Some Prior Art possibilities....

[fiveyes]

A few early nuggets I've found that completely describe individual claims. Some of their bibliographies reference work going back into the sixties! Can't wait to dig those up as well!!!

J. Wong and M. Ammar, "Analysis of broadcast delivery in a videotex system," IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 34, pp. 863--866, September 1985.

W. H. Ninke, "Interactive picture information systems - Where from? Where to?" IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. SAC-1 Feb. 1983.

M. H. Ammar and J. W. Wong, "Analysis of broadcast delivery in videotex systems," Comput. Commun. Networks Group, Univ. Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada, Rep. E-118, Jan. 1984.

Wong, J. W., Ammar, M. H., "Analysis of Broadcast Delivery in Videotex Systems," Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM `84), Atlanta, Georgia, November 1984, pp933-937.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Mostafa...apers/BDEL.pdf
Within the introduction (3rd paragraph):
It is in this historical context that the development in the last decade of an interactive picture system called videotex took place [2].[3].
This new system does not represent revolutionary concepts in
communication. Rather, it must be seen as the result of the maturation and the coming together of various disciplines and technologies. In essence videotex provides real-time access to information, which is represented in forms that are displayable on a regular television screen or other relatively low-cost display terminals."

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/sce/Link98/srisn.htm
"Videotex is the generic name used to describe electronic systems that use a modified TV set or PC to display information based on any one or more of the following stream: Text, Graphics, Video and Audio."

From the 1987 "Multimedia Bibliography" - http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigir/sigirl...s/1987/87-3-52
ANA:Feiner, S., Nagy, S., and van Dam, Andries
ATL:An Experimental System for Creating and Presenting Interactive Graphical Documents
MTL:ACM Transactions on Graphics
VID:1
IID:1
DAT:January 1982
LOC:59-77
http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/...983/feb83.html

ANA:Garrett, L. N., Smith, Karen E., and Meyrowitz, Norman
ATL:Intermedia: Issues, Strategies, and Tactics in the Design of a Hypermedia Document System
MTL:Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '86) Proceedings
PLM:Austin, TX
DMT:December 3-5
DAT:1986

http://www.tranquileye.com/cyber/1989/proposal.html

Yankelovich, Nicole. "From Electronic Books to Electronic Libraries:
Revisiting 'Reading and Writing the Electronic Book.'" In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Ed. Paul Delany and George P. Landow. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1991: 133-41. (PN 98 .E4 H97 1994)

------ et al. "Intermedia: The Concept and the Construction of a
Seamless Information Environment." Computer 21 no. 1 (January 1988): 81-96.

------ and Norman Meyrowitz. "Reading and Writing the Electronic Book."
In Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Ed. Paul Delany and George P.
Landow. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991: 53-79. (PN 98 .E4 H97 1994)

[media]

Nice job fiveyes.. send that to spike at homegrownvideo.com

Media

[fiveyes]

Sent it before posting! They get it first, but it will get shared...

[twistyneck]

Great stuff!

[Gutterboy]

Originally posted by fiveyes
Sent it before posting! They get it first, but it will get shared...

Impressive!

especially the stuff about "real time" access to video information. Sounds alot like streaming to me!

[media]

Yep.. if this is documented anywhere that IMPA can get the hard copy papers on, then I bet this could be enough with all the other stuff they have aquired to show the courts...

If the idea of the technology existed among other people before the patent was filed, then they might not have a valid patent..

Media

[fiveyes]

Well, the way I see it, there is an actual invention described within the Acacia patent(s). However, I think the way they're trying to apply the patent is outside of the scope of the claims as a whole and/or, the claims themselves are invalid individually, since each are based upon common usage.

Give me a minute or so and I'll show another, less expensive, way to fight these guys in a thread entitled "An end run around Acacia"...

[goBigtime]

I thought I remember someone saying that Acacia can take the prior art examples we share here & make amendents to their claims to somehow include coverage of them.

I think this is why it was said to just send them in to spike at homegrown without posting specifics here. If its fame you're looking for, I'm sure the IMPA will issue big thank you's to everyone who contributed monetarily or otherwise.

Remember during the D-Money interview when Berman said that Acacia currently had one hundred and twenty something claims for this technology with over one hundred and thrity more pending? (I think thats what he said).....

I have no idea how the amending claims stuff works, but be aware that these prior art examples shared publicly like this might do more harm than good.

[fiveyes]

Originally posted by goBigtime
I thought I remember someone saying that Acacia can take the prior art examples we share here & make amendents to their claims to somehow include coverage of them.

I think this is why it was said to just send them in to spike at homegrown without posting specifics here. If its fame you're looking for, I'm sure the IMPA will issue big thank you's to everyone who contributed monetarily or otherwise.

Remember during the D-Money interview when Berman said that Acacia currently had one hundred and twenty something claims for this technology with over one hundred and thrity more pending? (I think thats what he said).....

I have no idea how the amending claims stuff works, but be aware that these prior art examples shared publicly like this might do more harm than good.

OK, first off, the threat Berman made regarding more claims on the way is complete bullshit. Once a patent application is filed, the inventor is allowed to only narrow the claims, he can't broaden them or add to it.

Secondly, prior art is prior art. It was either included in the original patent application, or it was overlooked or (just maybe) ignored.

Q. What is the main requirement for prior art to be considered?
A. It has to have been published.

It either does not exist, was never published in a way that could be used to challange the validity of the patent, or it was published, and may be sitting on the shelves of your local library right now.

If the first case is true, then we can share false leads for the next three years and it isn't going to affect the outcome of the case at all. If there's no prior art, then we've simply wasted our time looking for it.

But if the second case is true, and there actually exists a document that fully covers this "claimed invention" of Acacia and it was published before that application for the invention was made, then making mention of it on a message board is not going to change the fact that it is prior art that invalidates the patent!

As Gemini pointed out in an earlier thread, this isn't a game. We don't have to hold any cards close to our vest and hope the opponent doesn't get a peak at them. To the contrary, if we show them on the message boards that we have, in fact, uncovered work that predates their application, they'll back off in a second!

Would you force an issue when you knew you were owned?

[fiveyes]

Originally posted by goBigtime
I thought I remember someone saying that Acacia can take the prior art examples we share here & make amendents to their claims to somehow include coverage of them.

You know, I had to go back and do a lot of searching to see who started that rumor. And I'll tell you, it was instructive to see how it surfaced.

But, that person was mistaken when they said that. It was based on ignorance, not fact.

I think this is why it was said to just send them in to spike at homegrown without posting specifics here.

I'm certain that the reason we are to send prior art examples to Spike @ homegrownvideo.com is simply because it is impossible for him to follow the number of adult message boards that people might post such examples.

In fact, if you'd think about it for a second, if what was said about prior art on a message board could possibly be used by Acacia, then the best thing would be to post ALL sorts of links to (maybe even fallacious) documents and have their little team of lawyers waste all sorts of time trying to track them down!

Right?