Several Publishers Sued for Infringing 3D Patent 358
jok writes "According to a story on GameDaily, law firm McKool Smith is suing several publishers for infringing their patent on a "Method and Apparatus for Spherical Planning", filed in 1988. Among the companies being sued are several big names, such as Square Enix, Electronic Arts, Vivendi Universal, Sega."
Vertical business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the middlemen are selling direct! You own a patent, you file a lawsuit, and you take all the profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H compensation.
The article has mentioned enough "common sense" and "ridiculous" so I guess we have get the point.
What's interesting is why/how did a law firm get this patent? Did it 'invent' 3D on monitor, or did it purchased the patent from a third party? The patent's inventor is "Waller, William G. (Portland, OR)" but McKool Smith is claiming these 12 companies infringed on their (not their client's) patent.
Either way, it's going to get ugly because this is a law firm, it probably has all the resources and knowledge to do well in court, and we all know owner-operators usually work harder.
Snowballing (Score:5, Insightful)
Slowly, companies are beginning to realize that although they could make money suing people, they could also get sued by equally greedy asshats.
It's only a matter of time. You can only be so stupid.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that some ideas are not quite scaleable, and the technology nor adoption may exist at the time of filing the patent.
Hence the longer duration given for adoption of a patented technology.
It's a very valid and nice reason, unfortunately lawyer motherfuckers like these abuse the system.
Re:This is why software patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame the patent system (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I don't want to waste my breath calling McKool Smith names. The big perpetrator here is the patent system and the patent offices who allows these general patents.
High Tech Gold indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
To give you an idea of where they are coming from, and it's purely money, here is the title of another article featuring McKool, Smith: Patent field yields high-tech gold"
I think that tells us that we will see more and more of this.
Patenting the pastels (Score:3, Insightful)
I find the fact they're trying to claim the feasibility of patenting a, for computer graphics, very basic concept, nearly as amusing as the fact that they were allowed to patent it in the first place.
Having checked US Patent Database [uspto.gov] for the description of the said patent, I think I'll go ahead and patent... oh... 'Method of creating secondary colors by combining the three primary colors' ? The matter adressed by this patent is, IMVHO, not unique intelectual property - it describes a potential approach to a certain problem on an abstract plane, without describing practical solutions?
Disclaimer: I lack sufficient knowledge of legalese, so I might have missread and missinterpreted the patent description. However, my modesty prevents me from admitting I might be wrong.
Re:This is why software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this is that it'd discourage individuals from sharing their innovative ideas. Most individuals cannot compete on a monitary scale with the R&D funds available to large corporations. Yet individuals have just as innovative ideas as members of large corporations. These innovative ideas should not be stifled due to lack of funds.
Prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent system wasn't created to patent objects that never get created. It was made so that people who come up with an idea can create it and sell it with monopoly ownership on that idea for a limited ammount of time. It would be like Eli Whitney filing a patent for a mechanical methode of seperating coton seads from coton without inventing the coton gin.
Being able to patent an idea without having to have a working implementation stifles work because otherwise people who have the same idea and actually put the work in to develope a working implementation would have to pay money to those that just see where the market is going. Like the company that is saying that anyone who does streaming media owes them money. They saw where the market was going and patented the idea. They didn't make any form of product while other people did. Neither did they try to sell their concept to others. They are just trying to rake in money from liscensing for it.
Patents were made so that the ideas and knowlege behind something eventually reach the public domain. By not developing the knowlege and only patenting the idea, you are not doing this. You are stifling the system. Hence why there should be a working implementation.
Re:uspto (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes you wonder why they aren't suing any CAD hardware or software vendors.
or Euclid...Agree, however the USPTO pendency is about 5 years (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the USPTO pedency for softwrae cases is about 4-5 years. So, 99% of your patent time will be wasted in the PTO fighting for your patent.
Changing software patents to 5 years after issue, just leads to submarine patents.
In either case, you have the difficulty of defining what is a software patent and what isn't. How much hardware can be in a software claim before it isn't software anymore?
Because if we have a "one drop" rule, I am always adding some peice of HW to the claim, which will at least allow me to litigate the issue of SW claim.
