Internet video patents

[Paul Markham]

This is serious and I am warning everyone to be wary.

It's the third time I've heard it. Here is an extract from an email I got this evening.

We are being pushed for licensing fees and threatened now with a possible
lawsuit from a company that says they own the patents for delivering video
over the Internet. http://www.acaciaresearch.com/main.html

They own six patents each with 25 pages of technical explanation and want
that I pay them every month a license fee. I have ignored their letters
for now, but just got another with a "respond by Aug. 21st" on it. I hope
they want a percent and not a flat fee... because the video alone for us
does not bring in that much money, I think they will be surprised. I can't
afford a patent lawyer to fight them and may have to drop video if they
push the issue. I heard, that in time they will go after every site on the
net that offers video.

What does anyone else know about this and what are you doing, it seems legit.

[Paul Markham]

Don't know what format, but a good point. Would Microsoft own one and Apple another, etc?

[pipp]

There are alot off existing patents on internet technology that may seem "public". I know British Telecom got patent for the "hyperlink technology" and filed a lawsuite against prodigy net earlyer this year to test if they could claim money based on the patent. I do not know the outfall off this lawsuite but if it did not go BT's way then this lawsuite probably will set the standard for these things. Any one know the outfall off this lawsuite or is it still going ?

Edit: If BT wins this lawsuite it then prowes that they can claim money based on the patent. All hell will brake lose

[GFED]

Acacia Research, (ACRI) $ 16.25 Nasdaq

I have followed the development of the ACRI story for over a year and included it in last years BEST SMALL/MINI CAP IDEAS for 2000. At that time the stock was $5.00, it subsequently ran to a high of $59.00. The story today matures and only gets better. And the stock is on sale.

Acacia Research develops and operates life science and enabling technology companies. ACRI recently announced that its 66.7% majority-owned subsidiary, Soundview Technologies, will receive payment and grant a non-exclusive license of its U.S. Patent 4,554,584 to Philips Electronics, the second largest manufacturer of televisions sold in the United States. Soundview`s patent relates to television video and audio blanking technology, commonly known as V-chip technology. Soundview owns the exclusive rights and title to the patent, which describes a cost efficient method for implementing the V-chip system in parallel with the existing closed-captioning circuits already in place in televisions. The FCC adopted this method as the technical standard for new televisions sold in the United States that are required to have V-chip technology. Royalties from the V-chip required on all new TV_s will begin shortly from Phillips. Even more important than the V-chip is the company`s core technology opportunity that has been developed through its subsidiary, 58% owned, CombiMatrix Corp. The technology is a next generation DNA and Protein work on a chip. Their process is much cheaper, with a faster turnaround, and much more scalable than competitor, Affymetrix, (AFFX) $58.00. The CombiMatrix technology uses off the shelf programmable semiconductor chips as opposed to the intricate, expensive and long build out time, custom chips of Affymetrix. AFFX has a market cap of $3.2 Billion, ($6 Billion plus, last March). ACRI has a market cap of $261 million.

CombiMatrix is now in the process of doing an IPO in which ACRI intends to keep control. The Investment Bankers are the powerful JP Morgan/Chase and Solomon Smith Barney. The targeted raise is $100 Million. Many very knowledgeable students of Genomics from the hierarchy of academia and the pharmaceutical industry have invested in the CombiMatrix Private Placement and they seem to have the streets ear and money. Analysis of recent S1 public filings option grants suggest that what we have here is a potential $1Billion plus IPO. Assuming the IPO market doesn_t completely close down and with the recent success, even in a lousy market of the medical/health-care/genomic sectors, this could even be a hot issue. And with ACRI owning 58% of Combi, the situation looks rich with possibilities. Combi also has $50 Million in cash.

I understand that major interest is developing in another subsidiary to exploit opportunities in the
Materials Sciences field fields that will utilize CombiMatrix`s new biological array processor platform. This company is called Advanced Materials Sciences Corp, 2/3 funded by Acacia, holds 20-year exclusive rights from Combi Matrix for material science research. Just how high ACRI goes I believe will be determined by the success of the CombiMatrix IPO.
** Institutional ownership nearly tripled in Q3 with a 25 to 1 buy sell ratio.
** Big Biotech funds are new owners.
** Value Line ranks ACRI in top 40 companies for maximum stock appreciation with a $60 to $100 target.
*** CombiMatrix will appear TODAY at the JPM/Chase 19th annual health conference. More big institutional exposure there Acacia Research`s Web site is www.acaciaresearch.com.


http://www.jagnotes.com/archive_jagn...date=08-JAN-01


V-chip?

