Slashdot Mirror
All Encompassing Patents
SpicyMcHaggas writes "Looks like another bogus lawsuit over an incredibly broad patent on something that already exists. StarChamber, an online strategy and collectible card game seems to be one of the infringing factors, along with a player ranking system on the site. The patent supposedly covers any sort of ranking system that indicates a player's proficiency in said game. This sort of practice is what deters would-be great games from making it into the gaming world."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Like arcade game high scores? Wouldn't that be prior art, or is there something more specific about this patent?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Someone should patent patents and make this madness stop!
When did patent holders forget that one cannot patent an "obvious or pre-existing" idea?
It all gets back to lawyers...who are bored. Perhaps if we gave them shovels and told them to make a hole, they would have less time to create frivolous lawsuits. Seriously, though, it might be time to expand the definitions of barratry, and start prosecuting people...although then you end up having lawsuits about lawsuits...
" For example, claim 92 of the '560 Patent covers the playing of a game over a communication network, such as the Internet, where multiple instances of a game are transmitted over the Internet between multiple players and a gaming website and some of these instances may overlap in time. Also, users' rankings may be transmitted from the gaming website to the users, where the rankings are indicative of the users' proficiency in playing the game for which the users' ranks are being displayed, and where the rankings are updated. "
If Im reading this right, they should be suing WoTC, Blizzard, and, well, everybody... Problem is this guy isnt dumb enough to go after somebody who can fight back... Wonder what the chances of getting the EFF or someone similair involved is...
"This sort of practice is what deters would-be great games from making it into the gaming world."
You make this claim as if this is something that has been looming over the gaming industry for years, but frankly, it's not, and chances are there is tons of prior art to boot. Let's all remember that the USPTO's job is to deal with paperwork, not to deal with prior art; that's what the courts are for.
If Al Gore had patented the Internet instead of inventing it, he'd be in much better shape.
Why, he might be rich enough to buy himself the Presidency. Worked for Steve Forbes, didn't it?
I have yet to read the patents themselves... just the supposed letter. But we were doing this with CyberStrike in the early 80's, AirWarrior and BattleTech Online even earlier than CS. If it has to be a web site in play, rather than an online service (such as GEnie), then I imagine AirWarrior would qualify as Prior Art, no? It was on the web before CS and did the whole ranking thing too. Need to go see the application date of the patent(s) now.
I of course, must reserve judgement until I study the actual patents in question. It always hurts to do this, they are written to obfuscate. As a side note to the whole patent mess, I think plain english contract law concepts should be adopted for patent descriptions.
David Whatley
Like slashdot karma?
Sounds like slashdot could be in the line of fire.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
So, if there is a patent on numerical ranking systems for games, I say we defrost Ted Williams and sue his .400-hitting ass .... err, head.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
*we* admit no such thing. Software patents are a very bad thing. See Bruce Perins recent article on the subject.
"This sort of practice is what deters would-be great games from making it into the gaming world."
Actually, I don't think it does. Can someone name a game that hasn't been made due to broad patent that patents something pre-existing?
KARMA TAG! You're it.
Sure, one bad patent, OK. But overall, we must admit, that patents generally are a good thing. This is just an exception to the rule.
Yeah, long live software patents. They rock.
Yeah, but it's getting increasingly obvious that the system 1) has gaping holes, and 2) said gaping holes are being increasingly exploited by non-creative, non-productive individuals. The people who exploit these loopholes really contribute nothing; they are mostly parasitic and have little to no ability of their own.
* Note: I'm talking about people like PanIP, etc. who obviously do not plan on creating anything useful except a business around patent litigation.
In supposedly unrelated news, Slashdot has done away with the Karma system for ranking members of its online community.
How can you "patent" something so blindingly, mind-numbingly obvious as a rating.... A patent has to be 'non-obvious to an expert in the field' or words to that effect.
I believe about 2000 years ago, the olympic athletes were awarded gold, silver, and bronze medals......
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Sometimes you shouldn't say words.
The Patent Office is hiring patent examiners in the Computer Science Field. We've seen the hard, comprehensive work of patent examiners profiled on Slashdot many times. Don't pass up this opportunity to join the U.S. Government Team. You too could be the subject of a future /. post!
Who do they have in the patent office that is approving these things? Kind of sad that government workers that get paid nothing have some much power.
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
Some may wonder why they would go after Starchamber (I guess some relatively obscure online game) rather than, say, the EverQuests of the world. But this is the basic strategy of patent sniping: Go after really small guys who cannot and will not fight. Get them to license. Even do a deal where you trade licenses so it's zero-cost. The reason: If you have people already licensing your IP, then you give credibility to your claim. Weight.
:)
Next step, move up the food chain. Keep trying to get more licenses so you are armored when it comes time to go after the big boys.
Secondly, you don't want to go after someone with obvious prior art.
My understanding is the patents are specific to casino games. Not sure why they went after Starchamber in particular.
David Whatley
I guess it's flattering to be greeted by your own words when you click on a story, but it doesn't change the fact that this person, j0keralpha, completely plagiarized what I wrote a few months back on another patent story.
I wish I could prove this, but I can't list any comments beyond my last 24. Honestly, why would I accuse someone I don't know of plagiarism if it weren't true?
Shame on you, Mr. j0keralpha...
Eklypz
StarChamber Initiate
Joined: Jan 16, 2004
Posts: 2
Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:48 pm
Post subject:
Post it to slashdot. Maybe some one there can help ya
Back to top
yeah! But seriously, This has got to be one of the stupidest patents ever issued. Why not go after Microsoft's Zone.com or AOL's game area? I know I used to play Harpoon Online and Air Warrior on AOL, (many years ago, mind you) and they had player rankings.
...the ranking system sues YOU!!!
the problem isn't patents but what can be patented. you can patent, say, a rocket ship design but the core concept of setting fire to fuel to create force shouldn't be patentable.
maybe i should just patent f=ma and retire rich...
2 1337 4 u!
Excuse me, I have not read anything written by ESR or Bruce Perens (I actually do not even want to read about these so called theoricians and why I should worship them).
I'd like you to tell me the reason why a company could not patent something really innovative ?
For example, let's say Xerox had patented all of their software works, wouldn't it have been legitimate ?
I may have read thousands of times that "Apple [supposedly] infringed their ``intellectual property``" (Which Acorn also did by sending experts to teh PARC before issuing RiscOS^WArthur)
So, my point is : why patent should not describe a "digital process" to handle immaterial data ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Back when the web was really taking off, and everyone was talking about how liberating it was, and how empowering it was for small companies and individuals, I had in the back of my mind that somehow someone would come along and just ruin it.
