Two-Way Media Files Patent Suit Against Akamai, Limelight, AT&T

On April 11th, Colorado based Two-Way Media filed suit against Akamai, Limelight Networks and AT&T over a series of patents entitled "multicasting method and apparatus". (patent description below) While this is just one of many patent suits taking place in the content delivery sector, there are a few unique details about this one to watch. For starters, Two-Way Media first filed suit against AOL and after a successful Markman ruling in their favor, AOL settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. That by itself does not mean anything as it may have been easier for AOL to settle rather than pay legal costs, but the fact they settled after a ruling is a bad sign.

Even more interesting in my eyes is that the main patent, number 5778187 was filed in 1996 and was licensed by Two-Way Media to Cable & Wireless in the early days of the content delivery market. For those that remember, Sandpiper and Digital Island were some of the original CDNs that were acquired by Cable & Wireless. There is no way to know if Cable & Wireless licensed the patents because they felt they were valid or not, but the fact another CDN even licensed it makes this suit even more interesting.

Some may wonder why other CDNs are not mentioned in the suit and my guess is that it's the same reason most suits like this only name those showing a lot of revenue. Until a company is doing a certain level of revenue, there is no reason to really go after them. But you can expect that as more CDNs see revenue growth and the content delivery industry turns into a multi-billion dollar market over the years, CDNs are going to be inundated with patent suits. It's also interesting to note that once again, Level 3 seems to have a very clear strategy with regards to CDN patents and has no exposure to this patent either. Level 3 is covered under the original Cable & Wireless licensing deal with Two-Way Media through Level 3's acquisition of the SAVVIS content delivery business, which included their intellectual property.

Other CDNs aside from Level 3 could be in the cross hairs of companies like Two-Way Media, but at this time it's too early to know exactly who Two-Way Media and other patent holders may go after. And for those who say that some CDNs have no concern as they have made public statements saying they are not worried, what do you think they are going to say? No CDN is going to come out and tell Wall Street or investors, yes, this patent worries us. So unless a company comes out and address a specific patent and provides details as to why they feel they are not infringing, you really can't believe the corporate line of "we're not worried", unless of course you are Level 3.

Patent Abstract
A scalable architecture is disclosed for delivery of real-time information over a communications network. Embedded into the architecture is a control mechanism that provides for the management and administration of users who are to receive the real-time information. In the preferred embodiment, the information being delivered is high-quality audio. However, it could also be video, graphics, text or any other type of information that can be transmitted over a digital network. Preferably, there are multiple channels of information available simultaneously to be delivered to users, each channel consisting of an independent stream of information. A user chooses to tune in or tune out a particular channel, but does not choose the time at which the channel distributes its information. Advantageously, interactive (two-way) information can be incorporated into the system, multiple streams of information can be integrated for delivery to a user, and certain portions of the information being delivered can be tailored to the individual user.

Latest Update On Akamai/Limelight Patent Suit and Potential Limelight Sale

I have been getting a lot of requests for an update on the Akamai and Limelight patent suit, so here are the latest details I have. Last week, April 17th, Akamai filed a motion for permanent injunction against Limelight Networks. It's expected that a ruling on the injunction will come in the next few weeks and there is a pretty good chance that the motion will be granted. If that happens, Limelight is expected to file for and be granted a stay of that motion. Once that happens, it basically means that this suit will go on for at least another year, if not more, unless both parties come to an agreement, which I don't see happening.

While none of this is really news as this outcome has been expected since the jury ruling, I think that once all of the motions relating to the injunction are done, the two companies most interested in purchasing Limelight, AT&T and BT, could once again resume negotiations. In my eyes, it is just a matter of when Limelight will be acquired by a telco and not if. Shortly after the jury ruling, Limelight was offered a buyout for about $8 a share by a telco, which is a pretty good offering in my eyes. (I don't own any shares in Limelight or any other public company) Even at that price, Goldman, which owns just over 35 million shares last I checked, would still walk away with well over $100 million.