So, just shortening the time period doesn't solve the problem.
McKool Smith (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the patent (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello, this has been around since the fucking dawn of Cartesian math!
Re:Snowballing (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I disagree. The large companies just consider this as a business expense. Eventually they will either settle for an undisclosed sum, license for the agreed terms or litigate the matter into oblivion. Of course, nobody wants to pay unnecessary expenses, but overall, they LIKE this sort of behavior. Why? Because it keeps smaller companies from even coming to the table. It enforces a technological cartel and that means greater profits.
Even so, it would be interesting to speculate on, if what you say was true, which large company would break ranks first and start to lobby for the abolition of software patents.
That's what everybody is thinking. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is the patent itself flimsy at best, the way it is being used is obviously exploitation. Have we all lost sight of why patents were established in the first place? I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive--especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent. Before a patent is granted, I think there must be an "invention sponsor"--either an organisation set up by the inventor himself or an initial licensee--that submits a business plan or similar evidence that the invention will be used and marketed. The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
I think that even if this sounds harsh, lawyers and unscrupulous businessmen have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with an overly permissive patent system. It is an obvious perversion of the system when the patent holder is obviously not in a business related to the patent and has gone for years with no licensee or partner to apply the invention. If patent holders want a high-level of protection for their ideas, I don't think it is too much to ask for them to provide a high-level of detail as to their intent in applying the patent.
Re:"a master’s degree in electrical engineeri (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:4, Insightful)
On an unrelated note, if a patent applicant does not intend to invest their time and/or money, or seek investors to create and sell or otherwise benefit from the invention, then their patent should be revoked within a reasonable time (maybe 6 months to 1 year for software, longer for some other industries). It doesn't make sense to have purely law firms sitting on 15-19 year old half-vague patents without any intent to accomplish anything, and at the end of the patent period start suing legitimate businesses that actually create products and drive the economy forward.
IMO, these types of changes are needed for the patent system to "promote science and useful arts(?)" and not just act as a market competition and innovation deterrent, a effective cartel-type defensive mechanism, and a convenient revenue source for "IP" lawyers.
Re:Patents Run Out, Right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Snowballing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:4, Insightful)
The big difference, though, is that unlike a traditional court case, the lawyer should be presumed guilty by reason of the judge's dismissal with prejudice, and thus the lawyer should be required to prove to a jury of his/her peers (and by this, I mean other trial lawyers) that he/she legitimately felt that there were reasonable grounds to bring the case.
The first time a lawyer is found to have filed a frivolous suit should result in a two year suspension and a ten year probation, during which time a second offence should result in permanent revocation of that lawyer's right to practice in the state in question.
The net result, assuming reasonably strong ethical rules to support such a design, would be to force lawyers to take responsibility for their cases and not attempt to sue someone without legitimate grounds. If there are no sleazy lawyers, there will be very few sleazy lawsuits.
Re:That's what I was thinking! (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, just great.
Re:That's what everybody is thinking. (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously we're talking about an inventor that really wants his idea to succeed and not be stolen by people who actually produce something, rather than sit on the luerals.
No, this is why they were established, so we can sue the unfortunate chap that was second inline to file for a patent application on the idea, er, invention I mean.
I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Of course it is, don't you know, the incentive to patent something is so you can wait until the market is dependant on something that you patented and then sue them when there's no turning back. Its called long-term investment. Why try to bring it to market NOW when everyone else will in 16 years and then you can sue them for "damages"...?
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
Not really, because that would be too benificial to society and anit-capitalist.
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive
Good thing it isn't up to you.
especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
Our days have changed, we live in an intellectual society. That way we can lay off all or local workers and re-hire many more in some other country who can do the same work for cheaper and good quality. Good thing we don't have to actually produce something anymore, instead, we just need to "think" of it and voila... instant riches.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent
Again, how would such a provision benefits all of our bought-and-paid-for congress-criters? Or the corporations?
The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
This isn't in the best interest of a modern, capitalistic society. This would be a step backwards towards "progress" or more closely akin to Americas "developing" years. Why would we want that?
I'm done now..