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."
When did patent holders forget that one cannot patent an "obvious or pre-existing" idea?
" 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...
Like slashdot karma?
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.
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.
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
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.
For more information please look here.
I am doing my part - are you?
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.
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.