I naturally assumed that it would be large corporations that would find a way to squeeze everything off the web that wasn't run by large corporations, but now I think that it's the patent trolls and the spammers that are going to slow the expansion and development of the web and other internet services to a crawl. No-one other than the big boys can do anything on the web without having to worry about someone popping up and saying, "Ah, hold it right there, I own the whole concept of what it is you're trying to do," and even the large corporations are being stung by this trend.
Oh, and BTW, according to youmaybenext.com, PanIP has been sending threatening notices to more small businesses, despite (or because of) the fact that their (his) e-commerce patent is currently being re-examined.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think i will patent letters of the alphabet next, therefore every website on the internet is infringing on my patent and I want 10 billion dollars.
who wants to be my lawyer, i may have to beat them off with a stick
Those who trade in their freedom for security, deserve neither.
Hasn't anyone sued u.s. patent office already? They are the guilty ones here.
Send all the lawyers to Iraq.
End of lawyer problem..
...Patent patents YOU!!!
Roses are red, violets are blue, most poems rhyme, but this one doesn't...
I usually despise the typical /. anti-patent, anti-trademark, anti-IP, anti-individual, Communist attitude, but it really is getting ridiculous now. Its all about shameless greed.
These "way, way too broad" type patents need to never be granted in the first place.
Duke Nukem Forever, we really wanted to release it, but this patent on ranking systems got us in the shorts.
For more information please look here.
I am doing my part - are you?
I know I'll probably get modded down for this, but what happens to the world when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially?
Even foreign governments.
Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world - both friends and foes of Linux and otherwise. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.
Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.
I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.
Custer's Revenge: The greatest video
Looks like the US patent office might be infringing on this patent:
"For CTAP and ICTAP, well qualified means that the applicant is eligible, qualified, and clearly exceeds qualification requirements for the position as demonstrated by either: (1) Meeting selective and qualify ranking factor levels as specified by the agency; or (2).."
What about The Pit and AutoDuel? I remember using the ol' 1200 baud modem to login and play these games... both of which had player rankings which were posted and transmitted from the central computer (website) to my personal computer.
Definitely before the "Internet". What year was this patent registered? It mentions the "net" as an example of game data transmission.
Never made it to the top of The Pit... but I'm not bitter (damn you Sheriff of Nottingham!!)
You basically can't patent something that's just "process on the internet". You have to invent a software method that's truly original (like say a new method of indexing/compressing).
I might know the perfect prior art to get this one stopped. The US Chess Federation (and international chess organizations too, I think) have kept rankings of players for decades. Newbies generally start out at 1000, and Grand Masters might get well over 2000. (I made it up to about the 1500 level). The rankings are based on the results of games between ranked players. Beating somebody improves your rating and losing to somebody lowers your rating - how much you increase or decrease your rating depends on the difference in ratings. Also, many rated games were performed over the ancient predecessor of the internet - the postal system.
From the artile:
/sarcasm
Additionally, many of the claims of the Goldberg Patents are not limited to games. For example, some claims of the Goldberg Patents are broadly directed to network-based persentations, i.e. changing advertising such as pop-up advertising or rotating banners, in connection with network services
With that being the case, why didn't they go after the pop-up spammers first?
because someone spills hot coffee on themself.
Please don't answer this troll. We've heard it all before.
Without an actual implementation in the flesh then hasn't a fundamental issue with patents been missed i.e. it has to have a working implementation at the time of filing.
This is what stops perpetual motion machines, time travel and other nonsensical patent attempts. Hell I'd be more than happy if someone got a patent on a perpetual motion machine as it certainly wouldn't have any prior art.
So far, I just read the claims for 5823879.
That one, at least, has only 2 really independent claims. One that is limited to card games, the second to advertising.
Go carefully claim by claim through the patents (you can skip all the nice pictures and go straight to the claims). If a claim starts with "a method as claimed in claim 18" and claim 18 does not apply, neither does the one that references it.
Next time, bother to read the facts. Troll. McDonald's was serving boiling coffee, and previously had 700 die from it.
...when the patent is ruled invalid.
Another story of how the sky is falling. It's not. That stupid patent hasn't deterred any "would-be great games from making it into the gaming world."
Stupid patents will happen. Some people on Slashdot currently get bent out of shape when they hear about a stupid patent, usually connecting it with the out of control lawyers. Well, guess what? It wasn't a lawyer who decided to apply for such a stupid patent. It was some jackass who thought they could capitalize on something. And they won't capitalize on anything.
As for anyone sued for infringement, it's the cost of doing business overall in a complicated world.
You aren't going to solve it or stop it from happening, so just move along. There's nothing to see here.
So can they sue the little guy so the have to settle which will give them more weight against a bigger player. I mean they have a slew to pick from, all the mmorpg's could be sued with this BS.
Don't ask me, I do think its funny they chose them instead of Sony or Mythic.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
You get permission to use the method. Business methods are patentable, which is what, on the surface, it appears was being pursued. Obviousness and prior art and perhaps extreme vaguery ought to invalidate much of the claims, I think.
For example, some claims of the Goldberg Patents are broadly directed to network-based persentations, i.e. changing advertising such as pop-up advertising or rotating banners...
did the lawyer sending the notice make that typo, or was the letter just transcribed wrong? i'm not sure i would pay a whole lot of attention to a lawyer who screwed up something that basic.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
If Xerox had its way anything and everything that has to do with OCR would be theirs. Ideas and innovation don't appear out of thin air, they come from other ideas and innovations so why should exclusivity be granted?
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Software Patents are BAD for everyone, except the few groups in society who profit from them (big companies, lawyers, patent offices, the state, etc.
See the FFII website for the complete story.
regards,
Walden.
ROFL! I just thought I would include this juicy little quote from the letter. Apparently, these people decided that, for all intents and purposes, they not only patented the concept of the High Score, but Internet gaming itself!
-Vendal Thornheart
Internet, eh?
You know, at this point in time the patent system is in such sorry shape that if I was considering inventing anything, I'd patent it. Even if it already had a patent out for it. Chances are you'd get it, it seems like. Even if you use it as more of a cover-your-ass thing instead of trying to take on other companies with it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you invent something you get it patented immediately, so that if you get sued for your item, you can turn around and show that you have a patent on it too. Now in a dream world this would be nice because if you got sued for a patent violation, you could countersue over the issue too. Then since you would both be under the gun for patent violations, the system would see how screwed up it was and reform itself so that it would work like it was supposed to.
