Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Computer Solitaire Patented?

Posted by CowboyNeal on Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:32 AM
from the euchre-and-cribbage-proceed-with-caution dept.
PC Games (Games) Patents Entertainment Games
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Google, Yahoo, Others Sued Over Solitaire Patent 163 comments
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?)."
This discussion has been archived.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.

Computer Solitaire Patented? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Obligatory Joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tommy2099 (741016) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:38AM (#8170013)
    I didn't know SCO had a games division.

  • Wow (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Think of the royalties Microsoft will have to pay!

  • Maybe the patent office never heard of Wes Cherry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarkGriz (520778) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:40AM (#8170045)
    You know, the guy who wrote solitaire for Windows [slashdot.org] back in the early 90s.

  • In other news (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sklivvz (167003) * <.moc.liamg. .ta. .inoccec.ocram.> on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:40AM (#8170049) Homepage Journal
    A law firm wrote to the Copyright Office claiming to own the copyright on Copyright Offices. Said firm asked for an undisclosed sum of money or else they would sue and get the Copyright Office closed for copyright infringment.

    Funny? Wait till we get there :-(

  • Watch Out! (Score:5, Funny)

    by foistboinder (99286) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:40AM (#8170050) Homepage Journal
    I'm going to patent floating point math.

  • The mother of all Patents! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dutchmaan (442553) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:41AM (#8170067) Homepage

    I shall patent the process by which one attains a patent?.. and by extension all subsequent patents!

    I'll be a patent god with little bolts of patent energy zapping cash from every pore! People and corporations alike will fall at my feet and beg for mercy as I pitilessly strip them of financial resources...

    BEHOLD! I *AM* PATENT LAW!
      • Once we adopt a new system of confusion, you, like every other ancient deity, will simply fade away... Enjoy your reign while you can.

        Don't be thinking that I don't have a patent on that new system of confusion!

        That double negative in my sentence... yup, I've got a patent on that too!

  • Computer Solitaire? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bonewalker (631203) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:41AM (#8170068)
    That's stupid. Computers don't even like card games. Except for WOPR, who was all about playing games.

    Why would they sit around for hours playing (cards) with themselves?

    I wonder if I could patent human solitaire? Or better yet, humans playing with themselves...I would be richer than Billy Gates!

  • prior art? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by austad (22163) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:41AM (#8170071) Homepage
    Unless the patent was filed before 1979, there is plenty of prior art. I remember playing poker and blackjack on my TRS-80 when I was 4 years old.
    • Exactly. OMSI Pascal released a (quite good) hearts playing program source code with their compiler around 1980. Of course, if the patent predates that, it would have expired by now, wouldn't it?

    • Not only that, but why should games our great-great-great grandparents played be subject to patents just because they're played on a computer?

      "Hmm... I can't patent dice, but I can patent dice on a computer!"

    • Careful here- those are standalone programs.

      The patent is on 'multiplayer' versions of solitaire- in other words the players can message each other and there would be a high score table etc.

      There's even a faint chance that this is a 'valid' patent, but I wouldn't bet on it. I mean either there's some prior art (there pretty much has to be, maybe even minitel in France did something like this?), or else it may not be valid because it's too obvious; patents have to novel.

  • Microsoft will stomp on this (Score:3, Funny)

    by Muda69 (718162) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:45AM (#8170116)
    If this is allowed to happen all the MCSE's (Minesweeper Consultants, Solitaire Experts) will have to pay royalties.

  • Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Torgo's Pizza (547926) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:45AM (#8170121) Homepage Journal
    The point of the blog is not whether to fight it or not, but to marshall resources to totally obliterate the patent in question. Fighting it in court will be easy, but the point is to stop this patent from being used against others.

    I suggest reading the comments in the blog. Several other developer friends of mine have posted (Scott, Sean! What's up?) great points. Scott Miller posted a great point about his company being sued because a wrestler thought his name was stolen for a game: Max Payne. The stupidity and greed extends far and wide.

    • Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigbigbison (104532) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @12:07PM (#8170421) Homepage
      The case of the wrestler Maxx Payne versus the game Max Payne certainly seems a legitimate case to me. Scott Miller calls the guy a nobody, but he wasn't a nobody back in his day. He was in the WWF. He had t-shirts and other merchandice with his name and likeness on them.

      Now, I think that the game having the same name is probably accidental, but that doesn't mean that the game has effectivly prevented this guy from ever using that name again -- a name he had used professionally for years before the game was first announced. In that, I would think that it wasn't necessarilly about greed or stupidity. It might be, but not necessarilly.

  • semi-dupe but in sheep's clothing. (Score:4, Informative)

    by fireduck (197000) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:51AM (#8170200)
    we've seen this idiot before. last time he was here, he was C&Ding starchamber.net [slashdot.org]. Apparently he took our "overly broad" patent comments to heart and has started going after every online game he can find... gotta love it.

