Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the patent-trolls dept.

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?)."

9 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Why not microsoft? by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why don't they go after microsoft too? They've been distributing a computer solitaire game for many years in clear violation of this patent, and they have plenty of money to sue them for!

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Why not microsoft? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although I am qualified to act as an expert witness I am not your expert witness.

      What special criteria doe someone have to meet to be considered an expert witness?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. As dumb as it seems... by notgm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As dumb as it seems, I cannot really be mad at anyone who actually gets to sue ebaums. I've never been a fan of the way he treats IP rights-holders.

  3. Not a good idea... by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Traditional patents does most damage when the patent holder release some poor and overpriced product only few can and will afford, basically holding back the benefits of the invention for the duration of the patent.

    I believe induction cooking was delayed that way, because the holder of a key patent only used it in its own very exclusive brand, and refused to license it to cheaper brands with better distribution channels.

    It is much better if the patent holder has no products of its own, and instead offers patents to everyone on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.

    Even better, of course, would be to do away with the patents.

  4. A modest proposal to deal with this crap by fnj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The patent office pooped big time when this patent was granted. As long as there are patents, that problem will never be solved, but there are other ways it might be dealt with.

    In some jurisdictions, "loser pays costs" is a way of inhibiting frivolous lawsuits. I'm not inclined to favor this, because one may too easily lose a case that has real merit, but ...

    How about a provision where, if the case is duly found to be unusually frivolous, or glaringly without merit, loser pays triple the costs of the defendant and court?

    1. Re:A modest proposal to deal with this crap by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with any loser-pays system is it substantially favors corporations and other interests with big dollars, moreso than the system already does. They are already behind the eight ball by (probably) having an inferior legal team and far fewer resources. Under your system, they also have to operate under the threat of being forced to pay three times that massive legal team's expenses? Remember, 3 * $1,000,000 for a regular person is a crippling sum of money. 3 * $100,000 for a corporation is nothing.

      Even if you were right and should win, what kind of odds would it take for you to bring suit with that possibility hanging over your head? Is a 20% chance of ruining your life (80% chance of victory) small enough? 10%?

  5. Does that mean... by Nullav · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...this patent troll's trolling?

    Seriously, I see no way that anyone would do something like this to do anything besides prove a point. It would be like someone being sued over the 'circular transportation facilitation device' patent from a few years ago.

    --
    I just read Slashdot for the articles.
  6. Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to EFF, the date to beat to show prior art is January 19, 1996. In 1994 Microgaming Software Systems released the first online casino in 1994.
    http://www.gov.im/ebusiness/microgaming.xml
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgaming

    Any other cited examples of prior art? Help shut down this asshat and contribute your prior art info to: http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/contribute.php?p=sheldon

  7. Don't lambast them by mrmeval · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Emulate them, get ridiculous patents and then sue everyone you can. Eventually you'll make patents worthless enough and be enough of a pain in the ass that there will be a change in the law.

    The other thing is to file as many patents as possible with as little money as possible to gag the patent office.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty