I would expect browser cache to be considered rather transitory - by design it may not be there from one session to another. I would expect disk or database space to be considered non-transitory.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
RPG Patents?
- Thread starter herrozerro
- Start date
I would expect browser cache to be considered rather transitory - by design it may not be there from one session to another. I would expect disk or database space to be considered non-transitory.
I would hope so too, but I wouldn't want to make any assumptions when it comes to lawsuits, particularly if I'm on the receiving end.
When did you create your converter? If it is before they filed and before their priority date, you may have invalidated their application.
pickin_grinnin
Explorer
I absolutely loathe patent trolls.
I wouldn't call these guys patent trolls. They are producing something (an RPG) that uses this mechanic that they are attempting to get patented. Patent Trolls, by definition, do not actually produce what the patent covers, and only use the patent as a source of revenue. These guys are, scale notwithstanding, closer to Apple or MS than a patent troll.
Having an actual patent with my name on it (sole contributor, I rock!), I know a thing or two about the process. Umbran's got it right. It ain't Granted, it's just applied for.
It'll take about 5 years for a patent to be Granted. Thats how long mine took, and is the standard per other folks I've worked with. Heck, I got emails about ordering a plaque for my patent before I got the official word back that it was Granted. Seems the patent plaque business has their hooks into the USPTO.
If you want to fight this thing, you need to make it obvious in google searches that prior art exists. That means figure out what search terms the patent person might look for, and post blog articles that hit that up, with references to proper sources that invalidate it, etc. Normally, the lawyer writing the patent application would have done all that research as a safety check (I had one of my ideas negated because they found something). A patent costs about $10K to file through a lawyer.
Skimming the application, the opening statement sounds like the definition of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Anybody in the business of connecting/converting data between two systems has this process. it's not unique nor is it intrinsically non-obvious to somebody versed in the field.
As such, I'd attack his application with documentation from EDI type processes as well as every set of published RPG conversion rules.
tomBitonti
Hero
"non-transitory memory" may be a standard term for software related patents. From what I've seen, there tends to be a boilerplate of sorts to establish a foundation for software patents.
The application is likely trying to give itself as wide of applicability as possible, without being so wide as to be farcical, while also avoiding problems of overlapping with cases which are already patented.
Then, "finding a vendor" is perhaps too wide. "finding a vendor" with additional unique circumstances and with a more novel way of finding the vendor, would be more what would be in the application.
Re: The original question, how does this intersect with the issue of patenting game rules? My sense is that it does not.
I do find the issue of prior art to be a big problem. But, the patent office is quite overworked, and seems to do only very scant checks for prior art.
Thx!
TomB
The application is likely trying to give itself as wide of applicability as possible, without being so wide as to be farcical, while also avoiding problems of overlapping with cases which are already patented.
Then, "finding a vendor" is perhaps too wide. "finding a vendor" with additional unique circumstances and with a more novel way of finding the vendor, would be more what would be in the application.
Re: The original question, how does this intersect with the issue of patenting game rules? My sense is that it does not.
I do find the issue of prior art to be a big problem. But, the patent office is quite overworked, and seems to do only very scant checks for prior art.
Thx!
TomB
tomBitonti
Hero
These are the main claims:
These citations are notable:
On the surface, this seems to apply to an automated process to take a character in one game (say, WarCraft) and convert into a similar character (defined by correlates) in a different game (say, GuildWars2). You could also apply it to a conversion, say, between AD&D and RoleMaster.
The main details are characteristics-in-game-1 then correlates-for-characteristics-between-game-1-and-game-2, characteristics-in-game-2, an automatic-system-of-conversion, and non-transitory-storage-of-correlates.
(Note that non-transitory is applied to the correlates, not to the characteristics. This is an important difference.)
I haven't read through all of the details to determine how well the text is carried by the claims. The text does establish a clear value. The process details seem to be on par for this sort of application. Although, if they aren't for a "possible embodiment", that would be a problem.
I'm curious as to what is covered by the cited applications/patents.
Thx!
TomB
These citations are notable:
On the surface, this seems to apply to an automated process to take a character in one game (say, WarCraft) and convert into a similar character (defined by correlates) in a different game (say, GuildWars2). You could also apply it to a conversion, say, between AD&D and RoleMaster.
The main details are characteristics-in-game-1 then correlates-for-characteristics-between-game-1-and-game-2, characteristics-in-game-2, an automatic-system-of-conversion, and non-transitory-storage-of-correlates.
(Note that non-transitory is applied to the correlates, not to the characteristics. This is an important difference.)
I haven't read through all of the details to determine how well the text is carried by the claims. The text does establish a clear value. The process details seem to be on par for this sort of application. Although, if they aren't for a "possible embodiment", that would be a problem.
I'm curious as to what is covered by the cited applications/patents.
Thx!
TomB
Last edited:
Similar Threads
