Slashdot Mirror
EFF Attacks Online Gaming Patent
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The EFF is attacking more bogus patents. This time they're going after the 'method and system of playing games on a network' which covers tournament ladders, online rankings and advertisements. The patent in question has already been asserted against a number of small companies who know that licensing it is cheaper than litigating. Ars Technica's coverage mentions that Netrek looks like a good source of prior art. 'Netrek, an online multiplayer game with origins in the mid 1980s, makes use of much of the same technology described in Goldberg's patent. Much of the code for Netrek is open source, and its development is archived online; the source code was first posted to Usenet in late 1989. The EFF has also documented other instances of prior art with the assistance of students at the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.'"
Isn't the patent office supposed to investigate these things and reject obvious patent claims? Sheesh guys, hire better experts. Maybe we need some from our numbers to go down to the patent office and apply for a job.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Most of this stuff just seems to be flat out obvious. Granted, I've only read the abstract (which was just plain incoherent, if you ask me) and skimmed the actual patent. I fail to see anything of merit. It sets out a broad, nebulous set of rules that could be interpreted to be any number of things. I imagine that when this was filed the patent office had dummy mode set irrevocably on, a al BOFH.
This is a particularly bad patent, and kudos to the EFF. As we all know, small strokes fell mighty oaks.
I got a catholic block.
The way it works in reality is that both side lose about 400~800 grand and then they'll withdraw. You might recoup some of the loss but it still wont be profitable. Cept for the IP lawyers....
If they were sure their patent was valid they would go after the big players like Epic, id Software or EA, not the small ones that are intimidated easily but really just are statistical background noise when it comes to online games. If someone violates your patent then you go after the guy who does it big style...else you really just care about the quick money and not about holding up your claimed rights themselves.
but aren't patents supposed to cover a specific implementation of an idea? it seems that these days they get stretched to cover ALL implementations of an idea. perhaps i am being naive, but so often a patent is awarded, and they the holder sues anyone who does anything remotely similar. that ain't right.
hoping for a return to sanity....
99% of the time the goal is to make the legal process take forever. So you have to pay legal fees, often can't work because they are mailing you 600page books of things you have to research and you still have living expenses. Your company will be stalled. Then they just wait for you to crack or run out of money. Even if all you do is hold up prior art the law isn't so simple. They'd have a long investigation on whether or not it truely is prior art, whether we can tell or not if it came first as humans can know nothing. That this supposed knowledge is just a flawed combination of our senses. My point is it doesnt matter if there is a case or not their only goal is to stall. Most people arent willing to give up their lives for often over 8months to show up some asshat. You end up in the hole near a million dollars, your company is certainly disbanded at this point and the company you stood up to has already hit 20victims since.
The only option in these cases is class-action. Or bend over and take it, film the experience and send it to the EFF who will hopefully have some luck finding you some cream.
which is essentially the same as saying, "If only there was no incentive for companies to obtain patents in the first place." I understand that from the perspective of good/evil or innovation/abuse, the problem is most apparent with submarine patents like the one in the article. But even in a perfect world where all actors obtain only valid and meaningful patents, those patents will be used by the rightsholder as a cudgel against other individuals and companies, to protect the patent-holder's monopoly on whatever the covered claims might be.
The problem is with government-sanctioned monopolies in general. And that problem can only be solved if enough people get pissed off that we force government to do something about it. Companies have been pushing to expand patent protections for a long time; the public pushback is just getting started. We should all be happy that the SCOTUS has shown some willingness to recognize the public interest in limited patents, especially considering the corporate pressure to do the exact opposite.
I think it's great that the EFF is fighting, and winning, battles exactly like this one. Their battles raise the visibility of the issue, and might eventually lead to a world where little guys who are threatened with junk patents like this one are willing to stand up and fight rather than give the bullies their lunch money.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
If the patent examiner can't work out what the patent's supposed to be protecting in a reasonable time, then the patent should be rejected; in reward for getting a monopoly, the patentee has to disclose how to "build" their invention.
If the patent application is complicated, and it's not clear what the invention is, nor how to "build" it, then the patentee has not fulfilled their part of the patent contract, and so should not get a monopoly on it. Simple really?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
The EFF has been on that short list every year since 1998. As far as we're concerned, that $500-1000 that we send them is always money well spent.
If you care about these issues and you want to do something besides just cluck your tongue when you read about IP misuse, unlawful surveillance, etc., I suggest that you do a little reading at eff.org and if you are so moved, and if living in a free society and using a free Internet has been any benefit to you, pony up a few bucks to those worthy warriors who fight on our behalf.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why isn't the law in this area similar to trademark law?
I Ain't A Lawyer (see how that avoids "ANAL"?), but it's my understanding that if you knowingly allow people to infringe on your trademark then you basically lose the rights to it.
If patent holders were REQUIRED to go after anyone infringing on their patent then they'd have to go after the big firms that CAN afford to debunk it.