Slashdot Mirror
Realtime Gaming Patent...
Whizard wrote
in about a
new patent on realtime synchronous actions over the Internet
that could applied either to games or to medical operations
over the Net. The description makes it look like another
exercise in patenting the obvious, but would anybody care
to
analyse it and give us a rundown on what is now prohibited without
a license?
They do happen to have a client and a server running on Linux.
ASSMASTERS!
Cartman
the last part says it has it's roots in a large government contract.
we paid for it...so they keep the code.
nice job, HOLEZ
im a capitalist pig but im starting to get really pissed at these ecommerce patents, like priceline, cybergold...just doesnt seem right!
How does one get a job working as a patenet officer anyway, and who works there currently.
The IRS should go audit all of them...
Two stupid forces working against each other, can't be all bad
Haha. This one is going to get shot down fast. There are a bazillion examples of prior use. 'Nuff said.
It looks like the patent only covers their specific method of dealing with the problems in multiplayer gaming. If you're writing your own stuff, you should be fine as long as you don't look at their code or try to emulate their methods.
Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, blah blah blah.
These guys take $250 million from us taxpayers to develop this software, then they patent it.
GMAFB!
I have come to the conclusion over the past couple of weeks that the greatest significance of the free software phenomenon is that it can nullify the very serious, detrimental effects of software patents. The existence of free software which violates a patent seems to me to be a very common situation, and a very unenforceable violation of a patent. It is therefore the only real way to overcome the detrimental effects of software patents.
IBM won 750 patents last year, fully half of them related to network computing. I consider software patents, although obviously legal, to be unethical, counter-productive, and widely abusive. Free software is the best way to overcome the effects of patented software. We all need to study the relationship of free software to software patents and examine the implications of their overlap on an ongoing basis. My feeling is that this relatively unexplored area holds a large amount of significance in the current panorama of technology and freedom debates.
If free software holds the promises of better software, then it must include a promise of overcoming the horrible effects of software patents by rendering them unenforceable. I recall from my reading a time when governments ruled the possession and use of a printing press an issue subject to the law. Free software certainly has implications not yet widely realized. I think this is one of them.
Gene Mosher
gene@viewtouch.com
Another situation that proves the US government needs to do a big *POP* when it comes to patenting software. The really bad issue here is that it approved a patent for technology that is much older than even the company. As said before, many software packages (games included) have dones this for years to keep the amount of data sent across a network to a minimum.
Claim 1 describes IRC.. (Well, IRC is a bit more efficient actually)
Wow.. they invented a 10 year old concept.
Course, the other 53 claims all describe the patently obvious.. (oops, no pun intended)
It just goes to show that the patent office will give a patent to anyone for anything that they don't understand.
Like software.
The documented attitude of the patent office is: "We will grant the patent, and let the private industry lawyers sort out the rest."
Makes me sick.
- T
*laugh*
I'm not big on this whole patent thing, so could someone fill me in: it isn't possible to patent something someone has already been doing, even if that company doesn't have a patent on it, right? Everyone (with the exception of the patent office) knows online gaming has been happening for years. :-/
Which also makes me wonder how the heck any company thinks it can patent *genes*... man, that's more public domain than air!
Take the bones of irc, sprinkle with bot-rust, add a dabble of Netrek, throw in MOO for bussword compliant Object Orientated excitement, and stir with a plank of well-seasoned m-bone.
There's probably something cunning in there. Can't see it myself.
-michael
ishamael@mersinet.co.uk
In the game of hardball, where all of the dynamics of business are really played out, winning (getting your way) is always ultimately an issue of money and power. Free Software has to have a way to play hardball. That way is to disseminate code which duplicates patented software in its functionality yet which is not traceable to any specific person or organization. The enforcement of the patent will therefore be unenforceable and the availability of the code will be universal, therefore the value of a software patent will be nullified. If Linux can eliminate the need for a proprietary OS, and be a better product at the same time, then the existence of universially available free software with an INDETERMINATE origin, although violating the patent of a specific piece of software, while outperforming it, is how you eliminate the horrible effects of any given software patent, or any general software patent. It's time to declare ware on software patents and the misery they create.
someone needs to make a LawyerBot so that we poor open-source developers can get a lawyer... :)
code which is determined to be in violation of a particular patent. The code can be universally disseminated and put into use before it can be even determined to be in violation of a patent.
