Poster Bard
First Post
Henry said:Let's not accidentally defame Loren Wiseman while we're in the process of defaming Lorraine Williams.
Or just allow them to defame themselves and be content to be the messenger...
When will we see the first RPG patent?
- Thread starter Psionicist
- Start date
Or just allow them to defame themselves and be content to be the messenger...
Re: Challenging patents. There is a very inexpensive way to challenge patents in most countries, including, very recently here in the US - and that is to challenge them before they are even issued. In most countries, patents are published about six months or so after they are applied for, for the express purpose of letting others in working in the field raise objections. Such "objections" can be as simple as an explanatory letter plus a pile of published prior art mailed to the patent examiner who handles that patent.
The overworked patent examiner will be most pleased to recieve this helpful information since it is his/her job to act as a "prosecutor" of sorts and provide reasons why the patent (or strictly speaking, its claims) should not be granted. These reasons usually involve the presence of very similar prior art that has already been patented, or else is not patented and has been published in freely available sources, and therefore prevents patenting by the new inventor. Of course, the inventor or his/her patent attorney gets to respond to the examiner and prove to them that their arguments are full of, which is usually pretty easy because said examiners are overworked and don't have time to search for good evidence for their own cause. This entire process is performed by sending letters and documents back and forth (as opposed to courtroom sessions) so becoming an examiner's assistant, so to speak, costs no more than the price of stamps plus your time in doing the research.
I have personally gone through this process succesfully to prevent a greedy contractor in a foriegn counrty (who is probably ten time our size) from patenting a device that our company makes and already has patented in the US. I made sure that the patent examiner was well supplied with piles of our patents, other peoples patents, and journal papers describing practically every similar device and method used in our particular field. The "anti patent" part of the software industry/community is heavily involved in this sort of thing.
If you are concerned about junk patents clogging the gears of the gaming industry, get on the search engines at the US, European, and other patent agencies and start poking around.
Also, talk to the software folks. They've been dealing with this for quite some time.
PS: Clearing up some misconceptions about patents that I've seen here. I'm not a patent attorney, but I have gotten plenty of patents and been involved in patent disputes on behalf of our company.
In almost all countries the period of protection for an issued patent runs retroactively from the date of application to 20 years after the application date.
You cant' patent an "idea". You have to patent a device, a method, a discovery, or something else tangible (there's a lot of legal language and definition that goes with this that I don't know the ins and outs of). For example Microsoft can't patent "taking over the Universe by uploading Bill Gate's mind to a quantum computer built by converting the mass of Jupiter into said computer using nanotechnology" without describing, in their patent, how one can produce such a computer and how one would upload Bill Gate's mind into it. Even then they could only patent things like the design of the computer, the method of making the computer, the hardware used to upload Gate's mind into it, the method of doing such uploading, and last but not least, the method they would use to take over the Universe.
As someone pointed out, a patent is only useful if you are willing and able to spend the money to sue those who build your widget or use your method without paying your license fee. If you are up against a major corporation this WILL run into millions of dollars, unless you find a law firm who will do it for a percent of the winnings (if any). Yet, it seems that relatively few companies will intentionally violate other's patents. A lot of court cases involve
gray areas where one party thinks their in the clear, but the patent holder says no - then only a judge or jury can decide. So, IMHO, having a patent in place can be effective in prevent direct ripoffs from showing up.
You can't patent something that is already common knowledge, has already been sold, has already been described in publications, or is already generally known to those working in "the art". Or, actually, you can get a patent on it if the patent examiner is lazy, knows little about the field, is overworked, or all three, but your patent will be overturned if you ever try to enforce your rights gianst someone who knows what they're doing.
The most important part of the patent to look at is the Claims section. That is where the inventors lay out in succint descriptions what, precisely, it is about the lengthy and broadly worded description in their patent that they are actually claiming is unique. Sometimes that
is just a tiny, minor, and very specific part of the widgets/methods/discoveries in the descriptive section of the patent. I've heard horror stories about people getting broad based patents for, say, as an imaginary example, The Wheel (GASP!) only to find that the claims described a specific type of wheel with a specific type of spokes attached to a specific type of axle with a specific type of weld and used on a specific type of bicycle on a specific day of the week during rainstorms....you get he picture.
