IMHO this really depends on the definitions of 'joining' and 'Merchant affiliate systems'... for example, in the cases of cj.com and dollars.com you need to 'join' each program.

funny - no let me be specific- in affiliate advertising revenues to our affiliate host partners.

ms and xpays have settled - old news.

this is exactly the website I was thinking about... they've been doing this for a long time now and I am sure someone could find examples that are even older than cj.com

but anyways, that only conerns the guys like cj.com, dollars.com, ars, etc. so they'll have to take care of this themselves...

Isnt it though? A lot of what is in the patent is already done on cj.com, sign up...you might be surprised :)

They use a pool of webmasters, show the best running ads to their webmasters and broker the traffic to merchants, thus making the webmaster a "Virtual Affiliate" of that merchant.

Merchants from CJ.com DO post back data about sales and whatnot to CJ, which covers another aspect of your patent.


Sounds more and more like one in the same to me.

then I just don't see what the patent is if it is not exactly what cj.com is doing...

I'm not going to try and interpret the patent.

My understanding of what is meant by saying 'non predatory' is that an idea/software has been patented that provides a unique service within an existing framework. The existing framework is not infringing, but the patent holder gets exclusive rights to provide the service/software for whatever period of time.

Such as - if someone had patented cascading billing first. Affilate systems wouldn't be infringers, neither would merchant gateways, or password protection/tracking software, etc. BUT - if someone had patented that idea, then they'd be the only ones on the market allowed to get paid for providing it. You'd have nats or MPA2 exclusively, for example.

This seems to be in that area - although the question of whether or not it's an entirely new service, that no one is infringing on, is something that remains to be seen. But I don't see from reading it that existing affliate systems, cascading billing, etc, etc are included in the 'infringers' category.

Not a lawyer, just my :2 cents:

please do not ask whether particular programs are infringing, as i will not answer any such questions.

please read/evaluate the patent. there are some specific non-legal examples in the patent that webmasters will find easy to grasp starting at page 19 column 2 of the pdf.

please remember that this not a predatory patent, so any comparisons to acacia are a bit naive and reflexive.

Am I understanding this right?

Example:
"Xpays Site" works with TCG/ARS/Epic Cash/Etc

This site offers webmasters an opportunity to signup to 1 place and send traffic to a plethora of adult sites across any sponsor through your program (probably for a higher payout since I'm sure there will be volume deals you can pass on to the webmasters).

Then you guys probably take a small % off the top but not enough to effect the webmasters decision of promoting through you (see volume deals above). Payments are made through you guys rather than the primary sponsor (who is paying you).

This would probably force a little more quality to come from the primary sponsors as far as websites and content go as well... If the industry adopted something like this, it would really up the competition bar between programs.

Am I close?

Wow, fast thread!

The industry doesn't have to worry about the government shutting them down, it will be fee'd to death before they ever have to:glugglug

Wow it's amazing congrats.

Hey look all europe and the rest of the world already cares about this patent.

Anyone want this boiled down to english...


They are patenting the idea of using MULTIPLE programs/company's all in one complete package for an affiliate to use.

Im not a patent lawyer nor do i have a great deal of legal experience, but this shouldn't worry those who already have affiliate programs running. If anything this seems like a step in the right direction ( providing you are willing to use xpays system to combine your affiliates with NUMEROUS merchants and vice-versa. )

Alot of times the patent leaves alot of gray area, but from the sounds of it, this isn't an acacia type patent scam..

xpays are actually offering a new service not trying to collect off an old service.

If i'm wrong please elaborate..

Interesting stuff here...

not today I'd be willing to wager.

Well, I took the time to read column 2 on page 19 in the pdf, and I now get the jist of it. Sounds like a good idea, and I understand a little better where xpays is going with this. Take the time to read this part of the pdf and you'll get it all in a few seconds.

BTW xpays, do you already have a system that uses the ideas from this patent, or is it in development?

If this true then X-Pays has done a really great job and congrats is in order.

Sounds like you're taking over.

