If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:58:03 -0800, Jeff wrote:
Thats what their patent claims, so far, some of the biggest companies, Hustler, wicked, Vivid, lodge net, and others, have signed their license agreement. After our attorney reviewed the patents, we signed it also. How long ago was this? Your attorney could have easily requested a stay on the court date until the current lawsuit against Acacia is settled (which will more than likley invalidate their patents). Its no joke, they are going after everyone, they have had the courts shut down alot of sites that refused to pay licensing fee's. Which is misleading, and almost makes it sound like Acacia acutally presented a case in their favor, which is not the case. The only time Acacia has won anything in court, was when the defendant refused to appear.... and is not "a lot" of sites, just a handful run by a few select companies. If their pantent held *any* weight, companies like Yahoo, MS, AOL, etc would be the targets. Acacia definitely seems to be pros in this area... milking a puchased pantent for all they can before the courts deem them invalid. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:05:51 -0600, Do What?
wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:58:03 -0800, Jeff wrote: Thats what their patent claims, so far, some of the biggest companies, Hustler, wicked, Vivid, lodge net, and others, have signed their license agreement. After our attorney reviewed the patents, we signed it also. How long ago was this? Your attorney could have easily requested a stay on the court date until the current lawsuit against Acacia is settled (which will more than likley invalidate their patents). Just to correct myself... there is no lawsuit against Acacia, but there are finally a group of defendants (11) that are well prepared to challenge the Acacia claim (something that has yet to be done). Either way, one could make a very strong case for a stay until those play out in the courts. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/uspatents_all.htm
Eye...lids...heavy... Can't...focus... Must...sleep.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
how long ago, last week was when we sent them the check.
Do What? wrote: If their pantent held *any* weight, companies like Yahoo, MS, AOL, etc would be the targets. actually this was asked of them during a live interview, their response was the law allows them certain latitude, they decided to go after websits because they can make more money. But remember they already signed lodgnet (the people who provide in-room movies to hotels) and are trying to get money from Universities right now. patent law suits are expensive, its not something you want to fight if you dont have to. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
actually there are law suits against acacia by a couple of different companies. Not
directly against the DMT patents, but as a result of them and ongoings around them. There is a group (whom I know personally and recently talked to on the phone) who has been in litigation with acacia for awhile. This isnt a new thing, its just recently they have been really pushing their license thing. I think they will win, there is ALOT of people helping them find prior art. We were first "asked" to sign their license agreement 3 months ago. The company in litigation was first "ask" to sign it last year. Do What? wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:05:51 -0600, Do What? wrote: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:58:03 -0800, Jeff wrote: Thats what their patent claims, so far, some of the biggest companies, Hustler, wicked, Vivid, lodge net, and others, have signed their license agreement. After our attorney reviewed the patents, we signed it also. How long ago was this? Your attorney could have easily requested a stay on the court date until the current lawsuit against Acacia is settled (which will more than likley invalidate their patents). Just to correct myself... there is no lawsuit against Acacia, but there are finally a group of defendants (11) that are well prepared to challenge the Acacia claim (something that has yet to be done). Either way, one could make a very strong case for a stay until those play out in the courts. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:51:28 -0800, Jeff wrote:
how long ago, last week was when we sent them the check. Do What? wrote: If their pantent held *any* weight, companies like Yahoo, MS, AOL, etc would be the targets. actually this was asked of them during a live interview, their response was the law allows them certain latitude, they decided to go after websits because they can make more money. Yeah, after receiving my "notice", I've come across quite a bit of more-than-interesting info about this whole ordeal. One thing that really stood out was their Q3 conference call last week.... one of the shareholder asked if there was any open litigation. Acacia's response, "no" Pretty bold to mislead shareholders... and while Im not securities guru, is this not against the law? Funny thing is, that neither my sites, nor the sites I link to violate their patent..... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Good God. I just can't imagine who would do that. It really IS insane, isn't it? That's what makes it so incredible. Big John -- or VLenoch -- you reading this? Care to comment on this crazy Spitfire driver's pass? Whew. For awhile there, reading the thread, I thought I must have posted to comp.video.geeks and not rec.aviation... : Anybody know about that flyby? Did he take off and retract his gear or did he actually get down that low with his gear up? -c |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message What airplane was it? Judging from the radiators, it's a Spitfire Mk IX. That's what I guessed. It matches the painting on my living room wall. That reporter got one hell of a haircut! -c |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Corky Scott" wrote in message I read an explanation in another group. Alright! Thanks for the info, Mr. Scott! Here's an additional detail: the pilot of the Spitfire is a guy who flies it in shows a lot and has the reputation for flying extremely low. If you watch the approach carefully, you'll notice that the guy is so low, he actually has to climb a bit to clear the camera crew. His prop disc, at one point, appears to be only about four feet above the turf. Yeah....I was looking at it frame by frame and looking at a Spit model I had, and comparing wingspan dimensions and stuff to try to determine the prop diameter and, thus, his "altitude." Turns out it's difficult to find the prop diameter of a Spit if you don't have immediate access to a bookstore. It was a pass in which the Spitfire circles out of camera view, and dives down to begin the approach. He isn't taking off and climbing out right over the crew. Crazycrazy. That's Bob Hoover crazy, except Bob Hoover isn't actually crazy. -c |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
more radial fans like fw190? | jt | Military Aviation | 51 | August 28th 04 04:22 AM |
Does anybody know a link to a real picture of the X-43 in flight sans Pegasus or better yet a video clip of the flight? | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 0 | April 3rd 04 08:47 PM |
Why is Melissa Morrison the *STAR* of the video... | X98 | Military Aviation | 1 | March 20th 04 07:39 PM |
Looking for a video clip discussed on this group WAY back. | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 3 | January 8th 04 08:22 PM |
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |