JaGeX Killed a Patent Troll

[All_Bogs]

Heh, he actually called them patent trolls in an official statement. I'm glad the court ruled in favour of Jagex, this entire lawsuit was a load of bull to be honest :mellow:

[Den]

So are they going to sue the makers of Skype and AIM too? :blink: From what I understood, PalTalk is an instant messenger kind of program.

[Quyneax]

You reckon they'll see any of those seven digits returned?

[Michael]

You should check Tim Langdell for more trolls in the games industry.

[Assume Nothing]

You reckon they'll see any of those seven digits returned?

 

 

That's 2008. What do you think?

[sees_all1]

IP disputes are not frivolous, and if you read into the article, they brought the suit because it appeared Jagex was infringing on their rights. When they examined the source code, and the claims in the patent, they found this was not the case.

 

Obtaining a patent is not an easy process, and it is not cheap either. Patents (especially in tech/computer fields) tend to take on the order of 5-7 years if all goes well, and may cost in excess of $100,000. In the United States, a patent grants you up to 20 years of a monopoly on your invention. If Jagex was infringing on the patent holder's rights, they should pay. This was not the case, and its unfortunate that the lawsuit took so much time, effort, and money to defend.

 

 

Also, for all of you young budding game developers, I suggest you do not look at those patents.

If you knowingly infringe on patents in the United States, you're liable for triple damages. The easiest way to avoid this is to stay ignorant.

 

You are everything wrong with the current state of computer software if you are supporting software patents.

Get a job developing software, then let me know how you feel. I like getting paid to work.

[ilovecuttingyews]

People are acticing surprised that he actually called them "patent trolls" but that is the most common name for exactly what they've done.

 

Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic' date=' often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

The term [b']patent pirate[/b] is occasionally used to refer to the same practice. Related, less pejorative expressions are non-practicing entity (NPE), non-manufacturing patentee, patent marketer, and patent dealer, which describe a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention.

I know, Wikipedia isn't a "credible source", but just the fact that it's got a huge write up proves that it's a common name for them. I've also heard the name "patent shark" used before to describe them as well.

 

@sees_all1

It is fine and dandy if you take out a patent and you intend on using that patented material. But these patent trolls often take out large numbers of patents that they intend to just sit on for years to come hoping that someone invents something with enough similarities that they can sue for profit. That's the difference between software developers and patent trolls. You actually intend to profit off of the system you are creating by building it, while the trolls simply want someone to come up with the idea then claim 'first rights' so they can pocket anymoney the developer made in publishing their software.

 

What I would like to know is, by "winning" the lawsuit, does Jagex get anything? I seem to remember hearing that in the USA, if you file a suit and lose you have to pay the defendants legal fees ... is this true? Because when this takes 10% of Jagex's annual profits, it's a big deal.

[sees_all1]

@sees_all1

It is fine and dandy if you take out a patent and you intend on using that patented material. But these patent trolls often take out large numbers of patents that they intend to just sit on for years to come hoping that someone invents something with enough similarities that they can sue for profit. That's the difference between software developers and patent trolls. You actually intend to profit off of the system you are creating by building it, while the trolls simply want someone to come up with the idea then claim 'first rights' so they can pocket anymoney the developer made in publishing their software.

When you file a patent application, you "teach the world how to do something". In return, you're hoping for a monopoly on that something (patent granted). Because you invented it, and you hold the rights to it, you can be as unreasonable as you want. Some of our favorite companies are like this, hell even Apple is aggressive in its IP protections.

 

These patents were originally filed and used, but when the company that owned them went bankrupt, this company saw value in it. Jagex, and anyone else could have tried to buy these. The unfortunate thing in this scenario is that the company sued first, then asked questions later. They also waited to the end of the life for the patent - its easier (and cheaper, probably) to sue for damages over the last 10 years than to negotiate a licensing contract for the next 10.

[deskjethp]

this is why funorb has no budget...

 

i hope there's some counter-litigation...

[meili]

I'm guessing the patent troll couldn't examine the source code without talking to Jagex first since the source code is not released to the public for obvious reasons. Why didn't talk to Jagex first then?

[Grimy_Bunyip]

Heh, he actually called them patent trolls in an official statement. I'm glad the court ruled in favour of Jagex, this entire lawsuit was a load of bull to be honest :mellow:

I'm pretty sure most companies just call them patent trolls.

I'm not sure but it might actually be the technical term.

 

btw it's worth noting that the title of a patents can be misleading, as there is no standard that describes how the title needs to reflect the contents of the patent.

 

Like an engineer can call something an "engine patent"

even if the only thing it patents is a single screw in a particular type of engine.

 

Likewise this patent might be called a patent about sharing data over the internet.

But it might only patent a certain chain of code that is required for sharing data over the internet.

