shut up.
Doh (Score:1)
And this isn't my idea. These are the words of Sun Tzu. I am just sharing them with you.
Sun Tzu - The Art of War.
Read it.
Know it.
Live it.
The Answer (Score:5, Funny)
Change (Score:1)
Re:Change (Score:4, Informative)
It specifically states that it relates to any compressed video, whether it is compressed during transmission, partially decompressed before transmission, or fully decompressed before transmission. Not just MPEG. It applies to Real, Ogg Theora, anything. Those are just forms of compression.
These guys have "patented" the method of sending you the video so you can pause it and fast forward it. Ooooh.
Re:Change (Score:1, Insightful)
Ofcourse, IANAL, but it does seem quite silly to me. Also, you might want to ask them why they are not suing mp3.com, after all they deliver audio and video in exactly the same way, and there's probably a lot more money to be made there. I bet the shareholders won't like them going after small fish when they could have big ones, due diligence and all that...
Re:Change (Score:5, Informative)
This patent could be slapped down HARD if they took on a large company. That's why they are going after this guys site. He's small time, probably can't afford to fight. EXACTLY the same thing as the PanIP fight that's going on. Too broad of a patent to even be inforcable, and they know it.
It's like patenting "method of moving your legs for locomotion" or some crap. It's just a given, and has been done before. But if you can't fight it, they'll get money, and sue others until somebody steps up and fights.
This all sucks.
Re:Change (Score:2)
United States Patent N 5,132,992 Audio and video transmission and receiving system:
A system of distributing video and/or audio information employs digital signal processing to achieve high rates of data compression. The compressed and encoded audio and/or video information is sent over standard telephone, cable or satellite broadcast channels to a receiver specified by a subscriber of the service, preferably in less than real time, for later playback and optional recording on standard audio and/or video tape.
The patents are very broad and mostly cover the transmission of the content, not the format of the content.
Re:Change (Score:1)
Possibly high-speed leased lines, ISDN, dry copper local links, serial cable connections, land-based wireless, and even GPRS don't fall into this description. It's not your responsibility to monitor compliance, after all.
Also, your EULA could require (to avoid this patent) your users to play the video back as it is delivered, rather than store it for "later playback and optional recording...
Sounds remarkably similar (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot articles on that topic are at
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/
and
http://yro.slashdot.org/artic
The fact that none of their patents actually contain the word "Internet" is rather telling, though.
Re:Sounds remarkably similar (Score:2)
Re:Sounds remarkably similar (Score:1)
Heck, transmission of audio over standard phone lines (which one of the patents seems to cover) has been around since there have been phone lines. That's sort of the point, after all. And they have always allowed for "optional recording" for "later playback."
Re:4 dollars please (Score:2)
(And why no 1 year credit card?)
Re:4 dollars please (Score:2)
Re:4 dollars please (Score:2)
Ogg Theora (Score:1)
Beta stuff is already out, but I dont think you want to go into the business of beta testing.
If there isn't a group willing to fight this... (Score:2)
You ARE being shaken down . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You ARE NOT being shaken down . . . (Score:1)
The 5 patents presented specify a method by which one would transmit or recieve digital audio or video. Your site is not a method, but a repository... The server itself is the method. It (probably apache or IIS), or rather the makers of the server, are actually liable for this one because they are the ones who produced a method for transmission and playback.
Think of it this way... I patent a method for cleaning a floor by means of sucking dust into a bag. Then, hoover starts making vacuum cleaners and I want to sue. Hoover, the company that made the transgressing product is liable, but the many users out there trying to clean their floors cannot be held liable.
It's like if I had patented a toy which consisted of building objects with joining bricks, and then LEGO started making their toys. I could sue Lego for the transgression, but I would not be able to sue every kid that plays with Lego products.
I must warn that I am not a patent lawyer, just a Comp Sci. student. But I know a fucking scam when I see one.... don't give in. Fight the good fight.
Re:EFF (Score:1)
2. DivX is based on MPEG4.
Re:EFF (Score:2)
For gods sake, atleast read the NEWSPOST ITSELF!
I called the EFF who told me they don't specialize in patent issues and don't know what to do next.
> Use the DivX [divx.com] codec; it's free to use and produces good output. (Use the free version, not the "Pro"; you won't need the extra features.) Stick a link to DivX's web site on your page.
> I'd also include a note that MPEG isn't friendly, and that Acacia sucks.
Doooh?
And if would have followed one of the relevant links then you'd know that the patents are not talking about MPEG at all, its just the file format he uses.
The patents apply to ANY highly compressed video and or audio signal transmitted over phone/sat/cable.#
.
.
phone/cable/sat:
Does this mean I can give out my porn using wireless? - They will prolly file a patent for that one too!
If they do - point them to this post! I had the idea first - and its obvious!
RTFA (Score:2)
He already talked to the EFF, and they aren't interested in patent stuff, just copyright.
Also, the patent doesn't apply to just MPEG, it applies to any transmitted video of any format transmitted which allows the recieving party some control over access (pause, fast forward, etc).
