vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 4:16 pm
Patents are out of hand.They shouldn't apply to "common-sense" ideas like a login page. In fact, all of the lobbying on behalf of big-business is really twisting the concept of intellectual propertly. | |
|
| N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
1 recommendation |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 4:24 pm
Re: Patents are out of hand.NO KIDDING.
The only reason for doing this crap is so they can sue everyone that won't pay up, it's nothing short of extortion.
The difference is, instead of sending Vinny to break your legs for not paying protection money, we'll send our team of trial lawyers to sue your a$$ into oblivion. | |
|
| | |
Re: Patents are out of hand.It appears that there are a few companies that will be challenging the patent.
I wonder what jackass judge gave the login page patent the go ahead. This high tech jargon "systems and methods for redirecting users having transparent computer access to a network using a gateway device having redirection capability" is nothing more than saying, "wireless users accessing a login page that redirects to another page" is our idea. WHOA great frickin idea! Here I was thinking that's how things work. Add a wrinkle and it's a new face! Patent it!!!! | |
|
| | | |
Re: Patents are out of hand.i think im going to patent the patenting process, everyone who wants a patent needs to pay for 100 bucks per patent, i think that seems fair. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Patents are out of hand.I did that 2 months ago on here | |
|
| | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
to Plldwnyrpnts
said by Plldwnyrpnts: I wonder what jackass judge gave the login page patent the go ahead.
No judges involved -- these are just bureaucrats sitting in a cubicle somewhere. | |
|
| | | |
to Plldwnyrpnts
6,226,677 Here is the abstract of their patent In one embodiment, a method related to controlling communication of a TCP packet from a user machine is disclosed. During a browser request from the user machine, the TCP packet is sent via the intranet to a forced proxy server. The TCP packet having a number of fields including a first field related to a first destination IP address. The TCP packet and its first destination IP address is received by the forced proxy server and analyzed. If the first destination IP address is not from a "sandboxed" domain, the first destination IP address is changed to a predetermined second destination IP address to effectively reroute the TCP packet to another IP address on the Internet. The rerouted IP address provides content to the user machine in which at least a majority of the content is different from that expected to be obtained by the user machine. This is warning people. The above also covers wired systems as it does not specify a medium. Acacia is nothing more than shake-down artists . Their strategy is simple. When you cant come up with a better mouse trap and sell it , steal someone elses and call it your own. Then pimp the system to make de facto users pay extra for a mousetrap they already own I urge users to look at the following site to look for prior art as I think you will find . » www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3221.htmlLast I checked, If I have a private network, its mine. Like a mouse trap. If I put an extra set of nails on the trap to catch 2 mice as opposed to one, You can't sue me if I rent my trap to a friend because he wants to catch all of his mice twice as fast. What these b*stards are saying is that even if I make a private network running GPL'd or commercial proxy servers tweaked for a specific purpose, I have to pay them for it just because they claim they came up this sh** first. This is like paying someone a royalty for using addition to count the change in my pocket. My response to this is in the subject of my post. You know, its really funny that the meat of their patent looks * a lot like pp 124 and 125 of a book called "The ABCs of Intranets" . So here is a question, should'nt they be SUING EVERYONE on the Internet that has a private network that uses a proxy server ? Looks like wireless bigotry to me. Who knows ? blackwuuf | |
|
| | | | |
Re: acacia patents the obvious this is total Bullsh*tsaid by blackwuuf: 6,226,677 The TCP packet and its first destination IP address is received by the forced proxy server and analyzed. If the first destination IP address is not from a "sandboxed" domain, the first destination IP address is changed to a predetermined second destination IP address to effectively reroute the TCP packet to another IP address on the Internet.
Hmm. Looks like they are claiming they invented the reverse proxy. LOL. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: acacia patents the obvious this is total Bullsh*tNow that I 've calmed down a *little bit* I have figured out an ingenious way to get around their claims . I think I'll apply for a patent. | |
|
| |
| |
| 67845017 (banned) join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL |
to vpoko
The abstract isn't what matters in a patent. It's the claim(s) that defeines the scope of the invention. In this case, though, the claim is pretty darn broad.
