Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

by Dan Ballard -
Number of replies: 14

For those who add audio and/or video to your course material, you should be aware that Acacia Technologies is an intellectual property holding company that claims to own the exclusive right to transmit audio and/or video content to students via the internet.  According to Acacia:

"Colleges, universities and schools are making their curriculum available via the Internet on a frequent basis. In many cases, audio/video content is incorporated into the course materials to simulate the classroom environment. Acacias DMT technology covers the transmission and receipt of this digital audio/video content.

Course materials with audio/video content are digitized, compressed and stored for transmission. Upon request from the end-user student, the materials are transmitted via the Internet and are received to be viewed in a downloadable or streaming format on the students computer. This process is covered by Acacias DMT technology. For more information on how the language of our DMT patents applies to these activities, please click here (provided in .pdf format)." 

http://www.acaciatechnologies.com/technology_elearning.htm

Acacia has already entered into licenses with quite a number of educational institutions and is not reluctant to litigate against those who refuse to buy a license.  Their patent portfolio impressed Disney, Playboy, Bloomberg, 24/7, Oral Roberts, and others to enter into licenses as well. 

Although I've read a handful of discussions on these boards relating to e-learning patents, I've yet to read anyone's thoughts about the Acacia patents and have only done enough light research to be aware there may be an issue here for the unwary. 

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: audio files bit rate

by Bryan Williams -
You forgot to mention that this alleged patent, along with numerous others issued by the US patent office over the past 20 years, is under serious assault by groups with fairly deep pockets, including, ironicly, several major commerical software vendors. This is another SCO type patent dispute. There is no public confirmation that anyone has bought a license from these folks, that I know of. There is plenty of prior art to show that these guys are nothing more than litigation gangsters.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Bryan Williams

Re: audio files bit rate

by Dave Bethany -

I agree completely. John Walker (of AutoCAD fame) developed the ideas of digital transmission of voice media in the 1970s and his Speak Freely system is still an excellent example of quality sound transmission.

These guys will go the way of SCO and other bottom feeders.

Dave

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dave Bethany

Re: audio files bit rate

by Martin Dougiamas -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers
If anyone wants to help fight this one, see the eff.org site, and this top-ten hit list of bad patents.  Click on the first one to see more info about the Acacia fight.


Average of ratings: -
In reply to Bryan Williams

Re: audio files bit rate

by Dan Ballard -

Bryan,

You certainly have a basis for your animosity toward software patents. 

Nonetheless, once a patent issues it enjoys a presumption of validity that costs a significant amount of money to challenge - often an amount that makes it more economical to license rather than challenge.  Especially for small businesses and schools.  Which, granted, may not be fair if the patent is ultimately held invalid (which for Acacia's 5,132, 992 patent may take two years or so).   But that's not the issue now is it? 

My point is that educators who stream audio and/or video to students need to be aware of the Acacia patents and, moreover, ought to be prepared if they recieve one of the hundreds of cease and desist letters Acacia is sending out. 

As far as Acacia's licensing of its patents, one good indicator of their strength is the quality of the companies that elect to license them rather than challenge them.  According to Acacia's latest SEC 10-Q filing:

"As of October 2004, the Acacia Technologies group has entered into 188 DMT(R) technology licensing agreements, including agreements with companies in the cable television, hotel on-demand TV services, online music, movie, adult entertainment, e-learning, corporate and sports, news and information industries. We have executed license agreements with companies including Bloomberg L.P., Capella Education Company, Callaway Golf Company, B&C Cablevision, Central Valley Cable TV, LLC, CinemaNow, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., General Dynamics Interactive Corporation, Grupo Pegaso, Harley-Davidson, Inc., LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation,
NXTV, Inc., On Command Corporation, Oral Roberts University, Sonoco Products Company, The Travelers Indemnity Company, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., 24/7 University, Inc., Wachovia Corporation, Wendy's International, Inc., World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and Xerox Corporation."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/934549/000101968704002396/acacia_10q-093004.txt

Now, to my mind, if Disney, Xerox, Travelers, etc. find it more prudent to license the Acacia patents to than challenge them, then I for one am going to take those patents seriously.  You are, however, free to dismiss Acacia as simply a litigation gangster.  That would not be my advice.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: audio files bit rate

by Bryan Williams -
Dan,

I'm not suggesting that these law suits be ignored. Nor am I'm suggesting that everyone who uses Linux run out and buy a license from SCO, which they would be happy to sell you. I am suggesting that there are too many companies out there like Acacia that are simply trying to turn a buck on bogus patents. In my mind they are selling protection to the companies you mention, just like the mob sells protection to local merchants against being firebombed. 

I put my support behind efforts like EFF's Patent Busting Project rather that running around saying the sky is falling. It is doubtful that Acacia will go after everyday users and those legitmate companies that make it possible, through the browser, to take advantage of streaming media in an educational environment.  My point in the earlier post was that even large companies like Microsoft and Macromedia are being affected by scam patents, and when push comes to shove I expect they will line up in court behind EFF.

There will be those who stand up and say no to extortion, and they will have their say in the same court that shields the tech gangster and the laws they try to hide behind. It's a good fight!
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Bryan Williams

Re: audio files bit rate

by Dan Ballard -

Bryan,

I am a patent attorney and am a strong EFF supporter myself. In fact, I know the folks there quite well, have been on a number of panel discussions with Wendy and Fred, and currently assist in their subpoena defense efforts regarding the RIAA and MPAA copyright lawsuits. I represented Jane Doe #1, the first peer to peer file sharer who challenged the validity of the subpoena mechanism in copyright law that permitted the record labels to identify file sharer's without any judicial oversight. I now represent the only file sharer in California to be sued by the MPAA. In short, while I strongly believe in the utility of intellectual property protections, I also believe those laws should not be applied in the digital realm to bludgeon those not schooled in the nuances of the law. Which is darn near everyone, including many intellectual property attorneys.