In other words, ogg, DivX, Real, whatever are all covered by this patent, as long as they are transmitted using one of the methods described in the patent. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to mention the internet anywhere, but it does mention standard telephone, cable, or satalite. Basically, the only way to win this is to convince a judge that the internet isn't covered by any of those terms.
uhh.. (Score:2, Interesting)
How does this involve the internet?
Specially if the medium was fiber optic line, or even a tin can down the way.
And its not being recorded on any "video tape".
Re:uhh.. (Score:2)
So as long as the person isn't a subscriber of a service, the patent doesn't apply, since it describes implementing a subscriptio service. Fuck 'em
Re:uhh.. (Score:2)
Oh, and record it and stream it to your subscribers. Hell, I'd pony up a subscription for that alone
Re:uhh.. (Score:2)
So, are you letting the subscriber specify a particular receiver, or just sending it ot the ip address that requested it?
If you let your subscribers specify some other receiver it sounds like you would be infringing, but if they aren't specifying a receiver , then maybe you are not infringing. It seems odd that the claim would be so specific (no pun intended ) when it is in the claimant interest to make it broader.
Heh (Score:2, Funny)
Fuck em. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuck em. (Score:1)
Either way, you're going to spend losts of money on lawyers, or lots of money on licenses.
That's just my $0.02
show me (Score:4, Insightful)
X Windows is prior art. (Score:2)
X Windows is designed for a clinet* to pull the information to display applications over the network from a server. Some of those applications are video, or video like, and some of those networks use compression.
X is *really* old and has roots to 1984.
*X uses odd client/server terminology. It makse sense in an odd way, but I used the 'traditional' meening here.
Re:X Windows is prior art. (Score:1)
The patent describes pushing compressed video over a broadcast system, any porn site delivering videos is using a client pull over a packet system. The two are completely different.
It sounds quite a lot like the patent BT tried to use to claim ownership of hyperlinks. Completely different, doens't mention any of the technology used (because it predates it) and is a blatent attempt to patent an idea rather than an implementation of an idea (in order to stop somebody actaully doing it). Any lawyer should be able to write you a letter to that effect pretty quickly, and even if they do charge by the hour it'll probably take them less than that to do it for you.
Re:X Windows is prior art. (Score:1)
Re:X Windows is prior art. (Score:2)
You have the Client and Server in X reversed
That was intentional, most people understand the relationship between client/server in the same manor as VNC, PcAnywhere and Citrix. I propbably shound not have done that - dumbing things down to make them more accessable is can buy a dumb idead in itself.
If you note, I expalined the descremency that at the end of my post:
*X uses odd client/server terminology. It makse sense in an odd way, but I used the 'traditional' meening here.
contact the big guys yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
I imagine all these parties have employees who read slashdot, so they will see this thread. good luck.
Re:contact the big guys yourself (Score:2, Interesting)
These guys are fishing for small guys to roast in order to set court precedents. Talk to a lawyer and transfer all media via FTP (goes back a lot further than their patent.
Also, I would recommend talking to MS, Real, et al. since, sooner or later, since they are providing the products that infringe on the patents, they are very likely going to be pulled in to court sooner or later. Last I checked, if Ford infringes on GM's patents, Ford is the party that is supposed to get sued, not the consumer driving an Escort...
just my 2/100($1.00)
Re:contact the big guys yourself (Score:1)
So does the web.
This is transfer of video to the consumer.
doesn't matter which protocol you use, its still over the internet, which is over phone lines, or cable, but not over certain other lines.
blah
Re:contact the big guys yourself (Score:2)
A US patent grants
so in theory if neither you nor Ford licensed the patent, they're liable for direct infringement when they produced the car and you're liable for direct infringement (and Ford is liable for contributory infringement) every time you drive it. In practice, GM could never afford to go after every Ford owner, and they'd be allowed to demand damages and a license fee from Ford but probably not a recall of all infringing cars.free advertising, again (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod that up (Score:2)
Ignore it (Score:1)
Plain and simple.
This is just a letter and nothing more.
If do try to proceed against you, you will win supprot because this affects everything including MS.
But for now, ingore the fuckers. They are wasting your time
Sit on your hands. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, so it's not me getting the legal hassles, but I say stall the bastards. If you can stall for six months or so they'll just disappear off the radar. Either that or Apple, Real or Microsoft will walk round with the big stick and knock them off the radar.
Best of luck,
Dave
BTW, how much are they looking for?
Re:Sit on your hands. (Score:1)
remember everyone, one more hit [acaciaresearch.com] on their server [acaciaresearch.com] will bring them to their end just a little sooner.
Re:Sit on your hands. (Score:1)
This scenario can be the worst because the lawyer(s) don't have to pay retail for law services and they also have no incentive to horse trade via cross-licensing.
So you get a letter... (Score:3, Funny)
Void (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Void (Score:3, Insightful)
Laches (Score:1)
Sorry. You're thinking trademark.