[RATBOY]

Have an attorney review it to see if it is legit.

[pipp]

Originally posted by pornopete
There are many owners of streaming technology.

Xing was the first I know of with MPEG from back in the mid 90's.
Microsoft has their own formats
Apple has quicktime
Realmedia has real video
and there are some others with mpeg streaming technology.

Yes but the patents probably are based on general streaming video over the internet and affects every format. Not using mpeg rm quicktime etc. as a video format but streaming it over the internet. Format has noting to do with it as long as it's streamed over the internet

[RATBOY]

I honestly believe it is a scam to get money. It would be all over CNET or something if it were otherwise.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by RATBOY
Have an attorney review it to see if it is legit.

I think he is doing this now.

The thing is have they just waited for it to take hold on the net, issued a few blasts, to set the precedent and waiting to clean up from every website with streamed video?

Frightening.

[hyper]

maybe they are extorting money from you..

dont you think they have bigger fish to fry?

the problem is the bigger fish.. have bigger $$.. which equals bigger lawyers to fight against such letters

[RATBOY]

Wait a minute, they did this through e-mail? They would have sent a lawsuit by now via a proxy server if this were for real.

[fantasycontent]

we also received a letter from them and i am meeting with an attorney next week to discuss this further.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by hyper
maybe they are extorting money from you..

dont you think they have bigger fish to fry?

the problem is the bigger fish.. have bigger $$.. which equals bigger lawyers to fight against such letters

Or maybe they want to establish it with the smaller fry then hit the big boys.

I have not recieved a letter, I'm in Czech, but I now know 4 people who have recieved the letter.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by fantasycontent
we also received a letter from them and i am meeting with an attorney next week to discuss this further.

Good, the first positive thing I've heard. we need to work together on this.

[The Machine]

hmm. interesting.

[fantasycontent]

Originally posted by RATBOY
Wait a minute, they did this through e-mail? They would have sent a lawsuit by now via a proxy server if this were for real.

no they mailed a letter though it wasnt certified.

[Backov]

Patents like this are generally in the "extortion" class, ie - pay us or we'll sue you, and we know you don't have enough money to fight us in court..

There's generally no merit to these patents, usually due to complete vagueness and/or prior art. However, it's going to take someone with some cash to stand up to them in court (ie, not settle and win in court) to make them lose the ability to extort people.

They do indeed like to go after small fry to establish a pattern of winning cases or settling them. It helps them when they go after the big guys. But just wait til they try this on Real or Microsoft.. LOLOL.

Cheers,
Backov

[NetRodent]

I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I see it. If you are not developing the technology to serve the movies over the internet yourself, but merely using someone else's technology (such as serving mpegs via an http connection) you should be in the clear. To put this in a real world setting, if you run a store and your cash register was made with patented technology, you aren't liable for using the register but the company that made the cash register is.

If they're looking to sue someone about streaming videos over the web:
http://www.w3c.org/
http://mpeg.telecomitalialab.com/
http://www.apache.org/ (if you serve the vidoes with Apache)
http://www.microsoft.com/ (if serve the videos with IIS or if the videos are viewable in WindowsMediaPlayer)
http://www.quicktime.com (if the videos are viewable in quicktime)

If you are developing your own method of streaming videos, then it might be another story.

[Master_Yoba]

Fantasycontent, plz keep us informed! We also received this fucking letter this week and have contacted with them. This is email I?ve got from Rob Berman, Acacia, dated August 15, 2002:

===================================

Mr. ****:

Thank you for your response.

Based upon our review of your web site, you engage in several activities that are covered by our patents. One activity is that you have samples of videos available for preview via your website. Our patents cover the process of encrypting, digitizing, storing, accessing, and sending video clips. To the extent that you offer these videos for download you are also infringing our patents.

The attached engineering diagrams illustrate the infringement that I am referring to. The diagrams need to be viewed with the "XP" version of PowerPoint to work properly.

