Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

EFF Attacks Online Gaming Patent

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:02 AM
from the foundation-smash dept.
Government Patents The Courts The Internet Entertainment Games News
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The EFF is attacking more bogus patents. This time they're going after the 'method and system of playing games on a network' which covers tournament ladders, online rankings and advertisements. The patent in question has already been asserted against a number of small companies who know that licensing it is cheaper than litigating. Ars Technica's coverage mentions that Netrek looks like a good source of prior art. 'Netrek, an online multiplayer game with origins in the mid 1980s, makes use of much of the same technology described in Goldberg's patent. Much of the code for Netrek is open source, and its development is archived online; the source code was first posted to Usenet in late 1989. The EFF has also documented other instances of prior art with the assistance of students at the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: EFF Attacks Online Gaming Patent by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

EFF Attacks Online Gaming Patent 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:12AM (#22306714)
    There was top-down, space themed, multiplayer game on Athena (MIT) in the late 1980's that had Asteroid-like graphics. Anyone remember it?

    Also does anyone remember a tile game (around the same time) with a train and tracks called "Software Engineer".

    Prior art is sometimes everywhere.

    • Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mrxak (727974) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:14AM (#22306742)
      Isn't the patent office supposed to investigate these things and reject obvious patent claims? Sheesh guys, hire better experts. Maybe we need some from our numbers to go down to the patent office and apply for a job.
      • Of course now all developers have to do is ignore the patent and the cease-and-desist letters. If he tries to sue, countersue for defamation/damages/a tidy sum for you and your lawyer friend. All it will take is one lawsuit and this idiot is done for.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Idiomatik (1228742)
          The way it works in reality is that both side lose about 400~800 grand and then they'll withdraw. You might recoup some of the loss but it still wont be profitable. Cept for the IP lawyers....

          • If I'm not mistaken, that's if you actually try and make a case. So the assumption is that the patent-holder spends a large amount of money and the defendant merely holds up the prior art.

            I have a feeling this patent is nothing more than an idle threat. The owner will likely take the money he has made so far and duck out instead of betting it all on a lawsuit.

            • Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Idiomatik (1228742) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:59AM (#22307358)
              99% of the time the goal is to make the legal process take forever. So you have to pay legal fees, often can't work because they are mailing you 600page books of things you have to research and you still have living expenses. Your company will be stalled. Then they just wait for you to crack or run out of money. Even if all you do is hold up prior art the law isn't so simple. They'd have a long investigation on whether or not it truely is prior art, whether we can tell or not if it came first as humans can know nothing. That this supposed knowledge is just a flawed combination of our senses. My point is it doesnt matter if there is a case or not their only goal is to stall. Most people arent willing to give up their lives for often over 8months to show up some asshat. You end up in the hole near a million dollars, your company is certainly disbanded at this point and the company you stood up to has already hit 20victims since.

              The only option in these cases is class-action. Or bend over and take it, film the experience and send it to the EFF who will hopefully have some luck finding you some cream.

              • Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Tuesday February 05 2008, @02:15PM (#22310456) Homepage Journal

                Or bend over and take it, film the experience and send it to the EFF who will hopefully have some luck finding you some cream.
                I'm not a rich guy, but every year, usually in December, my wife and I scrape together one or two thousand bucks that we have saved up just for this purpose, and we donate it to organizations or charities that either directly push an agenda that is to our benefit or that do work in which we believe.

                The EFF has been on that short list every year since 1998. As far as we're concerned, that $500-1000 that we send them is always money well spent.

                If you care about these issues and you want to do something besides just cluck your tongue when you read about IP misuse, unlawful surveillance, etc., I suggest that you do a little reading at eff.org and if you are so moved, and if living in a free society and using a free Internet has been any benefit to you, pony up a few bucks to those worthy warriors who fight on our behalf.
      • I vote for you doing that, I prefer getting paid decent wages.

        Plus, these guys presumably get so many patent applications that they can't investigate every one.. and in December 1996 this probably sounded rather novel to the guy in the patent office who spent all his free time organising his vintage stamp collection.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Loski (1233620)
        Mrxak The patent office is overburdened with prior art searches that must be conducted in a relatively short window of time. The current turnaround time on a patent application is 44 months, I believe the patent office will be rolling out a wiki-style patent community in which you would be able to contribute to the patent office's search for prior art and ultimately see a turnaround time of 7 months. Obviously, you would only be inclined to do so if you were deeply passionate/vested in a particular field of
        • You're describing it like a manpower problem. So hire more people. All I'm saying is, it if strikes us as obvious or we can easily show prior art, then they need to hire some of us. Some kind of wiki isn't a bad idea either. But look, if they're getting too many patent applications than they can deal with, it's their own fault. They keep awarding patents for really dumb things, so everybody and their brother is now filing even more meaningless patents. Make the process stricter, and the number of patents co