However, real politik requires those who do travel in the digital realm to be wary of those who prey on the travellers. I can only repeat that it is very expensive to challenge a presumptively valid patent. Once in the cross-hairs of a patent owner bent on collecting its toll, cash-poor companies have no strength to bargain. Is this unfair? Sure. But that's the reality.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: audio files bit rate

by Bryan Williams -

Dan,

Nice to have a friend at Moodle with your background! wink

I own a (small) technology company that has been in business continuously since 1982, and have seen my share of hucksters come down the information highway. Some of these have had a negative impact on my business over the years. I certainly agree on your postion, as Darwinian as it sounds, and put my support fully behind your work. Hopefully, those few remaining in your profession who still have a conscious will prevail, and force much needed change on our patent office.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: audio files bit rate

by Martin Dougiamas -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers
I'm not sure that "the companies that elect to license them rather than challenge them" indicates the strength of the patent at all ... all it indicates is that it's more economic for very large companies to pay the asked-for licensing fee than to pay lawyers to challenge it.

I don't know what the license is, but what, for example, would you do if faced with a $10,000 license fee versus a $100,000 lawyer fee?

Naturally a parade of big brands like that looks impressive, but it doesn't mean they agree with the patent or that the patent has any validity to real people.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Martin Dougiamas

Re: audio files bit rate

by Dan Ballard -

Martin,

Your conclusions are the polar opososite of my experience while litigating intellectual property disputes.  

There is a very strong reluctance within large companies, especially tech companies, to enter into non-exclusive licenses for another's patented technology.  The licensee becomes reliant on the licensor's technology and is straightjacketed by the license conditions - which is tolerable if everyone else in the marketplace is similarily constrained but is intolerable if the constraint is artificial, i.e., if there is a lawful way to become unconstrained. 

As we all know, the marketplace very efficiently rewards those who innovate.  It is important not to forget that a patent owner that owns a pioneer patent (one that identifies and captures the foundation of a technology) controls the right to improvements in that techonology.  If Company A's patent claims elements A, B, and C and Company B is smart enough to improve the technology by adding element D, Company B's invention still contains all the elements of Company A's invention.  If Company B wants to practice its invention (A, B, C, and D) it must first license the rights to Company A's invention.   Which is a long way to say that Company B is very reluctant to acknowledge that Company A's patent on A, B, and C is valid.

As a practical matter, be assured that patent counsel in each of the companies that licensed the Acacia patent evaluated the validity of the patent.  I believe it is highly unlikely that management in those companies chose to license (instead of to ignore or challenge) the patent when presented with a legal opinion concluding the patent was invalid or likely invalid.  Taking a nuisance license is not unheard of but in this case the asserted Acacia patent is not on the fringes of internet-related technology - it is allegedly a pioneer patent assigning to Acacia the exclusive right to stream audio and/or video to students via the internet. 

As for Acacia not suing small companies, the facts say otherwise as evidenced by a simple Google search.  More relevant to this forum (and why I started this discussion), Acacia is now focusing its efforts to enforce its patent portfolio on colleges and universities.  The license fee that has been bandied about is $5,000 per year.  I have no knowledge as to whether that number is accurate or not.

The sky is not falling.  But it is raining.  And it makes sense to me to either get out of the rain or find an umbrella.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

by Martin Dougiamas -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers
What you don't mention here, though, is that the streaming of audio and video is not actually an invention, and even as an idea it is an obvious and logical extension of all the networking technology before it (FTP, NFS, and even hard disks to screen). When I say invalid I mean it in a moral and common sense, not a legal sense.

Interestingly, the patents are very vague and do not even mention the Internet! Here is an article with more information on the fees being extorted asked that also includes links to all the US patents: #5,132,992, #5,253,275, #5,550,863, #6,002,720 and #6,144, 702,

As an aside, we can see that the US is moving ahead with plans to further spread these insidious software patents across the world. Mmm, "harmonization".

Seriously, though, Dan, since you appear to be an IP lawyer I'm very interested in any "umbrellas" you may have for people using open source software in education.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

by Martin Dougiamas -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Moodle HQ Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers
I've split these posts to their own discussion in another forum.
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

by W Page -
Hi Dan!

Could you give us some insight on an issue being discussed on another thread?

How to copyright a Lesson Plan??
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=16871

[I posted here because there is no e-mail visible on your profile.]

Could really use your input about this.

Thanks in advance.

WP1
Average of ratings: -
In reply to Dan Ballard

Re: Acacia patent on audio/video streaming

by Don Quixote -
For all those who want to read the Patent Fulltext, it's here.

As usual, it's not an invention (all average skilled professionals have this idea for 20 years, we just didn't have the bandwidth yet), nothing that wasn't known before 2001, nothing new that hasn't been done similarly in other contexts.

One more stupid patent. I am still waiting on the precedent of a lawsuit for a "fraudulent business strategy by using patents" against one a these firms.

I think copyright and intellectual property is okay and stealing the work of someone else is bad. But this also applies here: It's just a strategy to steal the work (or the money earned by it) from others by a fraudulent misuse of "patents".

Andreas

Average of ratings: -