Limelight needs the resources of a larger company to really take their business to the next level and to accelerate revenue growth. They can still grow and maintain business as a stand alone company, but the resources of a larger company would give them a better shot in the market for the long run. Limelight is facing at least three patent suits by Akamai, Level 3 and Two-Way Media (more on Two-way later in the week) and at this rate, the lawsuits will take their toll on the company in terms of resources and focus, in addition to cash.

I hope for their sake and for the industry that Goldman isn't going to be too greedy and a deal can be worked out sooner rather than later. There is a huge gap between Akamai, Limelight and the number three CDN in the market in terms of revenue, and I think it's best for the industry to have as many top players as possible.

Akamai's 703 Patent Should Not Affect Microsoft, Does Not Apply To All Content

One point I think many are missing with regards to the 703 patent is that it only applies to part of Limelight's service offering. While the patent is very broad and potentially could mean more than just CDNs are infringing, think ad networks, web hosting companies etc... the patent only has to do with cached content that is delivered to a browser, which is the key point.

Live streaming, software downloads, application acceleration, delivery to a device etc... are not infringing as they are either not cached or not delivered to a browser. So not everything on Limelight's network is in violation of the 703 patent. I don't know what percentage of Limelight's traffic or revenue is outside of the 703 patent but that would be interesting to know.

As for Microsoft, many are thinking that Microsoft may now be worried since they licensed Limelight's technology. But what exactly did they license? Neither company has ever said. And since the 703 patent is very specific in what it covers, is Microsoft really worried that Akamai is going to come after them for licensing Limelight's technology? Of course not. And based on what exactly Microsoft licensed, it is very possible that it has nothing to do with anything pertaining to the Akamai and Limelight suit. It's all speculation at this point until someone says exactly what Microsoft licensed.

Why Level 3 Should Acquire Limelight Networks

While many seem to think I am crazy for thinking anyone would acquire Limelight, it would make sense for a company like Level 3. Yes, we all know Level 3 has had some problems with the integration of all the acquisitions it has made as of late. But putting that one hurdle aside, there are many reasons why this would make sense in particular for Level 3.

For starters, everyone seems to think that anyone acquiring Limelight would continue to operate their network. But for someone like Level 3 they don't need the Limelight network in operation. They need their sales reps, their customers, their revenue and their hardware. Transition as many customers as possible over to the Level 3 network and shut down the Limelight network. When Akamai acquired Speedera and Nine Systems they didn't keep those networks functioning. They took the customers and terminated the networks. Same thing happened when Internap bought VitalStream.

I don't think anyone would argue that you could do all of that overnight. It does take time and requires a great deal of work, but it's not difficult considering the product Limelight is selling to customers is very straight forward without a lot of customization. And any company that acquires Limelight would probably lose 20-25% of the customer base anyway so you'd be talking about having to migrate roughly 750 customers. That's not rocket science.

Would a company that buys Limelight have to pay some sort of royalty to Akamai while they transition the customers over and shut down the Limelight network? Maybe. But they might also use the appeal process to do all of that by the time the appeal goes to court and then show that they have terminated the product that was in question.  If that were to happen, I would expect Akamai would then file suit against Level 3 for the same 703 patent, which in my eyes they have not done to date as Level 3 has not been a serious threat to Akamai yet.

Some also say that Level 3 could not do this as they are not a real player in the CDN space and don't have the network to transition the customers to. That's incorrect. They have more customers for CDN than most realize, are continuing to add capacity each quarter and will become the number three CDN this year based on CDN revenue in the U.S. They are very quickly becoming a real option in the space and with the integration of the Vyvx products and the applications they acquired when they bought Servecast, they are laying the ground work for a true eco-system offering of more than just shipping bits.