But in reality, the person with deeper pockets would most likely win the lawyer battle. But it would be amusing to watch people countersuing each other over something when they both have patents over the same thing. How would you prove who is in the wrong, when both sides have valid patents?
Ah well, just something I've been thinking about lately. But you can bet if I ever came up with something I would patent it just to make sure that the law was on my side if someone ever tried to sue me over something I created. How else are you going to defend yourself these days?
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!
So, apparently he's patented all online capable gaming machines (and the networks) as well...
when they have taken their name from a really crappy Michael Douglas/Hal Holbrook film?
> > >We don't need no steeekin'.....oh wait, my wife says we do.
Well, IMHO, patenting software would appeal to something much more accurate as "one-click ordering"...
It'd involve huge complex algorithms along with an exhaustive study...
My point is not to encourage software patents, but rather to make these hard to get so that only the people who actually desserve to be patented will be.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
So, a person has a filing cabinet that stores invoices. These invoices are numbered. The person decides to sort his invoices by these numbers.
One day, he decides he's going to reorganize them by date. So, he thumbs through the files, comparing them two at a time. If one has an earlier date than the one before it, he switches their order, then checks backwards repeatedly, switching as many times as needed to put it in its place.
Tell me why the fuck a person should be able to patent something this fucking trivial if it's done digitally. There are a lot of things about computing that logical, obvious and are that way by design. This is why you aren't supposed to grant patents on things that are 'obvious to experts in the field.'
Now.. Apparently, we can patent using cookies indexed in databases to track user sessions and preferences, despite this being plainly obvious and the entire purpose of creating cookie technology in the first place.
There are a lot more examples I can name, would you like some?
Patents have a place, but 'doing X on a computer' doesn't deserve a patent, 9 of 10 times.
The European Parliaments's version however, completely bans software patents. It's this democratically constructed version of the directive (instead of the one written by the BSA and patent lawyers) that we in Europe are now defending and fighting for.
Donate free food here
If a lawyer's offense/defense can, in the slightest regard, be construed as dishonest or in bad faith, then the lawyer ought to be in danger of undergoing the fate the client would have in the case of a loss.
Or something similar. My point is this: I think the premise of the lawyer being the aggressive lawmucking servant of the plaintiff/defendant must be discontinued. There ought to be VERY strong incentives in the rules of litigation for the lawyer to encourage honesty and justice. With REAL CONSEQUENCES. With the current system, we have no shortage of shysters who can get away with warping the truth because hey, they're just the attorney. If we fix that, a lot of frivolous lawsuits should disappear. Imagine every SCO lawyer jumping ship very early in the game.
And I must inform all of you that you may be intruding on my patent for exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide across a thin, moist membrane. I'm gonna own all of you bitches!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
> So, my point is : why patent should not describe a "digital process" to handle immaterial data ?
Patents are a government granted monopoly, and serve a well defined purpose.
Because of them beign a government granted monopoly, patents by definition limit the freedom of peopel, and that is only reasonable to do when it serves its purpose.
The purpose is to give an incentive for inventing and discovering.
How does that work?
You invent something and get a patent.
For a limited amount of time, that patent grants you a monopoly on the usage of your invention. After this monopoly expires, everyone can freely implement your patent.
So far so good, this system seems to work and seems to serve both the inventor and society as a whole (society gets a usefull and freely implementable invention after a while)
The problem with software is that many inventions in software live waaay shorter then a patent, and as a result, society would only get usefull and outdated inventions when normal patents are applied to software. As a result,m the geenrally available technology will be outdated.
This disregards the fact that there is also a substantial number of patents that are too obvious and/or too broad, but that is a different matter, that is using the wrong criteria for software patents, not a reson not not want them at all.
I think that what I describe above is good reason to not have software patents, their lifetime would prohibit invention, or alternatively, if the lifetime would eb made reasonable, it woudl expire before being issued.
Unless the procedure can be simplified and can be handled in a few days or maybe weeks, there is simnply no way to have software patents that will not pose a huge hinderence on software invention.
Or do you really beklieve we'd be off better if Xerox was controlling who can implement a windowing system or use a mouse?
It is also a good idea to realize that during most of the so called IT revolution, software patents were not possible, and I really don't see where/how that hindered the technology from developing, so, I'd like to change your question:
Are there any good reasons for allowign software patents that are not completely outweighted by the problems they cause?
This sort of practice is what deters would-be great games from making it into the gaming world
I call bullshit.
Since 1992 -- http://www.chessclub.com/about.html#history
Online ratings and the works.
From what I can see, this appears to be the perfect prior art.
What should be obvious in this instance, and in many others, is that patents are proving to be an ever increasing barrier to creation and productivity. What's worse, is that the creativity that patents are shutting out is the creativity of the individual inventor, who is not able to afford million dollar lawyers to push his case. That is the exact opposite effect that patents should be having.
mailto:patent@blackjacktime.com
92. A method of playing a game on a communications network, comprising:
receiving at a game playing node on the network, a contact by each of a plurality of users, via a corresponding node on the network for the user, for initiating a corresponding instance of the game between the game playing node and the user's corresponding node, and at least some of said instances overlap in time;
transmitting game plays between said game playing node and a first of the users, for the corresponding instance of the game;
transmitting from the game playing node to the corresponding node of the first user, the ranking of a second of the users, wherein said ranking is indicative of a proficiency of the second user in playing the game, and said ranking is updated to present a change in said ranking while the first user is playing the game.
so in other words, pop-ups and spinny things are now illegal unless this guy says you can... hmm... maybe he has a patent on stuff showing up on your screen over a network...
where did the misspellings come from, anyway? I'm guessing they're just comming from somebody retyping the letter...
The real difference between invention and software patent is that software patents are mostly methods. An invention involves creating something non-trivial, where as methods only tell you how to use something already invented in a different manner. Examples: The telephone? Perfectly good invention. "Method for cat exercise" or "Method for maximum fun on a swing?" Not inventions at all, and should not be allowed by the Patent Office. Methods are the same thing as ideas, and you cannot patent ideas. As far as I'm concerned, patenting methods makes as much sense as patenting a recipe, which - as The Simpsons taught us - cannot be patented.
