Quote:
Originally posted by foolio
I think the thing that sits the best with me is the support from FightThisPatent. To me that goes a very long way.
|
Just wanted to clarify... i dont' "support" the patent..... people who "support" the patent are the patent holders and their business, and licensees.
what i don't "support", is where people are jumping to quick conclusions without any facts, so that's why i stepped into help people understand what the patent is about and who it affects (my comments are on page 3 of the thread).
Doing some quick research, there doesn't appear to be any obvious prior art.
There was one post that mentioned some mainstream programs, and each one would have to be investigated (which I am sure that Evan and Michael are doing).
If there is prior art out there, then their patent will fall down. The mainstream marketing firms may not be prior art, but they may have had a business plan that evolved into an "affiliate marketing pool".... which they might have a defense.
Only those early companies that evolved into the patent would be able to claim a prior inventor type status that exempts them from the patent..... all the other companies that started new with the idea of the affiliate pool, would have to defend themselves against the patent, which means spending money to get an attorney to evaulate if the specific way that they do business, matches what is described in the patent.
After running FightThePatent.com for over a year now, I have become somewhat anti-patent in my viewpoint, especially in dealing with software and technology patents.
The patent system has not evolved to handle the modern times, and there should be more scrutiny on the "novelty" and "nonobvisiousness" of a patent. The 3,000+ patent examiners are spreadout over many scientific disciplines. More and more patent applications are focused on software/tech, that reform and additional resources are needed.... but that's still a long way.
So in the mean time, the law does grant patent holders of software, processes, and business methods, the legal right to enforce their patents.
We have seen a perfect instance of "patent abuse" with Acacia, who has broadly interpretted (and basically made up) what they want their patent to say... this is why the members in the Defense Group are fighting them, and it's the reason why i became involved.
I don't smell "patent abuse" here. There are probably a handful of companies in the adult biz that might do what the patent says, and those companies are doing very well, so they have the financial resources to come to the answer.
Where things might start to raise an eyebrow, is if the targeted company blows off Xpays, and then Xpays decides to target the sponsor programs who participate in the system as "contributory infringers".
Fight the Tort Reform!