Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Back in 2004, Slashdot posted about computer solitaire being patented. It was a ridiculous patent and made it onto the EFF's list of worst patents. However, not much had been heard about that patent until now. It turns out that the patent holder, Sheldon Goldberg, is now using that patent to sue a bunch of different online publications, including Digg, eBaum's World, the NY Times, Cnet and the Washington Post. He's also suing Google, Yahoo and AOL (why not?)."

Comments

Isn't this the best possible thing to happen?

[Ochu]

We have a fly-by-night organisation, suing at least eight major companies, with a patent that is clearly a joke.
Our legal system works as much by precedent as by legislation.
When the NYT, CNet and Google fight this as hard as they are going to, this will set that precedent, and it will set it hard. It will make it that bit harder for frivolous patents to ever reach court, and might, just might, prompt a re-evaluation of the entire system.

MUD

[Marcion]

One of the patents is for a method for playing games on a network. Network gaming systems have been around for as long as networks. For example, in 1977 there was a little game called MUD.

Obviousness in to the US patent office is of course different than the rest of humanity.

Use it or lose it

[Marcion]

I don't like the idea of owning ideas and other things that do not exist, but if we have to have a patent system, then I think there should be a "use it or lose it" element to the patent system. If you can prove that you are trying to make a product out of it, or have licensed it to someone who is trying to make a product out it, then you are allowed to approach the courts to try to have your patents enforced. Otherwise, all bets are off.

70% of patent actions are by people who stockpile patents but produce no products. These patent trolls are just leeches are should not be allowed to hinder real companies who actually make things.

Is it too late......

[edwardpickman]

To patent chess or checkers? How about tick tac toe? Yes it's a new use for it but you might as well say printing on ePaper requires a separate copyright since it was never copyrighted specifically for that purpose. There has to be a limit set on persuing these claims as well. You shouldn't be able to wait until lots of deep pockets are involved for multiple years to sue so you know the damages will be high. The absolute maxium should be 12 months since a product was released but they should be required to give notice the moment they are aware of the infringement. Solitare is like traditional folk music which can't be copyrighted. It's been around too long and simply doing a computer version isn't changing it enough to warrant a patent. The code would be patentable but not the game. If they were all stealing code then that's a different issue.

Re:Why not microsoft?

[conlaw]

So, the Windows Solitaire is less susceptible than a Web-based card game with advertising/leaderboard.

If you go back to the original article, http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/4-interesting-new-cases-from-last-2.html, you'll see that this guy also claims to have patented on-line game rankings, and pop-up advertising!

Re:Why not microsoft?

[Zeinfeld]

Because the claims don't read on a single-player card game.

But Hearts is a multiplayer, network card game.

The troll might not want to go after Microsoft with a patent filed in 2001 for a game that has been in Windows since '95. Might be a teensy bit difficult to prove priority, lack of obviousness etc.

If I was looking for prior art that is where I would probably start. But there are entire histories of networked computer games.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Although I am qualified to act as an expert witness I am not your expert witness. This post should not be relied on by anyone for any reason.