Almost all software patents should also be considered methods, because they're simply different uses of a tool that we already have: the computer. They are, if you will, different recipes for getting work done on a computer.
As far as this patent is concerned, coming up with a new ranking system is not an invention, it's an idea. I'm also fairly certain no one would be able to patent a specific method of tournament elimination, or alternate method of scoring for baseball or any other sport for that matter.
The USPO needs some serious re-vamping, sort of the opposite of the 1976(?) Copyright Act.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
I guess that Mr Golstein is one of those Lawyers who collect or submit bogus patents. If he is, doesnt he have to conform to certain ethical guidelines or risk being defrocked/disbarred or having his licence revoked.
Is there a regulatory body in the US, similar to The Law Society in the UK?
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
>>Starchamber.net enables multiple users to play games over the Internet, where instances of the game are transmitted from the gaming site to the usres, and these instances may overlap in time.
If this is an applet then even that in ina patent too
You Monday morning quarterbacks are all just mad that you were never clever enough to file a lucrative, all-encompassing patent. Go back to complaining about Windows XP.
IP datagrams don't care what country they come from. Guess they're going to have to host the code for claim 92 to Europe.
So, my point is : why patent should not describe a "digital process" to handle immaterial data
.
I'll bite.
Software patents are bad because
1: The life cycle of a patent is about 4-5 times longer than the life cycle of software.
2: Patent language does not fit well with software language. Patent language often fails to cover a specific algorithm in the lawyer's attempt to cover everything possible.
3: Given a single patented algorithm, its impossible to tell if a given program is using THAT algorithm, or some other method of performing the same task. The "business process" patnets currently touted and used as the model for software patents only cover processes, not results, yet the outcome of these patents is that everyone who obtains the same results is lawsuit bait. Companies will be sued and forced to open their source for scrutiny.
4: The USPTO is unable to handle the current patent process, empowering them with even more oversight is certainly not what I'd call punishment for its failure to operate properly.
5: In the event of failure in the above mentioned government organization to perform its duties properly, the cost of undoing the patent is footed entirely by the victims. Assuming no court time is needed (ie, the patent holder does not appeal, which they ALWAYS do) it still costs a considerable amount of money just to present your prior art to the USPTO for a simple review, and a considerable amount more to pay the USPTO to actually listen to your argument. (in the cheaper review, the USPTO takes your evidence and you go home. The USPTO calls up the patent holder and asks them to explain, and if they have a good explanation for not citing the prior art, you loose. The more expensive version allows the victim to actually participate in the process.)
From the customer's POV, #1 makes it even worse. Lets imagine a few scenarios:
1) Xerox patents "the process by which a document is converted into data which the printer can understand" and suddenly has a 16+ year long monopoly on printers because no other company can write a driver for their printer.
2) Brother patents the word processor in the mid-80's (I really have no idea when they started making those things). If you wanted to do any word processing at all, you would need to buy a Brother word processor machine, and that would be in addition to the PC (if you even owned one, without a wordprocessor, it would be no more useful than a Nintendo).
3) Microsoft patents the operating system (or more accurately, the patented DRM required to boot the OS on their patented Palladium technology, which will only be licensed to companies who use it in every motherboard. The alternative is being unable to produce any motherboards that can run windows). Windows DRM2005 is released, requiring yearly fees of $700 per user. No further development on windows is done for 16 years as they rest on their government-provided monopoly.
4) A company called PanIP "renews" an old out-of-date patent by adding a few words to a patent on selling things using a display and a phone line. The USPTO, seeing that the patent is an "improvement" over their existing patent automatically grants it without even stopping to think. PanIP then goes about suing small e-commerce sites for infringing on its "new" patent from the early 80's... oh wait, this one's really happening
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
What the patent office should do is allow anyone to file prior art for a patent, so everyone can help regulate our patent system.
Also there should be some sort of loser pays system in which someone trying to enforce a patent and loses has to pay the other side's fees.
Anyone have any other ideas, perhaps an in house appeals process that is cheaper then going to court? Increased fees for filing patents, and more staff for the patent office?
Professor Arpad Elo invented the Elo rating scale for chess many a decade ago. It definately covers a "ranking system that indicates a player's proficiency in said game."
There other rating scales in use even before that.
http://www.chesslinks.org/hof/elo.html
If a lawyer's offense/defense can, in the slightest regard, be construed as dishonest or in bad faith, then the lawyer ought to be in danger of undergoing the fate the client would have in the case of a loss.
Would this apply only to civil cases or criminal as well? Is defending an "obviously guilty" murderer grounds for being thrown in prison? Why should attorneys not have the right to use every accepted method of winning the case? There are rules and stipulations to follow, you know. If the judges are willing to give the attorneys leeway to muck about and waste everyones time, is that the attorneys' or the judges' fault? Should cases be thrown out because you don't like the plaintiff?
Surely the solution to this is for the US Patent Office to run a site where members of the public can submit cases of prior art for consideration by the Patent Office. That way obviously dumb patents could be looked at without the need for anyone to start getting sued over it.
Feel free to correct me if this is not a workable solution - I assume there have to safeguards to stop people abusing this system to get valid patents revoked, but it must be possible to have a post-granting review of really stupid patents.
Alternatively perhaps a body such as the EFF could assemble a group of technical consultants from amongst the community to assist the Patent Office. I'm sure they would get a few volunteers from people who have recieved letters with a 'SCO' letterhead.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, or "B.O.O.K." as it is sometimes known.
If somebody could get a legal pad, I think I have a game idea. Players make obscure patent claims online in order to score loads of $$$$$. The claims will be sent to a "web site" server where it will be processed for cash value so players can be ranked worldwide...
folks, keep in mind that this mirko guy is a well known troll, so try not to bite on his posts, or you'll end up looking a bit silly.
OK... anything that can be represented as a binary number (any number for that matter, i.e. data or software) should not be something that can be patented. How can you patent a number? How can you patent something that can be reproduced in nature even if it is very unprobable? like i have said before, if there is no physical limit (or virtually no limit) in supply, there truly is no value. i can't sell you tap water, but i can sell you the pipes and pumps that deliver it to you.
The problem is this again will only hurt the little guy.
A lawyer would then before acting on either side of the suit would want to understand the case, and prepare his defence if they rule the case was frivolous. This in turn would drive up the cost of legal action, which wouldn't bother some, but could prove even more damaging to others.
People are settling even when they could win because they know the legal costs are enough to finish them, double legal costs and it will only get worse.
