A patent entitled " Methods, systems, and processes for the design and creation of rich-media applications via the internet " was granted on Feb 14, 2006 (filed in Feb 2001).

From an Information Week article covering this story:

The patent--issued on Valentine's Day--covers all rich-media technology implementations, including Flash, Flex, Java, Ajax, and XAML, when the rich-media application is accessed on any device over the Internet, including desktops, mobile devices, set-top boxes, and video game consoles, says inventor Neil Balthaser, CEO of Balthaser Online, which he owns with his father Ken. "You can consider it a pioneering or umbrella patent. The broader claim is one that basically says that if you got a rich Internet application, it is covered by this patent."

Oh really?

The Patent is #7,00,180 with the patent here.

"Neil Balthaser, a former VP of strategy for Macromedia, the developer of the Flash rich-media development environment and player, now owned by Adobe, says he will most likely sell the patent rather than enforce it himself. He says he's discussing the sale of the patent to "top-tier players. I don't want to name them but they're fairly obvious, the guys who are investing a lot of money in this rich Internet applications field. They got a lot invested, or they're going to be investing a lot. Anyone of those companies would definitely benefit by controlling a patent like this, both defensively and potentially offensively, and the ability to sublicense it, and make some return on their investment."

In reading the actual patent, rather than the wide-eyed, hopeful interpretations by the inventor and their patent attorney, my conclusions:

This patent is for the creation of "rich media" application via a website.

In my readings, this patent will only affect those that have some kind of web-based application that allows a person to assemble various pieces (ie. music, video, text) etc to make an interactive web interface.

Most designers build their "rich media" stuff on their computer and upload it to the server. the "novelty" of this patent is that you can do it via the website.

myspace.com may be considered to be under this patent since they are homepage tools to allow people to add elements to their myspace page.

If you were to believe the quotes attributed to Mr. Balthaser, you might think he invented "rich media" website. His experience at Macromedia probably led him to the idea that as he saw web designers create these "rich media" websites on their desktop, that it might be novel and interesting to have that abilty to be done via a website.

An investigation for prior art into areas like online e-greeting cards that allowed for "rich media" creation of a card by adding music, text, etc.. could be an area to explore.

While this patent is broadly written, it's not as crazy as Acacia's belief that Yurt and Brown invented the process of downloading audio/video from a website.

I think Acacia should acquire this patent and continue on with the delusions of the inventor.

Most websites use web designers who create the "rich media" websites on their own computers, so this patent covers a small universe of potential infringers, assuming that no prior out can be found.

If this were a broad patent that covered all websites, alot of us amateur prior art searchers would be digging for prior art, but as I see it now.. *yawn*.

.

December 7th, a day that will live in infamy.. for rememberance of Perl Harbor, as well as for the Markman Order that was released yesterday. You can view it here.

For those that want the condensed version and run through my patent-pending patenese translator:

The court ruled back in July 12, 2004 Markman, the term "sequence encoder" that is used in Claims1 (the most important #),7,17,18,32,33 of the '7-2 patent to be indefinite.. meaning it can't be define and Acacia is making up what they want it to mean.

Also back in July 12, the term "identification encoder" in claims 1,5,6,17,19,27,31 were also ruled indefinite.

In the recent testimony, Mr Weiss, expert witness for Acacia, had his own testimony quoted in the Markman Order that was used against Acacia.

Replayed for your own amusement:

..with respect to whether the term "sequence encoder" had an ordinary and customary meaning to one skilled in system design in the television broadcasting industry, Mr Weiss testified:

Q: In 1991, did the term "sequence encoder" have an ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art?

A: No

(slam #1)

Q: In 1991, would the term "sequence encoder" have been a term of art to one of ordinary skill in the art?

A: No

(slam #2)

Q: Are you aware of any dictionary in 1991 where it would have defined the term "sequence encoder" ?