Really, did you?
To paraphrase an old joke:
Why does a dog lick itself? Because it can.
Why do people keep patenting software? Because they can.
Bad dog!
A collegue of mine who worked on DoD simulation technology for over ten years informs me that the claims in this patent are covered by a great deal of prior art. In particular, ISO and UCF have articles of which she is aware that describe technologies that this company has "patented".
So this needs to be addressed. USTPO (PTO?) needs to be reformed to stop issuing these incredibly broad patents where vast amounts of publicly available prior art exists.
I personally think we need to stop giving s/w patents altogether, but that's not the point. The system as it is now is supposed to *deny* this kind of thing due to the existence of prior art. If they can't handle the implied requirement to actually *check* the prior art, then they need to stop issuing these patents until they can figure out how to do this.
IBM has been watching too many episodes of "Pinky and the Brain". I'm just not sure which character they're playing.
I've seen ALL of the episodes of PatB and I haven't patented anything.
Narf!
Today I patented the idea of wiping one's own ass. I'm taking all of you to court until you pay up.
NTP is a "distributed system" that "maintains a global timebase" over all clients on multiple servers with different network latencies. There is nothing new there.
Time syncronization has been around as long as networks have.
And real-time network games have always used a distributed time base, its called real-time.
- T
Actually, if a piece of software is free in the beer sense, I think it might be exempt from paying patent owners in some countries. These patents are concieved in terms of commercial use. Of course, the best thing in this case would to be free in both the beer and speech senses.
Software patents are a bad idea. The do nothing but obstruct technological advancement and encourage greed.
I think that the patent office is seeking its
own destruction through absurdity.
After the sacking and burning of the patent office in April of 2010, the insiders will ask: "Man, what took you so long...".
x
hell, medical ops over ANY remote networking
device are questionable. what happens if the
link goes down? no, i think i should say
what happens -when- the link goes down?
if someone was operating on me , i wouldnt want them
doing it over a computer network and i sure as hell
wouldnt want it to be something like the internet.
now advice, or guidance, to a real doc over a network is fine..
but i want a human being standing there with the instrument/device that is working on me.
It would be the burden of the patent holder to identify parts of free software as violating the patent. I doubt this has ever happened - RMS would know for sure. Let's make the job of the patent holder the nigh-impossible job. That's exactly what needs to happen.
Its not prior art if it is not published in print.
Also, to be considered prior art, it must have been published before the date of the invention, or more than one year prior to their filing the patent application (filed May 1996).
- T
I now no longer wonder why the USPTO is in trouble.
Is this a typical patent examiner?
?
To be considered prior art, it must have been published before the date of the invention, or more than one year prior to their filing the patent application (filed May 1996). I don't know when they invented it, but if it is in 1989, then it is only prior art if it is prior to 1989.
The full text of the USPTO quote is found at (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general
"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if:
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . .
- T
fully agree. the best possible way to defend open source from patents, is to vastly increase the size of the gpl codebase. if the code must have a piece of paper with it restricting its use. it should be our paper. doing this will not only make the obtaining of such patents far more difficult, it will also really test the arm length of anyone trying to "embrace and extend" our software out from under us.
I think I will patent the idea of software patents. Then, rather than defend myself against the claims of prior art, I will sell a portion of the patent to someone with deep pockets (billg?) who will promptly sue someone with shallow pockets. The shallow pockets plaintiff will offer to settle for a tiny royalty and thus a precedent will be set. With the precedent in place I will collect a royalty from every patented piece of software sold and live happily ever after.
And do not think of copying this idea: I am applying to patent the idea of patenting software patents!
I think I should patent the act of getting patents, that way all patents would be mine and it would stop more stupid patents!
I claim the patent on TIME, ENERGY, MATTER and SPACE. And all laws of physics which relate them. And the results of applying any of these discoveries.
The original question was about code that had not been seen by anyone but the inventor. It would be difficult to prove exactly when this code was written/conceived. Therefore, it couldn't be used to prove that "the invention was known or used by others in this country
Note also the "in this country" phrase. This being the US PTO, this can be an important sticking point. Even if someone could prove that they had built and tested some code in another country, but had not published or patented it, it would not necessarily constitute prior art in the US.