1: The life cycle of a patent is about 4-5 times longer than the life cycle of software.
Or an automobile. But auto parts are still patentable.
2: Patent language does not fit well with software language. Patent language often fails to cover a specific algorithm in the lawyer's attempt to cover everything possible
It's legalese. It doesn't fit well with any other real-world language, but it's actually closer to a computer language than anything else, because it attempts to deal with every possible case.
4: The USPTO is unable to handle the current patent process, empowering them with even more oversight is certainly not what I'd call punishment for its failure to operate properly.
The patent office is only part of the system, and is really only a first screen for validity. The courts are another part.
5: In the event of failure in the above mentioned government organization to perform its duties properly, the cost of undoing the patent is footed entirely by the victims.
An unfortunate consequence of free enterprise is that protecting your rights can be expensive. If you have a valid patent and somebody violates it, it can cost you a bundle to defend your rights, with no guarantee of success. And a big company can drag out the litigation until your patent is worth little.
I think most people had the same understanding that I had of prior art.
It is very hard to find good prior art.
Just being the same, and doing the same thing isn't quite enough.
It needs to solve the same problem, by doing the same thing, in the same way, and be the same.
Things as silly and obvious as putting a CVT on a lawmower blade (to keep it at at the same speed) using off the shelf components could be considered a patentable idea, if it is done for a non obvious reason. (ie better mulching performance)
IANAL
You are infringing on my patent! Recycling old jokes ON THE INTERNET... /. and rake in my billions!!!
Now to read more
;)
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
me ?
a "well-known troll" ?
so, a troll is somebody who asks sincere questions about considerations he doesn't want to accept "as is" ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Fundamentally, all inventions are methods--methods of accomplishing a task, where part of the method may involve instructions for constructing a device for that purpose.
I'm so sick of seeing stories like this. I have grown a firm hatred for people that get away with this kind of extortion against helpless startups struggling to become financially stable. It all started when I heard about a website (can't remember the name) that was created in order to mass-produce and fund patents on "inventions" that are not even possible to create now, but could be in great demand in the future (like StarTrek transporter). This idea wasn't necessarily that profitable for reasons that would require a whole new discussion, but the thought still disturbed me. We really need to create a non-profit, highly organized organization that would be funded by ALL of us (through Paypal etc). Through a large number of small donations, a council could review current cases of rediculous patent lawsuits and fund a powerful legal force. With an organization like this, frivolous patent suits would no longer be as profitable. A patent happy jerk would no longer be able to pick a struggling company with no legal defense funds to prey on, because they could potentially be chosen as the next "project" for this new organization. I'm telling you, I'm an unemployed web-developer (though I do get some contract gigs) at the moment, just out of school with very limited funds, but would easily dish out $10 here and $10 there to fund this cause. I really think this should be done NOW. With organization, we would be a formidable force and this craziness might stop some day. It makes me fume when I think about lazy, useless people knowingly destroying/stealing some talented person's money that they worked so hard for, just because they didn't feel like doing any work. I apologise if this idea has already been mentioned. I did try to make sure before writing this.
If this patent is valid, then the holder of it better get ready to take on Microsoft (X-box Live) or any other host of any online game.
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Thank you very much for this explanation, this reaches the level of details I expected when I asked my sincere, though unusual, question.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
> > 1: The life cycle of a patent is about 4-5 times longer than the life cycle of software.
> Or an automobile. But auto parts are still patentable.
The lifetime of some piece of software is the time during which it keeps being produced abnd sold, not the lifetime of one single copy. Hence, automonile parts are onl;y bveing produced for as logn as there are cars of the type for which the parts are made.
Interestingly, the time durign which such cars exist is a lot longer then the average lifetime of an individial car, that however is exactly the opposite when talkign about software, the average lifetime of a copy is longer then the lifetime of the product.
But the auto parts patent doesn't prevent you from making your own part which does the same thing but in a slightly different way, or even the same thing but in a totally different way.
after just a quick look at the patents as they were granted, could someone look at them as well and verify this?
Patent 5,823,879 patents a web-based internet-enabled method of playing Blackjack, as specifically stated in the patent.
Patent 6,183,366 patents a method of "
a service providing computational system for providing a first of the users with a requested corresponding instance of the informational service, wherein the instance includes a plurality of user interactions, via the network, with the service providing computational system;"
(surely there is prior art, IE Legend of the Red Dragon from peoples BBS days)
The third patent (6,264,560) basically encompasses any type of electronic card-based tournament at all, though specifically mentions blackjack, poker, craps, roulette, baccarat and pai gow in the abstract of the patent.
Can someone who has better eyes for legalese doublecheck that?
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
But the auto parts patent doesn't prevent you from making your own part which does the same thing but in a slightly different way, or even the same thing but in a totally different way.
That depends upon how well the patent was written. Generally, a patent will be written to cover every way of accomplishing a particular task that the inventor and his lawyer can think of. So it may well turn out that your "different way" is also covered by the patent on the part.
The difference comes when some thing is created that is new and non-trivial, rather than re-using something we already have.
And this is an issue for all patents, it is in no way unique for software. For instance, it is possible to obtain a "use" patent covering a new use of something that already exists (e.g. a drug).
Firstly, it is a collectable card game. All cards are virtual with no real counterparts (ala Magic: The Gathering Online), and with no plans to.
Resellers are provided to sell individual cards or "Event Tickets" which let you play in tournaments. However, to play the game online with other people, you don't have to pay anything at all: however, to play ranked games, and to play in tournaments, you must make a purchase from the official Star Chamber Card Store located here. Generally, $20 will get you on your way, but $30 will get you the best all-around set to start trading and creating effective decks to play ranked games with.
Considering this game is so small, its reviews have been fantastic. It seems most of the current player set has either heard the collective praise from Gamespot's glowing review (8.8) or Tycho's Penny Arcade mentions.
However, the good reviews still pour in from GameZone and Ferrago.
I heard about this game about a month ago. Since that time, I can't fathom how much this game has endeared itself to me. As soon as I saw the lack of a good community website, I began to build one with the help of another community member with the same idea. Then I built a non-profit card store to help further the game, using osCommerce, located at scfans.net, though there are other resellers on the books, such as Gameguys and IBK, to be completely fair.
The bottom line is, in terms of pure gameplay fun, excitement, and community involvement (the developer, Paul aka Merakon, is on almost every evening, and his support in getting SCWatch.net up and running has been stellar to say the least.
