Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?

arkowitz writes "I invented a protocol called CICP for interacting with virtual worlds, and filed a provisional patent application on it March 20 of last year. I have since declared the protocol open and public, and contributed an implementation of it to the Sun Wonderland project, which is GPL; and made public the LSL code and accompanying Java servlet for the Second Life implementation of the protocol. I've been collaborating with a fellow in Finland named Tommi S. E. Laukkanen on a new protocol called MXP: Metaverse Exchange Protocol (here's a full description at cybertechnews.com). MXP is and will always be public domain; we intend it to enable an open and ubiquitous metaverse. My question is this: is there any reason to complete the patent app for CICP, which could potentially cover MXP as well, and release it to the public domain? The full app is due by March 20 and the legal work would probably cost my company $10k. Would finishing the patent protect the open and public protocols from patent trolls, or would it be a waste of money? Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?"

Comments

Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge

[eldavojohn]

Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?

1. Document it well. Do you have a javadoc style reference for it? What about example or sample code showing how to use it?
2. Promote it. Ninety percent of GPL code I use is recommended to me by coworkers & coleagues.
3. Support it (if possible). Feature f is seriously not working for me, is anyone going to help?
4. Let the community own it. Don't be afraid to let contributors add/request new directions.

... filed a provisional patent application on it March 20 of last year

But I'm guessing you haven't been awarded the patent? I think you've done more than most people would have. If you're worried about someone suing you for using a protocol, why not just upload all the documentation for it to a SourceForge Project or make it available on your site and date it? I'm guessing it's a bit more tricky than software as you need the required documentation to define a protocol but why shouldn't that be releasable under the GPL? If you really wanted to ask for help, you could seek help from the EFF in establishing prior art now.

Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?

If you have the source code, just drop it on SourceForge or make it available for download on your site with a copy of the GPL as a license file. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about it being adopted and supported widely rather than having it be a GPL protocol. I wish you the best of luck--I think something very neat could come of this!

Who owns the patent?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

You might have invented the protocol, but if the rights are assigned to someone else (an employer etc) then you have no rights over it.

If you have kept the rights then you don't have to do anything special to keep it free for all. Just tell people that it is.

Talk to a patent lawyer

[A nonymous Coward]

Your company presumably has one. You know damned well it's a waste getting any legal advice from /. so why bother?

TALK TO YOUR DAMNED PATENT LAWYER!

Re:Talk to a patent lawyer

[eldavojohn]

Your company presumably has one. You know damned well it's a waste getting any legal advice from /. so why bother?

TALK TO YOUR DAMNED PATENT LAWYER!

I quite frankly disagree.

If this guy is legit and he owns the rights to this and his company is backing him, do it. People need to get it through their heads that you don't need an army of lawyers to donate to the community. That's an old dead Microsoft/SCO way of thinking. If you want to open source something that is originally yours, it does not--I REPEAT DOES NOT--cost you anything or require a law degree!

I don't even think he needed to file for a patent unless he had the intention of selling this protocol at a later date. Just release the documentation with the GPL and date it!

You don't need a "damned patent lawyer" to write code and distribute it!

Re:Talk to a patent lawyer

[Qzukk]

That involves the patent lawyer, and that is why he needs to continue talking to the patent lawyer instead of random /. strangers.

Patent lawyer: "Why yes! Of course you should pay me $10,000! Otherwise the boogeyman will get you!"

Sometimes a second opinion is a good idea. Whether slashdot gives a good second opinion is left as an exercise to the reader.

A patent means nothing until upheld in court

[goffster]

A patent merely helps you argue your case.
It guarantees absolutely nothing.
A patent troll may be able to outspend you in
court.

Does it now count as prior art?

[mapsjanhere]

The only reason to finish the patent process would be to establish your freedom to continue down that path without anyone else patenting your own technology, and then blocking your from using it.
I don't know if an abandoned patent application is sufficient to give you that protection. Finishing it and then not keeping it up is definitely going to do it (usual IANAL disclaimer).

Agree for the same reasons

[happyslayer]

The GPL license includes some restrictions on use and redistribution (if don't want it to remain free to all, you could use the BSD license..(IANAL, all the rest, so this is only my personal understanding.)

Being a usual /.er, I haven't read the article, but it sounds like you're talking about a protocol layout--a communication schema. In that case, talking to the IP lawyer would be a good way to go. However, in dealing with the lawyer, don't let them decide "the plan"--you should lay out your plan, and say "Can you make this happen?"

My suggestion for "The Plan" is this:

• Have the protocol sponsored/supported by your company.
• License under the GPL so that it can be used free of cost, with appropriate credit for the original coding.
• Have the reference or baseline code hosted online, freely available (your own servers [big company investment] or at Sourceforge.net

that leaves a few questions for the IP attorney:

• Do we need a patent?
• Patent or not, what steps to enforce the license will be required?
• How much will this cost the company--best/worst case?

Details like community involvement; retaining the project as a company project only or not; taking donations or "selling"; etc. will come later. None of these are new questions; you might want to talk to some big OSS project administrators to see how their choices are working.

Good luck! It sounds like a lot of fun to be involved in.