  • Looks like patents cover games with ads (Score:4, Informative)

    by questionlp (58365) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:54AM (#8170247) Homepage
    After looking at the abstract for all three of the patents liked in the blog entry:
    • 1 [164.195.100.11]
    • 2 [164.195.100.11]
    • 3 [164.195.100.11]

    They cover card games that would also include advertisements and collecting user information and profiles... so this could cover online card games done through MSN Gaming Zone or via Yahoo... amongst other online card gaming sites.

    • Only the claims of a patent define its scope. If a product matches every word of one claim of one subsisting patent, it infringes the patent. The first claim is generally the broadest and the least likely to hold up in court; patent holders generally use the first claim to extort settlements from less-than-rich competitors.

      The first claim of your link 1 covers all multiplayer electronic blackjack:

      A method of playing blackjack, comprising:

      • generating an ordered collection of electronic card representa
          • If you scroll down on the text versin of the patent you will see a section (right before the claims section) that is labeled "Priority", "Parent Case" or something to that effect (if you look at the actual patent image there will be a priority section on the front page). Under that section the priority data will be listed. For example, in this case we have:

            This is a Continuation application of prior application Ser. No. 08/759,895 filed Dec. 3, 1996 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,823,879) which claims the benefit o

  • Dear Thomas Warfield: (Score:5, Funny)

    by josephgrossberg (67732) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @11:55AM (#8170263) Homepage Journal
    Go play with yourself.

  • No excuse anymore (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cgenman (325138) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @12:07PM (#8170426) Homepage
    The Patent office just ran out of excuses for allowing frivilous patents through the process. It is understandable that a patent examiner might not be equipped enough to understand a one-click shopping patent, or a patent about 3rd party payment transactions over a phone network, but not understanding solitare? Even in its currently obfuscated form the patent is flagrantly obvious. Even in 1995 people were talking about how much time is wasted playing computer solitare. It would be like someone patenting the concept of a winged reusable space vehicle after the Columbia explosion, or patenting a vaccuum tube based moving picture box.

    The only way this is going to change is if the patent office becomes liable for the total defense costs + 20% of anybody who engaged in a patent fight and had the patent ruled invalid. Expecting the American small businessman to do the patent office's job for them is rediculous. They are charged with being an authority on a particular and significant portion of US law, but have degraded into a rubber-stamp. Anyone who even read this patent would have declared it invalid. The patent office must feel the financial pinch of their mistakes, or they will continue to make them as part of their modus operandi.

    It is no longer enough to go hunting against one painfully obvious patent at a time. We must correct the system that is so incompetent as to allow anything at all to be approved with the full protection of the law. That system, the patent office, and the people who work there, just ran out of excuses.

    • The only way this is going to change is if the patent office becomes liable for the total defense costs + 20% of anybody who engaged in a patent fight and had the patent ruled invalid.

      No, the only way this is going to change is if the US legal system implements a loser-pay format. Assholes like this wouldn't dare press forward, knowing that they will lose the case and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

      Of course, there's always my favourite solution: a loser-dies format. Kill the fuckers o

  • A radical idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 03 2004, @12:22PM (#8170632)
    These are the same thugs that are harassing Star Chamber [slashdot.org]. I've been thinking about how to combat this problem. Perhaps it's time for a Viral Patent License. Here's how it would work:

    A Viral Patent Board would be set up as a charitable foundation, with the stated goal of eliminating the use of software patents.

    Companies are either VPL friendly, neutral, or agressive.

    All companies start as neutral.

    A company remains neutral if they have never fired the first shot, but have not yet given the VPB permission to use their portfolio.

    A company is agressive if they have threatened a friendly or neutral company for software patent infringement. IOW, if you ever fire the first shot in a patent battle, you are forever considered agressive.

    A company is friendly if they have:
    1. Promised in writing to never fire the first shot.
    2. Allow their entire software patent portfolio, now and in the future, to be used by the Viral Patent Board to threaten agressive companies. This license is non-exclusive.
    3. Require in the licensing terms of all their intellectual property that agressive companies be excluded from licensing. IOW, if you have a patent that Microsoft has licensed to incorporate into MS-Word, then part of your deal with Microsoft must be that MS-Word not be licensable by agressive companies.
    4. Agree that beginning in 2009, it's open season on neutral companies as well, and the Viral Patent Board may sue them as they see fit.

    The net effect would be that all software would eventually become infected with Viral Patent Board controlled IP, and such software would not be licensable by agressive companies. This means that even if you write no software - you're nothing but a software patent litigator - you must conduct your business without the aid of software of any kind. This might be further extended to the attorneys that work for such companies, so that they could not use software, even at home.

    I'm posting as AC because I am in the MMO games business, and own a patent critical to that business that many companies are infringing on. I am willing be the first to hand over my patent to stop this nonsense.

  • Sue the patent office? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frobber (708393) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @12:42PM (#8170924)
    The USPTO regularly approves bogus software patents that litigator-companies use to extort money from other companies. The sued companies face costs resulting from paying fees for litigation, maybe use of the patents, and maybe lost business due to the threat.

