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."

16 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Hold On a Moment... by mano.m · · Score: 3, Funny

    I invented trolling for false patent markings (patent pending).

    --
    Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
  2. Someone zoned out... by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Someone zoned out... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 have no expertise even remotely in this area but, as the submitter, I looked up all the patents mentioned in the claim. A lot of them seem to do with specifics about the controllers like the drum set, guitar or even the mixing board for DJ Hero. But basically each seems to cover many aspects of how these input systems allow the user to 'learn' and how the played track is replayed over the recorded audio. Take 5739457 for instance, it seems to focus entirely on the electronic drum sets of Guitar Hero. I think what happened here was that the patent markings were put on every single dust jacket for several Guitar Hero products -- regardless of whether or not they came with the hardware to play the game. So you go pick up your stand alone disc of Guitar Hero and there's no plastic drum with it because you bought just the disc or maybe the guitar-only distribution. That was about as far as I could see them going with these claims. That the person buying that may be confused that the product they bought is covering patents that promise something grander than what they bought.

      A really interesting implication for anyone that makes hardware. What if all XBox packs had the same generic patent markings and the arcade came with patent markings for the headset and wireless attachment (not included in arcade)?

      Should this sort of thing be prosecutable? Should Acitivision really get any sort of judgment against them for this level of carelessness?

      --
      My work here is dung.
  3. Maybe they used ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... numbers from Patent Hero, the newest game from Activision - you play along with the patent process but aren't really applying for them?

    You hold the pen. You fill out the forms. You are the Patent Hero!

    1. Re:Maybe they used ... by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, you guys, playing this doesn't make you real inventors! Stop having fun!

    2. Re:Maybe they used ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sure, but to test the game you need some input from patent specialists, who are way to expensive for a video game.

      That's why you need Specialist Hero ... sorry, I just couldn't resist. ;-)

  4. 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.

    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?

  5. 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?

    1. Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF by digitig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
    2. Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what's the big difference between a "false patent marking troll" and EFF?

      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?

    3. Re:If they're trolls, so are the EFF by IBBoard · · Score: 3, Informative

      Neither did this group - they're filing in Northern Texas ;)

  6. 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.

  7. It's worse in germany by s-whs · · Score: 3, Informative

    This reminds me of the 'Abmanhnungen' in Germany. In both cases it's gaming the system and should be severely punished...

    For many years in Germany attorneys have gamed the system, related to what you are allowed and not allowed to do esp. when selling something. These 'people' have for example scoured ebay ads, and when they found say a missing telephone number or missing note on how to undo the deal for a business seller, they sent such a 'Mahnung'. Not for free obviously, no, with an invoice for payment (for their own time/effort!). Yes, you will have to pay... It gets even worse. Suppose you've got an old magazine with old demo software disk on it and put it on ebay.de (as a German, I don't think you can be touched if not), then you'd better check there are no programs on there that are now forbidden. DVD copying software for example that circumvents the protection scheme is no longer allowed since several years.

    People have been sent a 'Mahnung' for putting a mag with such no longer allowed software on ebay, and had to pay large amounts of money to such 'scammers'. You think you get a few euros, but you have to pay many hundreds. Nice.

    These people are the worst kinds of assholes around just as the guy I mentioned in a previous posting, 'Pieter Lakeman' (who created a foundation supposedly to help clients of the DSB bank with supposedly bad loans, but in reality this foundation just pays his 300 euro/hour salary and there were hardly any bad loans anyway; He then influenced people to take away their money from DSB which led to its collapse. Nice!), and I consider them to be legal scammers.

    See for one notorious guy, who was sentenced to jail for other things, this page (it didn't end well for him and I don't think many people will give a damn, he was really hated as one can see in many forums...): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Freiherr_von_Gravenreuth

  8. Re:Go for it! by DavidTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  9. Re:Going after Activision in order to go after Kon by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, to recap what is actually happening for insane people who have no reading comprehension: No one is going after any patents whatsoever.

    Some extraneous 'patent pending' numbers were printed on software boxes. No one has even slightly indicated that anyone would attempt to 'enforce' said patent-printing mistakes, or that other people wish to use said patents on their software, because the patents do not even relate to software.

    Again: There are no actual patents involved at all. The 'offense' was a box that asserted that various pending patents applied to it, when they clearly do not, and no one is even slightly asserting they do. No one is attempting to enforce any patents, no one is attempting to strike down any patents. The patents mentioned will remain valid (For the things they actually apply to) even if this suit succeeds.

    Apparently, falsely claiming you have a patent pending is a civil liability, as is claiming a pending patent applies to something it doesn't, and groups have arisen to run around suing people for this. This is the story of one of those groups.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?