Quote:
Originally posted by goBigtime
I think in the end that is what it will boil down to. Their broad claims will become alot more specific and defined. Probably revolving around streaming video.
The double/triple/quadruple dipping is pure bs though...
ie,
they demand license from XYZ Content Streamers,
they license to XYZ Content streamers PAYSITE clients,
they license to XYZ Content streamers PAYSITES AFFILIATES
they license to XYZ Content streamers PAYSITES AFFILIATES Advertisers (TGP's, brokers, people linking to the affiliates movies galleries)
That's sort of nuts you know?
|
That's an important part of this. Someone objective has to establish what Acacia claims to own.
Otherwise, you could patent a bolt, and claim you have a patent on all metal, all machines, anything that uses a bolt. You could just as easily have a tradmark on "dogfart" and claim you own the exclusive rights to the words "dog" and "fart". You could claim anything you want, until someone stepped in and stopped you.
Their patents, which should be overturned, even if they somehow hold onto them for a while, almost certainly don't cover everything that Acacia says they do.
Has any objective third party yet tried to define what exactly the claimed Acacia patents really cover? Not what Acacia says, because they will probably say anything that suits their interests, but what they would actually specifically apply to?