Quote:
Originally posted by andi_germany
This is what patents are for: A company invents something (if they did it) and protects their rights to the technologie by targeting the companies using the technologie to reproduce an item or program or picture. You cannot target a user of e.g. a jpg picture when it was created with a program like Photoshop that you paid money for and therefore had to assume that all was licenced and legal.
This is what really strikes me as odd with the Acacia case. In Germany this patent would not hold at all as you cannot patent things like a movie download. The reason is simple as you cannot point fingers on any person who does something illegally.
1. You use software to compress a movie. Most likly MPG or AVI that should be licened to use those allgorithems.
2. You upload it as any other file using a FTP software that should have all licences to do so.
3. You set a link to that file on your webpage and linking patent was already revoked.
4. A USER! clicks on the link and downloads the file. If the file is legal how can the webmaster be responsible? He does nothing to initiate the transfer.
Streaming should be even easier as you use software like real or microsoft media player to manage it and this software should have all the licences to do so as you bought it.
So if Acacia targets Microsoft or Real they might even have a case but a webmaster? the US is surely a weird country when it comes to those kinds of laws.
|
Acacias patent has also been approved here in Germany, Andi...
I don't know how this could happen but it happened.
And the only german magazine/internet site reporting about Acacia every now and then is Heise.de (of course).