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by mapsjanhere (1130359)
        A patent examiner has typically 8 h of time to examine an application. So the applicant is supposed to help with the process by listing all applicable prior art and related patents - what is the basis of trying get patents overturned for having missed something relevant. But the patent examiner has to take a lot of what is presented to him as factual, or he'd never get anywhere. And so you get patents issued that should have never been granted in an ideal process, where the examiner is an expert in the f

        • 4-5 hours ( in a 40 hour week) (Score:4, Informative)

          by tinkerghost (944862) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @12:57PM (#22309220) Homepage
          These guys are supposed to review 4 new patents & 5 backlogged patent applications every week. Half the time it takes me 4 hours to figure out what the hell these lawyers are obscuring, let alone start looking for prior art. As for the guy above who said they need better experts, these are usually guys out of college - often lawyers waiting to pass the bar. For the most part they have no experience in the field that the patent is in. Hence what is novel to them is quite frequently common sense to people in the field. To present an example, the moron who managed to get a triple linked list patented. How traversing a list in 3 modes using object references is novel when traversing in 1 & 2 modes using object references is standard 1st year programming I don't know.
    • Even the little DOS game Sopwith Camel by David Clark, was network capable (1986):
      http://www.dosgamesarchive.com/download/game/127 [dosgamesarchive.com]

      This little game still works!
      • This was being done by commercial PC game companies before the filing date of this patent.

        This sounds like another one of those "lets take an old idea" and add "internet" to the abstract and get a patent on it.

  • Netrek!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by haeger (85819) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:15AM (#22306752)
    Oh, damn, that give back fond memories.
    I nearly didn't finish my education because of that game.

    I had to quit after breaking my 4:th mouse and it was beginning be embarrasing to go to the computer-support and ask for a new one.

    Ah, the joys of ogging a base near their home planet or smacking a DD carrying 5 troops.

    I'm getting withdrawal, I wonder if there's anyone still playing.

    "BenDover", captain.
    • Oh the sweet part is the newbies (10 years gaming = newbie) playing other games are so easy to get by ogging.

      I do it all the time in urban Terror. bad guys in the room? grab a grenade and click and hold fire as you run in, if they kill you the grenade will go off, if you make it to them the grenade goes off. it's a modern day ogging!

      I need to see if a recent Netrek is available for OSX. I need to become less productive this week.

    • Yeah, this reminded me of how much fun I had playing Netrek once upon a time.


      So, just to see if anyone's still playing Netrek today, I immediately followed the link in the FA, went to netrek.org, and downloaded what their webpage had as the latest Linux client. Attempting to run it, I got "sorry, but this client has expired; you need to download a current one from ftp.netrek.org." I guess that's a clue as to the vitality of the community . . . .

  • EFF (Score:5, Funny)

    by somersault (912633) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:15AM (#22306758) Homepage Journal
    The joke's on them! They're using my method of debunking bogus patents by research into prior art! If only that guy hadn't patented blackmailing someone who is debunking bogus patents by brandishing your own patent for debunking bogus patents, I'd be rich! :(

    • The joke's on them! They're using my method of debunking bogus patents by research into prior art! If only that guy hadn't patented blackmailing someone who is debunking bogus patents by brandishing your own patent for debunking bogus patents, I'd be rich! :(

      My client is the guy who patented blackmailing someone who is debunking bogus patents by brandishing your own patent for debunking bogus patents or, as we call it, BSWIDBPBBYOPFDBP.

      I have to inform you that our product name in both it's long and short versions is a trademark. We require to immediately Cease and desist from using our product's long name without reference to the short name and the patent holder (ThatGuyYouHate inc.).

      Thank you.

      P.S.: We also hold rights over the song "BSWIDBPBBYOPFDBP" interpr

      • After a little research I have discovered that the "British Society With Insecure Dogs Bought Postnatally (But Before Year Old Puppy Form) Dinner/Brunch Party" have already registered that trademark? Quit with your FUD Mr Thanshin or I shall be forced to unleash my pack of rabid pygmy ass-biting lawyers on your ass.
  • Most of this stuff just seems to be flat out obvious. Granted, I've only read the abstract (which was just plain incoherent, if you ask me) and skimmed the actual patent. I fail to see anything of merit. It sets out a broad, nebulous set of rules that could be interpreted to be any number of things. I imagine that when this was filed the patent office had dummy mode set irrevocably on, a al BOFH.

    This is a particularly bad patent, and kudos to the EFF. As we all know, small strokes fell mighty oaks.

