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."
Like arcade game high scores? Wouldn't that be prior art, or is there something more specific about this patent?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
When did patent holders forget that one cannot patent an "obvious or pre-existing" idea?
"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.
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.
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
It all gets back to lawyers...who are bored.
Usually people like to blame the lawyers, and there are ambulance-chasers who are worthy of blame. But the lawyer's job is to represent the client as aggressively as the law allows. If I were facing a legal situation, I would certainly expect no less from my lawyer. I remember an injury lawyer's TV ad from Boston: "Other lawyers call me an S.O.B., but I'm your S.O.B.".
If a person wants to take advantage of a legal loophole, why blame the lawyer? Why not blame the law (for being bad), the legislators (for not fixing it) or the person (for unethically exploiting it)?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I can equally see the ability for this to be misused...but by allowing the fine-hair splitting of a law, we are basically subject to the tyranny of those best able to afford a high-priced lawyer. Justice is now given to those with the biggest checkbooks, not those most deserving of it. If your lawyer can split finer than mine, you win! The law is already nothing but a theater for show trials...unless you are broke, in which case it is a theater of injustice. Just watch people like Kenneth Lay get off virtually unfazed...while an ordinary street bum gets put in jail for 5 years for stealing some food.