Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Patent Markings May Spell Trouble For Activision

Posted by Soulskill on from the almost-rocket-docket dept.

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."

4 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. a nutty form of anti-patent troll by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the article notes, these have become common lately. Groups going under names like the one here, "Patent Compliance Group", spend their time digging through product literature looking for "patent pending" claims, and then dig to see if a patent really is pending. In some small percentage of cases, it isn't, and they hope to make enough money on those to justify the endeavor.

    I mean, I don't like false advertising, but somehow this particular cure seems even worse than the relatively minor disease of a game claiming it has a patent pending when it doesn't. Given that anyone can file a patent for pretty much anything, it's not like "patent pending" is worth much as a claim anyway.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:a nutty form of anti-patent troll by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a great way to collect "taxes". Did anyone ever questionned the fact that these groups may be funded by the government to deter false "patent pending" claims?

      I mean, I don't think this is so bad that they are funded by the USPTO, but at least, they could be more transparent and simply say what they are.

      And since I'm pretty sure that no money go in the pockets of those groups when they deter a false "patent pending" claim, I'm also pretty sure that they do not have a dime to fund their research. So who would do this job for free?

  2. If they're trolls, so are the EFF by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    Troll? Hardly. The Electronic Frontier Foundation routinely files lawsuits like this one on the public's behalf. Compare PCG's lawsuit against alleged patent fraud to EFF's investigations and other actions against alleged copyfraud. So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?

  3. Software already has patent markings by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If hardware is required to have related patents listed on the product, shouldn't software need these markings? What a mess that would spell.

    Until Unisys's LZW patent expired, every major non-free paint program had "Licensed under U.S. Patent 4,558,302 and foreign counterparts" in its about box.