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."

Comments

Live in the EU? Don't just complain, take action!

[Sanity]

Over the next few months we in the EU have the opportunity to prevent the counter-productive dogma of software patents from inhibiting European software developer's ability to innovate and compete freely, but it won't be an easy fight and we need everyone that cares about this issue in the EU to contact their political representatives NOW!

For more information please look here.

I am doing my part - are you?

Re:Hmm...

[Teppy]

Filing a patent costs around $10,000 including fees, assuming you hire a decent lawyer. Defending a patent lawsuit starts at $100,000, and can run much higher, depending on how many expert witnesses you need to hire.

It doesn't matter how much prior art there is - plan to spend $100k to prove you're right.

This is why the patent system sucks.

Re:Patents help.

[Halo1]

EU patent law is going to be much more specific.

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'm not sure what your source is, but this is completely wrong. The original proposal by the European Commission and the JURI committee for the directive on "Computer-implemented inventions" would have dragged European Patent law down to the level of US patent law as far as software patents are concerned.

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.

Re:Patents help.

[illuminatedwax]

Most patents are good, yes. But not software patents. At least, not in their current form. When you deal with software patents, the line between obvious and invention becomes very, very blurry. Look at Microsoft's XML patent: it is at first glance very trivial; storing data as XML is the reason XML was invented. But some of the ways that it does it aren't trivial. For example, I saw someone on here wrote that nobody writes raw base64 in XML code.

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

Re:Perfect Prior Art?

[JavaNPerl]

Agreed. The USCF method of ranking players is known as the ELO rating system and was implemented by the USCF in 1960. In another example, which utilizes the internet, the Internet Chess Club has also been ranking chess players since the late 80s.

A little about the game

[Obiwan Kenobi]

Considering I help run the poor site that got the slashdotting, I figured I'd chime in with some +1 Informative info on this "Star Chamber" game thingy.

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.