Most would say that by Level 3 buying Limelight it would make them a target for a suit by Akamai. But they are missing the bigger picture. Level 3 is already lining itself us for a patent suit by Akamai. Based on the broad interpretation of the 703 patent, every CDN is already in violation. So why hasn't Akamai gone after Level 3 or any of the others? Simple. Even for Akamai a lawsuit is a lot of work and costs money. They are not going to go after any CDN until the CDN is a real threat to them in the market and doing enough revenue to make it worth their time. Cable and Wireless was around for years before Akamai went after them. Speedera was too. It wasn't until Speedera was getting traction in the market and revenue before the suit was filed.

And look at Limelight. Limelight was founded in 2001, yet Akamai didn't file the suit until five years later, when they were doing some real revenue and had become a real competitor to Akamai. Level 3 acquiring Limelight does not make them more of a target as they are already in the cross hairs and Level 3 knows it.

When Level 3 bought the SAVVIS/Cable & Wireless CDN assets they were buying a large patent portfolio to go along with the 800+ other patents in their portfolio. Clearly Level 3 knew what they were buying, knew the outcome of the Cable & Wireless and Akamai lawsuit and they would have spent a lot of time examining what their legal exposure may be with the patents before the acquisition. Based on Level 3 buying going through with buying the assets, they clearly feel they are prepared to defend whatever comes their way.

Is it an easy deal for Level 3? No. But it's not a crazy one and with the right pieces in place, Level 3 becomes the number two CDN overnight in terms of revenue and customers. And for all the people who still want to say how successful Akamai was in the Cable & Wireless suit, remember that Akamai sued Digital Island who was then bought by Cable & Wireless even though Digital Island was being sued. And we don't know how "successful" Akamai was in that suit as Cable & Wireless went bankrupt in the U.S. before any of the rulings were appealed. The one time cash payment by Cable & Wireless to Akamai was made in the final days of them closing down operations in the U.S. and was a small enough amount that Akamai didn't even need to mention it in any of their filings. (At least not that I could find)

And even with the ruling two years after the suit started, C&W said, "The injunction is a legal technicality about a legacy part of the CDN that was abandoned some time ago". So the idea that someone like Level 3 could take what they need and shut down the Limelight network is completely possible.

The biggest hurdle I see to this is the debt that Level 3 has and the problems they have had with all the integrations in the past. Those could potentially be deal breakers that keep this from happening. But if all the right pieces fall into place, Level 3 could make out nicely acquiring Limelight and propelling itself to the number two spot in the market.

If Not Acquired, Limelight May Work With Other CDNs To Fight Akamai's 703 Patent

Why there is a lot of speculation on exactly what may happen to Limelight in terms of a potential acquisition, my bet is on AT&T or Level 3, there is also the possibility that Limelight may team up with other CDNs to fight Akamai's 703 patent if they are not acquired.

At the core of the 703 patent is the idea that Akamai has essentially patented all forms of delivering content on the web. Based on the ruling today, the court is basically saying that any content publisher that has a website with ANY embedded object (not just video) that is not delivered under the control of the content producer is infringing on the 703 patent. There was some very specific working about this in the ruling today and I will publish the exact wording shortly when I have the transcript.

Don't be surprised if Limelight rallies other CDNs to the patent fight under the belief that the 703 patent is too broad and is essentially patenting all content delivery on the Internet.

Limelight Will Appeal Ruling: Could Be Acquired Shortly

I expect Limelight Networks will appeal today's ruling and by so doing, will get a stay on the injunction ruling until the appeal can at least be heard. So for the mean time, it will be business as usual for Limelight and they won't be forced to shut down.

That being said, discussions are underway about Limelight being acquired by a larger player in the space who would then fight Akamai in court over the ruling. Limelight does not have a lot of resources to fight such a ruling nor an extensive patent portfolio so they are limited in what they can do.

While rumors have been circulating about Limelight being acquired by Microsoft, I am predicting it would be AT&T or Level 3. Talks are intensifying about the acquisition and I put the chance at over 50%.