Please review the diagrams and discuss them with your attorney. We will make one of our technical experts available to you if you have any questions.

Thank you.
Rob Berman
Acacia
500 Newport Center Drive
7th Floor
Newport beach, CA 92660
949-480-8333
949-480-8390 (F)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.acaciaresearch.com <http://www.acaciaresearch.com>
=============================================

By the way I can see their patents don?t cover Canada.
http://www.acaciaresearch.com/index_...companies.html
So we will move our activities abroad if it will be so bad

[fantasycontent]

Originally posted by Backov
Patents like this are generally in the "extortion" class, ie - pay us or we'll sue you, and we know you don't have enough money to fight us in court..

There's generally no merit to these patents, usually due to complete vagueness and/or prior art. However, it's going to take someone with some cash to stand up to them in court (ie, not settle and win in court) to make them lose the ability to extort people.

They do indeed like to go after small fry to establish a pattern of winning cases or settling them. It helps them when they go after the big guys. But just wait til they try this on Real or Microsoft.. LOLOL.

Cheers,
Backov

so maybe what we need to do is get everyone together and file a class action suit against them?? This could save us all some cost???

[Sly_RJ]

Originally posted by fantasycontent
so maybe what we need to do is get everyone together and file a class action suit against them?? This could save us all some cost???

I know shit about this, but what exactly would your class action suit be? To me, it seems like nobody can really do anything but get on the defensive. What offensive stance could you take in a matter like this?

[fantasycontent]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

I know shit about this, but what exactly would your class action suit be? To me, it seems like nobody can really do anything but get on the defensive. What offensive stance could you take in a matter like this?

that was more of an out load thought...i guess i really need to see what the lawyer says...but if it truely is extortion then it would seem we have a case there...maybe not??

[Master_Yoba]

Originally posted by fantasycontent
we also received a letter from them and i am meeting with an attorney next week to discuss this further.

Let all GFY gang know what he'll advise

[eru]

Is this whole thing about just streaming media such as .asx files or also downloable media such as MPG and AVI? Nevertheless, if they held on to these patents but did shit about it for so long, then tough luck for them. MP3 is patented yet look at it now -- completely wide-spread.

[Scootermuze]

I think Net Rodent is right.. A patent more or less says that nobody can design the same product. In that you are simply using the product shouldn't fall under any patent laws.
I'm sure there are patents on hard drives.. that doesn't mean you can't use the drive without paying fees to the patent holder.

Further.. you aren't streaming anything.. the subscriber is. He is the one that uses the software that receives the streams. All you are doing is providing movie files on your site.

I'd contact them and ask them specifically to inform you as to what patent laws you are in violation of, with clear references.

Just my thoughts..

[Gemini]

I assume YOU didn't write the program that you made the vids with? Or you got them from some other source that made the vids with some software or another? Then the software manufacturer should be the one they are going after.

In any case, check this site out for free or cheap legal help.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/

They might be able to offer some insight.

[jcnlv]

The patents are in fact real, and it sounds like it is a patent of the "idea" if the process follows certain guidelines that they outline.

I down loaded all patents off the patent office website... about 25 pages each...

The company has apparently already negotiated v-chip licensing with major electronic producers... they are also a publically traded company.... so it sounds as if they have the expertise to push this as far as they possibly can.

Not being an attorney and not having a access to a patent attorney with enough knowledge of the medium to be of any help I can only guess how valid and enforceable these patents may be.

I am *thinking* that it is the "ability to download" and to allow the consumer to store "for later viewing" that may be the trigger here.

All of their patents I have looked through mention that. I am thinking that maybe "streaming" the videos for real time viewing only, without the ability for the consumer to save them could circumvent the patents.



Here is the contents of the letter we received from acacia:

============= start ===============


"......Acacia Media Technologies Corporation owns a portfolio of patents dating back to 1991 covering content delivery methods such as video on demand, audio on demand, and video streaming on the Internet. It has recently come to our attention that you are using products and selling services in connection with these delivery methods that utilize technology covered by our patents. Our patents include U.S. patent Nos. 5,132,992; 5,253,275; 5,550,863; 6,002,720; 6,144,702; and an open continuation.