If you dig a good strategy game, I don't think you'll be disappointed.
. . . that in the realm of technology and computing, our government's patent system is in shambles.
Patents were meant to encourage and protect businesses, and now they've become so ridiculous and strict that they will end up hindering and harming business. This can't go on or else we're going to end up shooting ourselves in the foot someday, and it's going to be in a very, very bad way.
Well, you are of base about, broadly, "method" patents; Such patents have been issued in the US since the beginning of the US patent system. In fact the first US patent issued was for a process for making potash; it was issued in 1790 and was signed by Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State.
This, BTW, was not patent #1; The current US utility patenting numbering dates from 1836, if I recall my history correctly.
There would no legal basis for the PTO just stop issuing "method" patents; they are explictly (in a broad sense) permitted under 35 USC 101:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
Software and business methods were interpreted as being a "process" within the scope of section 101. The PTO cannot just say "screw you" and say "we don't like software patents" (separation of powers and and all that stuff) the issue has made it up to the Supremes a few times, and, except for a case in the late 60's (the Benson case) subsequent court decisions whittled away at Benson until it has ended up a dead husk.
Now, this issue of applying the other requirements (novelty, nonobviousness) is a whole other issue, and I won't start on that here
Claim 1
The device will trap mice or other small creatures by means of a mechanism.
Claim 2
The mouse may or may not be killed or maimed in the process.
Claim 3
The device has trigger which should activated when mouse is in the propert area to be trapped.
The user may wish to put a bit of cheese or other bait near the trigger to lure mice to it. Too broad? Maybe if I add "with a computer" in there somewhere...
Lawyers have created a huge industry which does nothing but split hairs. And they profit from it.
Actually you hit upon a rather significant philosophical issue: attorneys have crafted a system in which no truth or falsehood can be known without interpretation from a paid expert from the system.
And the goal of this system isn't necessarily profit, but power. What better way to keep people under your thumb than to make enough rules that makes everyone a rulebreaker? When everyone's a criminal, then the system gets to dish out justice according to how well the accused subordinates himself to the system.
Solution? Boot every single attorney out of office. Uninvite them to parties. Treat them as the parasites they are. Remind your friends that happen to be in the profession that a prostitute has a higher moral basis than they do. Until they get the message that the producers (aka hosts in their lingo) are wary of them, they won't moderate their behavior.
'How else are you going to defend yourself these days?'
You dont have to always defend a hole your dug into. Sometimes its better to pull back and muster in another base.
Move your business to another country. Contary to the widely held beliefs of Americans and some Europeans the world is still a diverse collection of soverign states each with their own laws. Within this collection is a broad 'concensus' on international agreements, but it is far from uniform. For example the USA does not respect international laws on biochemical weapons and refuses to join in the Kyoto environmental agreement. Likewise US patent laws have limited scope in reality, even when they _appear_ to be backed up by international agreements.
Not happy with the way your country is treating its businessmen and inventors? Less well developed countries are crying out for westerners with computing skills and business ability, you can probably get government grants for hundreds of thousands to form a startup in any of 30 less well developed countries.
With all this whining about outsourcing going on its time the USA looked at what its doing to encourage business within its own borders. Patents that shoot down any startup company will just result in companies moving out and taking their economic lifeforce elsewhere.
My wife is a geneticist. Those in her field are facing a similar IP battle as those of us in the computer world. That's why she decided to actually do something about it, and 2 years ago enrolled in law school. She isn't a lawyer yet, but already she's working with institutions such as the Canadian Health Law Institute as a legal advisor for genetic patenting issues. Hell, she already is on a first name basis with many of our elected officials (who, by the way, are very open to advice in this area). Soon she'll be in a position to actually affect the way genetic patents will go in the future.
But you want to know something? In her class of 120 law students, 3 come from a science background (none from comp sci). Most hold art or business degrees, and if you look at the website for most big law firms, you'll see that this is true for almost all of their IP lawyers as well. That's a pretty telling sign that there's a huge need for lawyers with a background that is based in science.
When she's done school, I'm going to follow in her footsteps. I'll be going for a law degree, and with my comp sci background perhaps I, too, could make a difference when it comes to stopping this madness.
Or did you expect this to just go away by itself?
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
For example, word processors. Imagine if the people who made WordStar were able to take out a patent back then on the concept of word processors, or the idea of using an editor to format documents. We either would still be using html-like command tags to do thing like
or we would still be in stone age wysiwyg. I remember those days and am happy they are past. Regardless, there would have been no competition and no incentive for WordPerfect or Microsoft (Word) (and others) to make better word processors. Heck, Open Office (Writer) might not even exist if WordStar had been able to obtain a patent back then. Who would waste time dreaming about working on a project you would get sued for starting?What would happen if other industries used/abused patents in such a way? Imagine if only one pharmaceutical company were allowed to patent the concept of treating cancer or other diseases. Our life expectancies would be 10 or 20 years less. Thank goodness this isn't the case. But hold it, maybe they should be able to patent the idea of taking a pill? Just kidding (for the overly literal minded people), but only just... software patents are like patents on the idea of fighting cancer with chemicals, and many times like the idea of patenting the idea of taking a pill when really, it is the active ingredient (for want of better terminology) of the pill which is patentable.
The idea of patenting concepts like shopping carts, score tallies, ranking, etc. is ridiculous, and will ruin competition and innovation, and hurt the average citizen immensely. Patenting the algorithms and the inner workings I can understand. i.e. If you want to do it, do it, but don't steal my code. JUST DON'T STOP ME FROM BUILDING A BETTER MOUSE TRAP!!
Ya, this might be redundant, but I just had to rant on this one. :-)
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Well I own the videogame patent!
so gimme all your $'s
yeah, that was lame.
An unfortunate consequence of free enterprise is that protecting your rights can be expensive. If you have a valid patent and somebody violates it, it can cost you a bundle to defend your rights, with no guarantee of success. And a big company can drag out the litigation until your patent is worth little
So.. If you're the little guy, 'violating' some broad patent, you can't hope to defend yourself against the financial might of an IP firm whos sole purpose is to milk bad patents.
If you're the little guy with a patent that someone else is violating, you can't hope to defend yourself against the financial might of a production giant who wants to make money from your idea.
Is anyone else bothered by this?
So, my point is : why patent should not describe a "digital process" to handle immaterial data ?