Updated: Limelight has just announced they will appeal the ruling.

Akamai Awarded $45.5 Million In Patent Ruling Against Limelight Networks

A few hours ago, a ruling came down in the Akamai and Limelight Networks patent suit awarding Akamai $45.5 million dollars finding that Limelight Networks infringed on Akamai's patents. Akamai is also asking the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Limelight from continuing to sell CDN their services.

While the damage claims are not that big of a deal in terms of the size of settlement Limelight would have to pay, the real question is what Limelight does next. There are a few potential things that could happen which are all going to be based on whether or not the court issues an injunction in Akamai's favor. If Akamai gets the injunction, Limelight options will be limited as they won't have a lot of time to stay an injunction.

Limelight might be able to find a work around on its network to avoid the infringing patent and could always potentially come to some kind of licensing terms with Akamai, but my guess is that they already have a work around on their network to avoid the infringement. They have known about the suit for a long time and hopefully, have prepared different plans to put into action once the ruling came out.

P2P Session: Speakers and Content Suggestions Wanted

In May, I've got a panel at Streaming Media East entitled "P2Ps Role In Delivering Online Video" and I am looking for speakers and suggestions on the content. What core topic or facet should the session really drill down on? What are the most pressing issues with P2P and who would make for good speakers?

At our last show, we did a whole P2P session with just vendors, so this year around I am looking to have speakers from non-vendor companies. Customers, ISPs, legal experts etc.... is the angle I am thinking of but am open to ideas. I am also looking for a really good moderator that is not employed by a P2P vendor.

Please leave content suggestions and topics in the comments section and contact me if you want to speak or know of a good speaker/moderator. Anyone who is helpful in securing speakers will receive a free conference pass to the event.

AP Article: How Internet Video Is Clogging the Pipes

I can't figure out why we still have to read an article every few months talking about how online video is clogging the Internet. Last week the AP published an article titled "How Internet Video Is Clogging the Pipes". It's basis for the argument is that ISPs like Comcast and Time Warner Cable are shaping traffic due to file sharing. Ok, but what does that have to do with online video? Sharing files that may or may not contain video content is not "online video". Sharing a file via a download from one user to another does not involve the playback of any video online, it's played back locally from the users computer.

Yet, after saying that file sharing is the problem, the article then says that "Internet use keeps climbing, with video being the big driver in recent years. Google Inc.'s YouTube, which started up in 2005, already accounts for about 10 percent of Internet traffic." First, is there anyone out there besides the company who produced that report that believes that YouTube accounts for 10% of all traffic passed on the Internet? And second, how can you compare file sharing to YouTube? They are two different types of traffic. File sharing is usually very large files and most times at very high quality. YouTube is short form content at very low quality.

My point is that we keep having to read articles every few months about how online video is supposedly breaking, clogging, or filling the pipes to the point that the Internet is going to come to a halt. There is no data anywhere to back this up. Yes, video traffic has grown and continues to each year, but it has been doing that for the past 10+ years. Online video is not clogging the Internet and I have yet to see anyone with any real data to back up the theory that online video is going to fill up all of the capacity the Internet has to offer.

Breaking News: Court Throws Out Two Patents In Akamai/Limelight Patent Case

While I don't have all the details yet, within the past hour, the court has issued a preliminary ruling throwing out two of the three patents named in the Akamai suit. I'm being told that only the 703 patent will be going to court. I'll post more details as I get them. I expect we'll see an announcement tonight.

Limelight put out a press release a few hours after this post. You can read it here.

Level 3 Patent Filing Against Limelight Networks CDN Now Online

I've gotten a hold of the filing and all of the documents associated with the Level 3 patent infringement suit against Limelight Networks as it pertains to Limelight's CDN offering. (Download Suit)

The filing talks to four CDN specific Level 3 patents including 6,185,598 - 6,473,405 - 6,654,807 - 7,054,935 some of which were originally granted to Sandpiper Networks back in 1998. After quickly reading through all of the documents two major things come to light.