I would hope that putting the code into free distribution, or public CVS, would constitute public knowledge, but I am not a lawyer. I guess that the moral would be: free your code early and often.
- T
If you check the responses to the first post (gawd, I can't believe I just wrote first post), you will see that someone has also thought of this idea.
don't property rights exist for reasons other than "the government created them".. What about the IP Not homepage. Patents are really just government backed monopolies - the're not free-market at all.
I believe that by publicly announcing your concept, you have essentially given up your rights to patent the idea of patenting software patents (whew, say that 10 times really fast). That is unless you have already filed a patent application.
Next time keep your mouth shut (and fingers from typing).:-)
I looked at the details of the patent and have come to the conclusion that maybe there is something. Basically their patent is about taking a distributed network of servers and making it possible to logon, and play games at the various servers. With a game like Doom, there is only one server. They are saying here is a network, and lets play.
Here is the catch, the technology they are talking about is not really new. DCE does this by default, but DCE is not a game. The one catch that could be interesting is Compuserve. Compuserve had this technique already in place. You logged in locally and you could play games or other things distributed throughout the network. Or maybe am I wrong on this one? As well, I wonder if there are not BBS's that were networked together to play games. If so, then this patent is null and void. Otherwise it may just stick. And the odd thing is that there is no way around it. It is called distributed processing.
I think they are getting the patent, so that they can take a huge corporate (MS) to court and get millions for nothing.
Yes I think software patents are useless. Why did the computing era grow so quick? Because of the lack of patents. This was true innovation.
The problem is our stupid justice system is run by people who know old law very well and "do it" very well.
-But when it comes to software patents, they seem to turn into stupid uneducated filth eating monkeys who have no real idea of what their doing - the impact on the future.
As another former examiner, the USPTO and the Federal Circuit have decided that software patents are permitted. The way to fight this it to place all of the techincal documentation in a written form... it posting on the web w/ a valid date will act as prior art which examiners in the first case, and attorneys and courts later will user to invalidate these claims.
... I trust he did a good search for what is described in THE CLAIMS not the abstract or anywhere else ... I bet he did not find examples of the things everyone talks about in a proper form for prior art so he had to issue it. While the patent has a presumption of validity, it CAN BE INVALIDATED if prior art can be shown to exist. I do this type of thing every day ...
... it is the same for mechanical devices - electronic devices - look at all of the fuss Apple is getting this week about Firewire ... why would software be different when it turns a computer into another "new" machine ... as I have said above - the way to beat the system is to create a new pool of prior art that can be used to keep the patents to include only the truly new ... figure out how to do this and you may actually improve "the system"
I happen to personally know the examiner who issued this patent. He is neither technically incompetent nor a rubber stamp. He is one of the good ones who tries to do a good job... within the time contraints he is given
Anyway - it is the system we have
so much for my 2 cents
By the way, I hereby declare all patents pretty much void. I think the internet is almost the essence of free market and what not. I think that the voices of the people will determine whether or not a patent truly means anything. Particularly due to the fact that a US patent has no effect in Europe say... The internet and the open source community will keep most people from being screwed by people such as these. (It seems to me from that abstract that these assholes are trying to patent the internet.. according to the abstract at ibm, technique 1 is pretty much such things as dnses and servers in general.. technique 2 is such things as subnets and routers etc.. and number 3 sounds something like good old internet MULTICAST).. What a bunch of wankers.
I've been practicing law for a few years, in between my stint as ABA Quake champ, and would simply like to state that this is pure rubbish. I doubt it would be difficult to skirt around the issues. You all have to remember most judges and folks sitting in the jury box aren't very sophisticated when it comes to matters of a technical nature. Try explaining to them the difference between a GNU and a gnat! I say PISS OFF!
1989 is not important. They only filed the patent in 1996. Prior art is valid if it pre-dates the invention OR pre-dates the patent application by one year. If either applies the prior art is valid.
Thus if I invent something and file for a patent immediately, anyone can claim prior art. But if I invent something and then file a patent 50 years later, anyone can come and say: I've been doing this for 30 years and there was no patent (or, I've been doing this for one year...)
So it 1995 (one year prior to filing) that you should think about
It's me Ektanoor. I left my psswd at home so forgive being an AC.