IMHO there is no such thing as a patent that you can't get around one way or another. A patent can slow your competition down, but it can't stop them. I've been on both sides of that fence.
The overworked patent examiner will be most pleased to recieve this helpful information since it is his/her job to act as a "prosecutor" of sorts and provide reasons why the patent (or strictly speaking, its claims) should not be granted. These reasons usually involve the presence of very similar prior art that has already been patented, or else is not patented and has been published in freely available sources, and therefore prevents patenting by the new inventor. Of course, the inventor or his/her patent attorney gets to respond to the examiner and prove to them that their arguments are full of
, which is usually pretty easy because said examiners are overworked and don't have time to search for good evidence for their own cause. This entire process is performed by sending letters and documents back and forth (as opposed to courtroom sessions) so becoming an examiner's assistant, so to speak, costs no more than the price of stamps plus your time in doing the research. I have personally gone through this process succesfully to prevent a greedy contractor in a foriegn counrty (who is probably ten time our size) from patenting a device that our company makes and already has patented in the US. I made sure that the patent examiner was well supplied with piles of our patents, other peoples patents, and journal papers describing practically every similar device and method used in our particular field. The "anti patent" part of the software industry/community is heavily involved in this sort of thing.
If you are concerned about junk patents clogging the gears of the gaming industry, get on the search engines at the US, European, and other patent agencies and start poking around.
Also, talk to the software folks. They've been dealing with this for quite some time.
PS: Clearing up some misconceptions about patents that I've seen here. I'm not a patent attorney, but I have gotten plenty of patents and been involved in patent disputes on behalf of our company.
In almost all countries the period of protection for an issued patent runs retroactively from the date of application to 20 years after the application date.
You cant' patent an "idea". You have to patent a device, a method, a discovery, or something else tangible (there's a lot of legal language and definition that goes with this that I don't know the ins and outs of). For example Microsoft can't patent "taking over the Universe by uploading Bill Gate's mind to a quantum computer built by converting the mass of Jupiter into said computer using nanotechnology" without describing, in their patent, how one can produce such a computer and how one would upload Bill Gate's mind into it. Even then they could only patent things like the design of the computer, the method of making the computer, the hardware used to upload Gate's mind into it, the method of doing such uploading, and last but not least, the method they would use to take over the Universe.
As someone pointed out, a patent is only useful if you are willing and able to spend the money to sue those who build your widget or use your method without paying your license fee. If you are up against a major corporation this WILL run into millions of dollars, unless you find a law firm who will do it for a percent of the winnings (if any). Yet, it seems that relatively few companies will intentionally violate other's patents. A lot of court cases involve
gray areas where one party thinks their in the clear, but the patent holder says no - then only a judge or jury can decide. So, IMHO, having a patent in place can be effective in prevent direct ripoffs from showing up.
You can't patent something that is already common knowledge, has already been sold, has already been described in publications, or is already generally known to those working in "the art". Or, actually, you can get a patent on it if the patent examiner is lazy, knows little about the field, is overworked, or all three, but your patent will be overturned if you ever try to enforce your rights gianst someone who knows what they're doing.
The most important part of the patent to look at is the Claims section. That is where the inventors lay out in succint descriptions what, precisely, it is about the lengthy and broadly worded description in their patent that they are actually claiming is unique. Sometimes that
is just a tiny, minor, and very specific part of the widgets/methods/discoveries in the descriptive section of the patent. I've heard horror stories about people getting broad based patents for, say, as an imaginary example, The Wheel (GASP!) only to find that the claims described a specific type of wheel with a specific type of spokes attached to a specific type of axle with a specific type of weld and used on a specific type of bicycle on a specific day of the week during rainstorms....you get he picture.
IMHO there is no such thing as a patent that you can't get around one way or another. A patent can slow your competition down, but it can't stop them. I've been on both sides of that fence.
Similar Threads