What is claimed is:
1. A method related to controlling communication of a message from a user machine to a global computer network including the Internet, comprising:
sending a message from a user machine to a proxy server disposed between said user machine and said global computer network, said message to said global computer network including at least a first data packet having a number of fields including a first field related to a first destination address;
receiving said message by said proxy server; controlling said message by said proxy server including changing said first destination address to a source different from said first destination address, wherein said source provides at least one web page having web page information accessible over the Internet that is different from web page information accessible over the Internet using said first destination address; and
providing returned information including said at least one web page to said user machine using said source. | |
|
Tony B Premium Member join:2001-04-18 Bronx, NY |
Tony B
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 4:19 pm
Jeez, not again with this bulls***t
Good lord ... Yet another adventure in the patenting wonderland ...
| |
|
vic102482 Premium Member join:2002-04-30 Upper Marlboro, MD |
You should not be allowed to patent a technologyAfter it has become insdustry standard or adpoted by industry, you have have more than enough time to file in previous instances. This is nothing but extortion. | |
|
| 1 edit |
Re: You should not be allowed to patent a technologyAgreed. I can almost see a patent of the process (since you can alway use a different process), but how can you patent the end result or intention?
That's like someone suing you because you exist...just becaus they found a way to clone life. | |
|
| |
to vic102482
Re: You should not be allowed to patent a technoloIf you can demonstrate "prior art", i.e. someone was doing this before you filed a patent, then you cannot enforce the patent.
However, you can patent an idea, never use the idea, and then force people to agree to a license and pay royalties and/or cease use of the technology, all while being liable for your use of it up to that point.
See the current Sun/Kodak/Wang case for that. Wang patented some stuff, never really did anything with it, and transferred the patents along with software acquired by Kodak. Kodak realized the patents supercede Java, effectively describe some of the technology used by Java, and have won a lawsuit against Sun.
They are seeking damages of 1 billion dollars. $1,000,000,000. For Java, the little thing that Sun and MS have been trying to convince you to download for some years now, that's on new "smart phones", etc. Essentially, that they've been giving away.
Whether the court actually awards anything close to the 1bn requested to Kodak remains to be seen, but that we're in a situation where the case was won to begin with...
Patents were intended to protect creativity, not stifle technological advance or invention, because some jackass realized he can get rich off a patent for something that resembles something profitable. | |
|
Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 4:54 pm
Can I have gateway redirection?Can I have a gateway redirection page on my router? So that anybody that tries to connect, gets the page, sort of like T-mobile? | |
|
| |
Re: Can I have gateway redirection?yah as long as its set up that way. | |
|
| | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 5:12 pm
Re: Can I have gateway redirection?said by hottboiinnc4: yah as long as its set up that way.
How? | |
|
| | | |
Re: Can I have gateway redirection?not sure but i know it can be done. i think its a feature in the router. check the WISP fourm or the company that made ther router. | |
|
| |
to Gbcue
I hope you plan to pay for the rights to have that redirection page! LMAO! Remember, $1000 per quarter. Pay up! | |
|
| | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 7:03 pm
Re: Can I have gateway redirection?said by sixshooterz: I hope you plan to pay for the rights to have that redirection page! LMAO! Remember, $1000 per quarter. Pay up!
Screw that. | |
|
|
They're not only claiming thatThe website to Acaia is also claiming tech rights to cable tv services sueing a lot of companines including Cable Systems, and Wide Open West, and small local cable companies.
Anyone know how long this place has been in business? | |
|
|
Good lordThis is getting out of hand. If you read their news releases about the various infringements lawsuits, they are very vague. In this case it seems as if they bought the "Patent" from Lodge Net. They themselves have no intellectual investment and should not be able to charge quartery, that's BS. It seems as if they are a tech patent broker. Besides, hasn't this technology been around for well beyond the patent limits in the first place? | |
|
rmdir join:2003-03-13 Chicago, IL |
rmdir
Member
2004-Oct-6 5:43 pm
they owe me millions thenCause I'm going to patent the frivolous lawsuit. | |
|
jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx 1 edit |
jap
Premium Member
2004-Oct-6 5:45 pm
Acacia???Wasn't this company mentioned for same shenanigans with other so-called "technology" in previous BBR article(s)?? Is the head of Acacia that slime who enriched himself with a fleet of aggressive and shoddy porn sites in the '90's? | |
|
| |
Re: Acacia???Acacia by nature makes patent grabs and does this kind of thing for a living. They also tried to claim they owned Streaming video. There was also Nomadix, who tried to do the same thing earlier this year: » Patenting the ObviousConcept patent grabs are pretty high-tier scumbaggery. | |
|
| | |
Re: Acacia???Nomadix too, well I don't see why as virtually all gateway servers I have come across are using their software as the core anyway. That would be like Microsoft charging a Quarterly fee for using Windows, after it has already been paid for at purchase time.