A: No

(slam #3)

Editorial note, the (slam) comments were added in by me, and were not part of the official transcript

From the conclusion, "The Court concludes that the claim term "identification encoder" is indefinite and renders independant claims 1,17 and 27 of the '702 patent invalid. The Court also reserves for later proceedsing whether the invalidty of the independent claims affect the validity of claims which depend from them."

Meaning that what Acacia started out dreaming 3 years ago that this was the "Perfect Patent" and unleashed their marketing storm, is being whittled away.

Acacia spinners will say that you only need 1 claim for an infringement case.. .that may be true from an academic sense, but I believe in practice, it's buh-bye when you get your made-up believed terms shot down by the court and by your own expert witness.

Especially when Claim #1 is being ripped apart, which is the foundation of all the other claims. And those other DMT related patents... all based on the first patent, so I expect there to be a domino effect.

Acacia is busier than ever with its new patents and going about the marketing in the same way... companies are getting leary of their efforts as they are seeing that this company is having a bad track record of not understanding patents, or just looking to use the presumption of validty to make a buck.

The court will hear more discussions on Feb 24, 2006.

In my 16-May posting, I presented news of a challenge to the Acacia Ware patent #4,707,592 for the patent titled: Personal universal identity card system for failsafe interactive financial transactions.

Apparently there was sufficient doubt raised that the USPTO granted the re-exam request!

All those companies that felt it was cheaper to license than to fight it should be paying attention now. The attorney who filed the patent re-exam is listed in the document.

Read the APPROVED re-exam request doc here.

Karlton Butts from Acacia has been sending out a new round of letters inviting all the supposed infringers of their DMT patent to pay the license fees, before they raise them again after Sept. 15th.

Just like the first round of solicitations, their letters have beend filed in the circular filing cabinet, but we were able to get a scan of the pages before they ended up at the bottom of a bird cage. Page1, Page2

The Internet defendants case has been combined with the cable company defendants, and still feel very strongly that the prior art is there (and it is as I and other searchers have found).

For those taking a flashback ride on Nike's commercials, about "Bo Knows...", to build upon that commercial, the updated version would be "Acacia knows...." and this time, they think they know scheduling software patents.

Acacia is sending out their slick patent infringing marketing material for patent #4,937,743 "Method and System for Scheduling, Monitoring, and Dynamically Managing Resources".

Acacia acquired this patent, consistent with their business model of IP licensing of patents that they interpret to mean more than what the patent really says).

The one company that sent me the Patent Wrapper, Patent References, and the Patent PDF, felt very strongly that prior art abounds.

Companies (competitors) that are targetted by this patent can bond together much like other defendants in Cable and Internet sectors against the DMT patent to fight against Patent Abuse. Feel free to contact me so that I may put companies in contact with each other to share their prior art references.

While patents are presumed to be valid, any patent infringement claims from Acacia is presumed to be Bogus.

I just received a Patent Re-examination request against Acacia's "Ware" Patent #4,707,592

The document cites 3 prior art patents that were not cited, thus challenging the patent on 102 for anticipation and 103 for obviousness.

When I chatted with the attorney who filed the report, I asked if the two open cases in GA and TX would cause the patent office to hold off on the re-exam until after the court. His reply was that the opposite may/should happen. That while the patent office is slow on re-exams, that the courts may look to wait for the USPTO decision on a re-exam.

More details and thoughts to come as the document is run through the non-patented "FightThePatent Legalese Translator", satirized for your sanity.

While I am digesting the submission, read if for yourself by downloading it from here.

Declaratory Judgement filed by Circuit City against Acacia's patent infringement claims in Eastern District of Virgina (case 05 CV 496). Read it here.

For those following the Acacia Saga, Round One of their licensing schemes with the V-CHIP patent was knocked down by Sony, though not fast enough to have earned them over $26M in licensing from companies who chose to settle.

Round Two is currently played out with internet and cable defendants over the DMT patent, that has the ludicrious claims to owning the downloading/streaming of audio/video from a (web) server. Much like the truth, the prior art is out there.