 

If Jagex doesn't have that chain of code. Obviously they don't infringe on the patent.

I'm packing to go home so i won't actually read the patents today though :P

[Quyneax]

You reckon they'll see any of those seven digits returned?

picture

 

That's 2008. What do you think?

I think a seven-digit number is pretty large amount of money for such a small turnover. I'm wondering if they'll get a refund (as in loser pays). I also don't think you even tried to come up with a decent answer and that your post is mostly irrelevant.

[bored321]

If you read it, it says they agreed not to counter claim and as a result both parties have to pay their own fees. If it was under UK law they could try to claim the fees, but it was not.

[Star_Fox]

Somebody wants money...

 

Thats all I can say.

[Myweponsg00d]

I think patents are stupid. Totally stupid. Especially on stuff like this. Nobody has the right to a monopoly...unless you have a patent? BS

 

Once something is invented, it should be available for the public knowledge. What would happen if someone develops the cure for cancer but then it gets patented? Now everyone has to grovel to one rich greedy scumbag who just wants to be a jerk.

[Hajutze]

If the technological solution is not used enough to satisfy the economical needs, they can take the patent (I'm not sure how you spell it in english .. compulsory license ?) so the above example is ... inappropriate.

 

Anyways IF I invent something I WILL WANT MONOPOLY over it. If everyone can use it, why would I invent it in first place ? I would have pretty much no motivation to invent anything. It would be better for me to just keep it secret (like the Coca-Cola recipe).

 

EDIT: Since I can't explain myself in english ... I just copy/pasted this from wikipedia. I hope you understand what I meant by the first sentence

"Failure or inability of a patentee to meet a demand for a patented product and where the refusal to grant a license leads to the inability to exploit an important technological advance, or to exploit a further patent."

[g616s]

If someone invents a cure for cancer, they get the monopoly on it in the form of a patent (and thus piles of cash). This is actually fairly reasonable, as inventing a cure for cancer would be a HUGE FREAKING DEAL, and they would DESERVE to get piles of cash for it. This is, essentially, the logic behind patents; it's a method of motivating greedy bastards into making things that are useful for everyone. It does make the new things expensive in the beginning, true, but expensive disease cures are slightly better than no disease cures. Then, once the inventor has made his piles of cash and the patent runs out, all of his potential competitors jump on the bandwagon and competition drives the price down to a reasonable level.

 

Patent trolls, on the other hand, are basically people who scrounge up as many vaguely-defined patents as possible in the hope that they can sue some huge company for a ton of money. This helps absolutely no-one, and is made worse by the fact that due to how expensive these court cases can get it is often actually cheaper for the large company to just settle out of court, which simply encourages the trolls. The U.S. patent system is horribly broken at the moment, mostly due to poor review of submitted patents and similar things (such as patents of things that are fairly obviously not new ideas, like a patent for a method of making crustless peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches or some such, or things that are nearly identical to previously-issued patents, or are simply far too vaguely defined).

[Will H]

If the technological solution is not used enough to satisfy the economical needs, they can take the patent (I'm not sure how you spell it in english .. compulsory license ?) so the above example is ... inappropriate.

 

Anyways IF I invent something I WILL WANT MONOPOLY over it. If everyone can use it, why would I invent it in first place ? I would have pretty much no motivation to invent anything. It would be better for me to just keep it secret (like the Coca-Cola recipe).

 

EDIT: Since I can't explain myself in english ... I just copy/pasted this from wikipedia. I hope you understand what I meant by the first sentence

"Failure or inability of a patentee to meet a demand for a patented product and where the refusal to grant a license leads to the inability to exploit an important technological advance, or to exploit a further patent."

 

Isn't keeping the source code a secret exactly what developers hoping to gain a profit from their software do anyway? If this is the case, how does patenting software serve any justifiable purpose? Nobody could have possibly infringed your patent on your own software because they can't access it.

[Hajutze]

The problem with software patents is beyond my knowledge (reading about it ATM) my previous post was answer to the "the patents are stupid" and the cancer cure posts.

 

EDIT: Anyways there is something that I think applies to all kind of patents - obviousness or in other words the technical solution (invention) that is going to be patented has to be so ... hard .. (ok I can't think of a word that is opposite of obvious) so any specialist in that sphere could not replicate it.

 

In other words you can't patent something that can be replicated by a specialist with enough knowledge.

 

EDIT2: hmm the patents are from '96 ... so the above (EDIT) is unrelated information =/ (still reading about software patents) ... TBH as far as I knew you can't patent softwares (I guess my lections weren't up to date :D) and even if you could 10% difference in the code should be enough to avoid the intellectual property problem.

