Slashdot Log In
Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sat Jan 05, 2008 09:24 AM
from the patent-trolls dept.
from the patent-trolls dept.
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?)."
Related Stories
[+]
Games: Computer Solitaire Patented? 102 comments
Sadburger writes "Saw this over on GameDev:
'Thomas Warfield of Pretty Good Solitaire is reporting in his most recent blog that: 'My company has received the following letter from a law firm claiming to have a client that has patented computer solitaire. And by extension, all computer card games. I am not kidding.' Patent law strikes again...'
Anyone know a good patent lawyer?" Someone alert the educational sector, since at least half my programming classes involved solitaire, poker, or blackjack.
Firehose:Digg Sued Over Solitaire 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why not microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you go back to the original article, http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/4-interesting-new-cases-from-last-2.html [blogspot.com], you'll see that this guy also claims to have patented on-line game rankings, and pop-up advertising!
Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
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.Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Killer solitaire (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
But Hearts is a multiplayer, network card game.
The troll might not want to go after Microsoft with a patent filed in 2001 for a game that has been in Windows since '95. Might be a teensy bit difficult to prove priority, lack of obviousness etc.
If I was looking for prior art that is where I would probably start. But there are entire histories of networked computer games.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Although I am qualified to act as an expert witness I am not your expert witness. This post should not be relied on by anyone for any reason.
Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)
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.Parent
Isn't this the best possible thing to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our legal system works as much by precedent as by legislation.
When the NYT, CNet and Google fight this as hard as they are going to, this will set that precedent, and it will set it hard. It will make it that bit harder for frivolous patents to ever reach court, and might, just might, prompt a re-evaluation of the entire system.
Use it or lose it (Score:5, Insightful)
70% of patent actions are by people who stockpile patents but produce no products. These patent trolls are just leeches are should not be allowed to hinder real companies who actually make things.
Parent
Not a good idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe induction cooking was delayed that way, because the holder of a key patent only used it in its own very exclusive brand, and refused to license it to cheaper brands with better distribution channels.
It is much better if the patent holder has no products of its own, and instead offers patents to everyone on RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms.
Even better, of course, would be to do away with the patents.
Parent
Re:cut 'em off (Score:4, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:cut 'em off (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The current patent system is broken in ALL industries, but some sort of patent system is probably desirable.
2) For inventions that require a lot of up-front investment, a longer patent is more justifiable.
3) For industries that don't require the patent to reveal sufficient information to allow others to reproduce the invention easily, patents should be invalid.
4) When the system requires a patent lawyer to understand what the patent means, individuals who are not patent lawyers should not be affected.
5) There are a lot of undefined terms in the area of patents. These should be removed. Examples are "obvious", "skilled in the art". These need to either be made more precise, or removed from patent law...and if they are only well-defined to lawyers or patent-lawyers, then the laws containing those terms should only apply to lawyers or patent-lawyers.
A lot of these problems stem from the problem that nobody can define what a patentable invention is. As long as this is true, you're going to have either bad patent law or none
But remember, some things are cheap to copy, but expensive to invent. It's for the protection of these that patent law is reasonable. And it's unfair to second-guess how expensive it *should* have been to invent after the fact.
Sometimes I think a patent should be not a license to manufacture, but a prize, rather like the X-prise. Each year in January congress should appropriate a certain amount of money, during the next January the "Patent Prize Commission" should allot that money among those filing for inventions during that year. It would be necessary to reveal sufficient information to allow others to copy the invention cheaply (i.e., without going through either the process of invention or of reverse engineering). If you don't win, your process remains your secret. You can file as often as you desire until you have won, but there's a fee for each filing that is estimated to cover twice the cost of handling and evaluation. If two or more entries in the same year are essentially identical (in the judgment of the judges), and it is still deemed a worthy invention, then the prize is split. All winning entries become public domain.
I'm not really sure that the prize would be better than the current system, but it's hard to see how it could be worse.
Parent
MUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviousness in to the US patent office is of course different than the rest of humanity.
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Suing eBaum's? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it too late...... (Score:5, Insightful)
As dumb as it seems... (Score:3, Interesting)
A modest proposal to deal with this crap (Score:3, Interesting)
In some jurisdictions, "loser pays costs" is a way of inhibiting frivolous lawsuits. I'm not inclined to favor this, because one may too easily lose a case that has real merit, but
How about a provision where, if the case is duly found to be unusually frivolous, or glaringly without merit, loser pays triple the costs of the defendant and court?
Re:A modest proposal to deal with this crap (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with any loser-pays system is it substantially favors corporations and other interests with big dollars, moreso than the system already does. They are already behind the eight ball by (probably) having an inferior legal team and far fewer resources. Under your system, they also have to operate under the threat of being forced to pay three times that massive legal team's expenses? Remember, 3 * $1,000,000 for a regular person is a crippling sum of money. 3 * $100,000 for a corporation is nothing.
Even if you were right and should win, what kind of odds would it take for you to bring suit with that possibility hanging over your head? Is a 20% chance of ruining your life (80% chance of victory) small enough? 10%?
Parent
Does that mean... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I see no way that anyone would do something like this to do anything besides prove a point. It would be like someone being sued over the 'circular transportation facilitation device' patent from a few years ago.
Contribute to the EFF (Score:4, Informative)
What the deuce? (Score:5, Funny)
This is an outrage! Tell the King! Tell the Queen!
Let me get this straight... Rushing for diamonds? That's no way to win hearts and minds. That takes patience.
In fact, if they carry on like this, some hot-headed ./er is gonna club them to death with a spade.
I really hope that a court loss is on the cards for them. And if they whine, I say 'Deal with it'.
that's the genius (Score:5, Funny)
Parent