Recent Press Releases from Acacia has shown the acquisition of a new portfolio of patents and their focus has been on these new patents. What was once believed by Acacia to be their big hit with the DMT patent, has quickly diminshed as efforts to license their new patents are underway.

Through Press Releases, some large and notable companies have been settling. Big corporations are looking at the costs of settling rather than fighting, rather than the issue of validity.

Someday, Acacia may get lucky and find a patent that actually is a solid patent, until then businesses and innovation are being taxed by the latest fashion business model craze of IP licensing. Acacia is certainly not the only company doing this, but their questionable marketing tactics and aggressiveness in the space has certainly gotten the attention of many people.

One battle erupting with Acacia and their credit card transaction patent (#4,707,592) has many large companies settling, given the air of "validity" to the patent. But not all companies are settling. Open cases in Georgia with Kroeger and Office Depot and open cases in Texas with Linens & Things, Pier 1 Imports, and Costco are fighting.

Large restaurant chains are pooling themselves together to look at this patent issue. They may choose to negotiate a deal that is less expensive than fighting, or take the position to not become a victim of patent abuse.

Anyone that has experience in the credit card processing space back in 1987 that could share some insight into prior art of patent #4,707,592 should feel free to contact me.

Many amateur volunteer arm-chair prior art searchers like myself have contributed solid prior art leads for defendants. The information is passed on to defense attorneys AT NO COST.

Patents without prior art, are ones that are consistent with the intent of Patent Law. Patent Abuse is when the patent holder (more popular now is to just acquire the patent from the inventor) takes patents and tries their "shotgun" approach to getting companies to license, without doing thorough research into the actual validity of the patent claims to the claims of infringements.

While patents are being looked upon negatively by innovators, it still has to be acknowedged that there are "valid" patents out there with truly novel and new inventions, and it is also the case where mightier corporations could attempt to rollover the lesser equipt inventor. Patent Law has a place to protect innovation, but the abuse of it greater tarnishes and disprects the original intents.

I call out to innovators, entrepreneurs, business people, and concerned individuals, to "Get Informed, Get Mad, Get Active" and to participate where possible.

Patent infringement may not have landed in your backyard, but its effects can be felt by all.

Update: 11-Mar

The outcome (court doc) of the multi-district panel is that all the cable lawsuits are rolled up under Judge Ware in Northern District.

Judge Ware is currently handling the porn/internet defendants in Central District, and it seems up to him about whether he will combine the cases or not since there are many overlaping claims, and the fact that prior art for the internet claims will apply to the cable ones.

Next court date is March 24th, where the judge will probably be exploring the cable and internet cases and decide how to proceed from there.

Now that this stalling action has been resolved, the defendants can push forward and resume their filing for Motion for Summary Judgement.

For those that read the Markman, Judge Ware said TWICE that the defendants should file for Summary Judgement.

---------------------------------------

It turns out that Homegrown Video / New Destiny, who is being sued by Acacia for patent infringement, actually has a patent license (though unbeknowngst to them until recently).

The company that was managing their operations negotiated a license that included HomeGrown Video.

It remains to be seen why Acacia didn't drop HomeGrown from the lawsuit.

Besides not understanding technology and making up interpretations of patent claims, it appears that Acacia has sued a company that has a license.

Ranks right up there with the RIAA suing a dead person.

In this Press Release:

"Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) will pay Burst.com Inc. (Nasdaq:BRST - news), a developer of software for streaming audio and video over the Internet, $60 million to settle a patent infringement and antitrust lawsuit, the world's largest software maker said on Friday.

Santa Rosa, California-based Burst said in a 2002 lawsuit that Microsoft had infringed on its patent for sending audio and video content over the Web....."

Hey there, Burst's patent was for sending audio and video content over the web.... isn't that what the DMT patent is about?

Oh the paradox.

What is burst.com doing that ACTG not doing?

Spending over $3M in legal fees to deal with pornographers and here comes Burst.com to swoop in and get a whopping settlement.