A song is recorded as a string of bits and those bits are used as instructions by a CD player to carry out the process of making the sounds in the song. You could make a hardware machine to play just this one song, but generally people use software implementations of the instructions on CDs. Should you be able to patent a song? A movie? A picture? A book? A poem? These are all strings of bits that get used as instructions by machines. Should all of this be patentable?
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Wrong.
Microsoft patented Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements.
'It needs to solve the same problem, by doing the same thing, in the same way, and be the same.'
... you get the point.
If what you are saying is true then there would be no problem.
A patent for a _specifically_ defined ranking algorithm, _specifically_ for a program written in C++, _specifically_ to run on Linux (kernel 2.4), and _specifically_ for the purpose of online casino gambling would NOT BE A PROBLEM. The problem starts when the holders of such a patent feel they have some right to sue a games company in an UNRELATED field.
Implement it in Basic, cant touch me.
Compile it for Windows, cant touch me.
Change the purpose to FPS online gaming,
However the problem is that patent laws are not bijective, in the sense that they are hypocritical and are won (formed) on a different basis than they are defended.
You are saying that the bar is set very high for standards of similarity to prove prior art, yet the requirements to sue a frivolous lawsuit are extremely low and anyone can start a suit just because someone is vaguely in the same business as them.
If patent law was sef consistent and provided the same standards to aquisition and defence it would have a chance of working. But while the system is so broken I can't think of any good reason to even attempt to comply with it.
Without an actual implementation in the flesh then hasn't a fundamental issue with patents been missed i.e. it has to have a working implementation at the time of filing.
Some time ago, says a patent attorney i've spoken with, the USPTO did away with requiring working prototypes on submission.
Is anyone else bothered by this?
I think that almost everybody (except, perhaps, the very rich) is bothered by the power advantage that the wealthy, whether individuals or corporations, enjoy when it comes to civil litigation. I just haven't heard any plausible solutions. In some types of litigation, the less well-to-do are able to get around this problem by employing lawyers on a contingency basis. But this has its own set of abuses.
The parent comment is rated +3 Troll right now. Does anyone else find this amusing? I swear we need some sort of IQ test for moderation. Anyone stupid enough to rate this as a troll should never moderate again.
It seems this guy is attempting to patent what was previously implemented in the IGS, the NNGS, and numerous online chess servers.
It seems odd to me that it didn't occur to Mr. Goldberg that some else had probably done most of what his patents claimed before 1998. Online play, complete with subscription fees, ranking systems, and player configuration dates back to the Eighties.
All the justices on the US Supreme Court have law degrees. They also hold what I would think to be respectable positions in the field of law. However, when they repeatedly assert that software is not statutory material for a patent, nobody listens. What makes you think anyone will listen to you just because you have a law degree?
I didn't know Tipper the bitch read /.
Those gaping holes were designed into the system for a reason, and it seems to be woking very well. I can only dream of the great computers and programs and all sorts of other things we would have if not for the greed and coruption of the patent/copyright system that we've had sice the beginning, actually.
What?
There is a nice page of FFII UK that explains what can be done.
Several games on the PLATO system at University of Illinois used this patents techniques. Dogfight and Moonwar immediately come to mind. Those of us who did these style of games, called it Big Boards. People entered the game and went to the 'Big Board' where you could challenge another player. Cumulative scores were kept. Interactive chat was alway at the bottom of the Big Board so victims could be taunted.
In general, PLATO is a great source of prior art for anything the internet has reinvented - from chat rooms, threaded discusions, and game systems to more obscure possible patents like using remote controlled microfiche projectors for a rumble effects in airplane crash simulations and paging people by sending data to someone else's sound card.
All of this work was done BEFORE software patents were even a thought in some greedy buggers mind. Copywriting software was unusual then.
It may be the opposite of what SHOULD happen, but it's precisely why the patent system system was put into place since the beginning. It is designed to stifle the individual inventer. Rich, powerful people use this and copyrights, etc. to maintain their exclusive club, and we suck it all up believing we need it to promote creativity. Wake up, people. You've been "fished in".
What?
It also violates my patent on providing goods and/or services in exchange for money or other items of value.
Yes, but Microsoft also patented ones and zeros
Someone got a patent for using a computer to store and sort numerical data. I thought that was what these computer things were for...
-- $G
Assuming I'm not wrong about this, why then aren't recipes allowed to be patented? Certainly most very popular recipes are certainly non-trivial and involve a process for making a certain type of food. Really part of my point was sort of an open-ended question: where do ideas end and inventions begin? Could the first guy who siphoned gas out of a gas tank with a rubber hose apply for a patent for "Gas Transfer System?" Hypothetically speaking, could the first person who thought of arranging files in alphabetical order patent it? One of the nephew posts said that Microsoft got a patent for a "scoring system." Should that be allowed? I can think of no software patents that aren't simply another way of using the computer for what it's meant to do. In my opnion, they are all trivial. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I just don't know what out there has been patented that really should be, but besides that, the whole idea stinks.
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
Here are the facts:
Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.
Status: True.
His claim that he "Created" the internet means the same as "invent" in the context he used it in. See the actual quote.
However, validating even the lesser claim Gore intended to make is problematic. Any statement about the "creation" or "beginning" of the Internet is difficult to evaluate
This one is quite easy: the Internet had been created years before Gore was elected to Congress. While some creation claims can be tough to evaluate, this one is clear: Gore lied.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/maury/games/space/megawar s_i.html
has a history of dec wars leading into mega wars
i think this pretty much sums up what these patents really are.
Music the Paint dancefloor the canvas your body the brush
It already is a financial burden.
My stepdad used to work at Bennett Pump (they built gas pumps)...They were having a problem updating software on the machines they had on the market; it took a good while to change the software on each pump. And with ten or twelve pumps to a station, and five or six stations to a small city, it took quite a long time.
My brother suggested that they put the data on data cards. (aka punchcards, but with a magnetic strip) Basically a stack of them would hold the software update.
The company had to pass on the idea because finances were too tight to fund a patent search. The company went under less than two years later.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Blame the patent office for these cases, part of their job is to make sure the patents are not too broad. This was the case with Windows and Microsoft was denied. Of course a little grease made sure that it got through.
If the Internet is not a requirement of prior art, then this little bit is interesting.
from The Origin of Spacewar
Slug tells me that there is a Lost Version of Spacewar! There would be, of course. He says the game is pretty much like the original, but the scoring is much more impressive. After each game of a match, cumulative scores are displayed as rows of ships, like a World War II fighter pilot's tally. Slug says he saw this version for a short time on the PDP-1, but never found out who produced it or what became of it
Granted, it's probably just legend, but I found it of note after reading this slashdot article.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
I would like to patent the process by which patents are created and sue the government for a gazillion dollars.