    • Re:How exactly was this innovative? (Score:5, Informative)

      by IBBoard (1128019) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:21AM (#22306832) Homepage

      It sets out a broad, nebulous set of rules that could be interpreted to be any number of things.


      Congratulations, I think you have just discovered what is known as "a legal document" of the sub-species "patent". Part of the reason that the grammar is so bad (to normal eyes) and wordy is so that they can make it mean everything (to scare people off) and something very specific (when they're litigating against someone and want to pick a specific point by picking a specific interpretation).

      If only the EFF didn't have to waste its money on this kind of thing.

      • equivalence (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oliphaunt (124016) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @11:08AM (#22307488) Homepage
        You say:

        If only the EFF didn't have to waste its money on this kind of thing.


        which is essentially the same as saying, "If only there was no incentive for companies to obtain patents in the first place." I understand that from the perspective of good/evil or innovation/abuse, the problem is most apparent with submarine patents like the one in the article. But even in a perfect world where all actors obtain only valid and meaningful patents, those patents will be used by the rightsholder as a cudgel against other individuals and companies, to protect the patent-holder's monopoly on whatever the covered claims might be.

        The problem is with government-sanctioned monopolies in general. And that problem can only be solved if enough people get pissed off that we force government to do something about it. Companies have been pushing to expand patent protections for a long time; the public pushback is just getting started. We should all be happy that the SCOTUS has shown some willingness to recognize the public interest in limited patents, especially considering the corporate pressure to do the exact opposite.

        I think it's great that the EFF is fighting, and winning, battles exactly like this one. Their battles raise the visibility of the issue, and might eventually lead to a world where little guys who are threatened with junk patents like this one are willing to stand up and fight rather than give the bullies their lunch money.

        • If only the EFF didn't have to waste its money on this kind of thing.

          which is essentially the same as saying, "If only there was no incentive for companies to obtain patents in the first place."

          I read it as something like "I wish the patent examiners only granted valid patents.", but I suppose that wouldn't support your argument. We see what we want to see.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        ...and wordy is so that they can make it mean everything (to scare people off)

        The legal document is only a tool, but you are absolutely correct about its usage.

        Consider carefully and rationally what is the purpose of a legal document in this case. Is it to inform? No, it's weapon of intimidation. What annoys me is that there's an entrenched assumption amplified here amongst the Slashdot group that there are two courses of action

        i) Settle
        ii) Litigate

        There is a third perfectly valid strategy to intimidation
  • I think I should patent the business process of establishing patents based on clear prior art and then suing companies for the use of my intellectual "property." Of course, my application would probably get rejected as prior art, but at least I could enjoy the irony.

  • 1989? (you must be new around here) - try 1977 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Steve Hosgood (152793) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:28AM (#22306930) Homepage
    Essex university's MUD (circa 1977) would show that at least all the concepts of playing multi-player games on computer networks goes back quite a long way further than merely 1989. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-User_Dungeon [wikipedia.org] for starters.

    • I have a version of Empire from the PLATO system from 1977. I first played an earlier version of Empire in 1974-75. Empire is the game that Netrek is descended from. At the very least, it had on-line rankings (both for the current month and "all-time"). The copy I have, in fact, shows the records as they were in 1977!

      By the early '80s we were also running tournaments; I think we usually did it as round-robin, then a championship and an "All Stars" game. The scheduling was not done automatically, but d

    • Did you just stop reading after 'method and system of playing games on a network'? What part of Essex's MUD covered "tournament ladders, online rankings [or] advertisements"?

      • Yup. On login, Netrek servers presented (still do, actually) clients with several lists of top (for varying definitions of "top") players. If those aren't "ladders", as covered in the patent, I don't really know what is.

        I don't recall XPilot or Bolo doing that, but didn't XFire do something similar?

  • Make the patent granter liable. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thanshin (1188877) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:28AM (#22306934)
    Patent granters should pay for damage done by granting frivolous patents.

    Further discussion about that, here [url].

  • EFF vs Internet Fax Patents (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:39AM (#22307050) Homepage Journal
    I hope the EFF eventually turns to take down the patents locking up Internet faxing. Practically all regular telephone features are available in FOSS software (like Asterisk and better) that let people start up "telcos" to compete with the big ones for very little startup money and basic development time. All except Internet faxing, which J2 (formerly JFax) has locked up with patents [google.com].

    Those fax patents are bogus. But destroying them would cost something like $millions which is more than any of its single licensees has to pay, so individuals just license it because that's cheaper.