The first is that the filing states that Level 3 sent Limelight a letter in February of 2007 informing Limelight of various patents owned by Level 3 that pertain to content delivery. Level 3 believes that after Limelight received knowledge of these Level 3 patents that Limelight did not re-design its CDN offering to avoid the claims of the Level 3 patents. While I don't expect Limelight to be able to talk about the suit publicly, the fact that Limelight had knowledge of the patents for nearly all of 2007 and didn't feel the need to license the patents from Level 3, that would leave one to think that Limelight feels it is not infringing on the patents or feels strongly that the patents will not hold up in court. UPDATE: On Monday Dec. 31st, Limelight issued a statement saying they "believe that these allegations are without merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously."

The second thing to note in the filing is that Level 3 says it is suffering damages in "an amount not yet determined" and as of the filing, Level 3 is not asking for any specific amount in damages.

For those who I know are going to ask, I don't expect this suit to stop any potential customers from using Limelight networks. The CDN space has seen many patent suits over the past 10 years and typically, customers don't have any real concern as nearly all of the major CDNs have gone through patent suits at one time or another.

Note: While I have worked as a consultant and expert witness on various patent suits pertaining to IP based video, I am not working on this case and have never worked on any lawsuit involving any content delivery network.

Level 3 Files Suit Against Limelight Networks Over CDN Patents

This morning, Google indexed a filing from December 17th from Level 3 Communications who filed a patent infringement suit against Limelight Networks (Case number 2:2007cv00589) in the District Court of Virgina. I have not been able to get a copy of the filing as of yet but I was able to speak to Level 3 about the filing this morning.

While Level 3 is not giving out many details of the suit, as is common in these cases, they were able to confirm that the patent(s) in question were acquired by Level 3 from SAVVIS as part of the sale of SAVVIS's CDN assets. Level 3 would not say how many patents are in question or give out patent numbers at this time, but they did say that the infringement relates specifically to content distribution. They would not say what kind of content distribution, video, static, applications etc... but were willing to say that the patent(s) in question have never been previously asserted in any patent infringement case.

Level 3 has over 850 worldwide patents and patent applications in their portfolio and did say that when they decided to get into the CDN business that they viewed having patents pertaining to the product as being a key factor that would help determine their long term success. At this time, Level 3 would not comment on any other networks who might be infringing on their patents or speculate on additional infringement cases.

I've put in a request to Limelight Networks and will update the post if I hear from them this weekend. I also expect to have a copy of the filing shortly and am looking to see what records exist that talk about the SAVVIS patents, which really comes from the Cable and Wireless patents that SAVVIS acquired.

Acacia Technologies Acquires Rights To Patent For Video Editing Technology

Yesterday, Acacia Technologies announced that it has acquired rights to a patent relating to video editing technology. The press release says that the "patented technology generally relates to altering video streams in real time to remove portions of an original image and substitute elements to create a new image. This technology can be used to digitally change the background of a video image without using traditional blue screen techniques."

I'm trying to get more details on the patent number(s) but so far, Acacia is not providing any of that info. As anyone who has followed the online video industry may remember, Acacia Technologies was the firm that hit many in the market with letters claiming that their DMT (Digital Media Transmission) patents were being infringed upon and covered just about every form of video delivery over IP. For more on Acacia you can visit the special patent section on the StreamingMedia.com website at www.streamingmedia.com/patent

You can also learn more about other companies aggressively pursuing patents as potential revenue generators in my article from June entitled "Digital Media Patents for Profit".

(image credit: photo of CEO Paul Ryan from the Orange County Register)

Last Week's Overlooked News Items

Last week was a busy one for news. By now, everyone has already read many articles about the Microsoft and Adobe announcements along with many other mainstream news from IBC. In addition to the major announcements, there were some news stories and articles less mainstream that I found of interest.