I perfectly understand the "general meaning" of the stuff. I'm a Quake vet and know more or less how things run in such systems. The problem that I'm rising is that everything they talk about in their claims is pretty cool. The problem is that there is a big difference between what you, me understand and what the comp can get with it.
Let's note one thing. The majority of computers is unable to even understand the basic meaning of interest. You must specify it. Or else all this is technologically void of meaning.
Let's think about that same Doom rooms. You have a "limit" seen on the walls, ceiling, floor, corridors. Ok that's your "zone of interest". But for the comp these things do not exist. Limits are set on the basis that if you have an mathematical object "wall", a series of conditions work that limit your "world". Now these conditions depend on mathematical model of the "rooms". There are several around. So by not specifying the exact model of boundaries these "zones of interest" become pretty abstract. Remember that from the point of what you think down to the little box there is a whole world. Even if you play deeply with maths there is still the problem to translate them into those things the comp may understand.
Let's put an silly analogy. Let's consider that we write a text about binary logic where (0,1) is wrote as "to be or not to be". Well it seems Shakespeare was the pioneer of computers.
I think in the UK if I can prove prior art then either the patent itself is declared invalid or I personally can claim an exemption from it (not sure which). And presumably if it can be proven that the knowledge was public before the patent application then the patent is invalid.
The trouble with the US system is that it's often 'winner takes all'.
patent the process of teaching the patent office how to look at the real world, I mean.
of course, they probably raised the term again recently. I could be up to 50 years now.
genes currently are patentable by the company that finds them. Stupid yes, but then so is the entire patent office. The patent office doesn't distinguish between discovering something and creating something. Luckily, two (maybe more by now) very talented research teams at a couple of universities are working hard to sequence human genes for the express purpose of placing them in the public domain. Hopefully support will grow amongst their collegues.
... I think I'll patent the Higgs boson. Then I'll charge all you bastards licensing costs to use gravity.
However, the lack of distinction between discovery and creation gives me an idea
:)
Software patents are damn near never based on code, but on ideas. Usually there's nothing provided for the examiner to base his judgement on except a mind-numbing mumble jumble paragraph or an amazingly simple drawing. Then, if somebody like IBM finds that you execute the IDEA that they say is described, even if the patent holder has NEVER executed the idea, then you stand accused.
I'm advocating another form of civil disobediance. We'll see what's legal. And we'll see what's enforceable. In your view, Ghandi and Martin Luther King were simply criminals. If you can't lend a hand, get the hell out of the way.
Prior art or prior use does not invalidate a patent. Prior art is simply ammunition to give to your lawyer so that he can try to invalidate some of the specific claims.
That, and you have to also give the lawyer lots of money.
The problem is, the individual or open-source developers have neither money nor lawyers.
So, we are doomed.
- T
The disadvantage is that you can't do anything illegal?! You can't secretly use patented code; You can't slyly break the law; Think about that a second. There's a criminal mind at work.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Posted by Dacre:
h tml
Well, the patent issue wont die, but Linux game developers may be pleased to hear that the company will support Linux as a platform.
http://www.next-generation.com/jsmid/news/5642.
Not nessicarly.
If you use a patent they need to sue you.
Okay, so they sue you. You get a lawyer, and then while they are suing you, you counter sue, claiming in your counter suit that they should have known about the prior art you are claiming, therefore they shoudl pay all your court and lawyer fees.
Since you don't have money you can really lose.
It suddenly occures to me that the US has different views from most of the world, (in this case we are right) in most countries prior art counts for little against a pantant. If I invent something and then you pantent it, I own the pantant in the US just as soon as it goes to court. (and if you can't afford to fight it, offer a competor a license to your pantant for dirt cheep, they just need to get it for you)
In many countres that is not true. If I invent something and you pantant it you own it. Therefore please check local laws before considering anything on here.
After some thought I think that software pantants would be okay, if they weren't covering obvious things. The concept of the wheel is not pantantable, but a specific wheel might be. Right now everyone is discovering the wheel, and then the axel and other obvious things. the obvious needs to settle out before pantants are awarded.
The counter suit solves that for you. Lawyers will take up a case just like that where if they lose they don't get paid. It gives them an incentive for winning.