Maybe having Microsoft settle, will mean Microsoft would be easy to rollover with the DMT patent.

The adult entertainment defendants court session to present their Motion for Summary Judgement (which the judge suggested they do TWICE in the Markman Order) had been put on hold due to waiting for the outcome of a Multi district panel case.

Any day now, the Multi District Panel should be giving a ruling as whether or not the internet defendants should be rolled in with the consolidation of the cable companies.

Acacia doesn't want the internet folks to be rolled up, knowing that they are very close to knocking out the infringed claims.

The defendants were supposed to have filed for Motion for Summary Judgement back dec 2-3, but has been stalled until the outcome of the Multi Distict Panel.

The prior art has been ready for over a year for its day in court. Acacia claims to welcome their day in court... so stop the stalling tactics and get what you ask for.

Acacia's move to acquire the 27 new patents is an interesting one, because it helps to focus attention on the new patents.. knowing full well that DMT will suffer the same fate as V-CHIP.. and probably banking on the day traders and larger block investors to not have a memory of those events, and only look forward to the new "pie in the sky" possosibilites for patent infringement..

Remember, they felt that EVERY website that has audio/video would have to license for them, and that spurred all the early buying of the stock.. if you can "own" the internet, why bother with other patents... DMT could be the gravy train that immortalizes Yurt and Browne as the fathers of downloading/streaming audio/video from the web

Some large investors are looking at DMT to see if they can win in.. confidence in Acacia will surely be lowered once DMT fails to deliver what management has claimed.. Some will find other IP licensing firms who have better technology savvy and understanding to invest in, others will gloss over VCHIP and DMT has a probability gamble... where most companies will end up licensing than fighting the patent claims (which most likely would be broad and imagined as history as shown).

Acacia is the poster child for patent reform.

What we need to see is more focus on patent-only federal courts (with more resources), which could be partially subsidized by the "loser pays" idea that Europe has.

This would help to prevent "frivilous" patent infringement lawsuits, where if a defendant prevails, they don't get their money back for attorney expenses.

Patent and civil abuse is what taxes innovation and businesses from bogus patent claims where there is very little recourse or retribution for the ordeal they go through to be proven right.

USA Video's Markman Hearing went very badly for them, so their efforts to follow in Acacia's footsteps with their "downloading video faster than real time patent" will go the same way as Acacia's DMT patent... into the circular filing cabinent.

These guys keep going and going and going.

Recent PR about their pending acquistion of a patent portfolio company.

TechSearch is one of the acquisitions, Check out their portfolio of patents:

-data transmission on the Internet
-data transmission over satellite and cable broadcast channels
-information distribution and processing systems
-computer based distance learning
-noise reduction systems for video signals
-television de-scrambling smart card
-resolution enhancement for printers and other display devices
-MP3 CD players and their methods of operation

2005 is the year of wild-west patent infringement lawsuits!

A bid of $15.5M for the bankrupt Commerce One patents has been won by an enigma of a company.

Expect broad patent claims and patent infringement cases for next year. 2005 will be the year of patent infringements as a viable business model (not for Acacia who still struggles to convince people to part money from their wallets for their *cough* bogus *cough* DMT patent claims and technology/patent ineptitude).

Companies that are targeted by patents can take a stand by banding with other companies. Take a "sweetheart deal" and mark yourself to be a serial victim to be rolled over by the next broadly interpreted patent.

Read the details about the patent auction here.

USVO's lawsuit against MovieLink.com has picked up as they entered the start of their Markman Hearing. This Dec 3 Hollywood Reporter article summarizes their dreams of grandeur.

USVO's patent claims the "pioneering" invention of Video On Deman with their transmission of video "faster than real time".

Read the patent on my USVO page. For those reading the patent and thinking they invented faster bandwidth.. ayup.

A flashback to an earlier article I wrote, a satirical piece about a fictious company's patent on VOD (and video on the internet).

The patent paradox revisited with SightSound, USVO, and Acacia all claiming similar things in this Highladeresque title "There can only be one" article.