EFF Attacks Online Gaming Patent 126
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.'"
Re:Prior art? (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly was this innovative? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a particularly bad patent, and kudos to the EFF. As we all know, small strokes fell mighty oaks.
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
An obvious sign of a bogus patent: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
forgive my legal ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
hoping for a return to sanity....
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
equivalence (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How exactly was this innovative? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 and protection rackets, indeed it is the most effective.
i) Settle
ii) Litigate
iii) IGNORE
When you recieive a legal document of this kind file it in the wastebasket. Treat any communications from an aggressive source similarly. Do you feel obliged to answer those letters from the Domain Registry of America, or every little piece of 419 scam trash that lands in your inbox? Of course not. If someone really has a case against you they will pursue it and escalate, send follow up letters. File those in the trash too. Eventually, if they are serious enough to really believe they have a proper legal case against you someone will meet you in person with a summons. That costs money to do. Having a real person serve papers costs, and it's a deterrent to specious legal threats. It's only the fact that it costs nothing to send out these baseless legal threats that makes it profitable for troll companies.
The mistake is to take the bait and respond. You always have deniability of recipt UNTIL you respond. You make the aggressor do the work, make them pay for every move.
Re:4-5 hours ( in a 40 hour week) (Score:2, Insightful)
If the patent application is complicated, and it's not clear what the invention is, nor how to "build" it, then the patentee has not fulfilled their part of the patent contract, and so should not get a monopoly on it. Simple really?
Re:Prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why isn't it like trademark law? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.