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
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.
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.
"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.
In supposedly unrelated news, Slashdot has done away with the Karma system for ranking members of its online community.
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!
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
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!
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.
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?
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?
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, apparently he's patented all online capable gaming machines (and the networks) as well...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
I'm not a fan of loser-pays systems, because the tend to discourage poor people from filing. They also encourage poor people to settle quickly.
But I do like your idea for in-house appeals. If somebody sues me for patent infringement on a patent which is obvious or ridden with prior art, it would be nice to be able to file a document with USPTO to have the patent invalidated.
Unfortunately, the time periods are a problem. The USPTO's wheels grind slowly: a patent often takes years to grant, and I don't expect them to evaluate newly-submitted prior art any more quickly.
An open-source-esque system would be amusing, where any individual could submit prior art in the examination process. Sadly, it can't work: you can't publish the patented material until the patent is granted.
All these systems would be subject to abuses. There are those who will fight against any patent, which is not necessarily an invalid position, but fighting every patent would bog down an imperfect but still somewhat useful system without providing a clear alternative.
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.
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.
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.
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.