Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent

An anonymous reader writes "Back in 2004, Slashdot posted about computer solitaire being patented. It was a ridiculous patent and made it onto the EFF's list of worst patents. However, not much had been heard about that patent until now. It turns out that the patent holder, Sheldon Goldberg, is now using that patent to sue a bunch of different online publications, including Digg, eBaum's World, the NY Times, Cnet and the Washington Post. He's also suing Google, Yahoo and AOL (why not?)."

Re:Why not microsoft?

[quazee]

Most of the claims of that patent involve a networked version of a card game, where users play simultaneously with a "computer opponent".
Things such as advertising and scoreboards are mentioned as well.

So, the Windows Solitaire is less susceptible than a Web-based card game with advertising/leaderboard.

Impossible

[jrothwell97]

As unlikely as it may seem, Microsoft could be a saviour in this case. If I remember correctly, its (rather good) implementation of patience solitaire has been in Windows since 1990. Far before the patent was issued. So there.

Re:cut 'em off

[kanweg]

The term is limited, to a period of 20 years. As an incentive not to keep the patent in force for any longer than necessary (and to pay for the patent system and bring in some tax money), there is a renewal fee to be paid every year or in odd cases (US) every couple of years. The fee gets higher the longer you want to keep the patent in force.

Patent terms are way more reasonable than copyright terms. And for a patent you have to meet high standards (OK, in some countries they sometimes make a joke out of that) and it is quite costly. Now, compare that to copyright. It doesn't cost anything, doesn't require registration and lasts for all practical purposes forever.

As to the HIV issue you mention. Just about any patent law has an article allowing the government to step in and end the monopoly prematurely. This is not done for trivial reasons, but in case of say - a bird flue epidemic - a patentee cannot hold a country at ransom. Brazil did it recently when some drug company insisted on charging too much.

Bert

Re:Why not microsoft?

[Zordak]

Why don't they go after microsoft too? They've been distributing a computer solitaire game for many years in clear violation of this patent, and they have plenty of money to sue them for!

Because the claims don't read on a single-player card game. The claims positively recite multiple players. Taking a quick look at the claims, it looks like this is one of those instances of doing something well-known over a network. Given the Supreme Court's recent KSR decision, you could probably invalidate this by finding an instance of somebody doing the same thing not on a network.

I am a patent lawyer, but I don't represent you. This post should not be relied on by anyone for any reason. This post is my personal opinion, and is not endorsed by Jackson Walker LLP, its agents, or partners.

Re:Suing eBaum's?

[Nullav]

Nope, just the copies. :p

Re:cut 'em off

[Artifakt]

The U. S. Congress has added an additional term of up to 5 years to the normal 20-year patent term for pharmaceutical patents. This is designed to prevent financial losses from the additional time it takes a pharmaceutical manufacturer to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration eating up a substantial portion of overall patent life.
    Overall, this may be fair. Concerns include whether the variable additional term awarded is sometimes not a close match for the time actually taken in a given case, what happens if the FDA takes over 5 years, and whether there are other industries deserving similar adjustments and not getting them.

Killer solitaire

[AlpineR]

Despite the oxymoronic name, there does exist a fun multiplayer variant of Klondike solitaire. Each person plays their own deck and columns, but the stacks where you put cards in A-2-3-...-J-Q-K order are shared. Each ace starts a new stack, so there can be multiple partially complete stacks for each suit. The first player to get all of their cards out of their columns and onto any of the stacks wins. It's fast-paced and competitive.

Contribute to the EFF

[Anderlan]

The only way I see the BS in software patents (and unbalanced copyright) coming to light is by the people who know the system doing the hard work of moving things along and educating the judiciary and public. The EFF is doing this. We can never contribute enough to compare to what the bad guys' lawyers have, but we don't have to. Just enough to knock some sense into people.

Re:Dammit...

[darthfracas]

too bad Gambit from the X-Men is a fictional character...

Re:Why not microsoft?

[Zordak]

My firm requires me to have a disclaimer. I'll admit I'm not always meticulous about it, but I can get really screwed by a post that sounds like I might be opining on whether a patent is valid or infringed. They basically own me, just like your employer probably owns you, so they can tell me to do stuff like that. Link or no link, I'm still an attorney, I work for a firm, and they can be held accountable for many of my actions.

That said, sure, no reasonable person would think I represent them or that they're entitled to rely on my post as legal advice. But there are a lot of unreasonable people in the world, and they're the ones most likely to sue. Lawsuits are expensive, even when you win. So practicing law turns out to be lots of making sure stupid people don't sue you. If you want proof, hire a lawyer to give you a legal opinion, and read the disclaimers in that.

Re:Why not microsoft?

[It'sYerMam]

They have to be an expert in some field - sufficiently such that they can testify based on technical evidence.

Re:Why not microsoft?

[Zugok]

Witnesses, in general, can not give evidence beyond what they can ascertain from their five senses, i.e. opinions generally can not be accepted. Expert witnesses can give an opinion which must be supported by their knowledge in the field. Generally you need to have specialist knowledge, usually technical, and be a recognised authority or qualification in the relevant field of evidence in question (so that excludes astrologists).