Acacia develops technologies in the media field, and we have significant experience in licensing technologies and enforcing patents. We request that you immediately contact your patent lawyer and examine your current and future product and service offerings relative to this patent portfolio. Acacia is prepared to license these patents on reasonable terms to you, and we would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss a license. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Berman

===================== end =============


This might be something that all affected content providers may want to get together on.

[Paul Markham]

Good to see you here John. There are a few idiots on this board but that's what keeps it alive.

You should get some solid input

[Gary]

Email him back and tell him to suck your balls. Its best to take the low road in cases like this

[The Machine]

they are talking about streaming and vod, not downloadable videos like mpegs. downloadable mpegs are the same as html or text documents - noone has or will have a patent on them.

[ausboy]

There was something in the local paper tech pages going back a few weeks ago, this may be to do with the MPEG-4 codec.

If it is read this-

MPEG LA the group of patent holders governing MPEG-4 recently released final licensing terms for this new(ish) media delivery standard.
The terms provide for owners of website media content to use MPEG-4 video free from royalty payments providing their sites draw less than 50k subscribers, or "unique" visitors per calendar year.
For owners of media content above that threshold, there area range of royalty payment options capping at $1 million a year, for each legal entity.

-=authors opinion/ramble=-

It was not so long ago that MPEG LA wanted royalties paid on all MPEG-4 content, but, thanks in no small part to Apple which strenuously argued against that postition, we can now enjoy sharing our MPEG-4 with the rest of the free world.

quotes taken from the article.

[The Machine]

1 mil per legal entity - lol. nothing wrong with MPEG-1.

[quiet]

interesting

[Fletch XXX]

The cost of porn increased somewhere along the last 10 minutes hehehe

nice read.

[pipp]

Update:

British Telecom lost their lawsuit against prodidy communications where they claimed money from prodigy for use off hyperlinks based on a BT patetnt covering hyperlink technology. As I se it this means that patents like this is worthless and would not hold up in cort. Including the patents that you are being thretned with. Just point them to this lawsuite if they give you guys anymore truble

[Freeway]

Its Fucking Bullshit.
QuickTime Streaming Server is a
License free server for streaming digital media over the Internet. Unlike other streaming servers, QuickTime Streaming Server has no per-stream charge.
And this includes streaming of the new, streamable MPEG4 codec. There were some license issues between apple and the Mpeg group when MPEG4 first came out ( The mpeg group wanted huge fee's, but apple changed thier minds ) but that was all figured out.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/
Mpeg4 kicks ass by the way. If your not encoding your video in Mpeg4 your really missing out.
*And tell that asshole to go fuck himself*
Last thing... You dont need apple hardware to stream Mpeg4 license free. You can get it for all the platforms.
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/

[kosmic]

They are now setting deadlines for people to pay them or they will sue the person serving the videos.

I got a letter today saying I must pay by the 15th of december or I get sued.

I don't even have ANY video or audio streaming on my site. These people are fucking ridiculous.

I am not paying. Fuck them.

[Mutt]

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index...t=ST&f=1&t=453

Far-L from Homegrown is organizing something.

You may think these Arcacia is full of shit, which they are, but they are well heeled and you will have to defend yourself.
Supposedly they are one of those companies who buy up patents with the sole purpose of suing people for patent infringement, hoping to pick up settlements from people who don't want the headache and expense of going to court - EXTORTION.

this is the American legal system. Tort reform - they've been talking about it for years and yet the legal system is still being made a mockery of by companies like Acacia and lawyers.

So if you have received a letter from Acacia you might want to send an email to Far-L and find out what his plan is. He wants a group effort.

[Mutt]

anybody have a URL for somebody streaming from an Apple Quicktime video server?

Quicktime quality is great but every time i've found a Quicktime streaming server it has always been horrible, buffering delays, dropped frames all over.

[Sambuka]

Originally posted by jcnlv
The patents are in fact real, and it sounds like it is a patent of the "idea" if the process follows certain guidelines that they outline.

I down loaded all patents off the patent office website... about 25 pages each...

The company has apparently already negotiated v-chip licensing with major electronic producers... they are also a publically traded company.... so it sounds as if they have the expertise to push this as far as they possibly can.

Not being an attorney and not having a access to a patent attorney with enough knowledge of the medium to be of any help I can only guess how valid and enforceable these patents may be.

