Future of Distance Education ???

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Peter French, Nov 10, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Peter French

    Peter French member

    "A Patent Claim That May Cost Millions: A company says it owns the rights to a common
    Internet technology, and it wants a share of colleges' revenue"

    by: Scott Carlson

    The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 7, 2003, Page A25.

    Few people have heard of Acacia Research Corporation, but John H. Payne III has given the company a lot of thought ever since it threatened the heart of his courses at the University of Virginia.

    Acacia has sent Virginia and other colleges a letter making an audacious claim: that the company owns long-forgotten patents covering the use of sound and video on the Web and is entitled to 2 percent of the revenue from courses that use such technology. The patents, which expire in 2011, cover the concept behind storing and transmitting sound and video, not the technical details.

    "It's as though they claim they hold the patent on air," says Mr. Payne, who runs the university's distance-education program. He says online audio and video are integral parts of not just distance education but of many classroom-based courses.

    "Those technologies are being incorporated into libraries and general-studies courses on campus," he says. "In more-traditional courses, we archive a lot of materials, so if a student misses a course, they might be able to see the lecture online." If Acacia's 2-percent fee were applied to courses and programs all over the university, "that would add up to a whole lot," he says. The University of Virginia will earn about $240-million in tuition this year, although university officials don't know how many courses use online audio and video technology.

    RISKS OF LITIGATION

    Acacia's demands, which have also been issued to companies that use the technology, have made college officials wonder about the future of online video and audio, two Internet features that many have taken for granted until now. They say Acacia's licensing demand, backed by the threat of lawsuits, would add a huge new expense to colleges' technology programs, which are already running under tight budgets. And officials say that such costs could force colleges to stop adding new media features to course sites, which could hamper innovation in higher education.

    College lawyers are scrambling to figure out how to respond to Acacia, and in the meantime they're saying little. It's possible that they will find a silver bullet that will shoot down Acacia's claims.

    But they don't seem to have found it yet, and more and more colleges are getting letters from the company. Some college lawyers have hinted that they might fight Acacia's patent in court, but doing so could be an expensive and risky process. Acacia has already won some battles outside of higher education: It persuaded dozens of online pornography companies, as well as a popular on-line radio station and a major pay-per-view video company, to sign licensing agreements that turn over portions of their revenues.

    Ben Rawlins, general counsel for the Oregon University System, which received letters from Acacia, says that although the licensing claims ask for only 2 percent of gross revenue, a seemingly small proportion, that fee would hit colleges hard. "When you're talking about your entire distance-ed budget, 2 percent of that on an annual basis would get up there," he says.

    Continued in the article.
     
  2. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    This reminds me of Amazon's patent on "One Click" ordering. Not the term, but the concept. My understanding is that according to Amazon, all other companies must require buyers to make at least two "clicks" before ordering, because Amazon patented the idea of placing an order with one click. I have no idea where this currently stands.

    By the way, was there not a copyright on the article reprinted here?
     
  3. wfready

    wfready New Member

    I predict the schools fight back and put "patents" on the students graduating, going into the workforce. Therefore, 2 cents for each dollar the company produces because of that student, must be turned in to each corresponding school. :D

    Bill
     
  4. Carlos M. Lorie

    Carlos M. Lorie New Member

    This is big money.
     
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    There must be abundant court precedent on how broad and unspecific an enforceable patent can be.

    If Acacia wants to threaten lawsuits, then perhaps court is the proper place for this.
     
  6. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Quote

    " The patents, which expire in 2011, cover the concept behind storing and transmitting sound and video, not the technical details."


    Any lawyers or patent attorneys??? Can one patent a concept without technical details?

    It seems that if people are seriously discussing this, there must be at least some issue involved.

    Should not people then be patenting everything in a science fiction novel, just in case?
     
  7. TexasBlack6

    TexasBlack6 New Member

    Also, not too long ago, I patented the concept of making money - not the technical details or the methods involved - just the idea of increasing wealth. Therefore, I plan to collect a 2% fee on all wealth generated by any means.



    Totally ridiculous. However, if one considers some of the frivolous law suits that have awarded million dollar sums in the past, one can quickly see the motivation behind this. Random shots in the dark in the legal system sometimes produce large settlements.
     
  8. TexasBlack6

    TexasBlack6 New Member

    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2003
  9. Richards

    Richards New Member

    I'm not a patent attorney -- yet (another year to go) -- but I am a patent agent. I tried to look up the patent, but I couldn't find any patents assigned to Acacia Research, so they must either have another name or they purchased the patent from someone else.

    I don't think this is as menacing as it seems. It can get extremely expensive to duke out a patent infringement case in court -- win or lose. I remember seeing a story about a couple of these porn sites that decided to put up a fight, right up until their lawyers estimated what it would cost just to get to the initial motions, and they all decided it was simply cheaper to just pay the license fee. So, its bad, because nobody has stood up to them yet -- but its not like there have been other court cases that set a precedent (such as a court case finding that current webcasting technology infringes on the patent, for example) -- which WOULD be bad.

    Richard
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2003
  10. Richards

    Richards New Member

    Sorry about the double post there...
     
  11. Richards

    Richards New Member

    Sorry about the triple post!
     
  12. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    To discourage frivilous or groundless lawsuits it is normal in Canada for the courts to award costs to the winning side of a lawsuit.

    The only trouble with that is in the US many ridicously stupid lawsuits seem to succeed.
     
  13. dlkereluk

    dlkereluk New Member

    It sounds like SCO taught them well.
     
  14. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

  15. plcscott

    plcscott New Member

    If Al Gore would have only patented the internet when he invented it. :D
     
  16. themode

    themode New Member

    This sort of predatory patent litigation has become common over the past decade.

    The granddaddy of patent litigators is Jerome Lemelson. Lemelson made his fortune by keeping his patents under a 'pending' status until similar technologies matured. He'd then amend his patent to include claims covering the new technology, and sue the actual inventor. Lemelson's actions were so egregious that the PTO actually amended their regs covering the duration of the patent pending status. Lemelson died a few years ago, but his foundation is busy dispensing funds to universities in an attempt to rehabilitate Jerome's reputation.

    *if you're ever involved in a university program that's associated w/ the Lemelson Foundation, and are pursuing work that could result in patentable discoveries or inventions, be sure to consult a patent attorney. Alot of people suspect that the foundation is involved with these programs in order to confiscate patentable ideas.

    other such concerns are SightSound.com , Eolas, Gemstar, and Walker Digital ( priceline.com )

    The PTO may finally have begun to recognize the damage that these types of patents are inflicting. They've agreed to revisit Eolas's patent ( actually filed by the University of California system ) on all browser plug-ins ( eg. java applets ) on the basis of their acknowledgement that the examiners may not have bothered to review the existing body of technologies in this area. It's apparent the the PTO had simply stopped reviewing "prior-art" for certain categories of patents several years ago. If such reviews become more commonplace it will certainly deter companies like Acacia. Their litigation strategy will not work if there is the risk that the PTO will step-in and revoke a patent retroactively.
     

Share This Page