Slashdot Mirror
Patent Markings May Spell Trouble For Activision
eldavojohn writes "If you pick up your copy of Guitar Hero and read the literature, you'll notice it says 'patent pending' and cites a number of patents. A group alleges no such patent pends nor are some of the patents applicable. If a judge finds Activision guilty of misleading the public in this manner, they could become liable for up to $500 per product sold under false patent marking. The patents in question seem to be legitimately Guitar Hero-oriented, and little is to be found about the mysterious group. The final piece of the puzzle puts the filing in Texas Northern District Court, which might be close enough to Texas Eastern District Court to write this off as a new kind of 'false patent marking troll' targeting big fish with deep coffers."
Guess someone in the patents-cubicle zoned out and forgot to follow up on his email properly..
"Oh those patents, yes, they're sent off..."
"What are those patentnumbers, we need them for printing.."
*searches inbox on 'patent issue'* "Here's a list, let me put it in excel for you.."
"kthx!!"
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Slashdot tells us to love EFF, and hate patents. Besides, that's copyright, which we're supposed to hate except the GPL, and this is patents. I know it's complicated, but you've got to keep track!
Slashdot doesn't tell you anything. Slashdot is a collection of individuals. Some of them tell you one thing, others tell you something different.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
EFF doesn't file in Eastern Texas. In my opinion, anyone who files for a case related to patents and copyrights in Easter Texas does it to take advantage of the sham court system they have established there.
Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation. That difference in intent is striking, isn't it?
Also, from what I can tell, EFFs purpose of suing isn't to line their own pockets, but to strike down invalid patents and patent claims because it stifles innovation.
How do you know the plaintiff in this case isn't acting on behalf of some video game developer that wants to make another guitar game?
Um, no, patent pending is the opposite of stifling creativity.
Patents stifle creativity. Patent pending lets you know what patents to look up.
Society needs to be warned about pending patents, so that people won't waste their time developing something identical, and then learn it is patented. That is much most stifling of creativity than 'Here is a list of things you should look up before developing a product like this'.
You can argue that patents are bad, but you cannot possibly argue that 'knowing patents exist before spending time and money developing a product' is bad.
I'm actually amazed it's any sort of crime, and it certainly shouldn't be per instances. It's the equivalent of printing 'may contain peanuts' on food that does not, in fact, contain peanuts.
I mean, an argument can be made that an overkill 'patent pending' use can result in the person being unable to find the actual relevant patent by throwing too much chaff in there, but these patents are relevant...if you're using the software you purchased, you're using the patents. You're just using them on the hardware you bought separately. The government should just order them to correct the error.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Man, your reading comprehension is terrible.
Indeed. This entire discussion is a rather blatant example of the failure of moderation. Half the people here seem to think we're actually discussing whether a patent is valid or not.
Actually discussing whether or not the large fine makes sense in this day and age, when it's fairly easy to look up patents, is another thing, as is whether or not it should apply if you do it accidentally, and a real discussion we could actually be interesting.
Likewise, an argument could be made that you should have to lists patents required to use a device on said device even if the device itself doesn't use the patent. (You can replace 'device' with 'software'.)
If you really truly need a patent to do something with what you buy, like if you need to use a patented device to put fuel in your car, I would argue that it would actually make sense to require the car, as well as the fuel device, to state that. This isn't how the law works, and thus that argument won't really help Activision, but it would make sense.
Or, for perhaps a more relevant example, some companies have taken to patenting hardware interfaces. But they can patent just the cable, and hence stop people from making compatible cables, while not patenting the plug itself, and hence not having to notify people on their device.
Hence I might build and sell my own cable and be in violation of patent law, even after I've looked up the patents on the device itself. Yes, in theory, I could be in violation of patents for all sorts of things, but the point is that companies should be required to inform me, a purchaser of their stuff, all the patents that are relevant, even if, strictly speaking, they don't apply to the stuff itself. Perhaps some sort of 'See also' patent list.
But almost all the people here seem to think this is some actual patent dispute, so heaven forbid we have an actual relevant discussion. Ugh.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?