In October of 2007 I received a request to license use of Patent 6,799,165, owned by Eimar M. Boesjes of Eugene, OR. Mr Boesjes is represented by Digital Patent LLC, located at 1754 Moonshadow in Eugene, Oregon, my home state. :-)

REASONS WHY THIS CASE WON'T HOLD UP Index Stock was selling images for photographers online as early as 1994!. Inaccuracy of Statements in the Patent Itself. The patent states: "In none of these network sites is there on-site storage of digitally transferable inventory of goods for immediate delivery of purchased goods over the network.":. This will be easy to prove wrong; follow some of the links below to find companies selling digital goods in 1996. I personally know the founders of ArtToday (the name was changed to clipart.com, which is now owned by Jupiter Media), who began selling digital goods in 1995. There is nothing original in patent 6,799,165. The methods were all in use and were obvious. That the patent office didn't recognize this is not unusual these days and it is not at all unusual to have a patent declared invalid. "A string of court decisions in recent years have largely limited the "means-for" clause to only cover the specific implementation of an idea listed in the patent" Precedence: None of these prior, overly-broad, extortion-type patents have held up. We are building a strong, wide and diverse coalition of people and companies to fight this patent by providing evidence and financial support.

Digital Patent LLC appears to have the same address as this company, owned by one Eimar M. Boesjes. Moonshadow eCommerce is the front to make it look like there is a thriving, prosperous business ready to throw lots of money into a lawsuit, but it quickly becomes obvious that this is all a sham intended to scare small business owners out of their hard-earned money; of course, that's just my opinion, you should form your own opinion.

I live in Oregon and will soon be paying a visit to this location to find out exactly who or what is located there...stay tuned.

I have been making a living online since 1995 and I can probably provide enough evidence and testimony on my own to invalidate this patent, however I have been doing a bit of research and in only a few hours worth of work have come up with lots of info that lead me to believe that this patent has no chance whatsoever of being upheld in court. My research into the people behind this patent leads me to believe that no serious lawsuits will be forthcoming, especially when they begin to understand that they may end up having to pay legal fees for both sides.

HOW TO CHANGE YOUR SELLING SYSTEM SO THAT THIS PATENT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU The patent states, "...the remotely located provider can upload a set of digitally transferable goods to and store the set of digitally transferable goods in the corresponding assigned provider area of the storage and distribution region". WHOOPS! We commingle all of our "goods" together and not in an area exclusively for the "provider". This should be a simple out for anyone to use. ANOTHER OUT: "...causing in response to a purchase order made by the shopper a transfer of an ordered member item of the set of digitally transferable goods by downloading to the shopper the ordered member item by way of the globally accessible computer network from the storage and distribution region":. We can simply cause each sale to be directed to a person who will then ok that license prior to sending the image link. This seems like a good idea regardless and we will probably implement it within a few weeks but it is a sure out should this patent go to court. I'll stop here at this point and update this in the future but there appear to be many ways to invalidate this patent as it applies to you or I.

Regardless, let me make it clear that under no circumstances will I pay for a license and I will gladly shut my small business down or change the way I do business before I will pay a penny to use methods and techniques I developed myself based on what was in common use in 1995 or 1996.

If you are worried about being sued over patent 6,799,165, read some of the articles below, especially this one, and you will see that this patent is absurd; at least you will if you were online and making a living at it in the years prior to this patent application.

IT IS VITAL THAT NOBODY GIVE IN TO THESE PARASITES!

I am interested in hearing from others who have been contacted about this patent and will respect your wish to remain anonymous or I can pass on your name to interested parties, if you so desire.

Fred Voetsch - email
Owner - Acclaim Images, LLC
711 East Main St STE 24
Medford, OR 97504
541-618-8723


Links of Interest

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Index Stock was selling images for photographers online as early as 1994!.

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Corbis sells digital image downloads in 1997.

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Shareware.com was selling digital downloads for other people in 1996 and earlier.

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   The Image Works is licensing images online as of May 1998.

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Netscape was selling Navigator software online in 1996 and earlier

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Article about patent 6,799,165 and Digital Patent LLC.

NEW! POSTED 1-27-08   Read about PanIP and the future of Digital Patent LLC.

Information about this patent.

This article sums it up nicely. This patent will not hold.

Another article that brings to light what this is all about...MONEY. Notice that this other patent has largely been invalidated as patent 6,799,165 will be if they're foolish enough to bring it to trial.

My old friends, Arttoday, were doing this in 1997 (actually they went online in 1995). I was an affiliate. A quote from the site, "Order on-line and start downloading immediately!"

The owners of Iclipart are the same people who started ArtToday. They were selling digital downloads long before this patent was even applied for.

Webshots in 1996...selling digital downloads. I was an affiliate of theirs years before patent 6,799.165 was even applied for.

A thread about Patent 6,799,165

Digital Patent LLC

This site says it all...FAILURE!

An Interesting Article that Digital Patent LLC would do well to read: "Technology Patents' lawsuit will likely have to overcome new standards for "obviousness" in technology patents resulting from a recent Supreme Court decision."

An article of interest. Quote: "By rejecting the CAFC's rigid application of the TSM test, the Supreme Court likely has made it easier for a patent to be invalidated as obvious."

An article on "Prior Art".

Article: When is an invention obvious?