Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?
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!
My work here is dung.
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.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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!
Infuriate left and right
A patent merely helps you argue your case.
It guarantees absolutely nothing.
A patent troll may be able to outspend you in
court.
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).
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
You need a better name for a GPL project than that, I recommend "Black Sun" - and if you haven't read Snow Crash then shame on you.
You are, to some extent, talking about creating two different things: public domain Vs. GPLed.
If you release something to the public domain, I (or anyone) is perfectly free to take it and make a proprietary version which may or may not be fully compatible with the PD version.
If you release it under the GPL, it's very difficult for someone to do that without violating the license.
That said, you need to talk to a good intellectual property lawyer, not Slashdot. You'll only get one shot at doing this so that it comes out the way you want, and a good lawyer's guidance through the process will make your success a lot more likely.
Assuming your invention is not already covered by someone else's patent, then essentially, no. IANAL, naturally, but I think you basically would just want to get a good description of the patentable claims, probably with a reference implementation, out there.
If I understand the legal situation correctly the formulation is something like your prior art has to be 'published'. My guess would be the more prominently, the stronger its claim is. In other words ideally in some "major" print publication dealing with the subject matter might be ideal.
An RFC might not be a bad idea either. Or two as the case may be.
Getting a patent issued in any case is not strictly required and as you observe, kind of expensive and time consuming as well. The only thing having a patent would likely do for you is allow you to refuse to license purely commercial implementations or collect royalties from them. Doesn't really sound like either of those things are on your agenda.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
My gut says that if you're expecting this one patent to protect you from anybody filing an opportunistic lawsuit against you then it's a waste of money.
It's certainly not illegal to invent a new protocol/new software and give it away for free. If someone later patents the same thing and comes to get you, then what you did is prior art. The thing is, just saying it doesn't make you immune from lawsuits -- the point of the lawsuit is to prove that you don't owe anybody anything. Likewise, your one patent wouldn't stop anyone else from writing a slightly different patent and trying the same thing. In other words, so long as software is patentable, you'll never be safe from patent lawsuits.
Maybe the thing to do is to file a copy of your specifications and your software code with the U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright protection for software is automatic, just like it is for written works or anything else. Registering your copyright does confer certain advantages, however. In this case, the point would be to grant you a recognized legal document establishing that your work was completed before any future patents came into being. It would certainly be cheaper than $10,000.
The real thing you have to worry about is the likelihood that there are already 200+ patents on the books covering the ideas that you have implemented. No patent registration will protect you against that.
Breakfast served all day!
Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?"
See. A. Lawyer.
Nobody on Slashdot is a legal expert, except in their own minds. The exceptions are the few actual lawyers who hang out here, and they all know better than to offer legal advice based on the kind of vague information you're providing.
This point gets made every time we have one of these give-me-legal-advice Ask Slashdots. It's vaguely possible that the submitter hasn't heard this before. But why do the editors refuse to hear it?
From DefensivePublications.org ...
[emphasis mine]
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:
that leaves a few questions for the IP attorney:
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.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
Even when there's prior art it doesn't mean somebody else can't patent it and try to sue you.
You'll win ... but in the USA at least you'll ruin yourself in the process.
No sig today...
No, the GPL will not "make official the public-domaining of the app". The GPL is a copyright license that imposes all kinds of terms on those making derivative works, while something being in the public domain means there are no copyright-based restrictions on those making derivative works. A BSD-style license would be more like releasing it into the public domain, but still quite distinct.
Strictly speaking, there is, AFAIK, no way in the US to release a copyrightable work to the public domain officially. When you say that a work that you control the copyright is in the public domain, you've mostly just issued a gratuitous public license for other people do with it what they want, that is as revocable as any other gratuitous license, but may be enforceable to the benefit of the licensee (e.g., anyone who acted under the purported release into the public domain) under the principle of promissory estoppel.
Anyhow, asking Slashdot for this kind of business/legal advice is like asking a forum of MBAs or lawyers for programming advice.
Don't get your free patent advice from Slashdot.
If you don't want it to be patentable, then publish it promptly. Also, your protocol is covered by copyright. Go to copyright.gov and spend the $35 to register it. You can always whip out that copyright registration to support an argument that someone else wasn't the first inventor.
... Patenting the protocol itself is pretty weak unless the specification clearly states what each message is supposed to do. In fact, it is the effects on the server farm and client machines that is patentable (if anything is).
As for defensive patents
Besides, I think what you are after is a patent application that the various examiners will find when they do searches. It need not lead to a patent. That costs $500 per application. Both of your protocols can be submitted in the same document. You only need one claim and it can be narrow as hell so that no one can infringe it. You could also do an early publication request. Once the UPSTO publishes your protocol documents, that about does it. They are published and the examiners are more likely to find them. Of yeah, just as web sites can be optimized for search engines, so can patent apps be optimized for patent searches. Include the buzz words/phrases you expect other people to so that the app pops up in the search.
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
I seem to recall using MXP nearly a decade ago for my MMORPG's...
First google result "MXP Protocol" and wikipedia result!
Wrong.
You can create any agreement you want with your patent.
You can even give different rules to different people.
You can even file for infringement years after people have been using it; However if the court feels you were waiting to 'trap' someone else intentionally the courts may decide against you. Most likely you will not be able to collect royalties from that entity.
Your quote is a brief summary of what a patent is. It does not mean you can't liscence it to someone else, just that sonmeone else can't use it without your permission.
Read the actual patent laws and regulations.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
2) As proof, what I am about to tell you is not legal advice, nor is me telling you this creating an attorney/client relationship
3) Hire an attorney.
That all said, a patent is not a freedom to operate document. If you have a patent on ABCD, and someone has a patent they claim covers ABC, nothing stops them from coming after you. They may win, they may not, but your patent does not protect you. It only allows you to prevent others from doing ABCD (it is a 'negative right'). Secondly, if you do want to ensure no one can own it, publish it yesterday. The longer you delay, the worse off everyone is because publications are an absolute bar to someone else patenting your invention only a year or more after the publication. Each day you wait pushes that statutory bar another day. Now, without reading your links, your 'publication' here - or more specifically whenever you put those up - is sufficient. You do not need to make it a peer journal or anything like that. It just needs to be available to the public.
Seriously, don't heed most of the advice here. It is just plain, outright wrong.
Again, get a lawyer, talk to him or her, and I'll bet you they give you the same advice. Not that I'm giving you advice.
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Don't bother reading any further, I went ahead and filed for patent on this while he was waiting for his. In Canada, you don't wait for patents, you get them as you file for them.....ok, let me see now, where did i place my bank book.