Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent 163
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?)."
Dammit... (Score:1, Funny)
I DEMAND SOMEONE KILL HIM!
with a deck of cards.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
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!
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
His only mistake is that he didn't invent the Internet. Wait... That's been taken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But if someone wants to sue popup advertisers... hey, I'm all for it!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't Microsoft Hearts be close enough to either be infringing or prior art? It's just the same damn thing (a networked computer card game) with different game rules (which should be irrelevant to the patent).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's annoying that the version in XP is crippled to not have network support and running an older version on XP doesn't seem to work for network games either though
Please God, kill us all now. (Score:2)
It's Solitaire. As in, solitary. As in, ONE PERSON GAME. You can't have a networked version of solitaire. If you're networked, you're not playing alone any more, then it's NOT SOLITAIRE!
If you attempt to patent networked solitaire, you deserve to die. If you approved the patent for networked solitaire, you deserve to die. If you're the lawyer taking the case of s
Re: (Score:2)
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.Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Killer solitaire (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about just call it "Klondike" (Score:2)
I used to play two-player Klondike a bunch IRL, but we never called it solitaire.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What special criteria doe someone have to meet to be considered an expert witness?
Re:Why not microsoft? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the field and the country. Basically you have to have some specialist expertise.
In the UK you would probably need to be at least a Chartered Engineer, being a fellow would be better. There isn't an equivalent professional qualification in the US but to be credible you would probably need to have at least a doctorate (professorship better) and some domain specific work experience.
There are also people who might
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am not a client, this is not a request for legal advice. Although I am qualified to act as a client I am not your client. This post should not be relied on by anyone for any reason.
-
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure we could take it back much further. Like the 1970s or so. There were many multiplayer games on the first generation timeshare systems. I played a tank maze game on a Cyber mainframe in '74.
I know that WFW had hearts but I can't remember if that version worked on a network.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you can even call it a network game on a non-routeable protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
There are just so many things wrong with that statement, it's hard to decide where to start
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No one would know the name of your silly little firm if you DIDN'T ADVERTISE IN YOUR SIG. If you're so concerned that you have to put this obnoxious disclaimer in your posts, then either drop the advertising or post anonymously and quit being a self-important wanker.
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.Re: (Score:2)
You should put that as part of your sig. Would explain your disclaimer:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[blink] How is this fundamentally different from what websites with games AND ad banners have been doing since at least 1996??
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for the new treat. Also if you really want to impress your network of people, formally serve ant's on a log. with a light sprinkle of kosher salt. High protein, high fiber, and overall healthy
Welcome to Plato back in the 70s and 80s. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Schwab
Re: (Score:2)
Small government capitalists. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fear of the infamous flying chair.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about patent trolls is that they generally try to wait until people are already doing whatever their patent covers before they start trying to enforce it. If someone isn't already committed to the patented technology, they can just change their product to work round the patent; if they've been selling something that includes the
Depends on the meaning of "use it". (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people have genuinely good ideas, but don't have the capital to do anything with them without licensing them to someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Overall, this may be fair. Concerns include whether the variable additional term awarded is sometimes not a close match for the time actually t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're suing the bad guys, you sue the most obvious ones first. And if you're lucky, they appeal and you win. Then it's binding predecent, not just influential.
THEN you go sue the less-obvious bad guys, because you've laid the groundwork.
It doesn't often happen in the reverse, but it sure could be helpful...
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are right, but this guy may well have a case in the current legal system
Re: (Score:2)
The converse is making everything more difficult to patent (through whatever means) the effect this may have on individuals could also be huge. Joe Blow may invent something that could change the world, is new, unique, un-obvious and "should" qualify for a patent - now that patenting take a lot more resources he/she has a barrier to entry that organizations like google / yahoo! / etc can meet easi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that a patent that can be shown to be bogus with just a few minutes of search should not have been issued in the first place. If the patent system was working OK, then the patent examiners would be doing those few minutes of search themselves, not rubber-stamping everything that lands on their desks and leaving it to the courts to determine what is and isn't bogus.
MUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviousness in to the US patent office is of course different than the rest of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
And in 1984 or so (don't remember exactly) I worked for a company (long since defunct) that was working on online games, including solitaire. I suspect there is quite a bit of prior art around.
More Info. (Score:2, Redundant)
that's the genius (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Suing eBaum's? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I Hereby Patent... (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it too late...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it too late...... My grandpa played Solitare (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I hung around Groklaw for a while, so I found out about the legal idea of "laches". There are people over there who can explain it far better than I, but the general idea is that you can't let patent violations pile up until you can sue for scads and scads of damages. It would be difficult to argue that the patent holders were unaware of solitaire games on computers, and I haven't heard of them asking Microsoft et al. for money before, so I'd think laches would apply.
Of course, if this patent is upheld
As dumb as it seems... (Score:3, Interesting)
Impossible (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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%?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Prior Art? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.gov.im/ebusiness/microgaming.xml [www.gov.im]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgaming [wikipedia.org]
Any other cited examples of prior art? Help shut down this asshat and contribute your prior art info to: http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/contribute.php?p=sheldon [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Time to sue (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps we just need to put
Don't lambast them (Score:3, Interesting)
The other thing is to file as many patents as possible with as little money as possible to gag the patent office.
Contribute to the EFF (Score:4, Informative)
People filing frivolous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Ralph Yarrow is the one pulling the strings.
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'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please, this ace inventor is obviously doing his best to jack up the total payment to 10 diamonds. He is entitled to do whatever suits him with his patents, but this makes him seem more like a joker than anything else.
Homey don't play dat (Score:2)
Ouch.
More prior art (Score:2)
This case really seems like an attempt to make somebody pay money to make this go away. Is certainly can't succeed, can it?
Re: (Score:2)