You've never heard of accident lawyers that run a deal where if they win they get a cut, if they lose you pay nothing? Basicaly the same deal. I'm sure you could find a lawyer(or a whole pack of laywers) that would be willing to take the risk. Especially if it meant big bucks.
Later,
Xamot
?
Yay! Screw RTIME, Ultima 6 rocks!
:)
But seriously, I don't have a whole lot of experience with graphics (drawing or code, but less with drawing) but I'd love an Ultima 6-style game for Linux, multiplayer or no...
(in fact, isn't there a project like that already? I guess we're not the only ones, then...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Sounds like a job for the Dining cryptographers problem!
sounded a lot like round robin DNS + mirroring + multicast routing of web media. Hardly a new concept.
Can someone post a link to the entryin the IBM patent database? I couldn't find it, but from what I read of the press release, there is so much prior art on this it's laughable. Heck, I can think of *RFC's* that cover some of the areas mentiond.
Things which come to mind: NTP, IIP, various VRML technologies, multicaste IP, etc. Why is it that the Patent Office turns technology into such a joke?
Oh, and I love how this was all part of a government contract.
sigs are a waste of space
DCE does most of this as well. Basically, all this stuff is age-old distributed computing stuff. To think the patent office would grant this is nothing short of increadible.
sigs are a waste of space
At http://www.rtimeinc.com/html/demoframe. html they've got a (Windows only) demo game called RTIME Rocks! available for download to show off their innovative new technology. Has anyone tried this yet? Alas, I won't have access to a Windows box until I get home from work.
My bullshit detector immediately glowed bright red as I read the first sentence on the demo page:
Ummmm, no.--
The Linux Game Tome
Patents aren't awarded instantly, they take years. The first implementation of this was 1989 according to their web site. So, any prior art has to be prior to 1989 - NOT prior to the issue of the patent. Now, I don't know when nettrek or these other games were doing this, but if it wasn't before 1989 then it's not prior art, and the patent is perfectly within it's rights.
Having said all that - I totally disagree with software patents. OK?
--
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Basically, as I read it, the patent basically covers web caching, all Ubermuds, Tinymushes, LP-MUDs, LambdaMOO and multicasting.
The patent exclusively covers servers and clients that deal with more than one application. That means that it does not cover games such as Netrek or Empire, which are single applications. Nor does it cover Xtank, as that does not have "clients". On the other hand, it DOES cover programmable MUDs.
It ALSO covers multicasting and web caches which can also cache FTP and/or Gopher connections, as that would satisfy the multiple application & network efficiency requirements.
In short, this patent is worryingly generalised, and DEFINITELY covers and subsumes technology which is very definitely both Prior Art and Public Domain.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This has been done in network games like Netrek for years. Many claims in the patent are questionable.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Yup,
After reading the description of the patent I immediately realized just how much of this has been implemented in Netrek.
Not recently either, this has been around for 10 years or more.
Pathetic... I'm going to send them a letter along with one to the patent office.
Steve
Netrek Client/Server coding geek
DCE had distributed time service since about 10 years ago. That's prior art. no?
...richie
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I notice these guys are in part basing their patent on patent US5659691 "Virtual reality network with selective distribution and updating of data to reduce bandwidth requirements" which really pisses me off because *that* patent refers to an article I wrote in 1992(!!) for my Cyberterm project that talks about these very things.
I obtained some lengthy legal advice from a patent attorney regarding this earlier patent and, like this new one, these guys don't have a leg to stand on. Basically, to infringe their patent you'd have to build a system that copies every one of the features they mention. Miss just one or two (like Cyberterm does, because they're stupid ideas) and there's no problem. Also, as many people here have mentioned, there're many cases of "prior art" for this genre.
The ironic thing is that a patent is allowed to be based on public knowledge and other patents, just as long as it is a unique and new combination of those other techniques.
Yeah, it pisses me off a lot...
pithy comment
IANAL, but...
The patent seems to focus on client-server-network-server-client situations (multiple clients, multiple interacting servers), which does not seem to cover games like Quake or Doom, since they are client-server-client (i.e. multiple clients connect to a single server).
Even Ultima Online does not have interacting servers - at least not in the sense the patent intends the servers to interact. Each UO server is a closed world.
Prey might come close to meeting the claims of the patent, since there someone attached to one server could shoot someone on another server.
