[DMCA-Activists] Re: Acacia Pursuing Streaming Patent

[PILCH Hartmut]

<address@hidden> writes:

> (and links to the european patent as granted)

see also

        http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/ep/0566/662/

As far as I can see, this was granted by the EPO in 1999 and has a
priority date of 1991.

The main claim, as granted, reads

  A transmission system for providing information to be transmitted to
  remote locations, comprising library means for storing items
  containing audio and/or video information;

  identification encoding means for retrieving the information in the
  items from the library means and for assigning a unique identifier to
  the retrieved information,

  conversion means, coupled to the identification encoding means,
  comprising audio information conversion means for placing retrieved
  audio information into a predetermined digital format as formatted
  data, and

  video information conversion means for placing retrieved video
  information into a predetermined digital format as formatted data,

  ordering means, coupled to the conversion means, for placing the
  formatted data into data blocks, each data block comprising portions
  of the information that may be accessed by a user at the remote
  location, and each block having an assigned address whereby the
  assigned address is used to access the portion of information;

  compression means, comprising audio compression means and video
  compression means, coupled to the ordering means, for compressing the
  formatted and sequenced data blocks;

  converting compressed data storing means, coupled  to  the  data
  compression  means, for storing as files the compress sequenced data
  blocks received from the data compression means with the unique
  identification code assigned by the identification encoding means; and

  transmitter means, coupled to the compressed data storing means, for
  sending at least a portion of one of the files to a selected one of
  the remote locations.

Since this claim uses the word "comprising", it seems that any system
which contains either one of the "means" listed here, will infringe.
Which of course can not be the meaning.  So I wonder which of the
features "comprised" in this system are essential.  Normally, if all
have to be present, the word "consisting of" would be used instead
of "comprising".  

In a way, any computer can be considered to be an infringement of this
claim, because any computer comprises all the "means" listed here.

In the proposed McCarthy Software Patent Directive, a patent judge
will of course not find any basis for refusing to consider this a
"computer-implemented invention".  The claim would most likely be
construed to cover at least all systems where all the named "means"
are used to offer files for download.  In the present law (Art 52
EPC), there is of course on the contrary nothing whatsoever that could
have served the EPO as an encouragement or reason for granting this
kind of patent.  And the present law is being used by courts in
Sweden, Germany and elsewhere to refuse this kind of patent.  This
would become difficult or impossible if Art 52 EPC is superseded by
a McCarthy Directive.  In such cases the newer law counts.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-12789608   
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
130,000 signatures against software patents      http://www.noepatents.org/