If any of you know of someone other than Nomadix or Zyxel actually selling Gateway Servers, I would like to hear from you. | |
|
| | jap Premium Member join:2003-08-10 038xx 1 edit |
to Karl Bode
Karl, with ongoing cultural/legal issues like this one it would be great to make comprehensive link-backs to previous BBR articles a standard practice. I know you often attempt to weave a few links into the piece, but I mean a link-list addendum, if you will. How difficult would it be to keyword automate such a link-list and have it attach itself to the bottom of each article? | |
|
|
Acacia?Company' name sounds familiar. I think they are trying to get some other crazy patents... | |
|
| cdrworm join:2002-08-09 San Diego, CA |
Re: Acacia?Cause the own the patents on streaming video. "a device or aparatise for the deployment of audio and/or sound from a remote network device." or something like that. They were sueing porn sites at first then they started going after big companies like Cox, and the like. | |
|
| | |
Re: Acacia?they are still going after companies WOW for use patent on cable tv services..the press release is on their main page of their site but doesnt give much information but who the companies are. | |
|
aeagle join:2004-03-03 Schenectady, NY |
aeagle
Member
2004-Oct-6 6:30 pm
this is BSI'm gonna patient breathing, so if u breath, u will pay | |
|
| RARPSL join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY |
RARPSL
Member
2004-Oct-6 8:57 pm
Re: this is BSsaid by aeagle: I'm gonna patient breathing, so if u breath, u will pay
40 years ago, SF Author Robert A, Heinlein did something equivalent in his novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". The story is set on the Moon and they have an "Air Tax" (which you pay to the support the infrastructure that maintains the atmosphere in the domes). That is brought up when a tourist is talking to a Moon native and says something about air being free. When told about the Tax , and asking if he should stop breathing so as to not break the law, he is informed not to worry since his Tax Payment was covered by his Spaceship Ticket (so long as he returns to Earth on schedule). | |
|
1 recommendation |
I called them....After reading this, yet another story of litigious parasitic extortive corporate behaviour charading behind the title of "Corporation", I decided to call them.
I was connected to a Mr. Robert Berman, Executive Vice President Business Development and General Counsel... A very big important sounding title for a cranky little lawyer of a man who didn't like the questions I was asking and hung up on me.
That's fine.
I asked him to describe some of the other technologies that his company were presently laying claim to, and he sharply corrected me "...We don't LAY CLAIM to any technology, we acquire them and license them."
Then I commented that it looked to me like his company was more parasitic than creative and developmental, and he hung up.
Well, time to write my representatives.
This IS getting out of hand. Anybody can see that the suits filling these companies aren't interested in developing, creating, enabling or producing anything... they are simply a gaggle of lawyers who have found a clever way to manipulate our system of Patents for extortive licensing.
Let's all keep calling them (and our elected reps) and voice our opinions. Hell with them if they don't like it. Companies like these are popping up everywhere now. If allowed to continue we will not like the future we will end up living in. | |
|
| |
Re: I called them....Their website is now offline, how convenient. I was going to get the number and call them tomorrow! | |
|
| | |
Re: I called them....Acacia Technologies Group 500 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 Phone: (949) 480-8300 Fax: (949) 480-8301
Management
Paul R. Ryan Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Robert L. Chip Harris II Director & President
Robert Berman Executive Vice President Business Development and General Counsel
Clayton Haynes Chief Financial Officer Senior Vice President
Roy Mankovitz Senior Vice President Intellectual Property
John Roop Senior Vice President Engineering
Robert Stewart Senior Vice President Corporate Finance
Karlton Butts Vice President Licensing
...ooops, I suppose I am in violation of one of their patents for 'copy/pasting' html data from one site into another, lol. "please mr. scary lawyer, where can i just pay and get this all behind me?????" | |
|
|
they are just other kind of con artists | |
|
YowzaaahOurs Go To Eleven join:2000-12-14 DamnFlat, OH |
One phrase could fix all of this...."Provided patent holder, it's successors or assigns can prove reasonable and ongoing efforts to commercialize the use of said technology...."