    I was wondering if it is possible in our legal system to sue the USPTO for causing these financial damages through their incompetent approval of bogus patents?

  • End Intellectual Slavery Now! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Radical Rad (138892) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @12:53PM (#8171067) Homepage
    These trivial patents are keeping bright, industrious people working as virtual slaves for the established software publishers who steal the fruit of their mental labor through legal chicanery. The copyright and patent laws intended purpose of furthering Progress is not being accomplished. Instead they have been subverted to the point where the Progress is greatly slowed and only the wealthy can fight one of these (ought to be) unenforceable patents long enough to overturn it.
  • If I were looking for multiplayer card games on computers over networks (i.e., 'prior art'), I'd start with door games [geocities.com]. Hey, looks like card games to me. :)

  • Word from the Patent Office (Score:5, Insightful)

    by techiemac (118313) <techiemac@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday February 03 2004, @01:22PM (#8171504)
    OK... so the other day I called the Patent Office and asked them about how one would challenge a Patent based on the latest DNS Patent fiasco.

    After talking to someone who seemed to discourage me from challenging a Patent that has signifigant prior art ("well it costs a lot of money, etc") he mentioned that the whole basis for a Patent is it's Claims section. If the Claims section is, in fact, something brand new then a patent will go through.

    The interesting part is that a challenge to a patent will cost you $2,500 and $8,000+ if you want to have a part in the challenge. It seems to me that Congress should step in and regulate the USPTO as it seems as though they are becoming a potential hinderance to innovation by allowing prior art patents where they should be protecting innovation.

    Now I don't know about any other United States based /.ers but my Congressman/woman holds "town meetings" about once a year. I went to one and they actually proved somewhat helpful when I needed to get my point across. The key when speaking at these is to not be confrontations, have facts ready to go, and speak to the audience. In speaking to the audience, I mean finding something that will make them nod their heads in aggreement with you. That was you make the issue "hot" to that Congressman/woman. If you seem like a lone wolf with an issue, it won't become one. The Congressman/woman's job it to represent the population and the more that this issue represents, the hotter the issue it will become.

    Don't get pissed, lobby for change. I know we (as in my fellow geeks) like to avoid politics, but we need to start becoming more of a voice of change...
  • This guy is just trying to bully small companies into paying him with these patents. If he actually tried pushing this on bigger companies, they trash his life, buy it from him, and then trash it some more.

    The games do not require a manual dealer and in one embodiment, played in a gaming establishment using low cost gaming stations.

    Do not require a manual dealer? Played in a gaming establishment using low cost gaming stations? Sounds like casinos to me.

  • The patent office is obviously too stupid to exist. Obviously they know there's prior art -- it's probably on the computers they use at work. What's more, many of the prior art examples are copyrighted, so they can't claim not to know without admitting they're not doing their job in that respect.

    This has gone beyond gross incompetence. They're ignoring other laws as well as common sense. They've gone rogue. The USPTO needs to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up, with checks and balances built in t

  • Network Gaming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DjReagan (143826) on Tuesday February 03 2004, @01:44PM (#8171817)
    Those patents all relate to network gaming for card games. Now I was under the impression that Solitaire was a single-player game (hence the name)

    How would that relate to network play?

  • In that case... (Score:4, Funny)

    by BTWR (540147) <americangibor3@NOsPaM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday February 03 2004, @02:33PM (#8172473) Homepage Journal
    I am hereby filing a patent for a programs in which the output "Hello World" comes up on the screen.

    Anyone who copies this will feel the wrath of my lawyers...
  • I admire Thomas for his commitment to fighting this patent.

    It might be worthwhile to inform Goldberg Patents that you are aware of other infringements to their patent, namely Microsoft and that you are forwarding their patent complaint to Microsoft as a gesture of good will. I would explain that after the Eolas patent incident, Microsoft would surely be sensitive to such blatent patent infringement as is present in Microsoft windows and the Microsoft Gaming Network.

    Maybe that will get their attention.

  • Well, I am going to be watching these guys because I have a patent on shuffling card games on a computer. You play that game once, but if I see a card is not in the same order in the next game I am going to sue!

    • Think of a unique way of implementing it and you could get one. However, you can not get a patent on the idea of shuffling cards on a computer, only the implementation.
    • Now when was this patent issued?

      I know for a fact that I was playing computer card games, like solitaire on my TRS-80 Model I in 1980. It certainly was NOT the first computer to do so, graphical or not.

      Don't you think there is prior art, here?

      And as an Re: to "Wha???", I have to agree. How can they patent a derivative work of an ancient game?

      Shall I now patent computer chess? Or NIM?
    • The crazy thing about patents is that you can patent the same old ideas in new domains. Solitaire might have existed before computers, but it's still a valid patent when applied to a version for a computer. Likewise, if the patent is for solitaire on desktop computers then there is room for someone else to get a patent for solitaire for handheld computers. This is how the same old business processes that people have used for years are patentable when applied to the internet.

      Now, in this case, it would b

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.