I am *thinking* that it is the "ability to download" and to allow the consumer to store "for later viewing" that may be the trigger here.

All of their patents I have looked through mention that. I am thinking that maybe "streaming" the videos for real time viewing only, without the ability for the consumer to save them could circumvent the patents.



Here is the contents of the letter we received from acacia:

============= start ===============


"......Acacia Media Technologies Corporation owns a portfolio of patents dating back to 1991 covering content delivery methods such as video on demand, audio on demand, and video streaming on the Internet. It has recently come to our attention that you are using products and selling services in connection with these delivery methods that utilize technology covered by our patents. Our patents include U.S. patent Nos. 5,132,992; 5,253,275; 5,550,863; 6,002,720; 6,144,702; and an open continuation.

Acacia develops technologies in the media field, and we have significant experience in licensing technologies and enforcing patents. We request that you immediately contact your patent lawyer and examine your current and future product and service offerings relative to this patent portfolio. Acacia is prepared to license these patents on reasonable terms to you, and we would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss a license. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Berman

===================== end =============


This might be something that all affected content providers may want to get together on.

Yep but I think there was another company doing this shit that said "Your STREAMING videos, we have patents to protect ALL FUCKING FORMS of streaming" So pay us a shitload of cash or we sue your ass back to the stone age.

I hate these asswipes trying to make money off something they didn't invent. You shouldn't be able to patent a fucking idea, you should only be able to patent exact specifics, I mean if they made a compression software that outputted mpegs and they were the ones who invented mpegs then sure but not if they go "oh we patented the idea of compression video on a computer for later use"

Sammy

[quiet]

i still haven't heard jack. maybe it's because i'm in Canada.

[.:Frog:.]

How many people got this letter?

[.:Frog:.]

Isn't extortion illegal?

[KRL]

This is funny. We had this same type of extortion bullshit early in the 900 business. In the beginning, we had 2 of the first 900 numbers. Back then there wasn't live 1-on-1 yet so our phone sex programs were all recordings being broadcast. We had a big full page ad in Hustler, featuring a big name porn star, which naturally drew us into the limelight.

One day we get this fucked up letter from an attorney claiming to represent the patent holder for recorded voice messages and demanding we pay him a royalty for every caller that listened to a phone sex message. We were doing about 50,000 calls a day, (back in those days it was cheap at .50 cents first min and .35 for each additional min,). We had our attorney look into it and indeed there was this guy who had obtained a patent for any type of phone answering style message recorded on tape. We did some more digging and discovered this guy was trying to extort money form every big company with a voice mail system and the telco's and anyone else they could come up with.

Long story short we told the guy to GFY and never heard a peep out of him again, though he did continue on his crusade and did find some sucker companies that paid him thinking he would actually go forward with a lawsuit.

In this case the guy had just started to enforce his patent, which was one of those obviously vastly too wide ones, and he didn't have the resources yet to actually file suits. In this movie case though it would be best to have your attorney respond, since it sounds like these guys have $ behind them and they can fuck with you just for the fun of it.

[Sam I Am]

I got the letter today too. It specifically mentioned adult websites are being targeted in the letter. I am not a content provider or paysite but I do have movie clips that I submit to tgps. They claim to have patents us and international "which cover the transmission and receipt of digital audio and/or video content via various means, including the internet." ....'you must return the signed License Agreements and initial royalty payment to Acacia by December 31, 2002"

Section 3.1 states that royalties are based on your gross sales
$1 to 50,000 owe 1,500
50,0001 to 100,000 owe 3,000
100,001 to 250,000 owe 5,000
250,001 to 500,000 owe 10,000
500,001 to 1,000,000 owe 20,000
etc. it doubles each time after that.


Does this mean every single webmaster who offers any type of movie clips are going to have to pay this company? How can they possibly have a patent on something so general? More than %75 of websites adult or not have some sort of downloadable audio/video file. Are they going to sue all these websites? OR are they just going to go after adult webmasters because no one will care if pornographers have to pay some extra fees.