    If the EFF could organize potential licensees to fund an EFF suit to eliminate the bogus patent, it would free up Internet faxing for everyone. Which would mean that there would no longer be that single exception to "telephone service" that requries cutting in a patent extortionist. Which would mean FOSS Internet faxing SW could get development the way the rest of telephony has. Which would mean complete telcos could be started up without the costs and barriers that still keeps it an exclusive club for AT&T, Verizon and occasional VC funded "little giants" like Vonage.

  • An obvious sign of a bogus patent: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Loibisch (964797) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:47AM (#22307158)

    The patent in question has already been asserted against a number of small companies who know that licensing it is cheaper than litigating.
    I always find this an obvious sign that a company knows their patent is bunk.
    If they were sure their patent was valid they would go after the big players like Epic, id Software or EA, not the small ones that are intimidated easily but really just are statistical background noise when it comes to online games. If someone violates your patent then you go after the guy who does it big style...else you really just care about the quick money and not about holding up your claimed rights themselves.
    • Why isn't the law in this area similar to trademark law?

      I Ain't A Lawyer (see how that avoids "ANAL"?), but it's my understanding that if you knowingly allow people to infringe on your trademark then you basically lose the rights to it.

      If patent holders were REQUIRED to go after anyone infringing on their patent then they'd have to go after the big firms that CAN afford to debunk it.

  • forgive my legal ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acvh (120205) <geek@@@mscigars...com> on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:48AM (#22307182) Homepage
    but aren't patents supposed to cover a specific implementation of an idea? it seems that these days they get stretched to cover ALL implementations of an idea. perhaps i am being naive, but so often a patent is awarded, and they the holder sues anyone who does anything remotely similar. that ain't right.

    hoping for a return to sanity....

  • Snipes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NullProg (70833) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @10:55AM (#22307308) Homepage Journal
    Back in the mid-80's when I was a BOFH we used to play snipes on Netware 2.11.

    Snipes (diminutive for Snipers) is a text-mode networked computer game that was created in 1983 by SuperSet software. Snipes is officially credited as being the original inspiration for Novell NetWare. [2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipes [wikipedia.org]

    Enjoy,
  • I played Adventure (Colossal Cave) over DECNet in the 1980's, and I suspect the technology to do this existed ten years earlier, I just had no access to it.

    My father described playing "Battleships" over the phone network during WW2. No computers were involved, but WTF.

    This patent is so obvious you dont even need to be experienced in the art. You dont even need to be an adult.

    Perhaps there needs to be a class action against the USPTO by victims of stupid patents?

  • Not the first time Netrek used as prior art (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Unbeliever (35305) on Tuesday February 05 2008, @01:52PM (#22310072)
    Several of us in the Netrek community consulted with a set of patent defense lawyers back in 2000 to use Netrek as prior art to kill Patent number 5,822,523 claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, which also killed 6018766 I think.

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5822523.html [freepatentsonline.com]

    I didn't get involved in consulting for the Goldberg patent, but I did in 2000. Had a few long face to face meetings with the defense's lawyers, showed them the game, did a technical presentation, presented a few packet logs, and got a few free meals out of it. From that, they understood the claims well enough that they got the appropriate declarations from the appropriate original developers.

    The result of which the defense submitted a motion to declare the claims invalid, and the judge had a draft ruling granting the motion and was about to issue a final ruling, but the plaintiffs either dropped the case, or settled out of court. The parties were Lipstream vs. HearMe. (Lipstream were the defendants, HearMe the plaintiffs)

    I have a PDF copy of the ruling somewhere in my archives. It used to be on netrek.org, but got dropped in a recent site-move and redesign.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Datamonstar (845886)
      Did you even go there? If you did, I'd have thought the naming convention and it's reasons would be fairly obviously, even if you didn't stumble upon the reason why the 1extra "T" was omitted.

      • I don't see how the post was seen as flamebait (do you even know what flamebait is? it's not a flame), but whatever.

        The point of a name, a trademark, a logo, a signature is to be informative without any other context. A reader shouldn't have to know the company history or the industrial interplays to take an impression from the name. This is *exactly* the same issue as the doublespeak you see in naming legislation these days: USAPATRIOT ACT sounds a hell of a lot more palatable than DESTROYINGDEMOCRA

    • Thank you for pointing out how lame current generation games are by comparison to this ancient but awesome game.
    • The abstract refers to card games as an example of its applicability. The actual text of the patent is more expansive.
      • This is a very detailed patent with more prior art cited than I've seen in any other patent. The way prior art works is if they cite it and the patent office still approves it them they have a good shield against claiming that their invention is not novel. Be very careful about people spouting off that such and such idea was done twenty years ago as that is a bit like non-programmers saying that COBOL had variables, loops and other stuff and therefore there is no difference between C++, Forth, java script

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.