IRC has already been mentioned as prior art for the patent (#channels == zone of interest).
But anyway, there's nothing in the patent a good engineer wouldn't develop in the course of developing a heavily distributed system (think Quake for 2000 players, for example).
Well, after reading the whole thing, I can't
/list /names at the same time, you get flooded off.
really say it looks like IRC.
You can't really refer to nicks as "objects with
positional data", for instance, as well as
consider them "participant stations in a zone
of interest" (channel)
And, while zone of interest (channel) does filter
out only the interesting messages to a
participant, IRC also does not decide how much
information to send based on bandwidth. If
you join too many channels, or request a
and
I think the comparason to nettrek would be more
valid. Quake probably does the same, although
thats a closed system. It'd be nice to see a few
of the FPS game companies rip these guys a new
asshole.
--Dan
This sounds a lot like what the QuakeWorld developers did a long time ago. They made net quake *totally* playable over 28kb modems.
And what was that bit near the beginning about 'postcards'? Is that their *PATENTED* term for a network packet, or just a typo? Hmph.
BOTTOM LINE:
Nobody's doomed. Things'll work out fine. These folks will either have a legitimate technological advance to offer (doubt it), or they'll tread carefully so as not to draw undue attention from the open source crowd while they pick the pockets of game companies and consumers who don't know any better.
When duty calls, the open source community will protect its interests in high style. If we have to pass a (Red?) hat, we will, but I *REALLY* doubt anything will come of this.
**>>BELCH
They're just patenting the IDEA of solving the hard problem(s).
Why I oughta...
**>>BELCH
I've read through the description on IBM's patent server, and while I'm not a lawyer nor a patent expert, this patent seems impossibly general. It says very little despite its length; the length is more devoted to extending the generality further. Also, they're not patenting a technique, but a concept; there is very little detail in the patent as to how exactly any of this is done.
The claims are astoundingly verbose and hard to decypher even for a patent, but as far as I can tell they are:
A distributed environment comprised of multiple servers, each may have many users. To save bandwidth, information is sent only once per server rather than duplicated for each user. The communications may be multicast or point-to-point. The environment can support applications. There is a global timebase, and every event is timestamped.
Users specify what information they're interested in, and events have parameters which can be filtered on. Only information the user's interested on will be sent to them. The system can be object oriented, and objects can have types, which can be used to filter.
Events and objects in the system may have position, priority, data rate etc associated with them, and these can be used to filter on.
The priorities of multiple users on a server can be coalesced into groups for easier filtering.
Information sent to a remote server can be pre-filtered by the sender according to its knowledge of the remote server's needs, bandwidth. Also, information recieved by a server is filtered to remove unwanted info.
Servers can be grouped according to shared preferences.
The multi-user environment can be grouped into regions, where at least one server administers each region. Regions can overlap and there is the concept of 'neighboring' regions. Filtering based on this geographic knowledge. Regions may be grouped. Does this sound patentable to YOU?
Yours is the first report I have ever heard from inside the USPTO. If the case is going to be made that the patent office is out of control and awarding bogus patents, then we need as many "war stories" as we can get our hands on.
Please, describe your experiences at the USPTO. Encourage your colleagues there to come forward and describe the process, the rules and pressures under which they work, and their own stories. What do they do when confronted with an application whose technology they simply don't understand? Are they allowed to seek consultation from outside?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I believe that many of us think that the patenting of software and algorithms is getting out of control. To fully appreciate the severity of the problem, one should go to the US Patent and Trademark Office Web site. Once there, one can then do an advanced search
Trying entering an/microsoft or ttl/"data compression". It get pretty depressing to see what has been patented. Here's one of my favorites from microsoft.
Activation control of a speech recognizer through use of a pointing device
Abstract
A speech recognition system includes a facility for toggling the state of the speech recognition system solely in response to a user using a pointing input device, such as a mouse. In one embodiment of the present invention, a user designates a predetermined area of a display surface on a video display to be a hot region. When a mouse cursor points to a location within the hot region, the speech recognition system is put in a listening state wherein the speech recognition system is listening for and processing audio input. When the mouse cursor is moved so as to no longer lie within the designated hot region, the state of the speech recognition system is changed back to the state that immediately preceded the listening state. Blah, blah, blah, you get the idea.