[quiet]

Originally posted by Sam I Am
I got the letter today too. It specifically mentioned adult websites are being targeted in the letter. I am not a content provider or paysite but I do have movie clips that I submit to tgps. They claim to have patents us and international "which cover the transmission and receipt of digital audio and/or video content via various means, including the internet." ....'you must return the signed License Agreements and initial royalty payment to Acacia by December 31, 2002"

Section 3.1 states that royalties are based on your gross sales
$1 to 50,000 owe 1,500
50,0001 to 100,000 owe 3,000
100,001 to 250,000 owe 5,000
250,001 to 500,000 owe 10,000
500,001 to 1,000,000 owe 20,000
etc. it doubles each time after that.


Does this mean every single webmaster who offers any type of movie clips are going to have to pay this company? How can they possibly have a patent on something so general? More than %75 of websites adult or not have some sort of downloadable audio/video file. Are they going to sue all these websites? OR are they just going to go after adult webmasters because no one will care if pornographers have to pay some extra fees.

so, is anyone actually paying these cockholsters, currently?

[RottenPug]

I got the letter 2 months ago and a phone call demanding money 3 weeks ago, I told the guy to fuck off he said ok we will list you in our suit. I again told him to fuck off and told him I guess he will see me and Mr Gates in court.

I know 2 dozen webmasters that got that letter. What company uses telemarketing to get payment for something you know nothing about?

They may hold certain patents but Microsoft, Real and Apple would have to be primary targets, not the guys streaming but the codecs used to stream.

[Jayson]

Originally posted by RottenPug

They may hold certain patents but Microsoft, Real and Apple would have to be primary targets, not the guys streaming but the codecs used to stream.

They will go after small guys first - they would be mad to sue Microsoft straight up.

Although they may find companies like Mircrosoft and Real applying for leave to join the action even if they arent named initially if it looks like any cases will create precedent they dont like.

There financials are interesting - they lost $36mil in the 9 months to September 30.

[CoolE]

American patent law is a complete mess.

I got this email tonight...

============= start ===============

"......Suem, Skruem and Chargem LLC owns a portfolio of patents dating back to the time of the primordial sea and the beginning of life covering various segments of the human genome including those determined to be key influence factors in human intelligence and entrepreneurial spirit. It has recently come to our attention that you are a successful webmaster and businessman, and therefore no doubt utilizing technology covered by our patents. Our patents include U.S. patent Nos. 5,212,212; 5,864,344; 7,220,185; and an open continuation (evolution, you know).

Suem, Skruem and Chargem develops patents covering the human genome, and we have significant experience in licensing these technologies and enforcing patents. We request that you immediately contact your patent lawyer (and doctor) and examine your current and future genetic capabilities relative to this patent portfolio. Suem, Skruem and Chargem is prepared to license these patents on reasonable terms to you based on Schedule 1 attached, and we would like to schedule a meeting with you to discuss a license. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Juan Beeg Goke

ps. Are your eyes blue by chance? We own that one too.

Schedule 1:

Royalties based on your IQ

up to 100; owe nothing
100 to 120; owe $1,500 per annum
121 to 140; owe $3,000 per annum
140 to 170; owe $5,000 per annum
170+; owe $10,000 per annum

===================== end =============

[NetRodent]

The sad thing is, I'm sure Mr. Berman would try to patent those if he could. Bastards!

[andi_germany]

I followed this develeopment for years now. In Germany those cases are most perverted. There are lawyers that send 'Abmahnungen' letters that tell other businesses that they do something wrong. The letter itself qualifies the lawyer to ask for fees for the letter for the recipient. Some case to show you how perverted the law is here.

A computer store puts advertisement in their window for a computer that runs windows and has 'Internet Explorer' as browser preinstalled. He gets that letter because 'Explorer' is a computer related trademark of a dutch company. Now the lawyer sending this letter is in no way affiliated to that company and just want to earn the fees.

So Germany started a consumer help service to protect you from people like this.

Another case is a 16 year old kid who owns the domain hpworld.de using it to show how to make HomePages. Of course Hewlet Packard sends the threatening letter and the lawyers ask 1000 + in fees from a 16 year old just doing something non comercial and using an short with 2 letters.

This shit has to stop. Trademark is fine if you spend millions on the developing on something but just taking general techniques and do a trademark without any developing is just shit and the courts have already ruled that those patents are just invalid due to prior usage of such techniques.