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!

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!

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).

Poor name choice

[Compholio]

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.

Public domain isn't necessariliy free and open

[gujo-odori]

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.

Nothing can protect you

[PCM2]

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.

One. More. Time.

[fm6]

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?

create a 'defensive publication'

[dencarl]

From DefensivePublications.org ...

Defensive publications, which are endorsed by the USPTO as an IP rights management tool, are documents that provide descriptions and artwork of a product, device or method so that it enters the public domain and becomes prior art. This powerful preemptive disclosure prevents other parties from obtaining a patent on the product, device or method. It enables the original inventor to ensure that they have access to their invention by preventing others from later making patent claims on it. It also means that they do not have to shoulder the cost of patent applications.

[emphasis mine]

Re:Who owns the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rights are assigned to Green Phosphor LLC, the company I founded. I own 60% of the company. :)

So when I say it's free, I guess it must be!

Please, just everybody stop. You are all so wrong

[psxndc]

1) I AM a lawyer

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.