A weaker form of the defend-or-lose rule for trademarks applies to patents as well, in the form of "laches". If a patent holder is shown to harm an alleged infringer by delaying legal action, or a patent holder delays legal action by at least six years, then laches kickes in, diluting the patent holder's ability to enforce the patent on alleged infringements that occurred before the filing of a lawsuit. Once laches has kicked in, a patent holder can get an injunction, and that's about it.
Re:Laches (Score:2)
Re:Void (Score:2)
Dave
Re:Void (Score:2)
US Video (Score:2, Informative)
Similar patent owned by US Video, filed before Acacia filed theirs.
Bullies without balls? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm being quick to judge, but it doesn't sound like they've been on the playing field for long. Their domain name [acadiaresearch.com] was registered two years ago. Certainly, if this is the case, they were not the first to use digital video on the Internet...
So.. Any lawyers? (Score:2, Insightful)
My iunqualified reading follows:
"Compressed" is a vague term, but would appear to include any compression algorithm, including LZW, and RLE. These types of file have been around before the first patent was issued - Obviously really. This patent was applied for at a time when video compression was good enough to make this feasable.
It would appear that this would cover any BBS that ever contained an Amiga
The other issue is that this would appear to apply only to broadcast and ordinary telephone services. The internet is not a broadcast technology. It is also not a telephone technology. Even if it was, this patent would appear to be for broadcasting recordable video data.
Copyright (Score:1)
I'm sure this is going to be one issue that (Score:1)
Australian wheel patent (Score:1)
Some Australian has patented the wheel [ipmenu.com].
Then don't use MPEG!! (Score:1)
"I can't help but feel like I'm being shaken down by the hi-tech version of Tony Soprano, what should I do?"
Use DIVIX! If you only have 20 something odd movies then converting them to DIVIX should not be that hard. Then they won't have a reason to shake you down.
Why DIVIX?1. Codec is distrubuted on many platforms. Linux,Windows,MAC,BE,etc.This should include most of your customers.
PS: I dig the site!2. Easy and quick to install the codec.
3. It's source is open.
This is junk mail, and nothing more. (Score:2)
Re:This is junk mail, and nothing more. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't just ignore it, I think you should report it to the feds... it sounds like extortion.
Some articles about Acacia: (Score:3, Informative)
Little Acacia's Lawyers Take On Big TV Makers
By ANDREW SIMONS
Engineers rule at most technology companies. At Newport Beach-based Acacia Research Corp., it's lawyers. The legal department at the small patent-holding company pulled in all but a smidgen of Acacia's $24 million in revenue last year.
The team, led by Acacia vice president and general counsel Robert Berman, has made a business out of winning or settling lawsuits against big-name TV makers it accuses of infringing on patents.
Thanks to Acacia's arm-twisting, 13 TV makers have inked licensing pacts with the company in the past year.... (Reg. req.)
http://www.cbjonline.com/index_oc.html
Silicon Investor:
Acacia's growth strategy: Hire more lawyers.
Antitrust watchdogs are busy checking out two partnerships forged by most of the big media companies that plan to sell new video-on-demand services. But the two partnerships, Movies.com and Movielink, might face an even bigger obstacle in Acacia Research, a Newport Beach, Calif. outfit that owns patents on certain technologies that enable digital streaming of music and movies over the Internet and cable television.
"We're doing an analysis to see what companies are infringing [on Acacia's patents], and then putting together a strategy to license our patents to those companies," says Robert Berman, president of Acacia's Media Technologies Group. If deals can't be made, Acacia is prepared to sue, which is how it generated much of its $25.6 million in revenues last year. Acacia has settled lawsuits and cut deals with a dozen TV manufacturers for its patents on television v-chips.
Sound familiar? In the early 20th century Motion Picture Patents Co. held immense sway in the film business until it was busted up by antitrust lawyers. More recently Henry Yuen became a billionaire in part by suing anyone he thought infringed on the patents owned by his interactive TV-guide service, Gemstar. Not only did Acacia purloin a page from Henry Yuen's patent playbook, it also stole three of the Gemstar attorneys, including Roy J. Mankovitz, a former Gemstar board member and lead in-house counsel for patent-licensing strategy.
Perhaps Yuen can sue Berman for infringing on his legal ideas.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gs
sex! (Score:1)
Sum It up 2 What Now? (Score:1)
-Mpeg (not a good format! cause of patents!)
-Ogg good (free and better, video hopefully better!)
-evil stream law bad
Although eventually someone (Hopefully!) will breakup the monopolistic back scratching.
sounds to me that the fellow who got this letter is not aware of the big boys (tv deals!)
We are a small company looking to stream video of local events in our local municipalities. We where looking for a good open source solution for streaming video and radio. we are shocked to hear this.
What is a good Ogg Linux open source solution?
What is the licensing fees?
We like the idea that Ogg is free and look forward to June 2003 date!
Are you fucking stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe you're really clever and think that this is a good way to get a bunch of lonely geeks to sign up for your website.