Essentially put a "use it or lose it" clause in the act. Understanding that many patented technologies are slow to catch on, if the patent holder is TRYING to market this discovery or improvement in some manner that should be sufficient. If however the MARKETPLACE is using it like gangbusters and the "creator" can't prove it has made dime one off of the technology their patent should be shown the door and welcomed into the public domain. | |
|
|
Steve Olsen, Sideways Swingin' Genius!As reported in a ZDNet Column shared by Matrix: Patent for how to swing a swing sideways » patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/ ··· ,368,227...Wonder how much he's collected in licensing and royalties from kids down at the playground. lol | |
|
| John Galt6Forward, March Premium Member join:2004-09-30 Happy Camp |
Re: Steve Olsen, Sideways Swingin' Genius!Hey! I'm gonna send him a DOLLAR just for being funny...! (and payment for swingin' sideways in the past...!) | |
|
| | John Galt6 |
Re: Steve Olsen, Sideways Swingin' Genius!Don't wanna get sued, ya know! | |
|
|
This is getting annoyingWhy does the patent office let people patent known technologies? Then not to mention that just because its wireless instead of a wired network, how is it a new technology. The wired network at my campus would check your mac and if it wasn't registered, it would take you to a login page that you would put in your username and password then you would have access unless you tried to hook up a different network card and then you'd simply repeat the process. Lots of colleges have probably done this for years. Just because its wireless does not mean anything has changed? Why can the wireless version be patented? | |
|
cdrworm join:2002-08-09 San Diego, CA 1 edit |
Patent Wars:It looks like MS, IBM, HP, Sun, etc. are spending a lot of money writing patents. They are probably using it for protection because everyone is infringing everyone elses patents. MS writes out 3000 patents a year. Their is certainly a war going on. MS recently made deals with Sun as a promise not to sue each other for 10 years. (plus MS they awarded Sun with $2b)
Kodak a while back went bankrupt cause it got killed by the digital age. They recently sued Sun Microsystems and won. (Kodak can't sue MS because they made deals years ago on similar patent infrigments)
Kodak won for $1.6b. The infringement is about the "ask for help" button that launches a program that helps end-user with an application.
What an honest way to collect new income?!
Since Java is free. Kodak figured got its $1.6b figure from server sales from '98 to '01 "only to be fair". They said that Sun used Java as one of their main selling point for their server os. Come on! $1.6b is a lot of money for a simple button that any programmer can implement.
I might as well patent "An apparatus or device for termination and release of resources back to operating apparatus".. hmm a "close button"?
Sun recently patented the idea for selling their operating system by a subscription per user per year, $100 per employee per year for example. If a company has 10,000 employees they would charge $1,000,000 per year. They now have the weapons to sue anyone that thinks about doing the same thing. (good for them!)
Look behind the technical verbiage, Jurors and you people in the patent office! Are these really patentable ideas? | |
|
| cdrworm |
Patents are bad for ALL developers and end-usersI just found this article today on Linux.org. It talks about how patents are bad for everyone. It slows development for both open source and closed/proprietary developers. It also increases the cost of software to end-users. (we are all affected) Here you go: » www.eweek.com/article2/0 ··· 5,00.asp | |
|
|
Acacia is blackmailing colleges too.Acacia is sending letters to colleges claiming (basically) that if the college has a website which has streaming media content then the college owes an intellectual property license fee to Acacia.
It is thuggery, plain and simple. Those of us who work at colleges have enough problems with shrinking budgets, growing student populations, and the weight of actually trying to make a positive difference in the world to have to worry about this cr_p.
The lawyers who help these companies bully the populace under the guise of "preserving rights" and all that garbage are no different than the jack-booted gestapo thugs of the third Reich.
Sig Heil. | |
|
keith2468 Premium Member join:2001-02-03 Winnipeg, MB |
Patent idea of spurious patent claimsWhy doesn't BBR patent the idea of "distributing, transmitting or sending, packages, or letters, to companies, organizations or associations, requesting or pointing out that they are using, or causing to be used, a patent on a simple or complex idea, and requesting money, funds or items of value in return, as reumeration or compensation.
Patent something lawyers do all the time -- give them a taste of their own medicine. | |
|
|
All they are doing is packet mangling ...I don't see how someone can patent an example of how to use a device.
If the router is the "device", all they are doing is patenting one way that the router can manipulate the packets as it passes through it. They created nothing new!!
An analogy would be patenting the idea of using a toothbrush to clean small auto parts. They neither created the toothbrush, nor the auto parts, just the idea of using the toothbrush to clean the auto parts. And if you should discover on your own that you can use the toothbrush in this manner then you owe them because they decided to patent the idea at some earlier date. They may choose the word concept to make it sound more patent worthy.
In fact, I created such a system for my company (a custom and more advanced version of Nomadix/BBSM/IP3), with no help, resources, or even knowledge of Arcadia. Simply using readily available technologies such as Linux, iptables, and Apache. I guess I owe Arcadia for??? | |
|
| |
Re: All they are doing is packet mangling ...thanks jax. Nice Analogy. | |
|
spie340Hmm Premium Member join:2004-01-06 Boise, ID |
spie340
Premium Member
2004-Oct-7 3:32 am
hope this company goes bankruptlike stated another way for someone to sue to get something for basically nothing.
acacia = bunch of losers.
same thing as an article I read in the readers digest about ppl suing business's that don't have all the things needed for handicap or disabled ppl. they just want to make some money for nothing.
get rid of frivilous lawsuits and limit torts to a certain amount and alot of ppl would actually have to work then. | |
|
|
|