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.'"
Prior art? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
4-5 hours ( in a 40 hour week) (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like another one of those "lets take an old idea" and add "internet" to the abstract and get a patent on it.
Sopwith Camel (Score:2)
http://www.dosgamesarchive.com/download/game/127 [dosgamesarchive.com]
This little game still works!
Conquest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Originally released in 1991 xpilot is still developed [sourceforge.net] and we still play.
-Cluster
Re: (Score:1)
In theory the USPTO should examine all patent applications, find all prior art, and interpret it correctly vis-a-vis all patent applications. In practice, it is just not possible to a thorough job for the money raised from the application and renewal fees.
That is way many patent offices, notable, the European Patent Office, have a system of oppositions, where others within the field can challenge a granted patent using their own specialist knowledge. The procedure is strictly controlled by the EPO, so a
Netrek!? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I wish there was a Nintendo DS client for it (and people actually playing it).
Re: (Score:1)
I nearly didn't finish my education because of that game.
For me it was Gemstone II on Compuserve, I read somewhere lately that it is still running.
At that time most of us wrote their own frontends to have a chance against the inhuman typists, especially for healers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 . . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Commander Hoek.
Re: (Score:1)
EFF (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The american legal system favors lawyers period. It's inherently an adversarial system where either side can start the fight and the winner is whoever bankrolls their attorneys the longest. Since you almost always automatically lose any lawsuit you fail to maintain or defend, it's nothing more than a war of attrition, a modern version of "chicken". With most lawsuits these days, someone has to give up before the case is over. Only a scant few actually make it to a verdi
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:How exactly was this innovative? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
At least they are attempting to address the issue and bring to light these broadcast patents that are 100% bullsh*t in the least. These patents don't just scare off businesses from using any sort of thing that falls into their ambiguous description, they are stifling creativity and innovation. I doubt that their patent will hold up the EFF's challenge, but imagine if it did. How many online games do you know that use this sort of method f
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: (Score:2)
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)
I don't have a problem with patents in theory, it is just the practice that goes wrong. Some degree of protection for a truly innovative invention would help the creator, but patenting obvious things and patenting thoughts/mathematics (software) is a failing of the patent office.
Not that I have much of a clue how bad the UK patents are, other than t
Re: (Score:2)
I think your read is fair, and not necessarily inconsistent with mine, although maybe it doesn't go as far. But even "valid" patents can be used to harm consumers in ways that would shock the authors of the Constitution.
My point is that, as long as there is any system for awarding government-protected monoploy power, some bad actors will attempt to take advantage of that system.
Once a patent is granted, the system we have
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, I think you have just discovered what is known as "a legal document".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Want to expand on this? It's not easy to figure out what is going on from the response to the lawsuit. It appears that CAIR posted excerpts from a radio program critical of it, is being sued for doing so, and that the EFF is representing CAIR. Isn't the EFF thereby supporting free speech and fair use? (Not that I have much sympathy for CAIR, but they are entitled to present their position and criticize others.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
i have an idea... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Card Games (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use the (patent) source, Luke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost right. Patents are supposed to be about very specific inventions/implementations. However they, especially software patents, have become broad claims to wide swaths of general concepts. The original requirement was that a working model or plans had to be submitted along with the patent to prove it worked - eliminating the 'concept' patent. Business method and software patents tend to encompass solution conce
1989? (you must be new around here) - try 1977 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Bolo players developed side infrastructures for computing rankings and identifying top players. It wasn't in the game itself, but was definitely used and known by many players. One example is the Internet Bolo League [lgm.com].
Another was the use of character "banners" that players would challenge each other for (like championship belts in boxing). These were attached as suffixes to player names (PlayerName £). These allowed you
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Make the patent granter liable. (Score:3, Interesting)
Further discussion about that, here [url].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patent granters should pay for damage done by granting frivolous patents.
No. The person being granted the monopoly should be responsible for it's validity. Why the hell should I have to pay for determining if someone elses patent is valid? The one who stands to benefit should be held responsible for any and all damages of any kind caused by an invalid patent plus punitive fines the amount of which is determined by how egregious the patent idiocy is. This would stop patent trolls and idiotically obvious patents overnight without causing any harm to existing or future valid pate
Email Chess (Score:1)
Slashdot in violation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Thou wouldst be wise to not fighte in battles ye canst not win.
EFF vs Internet Fax Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What about HylaFax? Re:EFF vs Internet Fax Patents (Score:1)
TCP.INT has been at it since at least 1994. In '94 it was an email-to-fax gateway.
HylaFax dates back to the '90s at least.
Re:What about HylaFax? Re:EFF vs Internet Fax Pate (Score:2)
Stupid patent (Score:2)
ISDN, "Integrierte Sprach- und Daten- -netz" came in the late 90s. Litteraly it means in German "Integrated Voice and Data Network" and it's basically that. A digital network used to exchange voice communication and exchange data (mostly, faxes back then. But also connect to the internet, etc...)
H323 came 1996. Technically, it's nothing more than "ISDN data packets - but over internet". To the point
Re: (Score:2)
Software copyright examinations are so much more automatable than patent searches that the entire US IP registration system would be converted back to a respectable institution again by using them.
Re: (Score:2)
strike
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
forgive my legal ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
hoping for a return to sanity....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The scope of a patent is quite precisely defined by its independent claims. Most the words in a patent outside of the claims are not concerned with what it covers. This is especially so of the long, detailed description, which serves primarily as a source of technical information for others.
If the alleged infringing thing/method has all of the features of an independent claim, then it infringes. If features in the claim are not present, the alleged infringement does no
Snipes (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
HUNT! Re:Snipes (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
BOLO!!!! (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(computer_game) [wikipedia.org]
http://www.lgm.com/bolo/intro/ [lgm.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Adventure? Battleships? (Score:2)
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?
Anyone even bothered to read the abstract? (Score:1)
"The present invention is a game playing method and apparatus for automating games such as blackjack, poker, craps, roulette, baccarat and pai gow,..."
Later the claims seem to reduce this to card games (didnt know roulette was a card game), but ianal. Aside from that it supposed to be a marketing tool:
"The invention is useful for test marketing of products, advertisements, and reduces advertising costs."
So, as far as i can tell the patent seems crap, even if different crap than some others here seem to have implied. It only combines "online card games" with "targeted advertisement".
Not the first time Netrek used as prior art (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Kali 1994? (Score:2)
http://www.kali.net/ [kali.net]
CDC PLATO SYSTEM HAD NET PLAY IN 70's on Plasma (Score:1)
first widely
PLATO's EMPIRE (Score:2)
Silas Warner is credited as one of the co-creators of Empire. He's dead according to platopeople.com. I think some of the others involved included John Daleske and Chuck Miller.
I played (OK, was seriously addicted to) Empire from 1975 to 1981.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there wasn't a "-1, Don't know WTF you're talking about" mod, so flamebait had to do. It's not a good moderation, but it's not a surprising one.
Netrek wasn't some massive game project written by a major software house looking for VC funds or a buyout from Vivendi. It was real-time multiplayer strategy game written by a various people in the 80s and 90s for the fun of it, and evolved from much earlier games, written for research and/or amusement. Marketing wasn't really the point of it... most w
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb[Stupid...] -> is redundant in and on itself.
Re: (Score:1)
This comment is offtopic. As is yours. But as I have no need to be a karma whore (Karma-excellent) it doesn't matter. In fact I'm modding myself down by checking the "no karma bonus" box.
Of course, even though it is
Re: (Score:2)