• From Rich Miller over at DataCenterKnowledge.com, which is a great blog about the data center industry, Rich has a post from last week entitled "Dueling Data on Volume of P2P Traffic" which talks to some new data released in the market that about what percentage of traffic on the Net comes from P2P. Lots of competing data, lots of different results.

• From the last100.com website, a post from last week entitled "11 video download stores compared" gives a good detailed overview of the services lack of innovation and technology choices on how they are implementing DRM.

• Scott Kirsner, who runs the CinemaTech blog is putting on a class entitled "Digital Distribution and Marketing" at The Film Arts Foundation in San Francisco. The class will be featuring a lot of case studies and Scott's asking for help in spreading the word. I am always up for helping to promote anyone who is trying to educate the industry. Don't know if Scott is still looking for good case studies, you can contact him at his website.

• There was plenty of talk last week about how the Justice Department said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic. Some sites already covered the news, but if you have not read about, do so now. It's important.

• Chris Albrecht over at NewTeeVee.com had a great post last week entitled "What Constitutes an Online Hit?" where he addresses the problem with the way video sites measure traffic. Chris addresses a great question and one that I have been complaining about forever when it comes to online video metrics. This industry lacks any and all standards.

Digital Media Patents For Profit In The Online Video Industry

I've covered the topic of patent litigation in the past as it pertains to the online video industry and from recent announcements, it shows no sign of slowing down. Acacia's not the only company aggressively pursuing these hot patents as potential revenue generators, and target companies need a sound response strategy should Acacia or any other firm come looking for licensing fees.

Last week, Nokia filed a counter-infringement lawsuit against Qualcomm accusing them of infringing on six patents in Nokia's MediaFlo mobile TV service amongst other things.

In May, Streamcast Networks was seeking an injunction against Joost and also last month, Media Rights Technologies and BlueBeat.com issued cease and desist letters to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and RealNetworks over technology that controls access to copyrighted material.

Tracking all of the litigation taking place that pertains to video over IP continues to be very important and staying on top what is taking place is crucial if you are involved in video. It is important that you and your customers are aware of how this is and will continue to affect the online video industry. Suppliers and vendors in the IP video industry as well as content creators need to have the background information to make eductaed business decisions. With that in mind, myself and the Analysis Group wrote a featured article for the Streaming Media sourcebook that covers this topic.

The article, entitled, "Digital Media Patents for Profit", can be read on StreamingMedia.com and gives an overview of what all companies should be aware of.

FCC Probe: Net Neutrality Goose Chase?

When it comes to the issue of Net neutrality, we've got a long way to go before we really know how it is all going to play out. There's a good article by Catherine Holahan on BusinessWeek.com that gives some details on the inquiry the FCC launched on March 22nd into the practices of broadband providers. It's a short piece that gives an overview of the topic from a high-level. It's a good read for someone who needs to understand what is at stake and how to explain to others what is being debated with Net neutrality.

Patent Reform Ruling Will Affect All IP Video Industries

Excellent, excellent article by David Kappos today over at BusinessWeek Online talking about the need for patent reform. David gives details on the upcoming ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that is likely to have big implications for everyone affected by patents, including the online video industry.

I have been doing a lot of work for the past few years on patent litigation issues as it pertains to patents covering many different forms of digital media distribution to many different IP based devices. Having worked on numerous cases, I've been able to see first hand just how much our industry is being affected by patents and more importantly, the patent system. Without a doubt, the U.S. patent system is hurting many industries, not just our own.

Please read the article and keep yourself informed of what is taking place regarding patent litigation for our industry. It not only has an affect on you but in many cases it also affects your customers. I get many calls from your customers asking me patent related questions or even just a general overview of what is taking place. While I am happy to answer as many of these questions as possible, you still need to be aware from at least a high-level of what is going on and should be able to speak to your customers about what is taking place.

