Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : TSIG.com TIGI (formerly TSIG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walter Morton who wrote (16134)	1/31/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: TOPFUEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 44908

Walter if anything I say amplified.com will be liable for this . David

To: Walter Morton who wrote (16134)	1/31/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: REW	Respond to of 44908

Damn!! I'll bet when RG finds out he shuts the doors.

To: Walter Morton who wrote (16134)	1/31/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: TOPFUEL	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 44908

Walter I see Amplified.com mentioned not TSIG so where do you get TSIG will be in court soon and another thing read the whole NEWS release there may be nothing that sightsound.com could do anyway.. Sightsound.com, a tiny company that owns a patent for selling music through online downloads, is demanding that other music companies pay licensing fees or face patent-infringement lawsuits. The Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania, company has already sent formal warnings to some music sites, including MP3.com, one of the main hubs for downloading music files. "We're highly confident in the validity of our intellectual property," said Scott Sander, chief executive at Sightsound.com. "We have two US patents that control the sale of downloadable music. We're not trying to slow [the Internet music industry] down. We're trying to speed it up." But some companies said they'll challenge Sightsound.com's patents and put up a serious fight before paying licensing fees. The brewing fight once again raises the question of how competent the US Patent and Trademark Office is in handing out exclusive rights to basic technologies underlying the Internet. If Sightsound.com's patents are upheld in court, it could exact a toll from the entire online music industry. That prospect hasn't been lost on the traditional music industry. The Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA, no friend to the online music movement, said Sightsound.com very likely will have to fight to get its money. "At this point, the validity of these patents is almost certain to be challenged," said an RIAA spokeswoman. She declined to say whether the association would file suit. Sightsound.com creates Web sites for other companies that want to sell music online. It claims its patents cover the idea of selling audio and video files through downloads. On Wednesday, Sightsound.com sent cease and desist letters to four Internet music companies including MP3.com, Platinum Entertainment (PTET), GoodNoise (GDNO), and Amplified.com. Walt Wheres TSIG mentioned here ????? Christopher Reese, vice president and general counsel for Sightsound.com, asked the sites to either pay a 1 percent royalty on all revenue from online music sales, or to "immediately cease and desist." ontinued "They didn't do their homework," said Michael Robertson, president of MP3.com. Robertson said his site doesn't infringe on the patents because it doesn't sell music files or players over the Net. MP3.com, which runs a record label, offers free downloads to promote the physical CDs it sells. "This is nothing more than a money play." Robertson said he doesn't know what he'll do next. Meanwhile, other companies are willing to go along, just to avoid legal hassles. "It seemed like good insurance," said Howie Singer, chief technology officer at a2b, a music software publisher that agreed to go along with Sightsound.com's request last June. This isn't the first time Sightsound.com has tried to enforce its patents. The company is suing Web CD retailer N2K over its e-mod software for playing downloadable music. It's also not the first time a controversial patent has embroiled a lucrative niche of the technology industry. Online auctioneer Priceline.com, for example, has patented the idea of applying reverse auctions to the Internet. Some experts say the patent office was wrong to give one company exclusive rights to the digital form of an idea pervasive before the Internet existed. In general, the patent holder usually has the legal advantage. But in this case, a defendant likely will be able to show in court that the idea of downloadable music was floating around before Sightsound.com patented it. "There's a good chance there's [prior] art out there to bust the thing," said Greg Aharonian, a patent consultant. Earlier Internet-like technologies like France's Minitel and Videotext, a failed interactive TV project in the early 1980s, flirted with the idea of sending music through electronic networks, for example. Even venerable Bell Labs experimented with online jukeboxes. "Based on a very preliminary review of the patents, I think they probably could be attacked a number of different ways," said Brad Biddle, counsel for MP3.com. HotBot has a marketing agreement with Z Company, the parent company of MP3.com. Wired Digital owns both Wired News and HotBot.

To: Walter Morton who wrote (16134)	1/31/1999 10:33:00 PM
From: FREAKAZOID	Respond to of 44908

Moron-->First of all this does not pertain to TSIG. Secondly, What the hell were you and Ditch talkin about at happy hour? Third--> This small Co. is pissing in the wind. If they think they own intellectual properties concerning downloadable music they need a new lawyer. ahhhh freak out!!

To: Walter Morton who wrote (16134)	1/31/1999 11:08:00 PM
From: Martin E. Frankel	Respond to of 44908

"IN COURT SOON?" Are you referring to yourself? SEC regulations are quite clear about posts such as yours. Posting a "banner" one liner such as you did speaks for itself, but I'm sure your attorney can explain it to you. You knew only too well that it has no bearing or relationship to TSIG. You posted this same "information" on other threads, but without the "threatening" headline. And, strangely, you didn't post the following URL on your TSIG post: Subject 25333