The insane spitfire video clip

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.....

They have been sending this letter to sites that have shut down, sites that dont have
video and so on.
I may be able to direct you to alot of other information on acacia and the people who are
fighting it, but you seen to want to be anonymous on here for some reason and most of the
stuff on this I wont post to a newsgroup or on a msg board because believe it or not,
acacia reads some of it and some of it just dont need posted here.
shoot me an E-mail if you want

I just pulled this from a msg board of a guy who called them today:
-------------------------
After a 2nd phone conversation with those people, I was told the following:

Me:
Ok, now I have taken out the 23 links from my sites which led to videos. Can you send me
a letter stating that I am not infringing your so called patent?

Acacia:
No, that is not possible, you are linking to galleries which contain pictures and
banners, when those banners are clicked, they take you to sites which offer membership
for picture and video content.

Me:
You must be kidding me!!! I can't link to site or galleries with movies on it, and now
you claim I can't link to picture galleries which promote a sponsor which offers videos
and pics?????

Acacia:
That is correct.

Me:
Well, then I will put the movies links on my site and you'll see me in court.

END

Those Acacia people are incredible!!!!!

-------------------

Do What? wrote:

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.....

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

"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

"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