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: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.