BTW, this was applied for in 1995 and was awarded in 1999. There is probably some similar patent except that the user has to click a mouse button.
Things are going to get worse. The courts and the computer industry are going to be tied up in patent disputes for a long time. Want some career advice? Become a patent lawyer specializing in computers.
No, the free software world is not doomed. The reason is that a patent is merely a license to sue. The plaintiff (the patent holder) must prove that you've infringed, and that the patent is valid. In a large fraction of cases, the patent gets tossed out, partly because the patent office has been doing such a bad job.
If you are using techniques that you can prove existed before the patent filing date, they can't touch you. They can take you to court if they like; if so, perhaps we should start talking about free software legal defense arrangements that will not only defend people, but countersue.
The risk you are taking is that if they can show you knew about the patent, you infringed anyway and they win in court, monetary damages are tripled.
Getting a patent removed from the books costs $$$. But you don't have to do that.
The bogus patents are merely annoying. What can be really crippling is the strong patents that can't easily be shown to be invalidated by prior art or worked around.
To patent something the something can't have been in public domain for more then a year. Meaning you can have a product out on the shelves and be like oh shit I want to patent that and you can if it has not been out for more then a year. That is how they get away with patent pending. Now telling people to shut up is not nice at all. Hope you feel like the jerk now.
--MD--
--MD--
Well, it's been awhile since my high school government class, but isn't an act of Congress required before the federal government may be sued? I don't think that anyone stands a chance of getting that. A much better tactic would be simply lobbying the Congress to outlaw patents on intangible objects (business models, software, mathematics equations, genetic coding, etc.).
and that was my first thought too... if they try to interpret their own patent as applying to common distributed things done on the net, IRC is a clear documented example of it and it's been going on for about 10 years.
Maybe I'm missing something but I made two passes over the patent text and couldn't get something straight. What do they mean by "zones of interest"?
While I keep on broad english I may try to get the idea of what this could mean. However we are talking about computers and things related to them. They do not define any boundaries on what is a zone. Nor they specify what could mean interest.
Some of you may hate me for what follows but think a little bit on maths and try to link the plain english of the patent. They speak about zones. Well that may mean in the computer world a numeric boundary (ex. [-1,1]). Meanwhile while we humans may understand infinite boundaries, comps can only digere _discrete_ ones (due to their 0,1 logic). So on whatever boundary you talk about, you must be very careful to _translate_ it into the computer world. There are several methods and technologies to do it. Depending on what you're trying to translate. So here we go to the term of "interest".
So what's that "interest" all about? Psychological interest? Well please tell me how you do that. Fuzzy logic? Neuron systems? Anything else? Anyway what is "interest" by itself?
There is also another problem with this "interest" game and its limits. They talk about a server defining a zone of interest. Well what do you mean by server? A computer? A program? A beowulf cluster? Without defining the boundaries and term "interest" I can't get up to what boundaries you're talking about. Well maybe you can hold 100 guys. Maybe 1000. Maybe even the whole population of Earth and somebody else. Without boundary definitions this patent is void in its sense. It's pure verbality.
Well guys. Let's define a new name for Internet: Zone of interest.
It would be like M$ sueing all those MCSE's for getting windows to work, and if that happened I would be out of a job
Budda_Z I am Just using M$ till EA's NHL franchise is available or replaced by something on Linux
'Oh Great and Mighty Budda what is the secret of life?' 'Two all beef patties special sauce lett...'
After reading the abstract it seems to me that this is a patent of computer communications in a VERY broad sense. It almost seems as if the web would fall under this patent (along with just about everything else on the Internet). Would someone care to clarify, because I might have missed something important..
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
FYI to all those that are 'flaming' the patent examiners.
Each examiner has quotas to meet on there applications. For a GS7 it is about 4 for a G 9 it is about 5 and as they get higher and higher up the scale there quotas go up to. What this means is that they get promoted and have more work to do and less time to do a good job on it. It is "ASSUMED" that the examier is skilled in the art.
Well some are and some are rubber stamping people.
It is dificult to do what they do and do a good job. I know I used ot do it and it sucked butt.
They hire almost anyone with a technical degree background. Typically enginering or science.
They teach them patent law over time, but it is just not an effective system. IT IS MAJORLY FLAWED.