Are you going to hire board reps? :1orglaugh

comissionjunction.com has been doing this 4 years

sounds to me like xpays is playing games, and giving us the runaround as to what the patent really covers.. i will wait for a legal opinion before comming to judgement about this patent,

if its a legitimate patent then congrats are in order.. otherwise a big fuck you is in order.

I haven't spent a second reading the patent but I can say that reading this thread sure has been fun.

100

Indeed they have...

As for Acacia patent scams, wouldnt enforcement/royalty payments be up to the patent holder?

Who's to say he wont try and sue Rick from Dollars.com or the folks over at CJ.COM?

One thing I do wonder though about this patent is: are you going to go after affiliate programs that offer commissions on upselling in their members' area? If the afifiliate program is using its own servers and methods for tracking upsell sales in his system, and is giving commission on those to the webmasters, do you consider that infrigement of your trademark? Because this could cause a conflict with existing affiliate programs...

Guys and Gals -- Don't get in a frenzy like the end of the world is tomorow :)

Evan got a patent, but he Enjoys the board drama even more.

Xpays was pretty big back in the day you know, promo'd for alot of the larger paysite companies, but as we know things have slowed down for the crew.

Mabey he has changed his ways, I dunno. All I do know is when we were all pissing on the boards, oprano, etc a few ppl were send c@d's by his counsel...

This is my take on this patent:

The "virtual affiliate" invention basically has a bunch of affiliate webmasters on one side and a bunch of sponsors on the other.

Xpays, or whoever does what their patent covers, sits in the middle.

An affiliate webmaster signs up one time with xpays and is assigned a unique ID. They can promote any sponsor by putting in the appropriate links that have their unique ID and the ID of the program they wish to promote. The affilaite webmaster did not have to sign up with each and every sponsor.

The "novelty" of the patent would be that sponsors don't have to deal with affiliates, they deal just with xpays, and xpays handles the payouts.

For Affiliate programs today, you have to signup with each sponsor individually. For anyone who has had to signup with sponsor after sponsor, providing the same info over and over, then you will see the benefit of doing this one time.


You might have even thought, "gee, wish there was a way to just signup once to be able to promote multiple sponsors". Looks like xpays came up with this model and filed their patent early on.

For instances of prior art, you would have to look back to May 1998 or so. Back then, most were doing the regular affiliate signup thing, and it may be possible that xpays was the only one doing this "virtual affiliate" thing.

It's also possible that prior art could be found in mainstream, but most new and innovative ideas starts in adult first, and then either move on to mainstream, or get copied by mainstream.

I would say only one or two handful of companies would have issues with this patent, and yes, dollars.com does look like it fits the patent.

The patent is very specific (as they should be), so any company that does the broad and general description of the patent, could read the patent and see if they do what is claimed.

There are always chances of doing workarounds, like making each affiliate signup with sponsors using a "one click" registration, where the sponsors pay the affiliates, etc.

For those thinking of creative solutions to get around patents, just be sure to check with a patent attorney.. because what you may rationalize as being a workaround, could just be doing the same thing as described.

what you may also find out, is they do indeed have a solid patent with no prior art, and at that point, you would need to take out a license, or face patent infringement lawsuit, where the damages in this case, would be 3x the judgement.

For those who are incorporated, filing BK is certainly an easy way to dodge the bullet, but you also loose your domain names, and the traffic built up to those names, as well as resources (ie. computers, content, etc).

Patent infringement issues happen all the time in mainstream.. Acacia was just the first company to come in, but their claims are clearly bogus.. because there is prior art.

I haven't done any prior art checking for this patent since it's not in my scope of audio/video patents... but wanted to atleast help to clarify what this patent is about....

As you may end up deducing, it affects only a small number of companies, and the ones that are doing it, are making some big bucks.




Fight the Legalese!

Congratz to my dear friends Evan and Michael - this Patent has been a long time coming!

