Are Hotspots dead for the time being?

loopi · 10-16-2004

Is it the end of Hotspots as we know it? Or just a blip on the radar?

So, We have Acacia Research and Nomadix about to do battle. Well, I don't see the battle, since Nomadix was just a bit late in filing their ridiculous concept patent.

What am I talking about?

Well, here's the Slashdot on it...

and the WifiNews article.

So, I do hotspots to some degree, and one of my locations got the "packet" which demands licensing or lawsuit. Since this locations does NOT do re-direction anyway, this is not a problem in this case.

For those who don't want to read the articles above, Acacia Research has a patent, this patent is on the re-direction done by almost EVERY hotspot out there. This is not a specific KIND of re-direction folks, but a VERY broad patent on "You ask for one website and the server/router gives you another (ie. login/advertising/CC Payment/disclaimer)"...In other words, Chillispot is not safe, nor is NoCat. But they aren't chasing Chillispot and Nocat, they aren't chasing Linksys and Cisco, they aren't chasing Boingo and Airpath and NetNearU, they are chasing down and demanding of locations and ENDUSERS. $1000 per license (covers 3500 re-directions) and 15cents per re-direct thereafter.

Now, what you see initially is that EVERYONE says it's ridiculous. The patent will never stand, etc. But look up this company, they are RAKING in money because they bought up patents which they say gives them ownership of "every known method of Streaming Video and Audio", and while you laugh, realize the courts have thusfar upheld it and HUNDREDS of Well Known companies have paid the licenses, since Acacia will leap on you like a pitbull and litigate you broke, if you don't.

So, this is a general heads-up for the wireless community who may not know this stuff, and a more specific question as to how the "Hotspot" should be handled. 802.11x? Or do you use the contended re-direction? IF this patent is struck down, Nomadix has another on re-direction waiting in the wings...So we might want to consider finding another verification method which does NOT use re-direction.

James

Thorn · 10-16-2004

It's FUD. If you give in and pay, then you're part of the problem.

loopi · 10-17-2004

Agreed. But one look at this company and you'll see they don't EVEN mess around. And Patent litigation is hideously expensive, complex and drawn out. So, I think we need to come together quick before MOST folks cave and screw it up for everyone else, and we work this thing. Either that or just think of a better way to do hotspot authorizations.

Me

Thorn · 10-18-2004

Man, I am planning on losing sleep for the next three weeks straight over this type of thing. Do you know how many of these types of claims are out there? Here's just a few:

XOR logical operation
Online shopping carts
Hyperlinks (Gee, I just put 3 in this post. I guess I owe someone big bucks.

)
Pop-up windows
Targeted banner ads
Paying with credit cards online
Affiliate linking

1) There are other ways already of doing hotspot authentications. Redirection is just one method. If you're that worried they'll come after you, change methods.

2) You might want to read these:
http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wir...er/029912.html
http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wir...er/029921.html

3) Start or join a class action suit against them. The EFF is supposedly considering it.

4) If such a claim comes your way and think it's worth paying rather than litigating, get your attrney to think and help protect your interests. That's why you're paying him. My attorney always tells me "Contracts are a two-way street."

How about something like this: Stipulate in the contract that you think their claims have no basis, and therefore when the patents (and therefore their resulting claims against you) are overturned they agree to pay any and all fees back to you, and that further they agree to pay (insert outrageous $um here). Make the outrageous sum high enough that they'd really think twice about what happens if the claims are reversed.

Like I said, get your attorney to help protect your interests.

5) Consider joining a trade association. There are several out there. If this issue becomes a serious threat, you can bet they'll wade in on it.

By the way, do you always SHOUT when trying to make a POINT about some SUBJECT? Once or twice and it can be effective. In every other sentence, it is annoying.

Tunnelled · 10-24-2004

Patens require a prior art clause. If your redirect solution pre-dates theirs and was available as public knowledge, you fall under prior art and their claim is void.

lill · 10-25-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by loopi

Is it the end of Hotspots as we know it? Or just a blip on the radar?

So, We have Acacia Research and Nomadix about to do battle. Well, I don't see the battle, since Nomadix was just a bit late in filing their ridiculous concept patent.

What am I talking about?

Well, here's the Slashdot on it...

and the WifiNews article.

So, I do hotspots to some degree, and one of my locations got the "packet" which demands licensing or lawsuit. Since this locations does NOT do re-direction anyway, this is not a problem in this case.

For those who don't want to read the articles above, Acacia Research has a patent, this patent is on the re-direction done by almost EVERY hotspot out there. This is not a specific KIND of re-direction folks, but a VERY broad patent on "You ask for one website and the server/router gives you another (ie. login/advertising/CC Payment/disclaimer)"...In other words, Chillispot is not safe, nor is NoCat. But they aren't chasing Chillispot and Nocat, they aren't chasing Linksys and Cisco, they aren't chasing Boingo and Airpath and NetNearU, they are chasing down and demanding of locations and ENDUSERS. $1000 per license (covers 3500 re-directions) and 15cents per re-direct thereafter.