 

EDIT3: if there is someone knowledgeable about software patents ... it'd be nice if there is some short explanation about this ... I really can't find anything concrete about it. (all I found are pros, cons, debates about the limits and etc.)

[Dexek]

It reminds me of the patent troll that went on Dragons Den who apparently had the phrase "Yo Momma" or something to that effect patented. He went on the den not with a business model, but to seek help in patent trolling clothing companies. I found it amusing that there was actual interest to work with him.

[Blutters]

If the technological solution is not used enough to satisfy the economical needs, they can take the patent (I'm not sure how you spell it in english .. compulsory license ?) so the above example is ... inappropriate.

 

Anyways IF I invent something I WILL WANT MONOPOLY over it. If everyone can use it, why would I invent it in first place ? I would have pretty much no motivation to invent anything. It would be better for me to just keep it secret (like the Coca-Cola recipe).

 

EDIT: Since I can't explain myself in english ... I just copy/pasted this from wikipedia. I hope you understand what I meant by the first sentence

"Failure or inability of a patentee to meet a demand for a patented product and where the refusal to grant a license leads to the inability to exploit an important technological advance, or to exploit a further patent."

 

Isn't keeping the source code a secret exactly what developers hoping to gain a profit from their software do anyway? If this is the case, how does patenting software serve any justifiable purpose? Nobody could have possibly infringed your patent on your own software because they can't access it.

This was actually addressed on the first page I believe. It's something like... being ignorant of a patent doesn't get you out of trouble.

 

Also, although I'm not defending them after learning that they bought the patents for troll use, PalTalk isn't purely a troll company... They actually seem to have a legitimate string of chat websites of high quality. Who would have guessed?

 

Edit: lol didn't even realize this was in General Discussion.

[glasscube]

Get a job developing software, then let me know how you feel. I like getting paid to work.

Actually I do develop software, it is just that I believe in FOSS.

 

Nobody should be allowed to patent software because a lot of the time, there are only so many ways you can make something work (efficiently).

 

And I like how you bring up Apple, who has some of the most [cabbage] patents ever. Reducing a CPU's frequency by interrupting it? Yeah, who the hell granted them that patent? Been done how long and APPLE GETS THE PATENT?

 

You are free to believe in what you want, but saying just because software patents cease to exist doesn't mean companies won't need code monkeys.

[sees_all1]

Get a job developing software, then let me know how you feel. I like getting paid to work.

Actually I do develop software, it is just that I believe in FOSS.

 

Nobody should be allowed to patent software because a lot of the time, there are only so many ways you can make something work (efficiently).

 

And I like how you bring up Apple, who has some of the most [cabbage] patents ever. Reducing a CPU's frequency by interrupting it? Yeah, who the hell granted them that patent? Been done how long and APPLE GETS THE PATENT?

 

You are free to believe in what you want, but saying just because software patents cease to exist doesn't mean companies won't need code monkeys.

Is developing software your job? Are you paid to do it? Once you written your software for your company, how do they feel about you posting the source on the internet?

 

Also, if you don't believe Apple should have got a patent for that, find the appropriate prior art and sue them. My point in posting that link that in order to be in business at all, you need to protect your intellectual property.

[wioneo]

IP disputes are not frivolous, and if you read into the article, they brought the suit because it appeared Jagex was infringing on their rights. When they examined the source code, and the claims in the patent, they found this was not the case.

 

Obtaining a patent is not an easy process, and it is not cheap either. Patents (especially in tech/computer fields) tend to take on the order of 5-7 years if all goes well, and may cost in excess of $100,000. In the United States, a patent grants you up to 20 years of a monopoly on your invention. If Jagex was infringing on the patent holder's rights, they should pay. This was not the case, and its unfortunate that the lawsuit took so much time, effort, and money to defend.

 

 

Also, for all of you young budding game developers, I suggest you do not look at those patents.

If you knowingly infringe on patents in the United States, you're liable for triple damages. The easiest way to avoid this is to stay ignorant.

 

How can it be proven in court that someone had knowledge of something? Is internet history the only way? I feel like even if you had proof that soemone visited a page, they could claim not to have read anything on the page, and what evidence can you provide to prove otherwise?

 

Not meaning to sound assholish or anything I am genuinely interested.

[wioneo]

I think patents are stupid. Totally stupid. Especially on stuff like this. Nobody has the right to a monopoly...unless you have a patent? BS

 

Once something is invented, it should be available for the public knowledge. What would happen if someone develops the cure for cancer but then it gets patented? Now everyone has to grovel to one rich greedy scumbag who just wants to be a jerk.

 

That line of thinking would hurt mroe than it helped if it was widely accepted.

 

Like it or not, greed fuels innovation. In fact, the potential wealth/fame to be gained by discovering something first generates competition which I assume has greatly expedited some major discoveries that I will not take the time to personally list.