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

Obvious

[Popageorgio]

When did patent holders forget that one cannot patent an "obvious or pre-existing" idea?

Re:Obvious

[redcaboodle]

When did patent holders forget that one cannot patent an "obvious or pre-existing" idea?
They didn`t. But they know the Patent Office forgets it all too often.
Or, to be precice. They know that the Patent Office has neither the manpower nor the machinepower to check all sources of prior art and therefor is liable to overlook the bleeding obvious.

Re:Patents help.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why go after Starchamber...

[nsxdavid]

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.

Re:Patents help.

[michaeltoe]

The problem is that the failures of the patenting system are not come upon accidentally. People make a habit of abusing them, and unless the USPTO grows a brain, then it's going to become a financial burden to try and create anything.

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.

Re:Patents help.

[Qzukk]

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 .