I thought this thread was titled 'All Encompassing Pants'
The perfect thing for the slashdot crowd.
Good point - therefore Civil cases only. It does not even have to be this set in stone - just make it possible to sue solicitors (currently, it's fecking impossible).
The Patent and Trademark Office does not use the word "internet". They have yet to buy a modern dictionary to discover the definition. All patent and trademark applications must use the phrase "global information system". (Or something like that, maybe it was "global communications system". I am not going to ask/pay my lawyers to improve a Slashdot post.)
This dates to the 1980s when the word internet was not used, so the lawyers decided to use a phrase that would cover all possibilities. It also means they are covered if the "internet" is replaced by something else. The "internet" is defined by TCP/IP, so if a new low-level protocol took over, then the name might be changed. I do not believe that could happen after 1995, but these are lawyers, and reality does not matter to them.
A side effect of this is that prior art for a "game scoring system running on a BBS" may not be enough for "game scoring system for a global information system". I would think the local bowling alley or international golf associations having a centralized list of high scorers would be enough prior art to have the patent declared void.
Anyway, according to the USPTO:
There is no internet.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
Dear moderators: GROW A BRAIN AND MOD IT APPROPRIATELY. This is redundant and not even remotely funny.
Nomadix Issued Key Patent for Home Page Redirection Technology
e s/ page546-698443.asp
http://www.bbwexchange.com/publications/newswir
The patent itself specifies any server side redirection and has been awarded.
" *we* admit no such thing. Software patents are a very bad thing. See Bruce Perins recent article on the subject."
The OSS community is not the entire set of programmers. Of course OSS people hate software patents. Personally, I'm not against them. I just think they're overly broad. I think a more detailed algorithm is necessary for a patent. Therefore, mp3 patent should be valid since it is a new sophisticated way to compress music with a specific algorithm, but lauching a helper application to handle a particular file format should not be patentable, because it's so simple a concept that no algorithm needs even to be stated, and programs have lauched other programs forever anyway. The idea of patents is to foster innovation, but not stifle it. I think there is a middle ground, but we are clearly not there now.
Vote for Pedro
Yes please. Do you also have a pen I can borrow to fill out this patent form?
Actually, as I recall the problem of deciding if one algorithm is equivalent to another is undecidable. Isn't it?
...richie - It is a good day to code.
From what I read, the article was describing a service and not a particular technology or solution that provides the service.
Feh, but who am I. IANAL.
m.mmm..myyy
http://www.bustpatents.com/
m.mmm..myyy
Funny... on Mirko's page only one comment is listed as modded 'Troll'
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Start with something that has been done for hundreds of years. In this case, player ranking (Chess, Go, etc).
I still remember the anecdote that first clued me in to the travesty of justice that is our modern patent system. A programmer had won a contract to design and implement a networked computer bingo system to allow many locations to participate in the same bingo game. When the system was all designed, tested, debugged and operational, he got the letter from a lawyer informing him that his work violated a patent for "playing bingo with a computer". The company suing him did not actually have such a system, of course. He lost his business attempting to defend himself. It made me want to pound that lawyer.
You can determine whether algorithms are equivalent, but...the only simple way to do this is to look at input and output. There is no sig
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
Proficiency? Ranking?
Funny, I play Go online, and I notice proficiency rankings by people's names all the time. IGS, KGS, NNGS, all of them use it.
Hell, even Yahoo! has them. Why not go after them?
Obviously you can't name a game that doesn't exist.
But what about Sega's lawsuit about its patent for Crazy Taxi's AI algorithms? Technically, I shouldn't be able to make a game in which people try to run out of the way of a vehicle.
And that's one example. This ranking thing is another. Indie game developers have to hope that their low profile will protect them from patents, but major companies have to build their own patent portfolios and hope for cross-licensing agreements as a settlement.
If everyone had to follow every patent, it would be difficult and costly to make any game or any piece of software for that matter. As it stands, you kind of have to make the game and hope it doesn't get popular enough to be caught in the mess, or you have to patent things yourself, things that you may consider obvious even, and use your own patents as a shield.
Would-be great games sometimes can't be made, and I for some time considered dropping my dreams of getting into indie game development. I don't want to make a game only to find that I now need to give up my profits to someone who "invented" something that I independently "invented" and that I am sure has been independently "invented" before.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
http://members.aol.com/geocorona/rpgmoo.html
This is a very cool core (Database) that covers pretty much everything they could even think of patenting and was available in 1997.
Nuff said.
I am going to patent the process of "patenting". That way, I will get a cut from anyone who files a patent! Then I will write a book titled "How to get people to send you 50$", and sell it for $50. Bill Gates! Here I come!
Or an automobile. But auto parts are still patentable.
Thats funny, I don't see many eniacs around, yet I see a dozen cars or so from the 50s-70s every day on the streets.
The patent office is only part of the system, and is really only a first screen for validity. The courts are another part.
Oh, if only this were true. Too bad that a defense against a "business process" software patent typically costs around $1.5million dollars. Certainly out of reach of most small-medium business developers, much less opensource developers who code in their free time. The courts are hardly an effective "part" of the system as the system is currently designed. The number of companies who settle rather than fight invalid patents is proof of this.
An unfortunate consequence of free enterprise is that protecting your rights can be expensive.
The only reason its expensive is because the giant behemoth-companies have driven the costs up and locked normal people and companies out of the process.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Thats funny, I don't see many eniacs around, yet I see a dozen cars or so from the 50s-70s every day on the streets.
And many modern computers are running operating systems containing code of similar vintage.
Actually, as I recall the problem of deciding if one algorithm is equivalent to another is undecidable. Isn't it?
Not that the courts really care about the science behind it. Instead, they'd demand the source be opened for inspection. This would be ok for opensource developers, but for a small proprietary business, you might as well commit corporate suicide or settle out of court. Especially if your way is better than the patented version.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
But patent protects the idea (i.e. the algorithm), not the expression. So, the source code could be quite different (for example I'll write in Lisp and you in C) but still infringing.
The question is whether they both compute the same thing. In general this is an undecidable problem (in the same sense as the Halting Problem is undecidable).
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Moderators, the parent comment seems to be troll/flamebait. The sig is a link to something very similar to goatse.cx (and the "joke" is very stale).