1) There is no way that an examier I don't care how long he has been in the USPTO will know everything about there specific technology.
2) Computers are NEW to the USPTO. I was there in 1996 and they were having problems on weather or not examiers should answer email and if there should be a set time limit. Many examiners were just getting computer in 1996 and hated the things. (??? a-- backwards??)
3) People who are that new to computers and just learning windows were working on Patents for software. They couldn't figure out Windows 95. ??? Please !!!!
These are people that are working on software patents and they can't even use computers. How are they supposed to know about network technology????
Now about hte patent. They are talking about distributed processing. It sounds like something related to Beowulf, or on the lines of parallel pprocessing??? I just looked at the first claim and it looks pretty long, so there may have been a case that someone did not fully understand it and issued it, and said let the laywers fight it out in court. This happens too.
My suggestion is keep on programming, and use CVS and back it up. Keep records if you think that something you are working on may be of question.
They may chose not to enforce there patent. They may have just got a patent so that they could continue doing what they are doing and just ot have 'official' record that they were the first.
Only 'flamers' flame!
The one thing I would be interested in is in
which way these patents would apply in Europe.
In Europe it is NOT possible to enforce patents or
even file them, if:
- They cover software - software patents are only
valid in the rare case that the software is part of a bigger system with an existence in real life
(which basically means controlling software for
robots for example)
- They cover mathematical algorithms
This would actually invalidate 99% of US
software patents inside Europe. There is an
agreement though that patents of other countries
are respected but on the other hand it is impossible to enforce US right on Europe. The
agreement about patents was once created under
the condition that also the rules they have to
follow will one day be unified - which hadnt happened yet...
Anyway, the current situation of the law makes
it impossible for an American company to enforce
software patents on a company which is based
in Europe...
Should the unification of the IP and patent right really come one day, I hope they will in this case finally decide against software patents...
I'll admit, I only skimmed the thing, and IANAL, but it looked to me like it was a patent only on the specific programs and methods of Internet networking that they used. I could be wrong, but it would probably be best not to get all excited and angry until someone who is a lawyer can take a look and see what they think.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Oh my God, I think one of the "inventors" used to be a roommate of mine!
I'll have to try to get back in touch with him, maybe ask for a loan....
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
While you can certainly point to lots of systems which do similar things, the question is whether they do it in the same way.
Some things, like only sending people stuff they're interested in, almost certainly has prior art (QuakeWorld may be early enough). Their backbone stuff looks a lot like IP multicast and a little like IRC. Unreal uses the importance of events to determine network priority in bandwidth limited situations, but it certainly post-dates this patent.
The other stuff about keeping a unified timebase over all clients on multiple servers with different network latencies is *HARD* and if they've got a good solution they deserve a patent.
On the other hand, a closer reading of the claims leads me to believe that they haven't solved the hard problem.
J
1) A patent has to be controllable, that means, they will have to prove you actually use their patent if anything goes to court. How are they planning to do that?
...''? Yes. Can't believe it, always write ``any number of ...'')
2) claims 2-54 are subclaims of claim one. If your game/whatever does not fall under claim one, it certainly does not fall under 2-54.
3) occurences of ``at least one'' local client/participant give possibilities: use one dumb server without clients -> No violation. (Does it really read ``at least one
4) occurences of ``plurality'' give possiblities to ``single'' application environments and such (or am I misinterpreting the word plurality here?)
5) Forget the abstract. Only the claims are valid. For instance, where in claim one is ``Seamless multi-server management'' desribed? I only see multiple servers...
Unfortunatly, it's not legal, since I'm pretty much the only one who's seen it.
A year ago I programmed something that's pretty much exactly what's described in the patent: A server that manages multiple clients in multiple zones, and synchronizes only the information that needs to be synchronized. It even handles seamless interaction between zone boundries. If they sue me when I release my game.... There will be blood.
Of course, it will be easy to prove that my code in no way is derived from theirs, as it depends on absolutly no external libraries, and I have all the source code nice and readable. But I'd still have to go to court, and I'd rather code than deal with that shit.
Incidentally, are there any artists out there who want to help with graphics for an Ultima 6 styled massive multiplayer game? (There will be a Linux version... and Win32, MacOS, BeOS) : )
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the abstract of the patent and said, "Hey that sounds vaguely like IRC!"