Cablevision Loses Suit on Network DVRs: Movie Studios Still Don't Get It

Last week, a judge ruled against Cablevision in a suit filed by Hollywood studios and broadcasters who claimed that Cablevision's new network based digital video recording device would have broken copyright laws.

Last year, Cablevision announced plans to network digital video recorders which would have allowed cable customers to be able to record and playback shows through a regular cable box without the need to have a DVR cable box with a hard drive.

In the suit, Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, CNN and Turner Broadcasting System claimed that Cablevision's service would amount to an additional re-broadcast of their programs which they have not given permission for. Cablevision argued that since the the customer was in control of the recording and playback of the programs, and not Cablevision, that the devices were compliant.

Once again, the movie studios refuse to let customers decide how and when they consume content. When are these content companies going to realize that if they don't give customers control, they won't grow their business? The major studios keep complaining about the decline of DVD sales, the decline of theater ticket sales and the problem of illegal movie downloads, yet their own greed is keeping them from growing their business since they refuse to listen to what consumers want. Content isn't king, the customer is king.

A Brief Guide to Online Video Lawsuits

I was going to write an in-depth post about all of the lawsuits taking place surrounding major video sharing sites, but Steve Bryant over at reelpopblog.com already beat me to it with a post entitled "A Brief Guide to Online Video Lawsuits". He gives details on lawsuits and subpoenas against Veoh, Bolt, Grouper, YouTube, Google Video and MySpace. Head on over to his site to read it.

Steve will be moderating a panel at the Streaming Media East show in May about "User-Generated Content Tools".

Acacia Technologies DMT Patents Still Need To Be Watched

For the past 3 years, StreamingMedia.com has been closely watching and covering Acacia Technologies and their Digital Media Transmission (DMT) patents and what this may mean to content owners and online video vendors. While we are not lawyers or providing legal counsel, we have been leading the charge to educate readers with the information they need to make an informed business decision regarding these patents via a dedicated section on our website at www.streamingmedia.com/patent

If you are a content owner or a vendor in the online video industry and have never heard of Acacia Technologies, then you need to do some catch up on your reading.

Very simply, Acacia claims they hold patents on streaming, downloading and just about every form of digital audio and video distribution out there--including pushing MP3s from peer-to-peer groups, streaming newscasts from Internet radio sites and delivering movies through cable networks.

Yesterday, Law.com published a great article by Xenia Kobylarz entitled "Extreme Makeover: From Patent Troll to the Belle of the Ball" which gives a great update on Acacia's growing momentum. I also wrote an article with the Analysis Group for the latest edition of the Streaming Media magazine which can be found here.

If you don't know about Acacia, educate yourself, educate your customers and help them educate their customers. This can have a ripple effect in a good way if everyone passes along the information needed to stay informed about what is going on with Acacia.

Network Neutrality Debate Still Needs To Be Watched and Fought

You haven't heard a whole lot lately about the network neutrality debate that was widely covered in the press months ago. Aside from the FTC conference discussing the topic last week, in which nothing new was really talked about, the topic seems to have disappeared from people's minds that I speak to.

Someone gave me a call the other day and asked why StreamingMedia.com has not delivered a strong opinion on the matter on our website aside from the articles we have written about the subject. While I have always had a strong opinion on it and feel that neutrality is crucial, it's also important for our readers to know that nearly no one will talk to us on record about it. To me, this is a big mistake. Too many companies are willing to tell me off-the-record about how it will hurt them but they won't make that info public. If you think this is really bad for your business, which is would be, then stand up and make that clear in a public forum. Better yet, get together all of the other vendors in the industry and pool your press and media resources to get the word out to the media and tell them just how bad this is for your business and for consumers.

Many network companies are all working together to try and make this idea sound rationale and so far, only the big guys like Google, Yahoo! etc... are the only ones publicly opposing this. The smaller guys have just as much say in this if not more. To the vendors I say, how long are you going to wait before you start to really fight this? There is strength in numbers and the time is now.