:thumbsup

... and for all the naysayers and haters, you should consider a couple of things:

If the idea of using MULTIPLE programs/company's all in one complete package for an affiliate to use - is the essence of what this patent encompasses, then MOST Webmasters and Program Operators have nothing to be concerned with regarding infringing.

BTW - If your existing business model (for years) was based on something you invented (and you could prove so), wouldn't you expect to have the right to patent it and control your intellectual property?

:winkwink:

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

We are glad to share in the space and taking over is a bit of an overstatement :winkwink:

We have another doozy of an announcement coming soon that will rock the celeb content market once more- everyone can be a board rep for us and use our ReferCash(TM) program :thumbsup

I think the main target is dollars.com

guess i'll have to wait for an answer on that one:winkwink:

If you were doing business (and had documentation), and someone after you got a patent that describes what you do or what your business was going to evolve/grow into, you would not have to pay them patent royalties, since you would be a prior inventor.

Most people don't publish their business, they innovate and make money... you may have business plans that talk about growing beyond the affiliate program... while documenation like a business plan that could describe the "virtual affilaite" system is NOT prior art, it can be documentation to prove the company as a "prior inventor".

Burden of proof is on the company to prove that it was documented.. but that's usually the way small companies get out from a patent that covers what they do that was issued after them.


I know of a company that has a business plan from 20 years ago that talks about selling digital audio/video electronically.. this company's business plan (with the dust blown off), would be excempt from Acacia, but they would not be prior art to knock out the patent, because it was not published.


Patent Law has alot of angles to it, and I don't give the complexity of the issue justice by oversimplifying it, but atleast to convey what i have learned about this very tricky subject in the last year.

When patents popup, years after they were issued, like Acacia, they are refered as "submarine patents".. where they sit quiet, waiting for the world to use the "invention", and then spring up. Unisys did this with their enforcement of the GIF image file format a few years before the patent expired.... when everyone was using GIF.


Fight the Submarine Business Plan!

"For instances of prior art, you would have to look back to May 1998 or so."

There is prior works actually to this system.

Remember old "CommissionJunction"?

It was a mainstream company that ya signed up with and it allowed ya to send traffic to various products and services. It was earlier than 98 actually.

BOOM.

xpays isn't going to tell you their plans... if you think you might be a target, there are a couple of ways to deal with it:

1) do nothing.. wait for them to contact you, and then you decide what you want to do, then:

a) do nothing again
b) hire a patent attorney and get an opinion paper
c) close up shop


2) hire a patent attorney and get an opinion paper. This will cost you anywhere from $10k - $25K. By having this, it helps to avoid the "wilfull infringement" charge.. Given the outcome of the attorney's report, you may have a chance to argue in court to defend yourself, or the attorney's analyst confirms the patent claims and that you do infringe.

3) read the patents yourself, look at your business, if it looks pretty close, and you don't have the money to get an opinion paper, then negotiate for a license based on volume, sweetheart deal, etc.


4) move everything offshore where they don't have a patent office.


Fight the Options!

Now we can pass around the pop corn.


http://www.evanradio.com/picslink/popcorn.jpg

A ton of legal jargon for kids who not long ago were sending out spam using hotmail and other microsofts resources.

Ya, i vaguely remember them, and beFree, Banner exchange stuff, commission central (?) etc, etc and other marketing programs.. but for those like BeFree, you had to signup with each one individually.

In checking over at archive.org, they were indexed Jan 1999, not early enough to be prior art... so not much documentation there.

Like i said before, new innovation happens in adult first, and there may not have been anything back in early 1998 that did this virtual affiliate thing.


Fight the Nostalgia!

on the bright side for me personally, I have been trying to explain to my averagely internet savvy family what we do for years. now i can just hand them a pdf :winkwink:

j/k they would still not get it, but you get my drift. the internet is still young.

Our proverbial "house" is clean.

There is no way of telling, http://www.commission-junction.com in the way back tool is blocked by the robot.txt.

So research is needed if anyone is really paranoid.

Anyways.


Nice score Xpays.
Good luck with it.