Now, what you see initially is that EVERYONE says it's ridiculous. The patent will never stand, etc. But look up this company, they are RAKING in money because they bought up patents which they say gives them ownership of "every known method of Streaming Video and Audio", and while you laugh, realize the courts have thusfar upheld it and HUNDREDS of Well Known companies have paid the licenses, since Acacia will leap on you like a pitbull and litigate you broke, if you don't.

So, this is a general heads-up for the wireless community who may not know this stuff, and a more specific question as to how the "Hotspot" should be handled. 802.11x? Or do you use the contended re-direction? IF this patent is struck down, Nomadix has another on re-direction waiting in the wings...So we might want to consider finding another verification method which does NOT use re-direction.

James

Humm this post have been on every forum that handles Wirless and/or HotSpot why ? Trying to scare people ?!

10-16-2004	#1 (permalink)
loopi Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2	Are Hotspots dead for the time being? Is it the end of Hotspots as we know it? Or just a blip on the radar? So, We have Acacia Research and Nomadix about to do battle. Well, I don't see the battle, since Nomadix was just a bit late in filing their ridiculous concept patent. What am I talking about? Well, here's the Slashdot on it... and the WifiNews article. So, I do hotspots to some degree, and one of my locations got the "packet" which demands licensing or lawsuit. Since this locations does NOT do re-direction anyway, this is not a problem in this case. For those who don't want to read the articles above, Acacia Research has a patent, this patent is on the re-direction done by almost EVERY hotspot out there. This is not a specific KIND of re-direction folks, but a VERY broad patent on "You ask for one website and the server/router gives you another (ie. login/advertising/CC Payment/disclaimer)"...In other words, Chillispot is not safe, nor is NoCat. But they aren't chasing Chillispot and Nocat, they aren't chasing Linksys and Cisco, they aren't chasing Boingo and Airpath and NetNearU, they are chasing down and demanding of locations and ENDUSERS. $1000 per license (covers 3500 re-directions) and 15cents per re-direct thereafter. Now, what you see initially is that EVERYONE says it's ridiculous. The patent will never stand, etc. But look up this company, they are RAKING in money because they bought up patents which they say gives them ownership of "every known method of Streaming Video and Audio", and while you laugh, realize the courts have thusfar upheld it and HUNDREDS of Well Known companies have paid the licenses, since Acacia will leap on you like a pitbull and litigate you broke, if you don't. So, this is a general heads-up for the wireless community who may not know this stuff, and a more specific question as to how the "Hotspot" should be handled. 802.11x? Or do you use the contended re-direction? IF this patent is struck down, Nomadix has another on re-direction waiting in the wings...So we might want to consider finding another verification method which does NOT use re-direction. James

10-16-2004	#2 (permalink)
Thorn Did you do the math? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Villa Straylight Posts: 10,000	It's FUD. If you give in and pay, then you're part of the problem. __________________ Thorn Sex and Violence. You can't enjoy one, if you don't survive the other. (And that works both ways...)

10-18-2004	#4 (permalink)
Thorn Did you do the math? Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Villa Straylight Posts: 10,000	Man, I am planning on losing sleep for the next three weeks straight over this type of thing. Do you know how many of these types of claims are out there? Here's just a few: XOR logical operation Online shopping carts Hyperlinks (Gee, I just put 3 in this post. I guess I owe someone big bucks. ) Pop-up windows Targeted banner ads Paying with credit cards online Affiliate linking 1) There are other ways already of doing hotspot authentications. Redirection is just one method. If you're that worried they'll come after you, change methods. 2) You might want to read these: http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wir...er/029912.html http://lists.bawug.org/pipermail/wir...er/029921.html 3) Start or join a class action suit against them. The EFF is supposedly considering it. 4) If such a claim comes your way and think it's worth paying rather than litigating, get your attrney to think and help protect your interests. That's why you're paying him. My attorney always tells me "Contracts are a two-way street." How about something like this: Stipulate in the contract that you think their claims have no basis, and therefore when the patents (and therefore their resulting claims against you) are overturned they agree to pay any and all fees back to you, and that further they agree to pay (insert outrageous $um here). Make the outrageous sum high enough that they'd really think twice about what happens if the claims are reversed. Like I said, get your attorney to help protect your interests. 5) Consider joining a trade association. There are several out there. If this issue becomes a serious threat, you can bet they'll wade in on it. By the way, do you always SHOUT when trying to make a POINT about some SUBJECT? Once or twice and it can be effective. In every other sentence, it is annoying. __________________ Thorn Sex and Violence. You can't enjoy one, if you don't survive the other. (And that works both ways...)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-17-2004	#3 (permalink)
loopi Registered Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2	Agreed. But one look at this company and you'll see they don't EVEN mess around. And Patent litigation is hideously expensive, complex and drawn out. So, I think we need to come together quick before MOST folks cave and screw it up for everyone else, and we work this thing. Either that or just think of a better way to do hotspot authorizations. Me

10-24-2004	#5 (permalink)
Tunnelled Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Independence, MO Posts: 4	Patens require a prior art clause. If your redirect solution pre-dates theirs and was available as public knowledge, you fall under prior art and their claim is void.