Possible patent infringement by TGE...
by Gonzo T. Clown · in Torque Game Engine · 06/12/2005 (1:32 am) · 18 replies
This patent by Sega basically describes the recreation of an event we all know as Lens Flare...
www.freepatentsonline.com/6767286.html
I've researched about 6000 software patents and have isolated about a 150 related to gaming so far. Some of them are so broad and detailed that it could take a week to read them. There is one by 3DO that basically describes the online gaming world as Microsoft has claimed the Xbox2 will be. I have the feeling we haven't seen the last of the 3DO team.
And this patent here needs GG to step in and blast it from existance. The first claim and 5 subsequent claims pretty much describe operation of a game server exactly as it was performed when we were playing Tribes in 1999, lol.
www.freepatentsonline.com/6866587.html
Seriously, do these descriptions sound familiar to anyone here?
Someone needs to file for a reexamination of this patent. Considering that the entire first section is invalidated due to prior art, the entire patent should be revoked.
www.freepatentsonline.com/6767286.html
I've researched about 6000 software patents and have isolated about a 150 related to gaming so far. Some of them are so broad and detailed that it could take a week to read them. There is one by 3DO that basically describes the online gaming world as Microsoft has claimed the Xbox2 will be. I have the feeling we haven't seen the last of the 3DO team.
And this patent here needs GG to step in and blast it from existance. The first claim and 5 subsequent claims pretty much describe operation of a game server exactly as it was performed when we were playing Tribes in 1999, lol.
www.freepatentsonline.com/6866587.html
Seriously, do these descriptions sound familiar to anyone here?
Quote:1. A computer-implemented method for remotely monitoring and dynamically changing the operation of a computer game executing on a first computer while the computer game is executing, the computer game comprising computer code, the method comprising the steps of:
establishing a network connection between the first computer and a remote second computer;
monitoring, at the second computer, the operation of the computer game executing on the first computer while the computer game is executing;
issuing a command from the second computer to modify the computer code of the computer game while the computer game is executing;
modifying the computer code of the computer game at the first computer while the computer game is executing; and
continuing to execute the computer game at the first computer in accordance with the modified computer code without ceasing execution of the computer game.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of issuing a command to modify the computer code of the computer game while the computer game is executing comprises issuing a command to temporarily modify the computer code of the computer game while the computer game is executing.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of issuing a command to modify the computer code of the computer game while the computer game is executing comprises issuing a command to permanently modify the computer code of the computer game while the computer game is executing.
4. The method of claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
operating the computer game prior to establishing the network connection between the first computer and the remote second computer;
storing, at the first computer, data relating to the operation of the computer game;
uploading the data to the second computer after the network connection is established; and
analysing the data at the second computer to assist in determining how to modify the computer code of the computer game.
Someone needs to file for a reexamination of this patent. Considering that the entire first section is invalidated due to prior art, the entire patent should be revoked.
About the author
#2
06/12/2005 (4:01 am)
Also, using lensflares in games is a standard thing those days, so they probably won't be able to defend their patent on a court.
#3
06/12/2005 (4:53 am)
After looking over that networked game patent, it SEEMS to cover 'hotfixes' and real-time monitoring in MMO type games, where you can change the scripts while the game is running. Of course ANY game that uses a scripting language can do something similar. Doesn't seem to really cover the game/server concept. Funny thing is MOST MMO's and MUDs have had that kind of functionality for YEARS. I know for a fact that GM's in UO could 'change an objects internal attributes', they'd do it all the time to create new items and such, WITHOUT requiring a server reset, and they'd do it IN GAME from a remote location.
#4
Not to mention the lpmud and ColdMuds out there that actually could change everything auto-magically without even a hotreboot.
06/12/2005 (7:18 am)
I'm certain that many of these rediculous patents are going to be covered by the "already in the public domain" clause once they are challenged. For example, as Joshua mentioned, "hotrebooting" not only allowed you to change script/building/data, but even allowed you to reload a new executable while the players stay connected. That was freely available in the public domain back as early as 1996.Not to mention the lpmud and ColdMuds out there that actually could change everything auto-magically without even a hotreboot.
#5
Taking wild guesses is not a good legal decision. Not trying to be rude, but can I suggest you start taking the idea of patented game content more seriously? If you are going to make games, it would be wise not to step on one of these landmines. You can bet that as soon as someone see's you making money off of their patented IP that they will promptly take action to get relief that they are entitled to by law. Oh, and you don't have to sell a game to be sued for infringement, they can argue that your free game with their IP caused them to not be able to make those sales and you will be held responsible for damages based on each free copy given out.
Defend their patent? It's not up to them to defend their patent, it's up to the guy in court on charges of infringement to prove the patent is not valid. The patent is issued, it is real, and it is valid till proven otherwise. This is no joking matter. If TGE were found to infringe, we would all have to jerk our lens flare code out before we handed out anything or we would be finding ourselves in front of a judge. Keep in mind, Sega is not the king of the hill anymore, suing for revenue is just another day at the office for them.
Are you reading the same patent I am? It covers realtime monitoring and modification period, in ANY game on a network. The design of this patent is specified so that you cannot say in court "But their's is an MMO and mine is an FPS!" And likewise, taking a guess about "hotfixes" is not a very safe way to protect yourself. "Modifications" is all you need to know understand they mean to fix, break, alter, change, improve, update, whatever.
06/12/2005 (3:32 pm)
Quote:In regards to the lense flare, they could not file a lawsuit unless torque processed a lense flare in the exact way the patent describes it.
Taking wild guesses is not a good legal decision. Not trying to be rude, but can I suggest you start taking the idea of patented game content more seriously? If you are going to make games, it would be wise not to step on one of these landmines. You can bet that as soon as someone see's you making money off of their patented IP that they will promptly take action to get relief that they are entitled to by law. Oh, and you don't have to sell a game to be sued for infringement, they can argue that your free game with their IP caused them to not be able to make those sales and you will be held responsible for damages based on each free copy given out.
Quote:Also, using lensflares in games is a standard thing those days, so they probably won't be able to defend their patent on a court.
Defend their patent? It's not up to them to defend their patent, it's up to the guy in court on charges of infringement to prove the patent is not valid. The patent is issued, it is real, and it is valid till proven otherwise. This is no joking matter. If TGE were found to infringe, we would all have to jerk our lens flare code out before we handed out anything or we would be finding ourselves in front of a judge. Keep in mind, Sega is not the king of the hill anymore, suing for revenue is just another day at the office for them.
Quote:After looking over that networked game patent, it SEEMS to cover 'hotfixes' and real-time monitoring in MMO type games, where you can change the scripts while the game is running... Doesn't seem to really cover the game/server concept.
Are you reading the same patent I am? It covers realtime monitoring and modification period, in ANY game on a network. The design of this patent is specified so that you cannot say in court "But their's is an MMO and mine is an FPS!" And likewise, taking a guess about "hotfixes" is not a very safe way to protect yourself. "Modifications" is all you need to know understand they mean to fix, break, alter, change, improve, update, whatever.
#6
All invalid patents will be revoked, but If I had to appear in front of a judge to explain myself and have a lawyer prepare all the info that I would have to supply to prove my innocence, I would most likely lose my home or at the very least, my truck and my wifes car just to pay for being innocent. I have kids to take care of as well, this is not an option. Ultimately though, it might not be me they come after, GG is a far more tempting target, and as the license holders of the very product that empowered me to infringe on their IP, the likelyhood that they would come after GG instead of me is very high. Unless of course I had a big hit game, then they would want my money as well as GG's. The point here is to get this invalid patent struck down before it causes this community or any other for that matter the trouble that none of us deserve. Nobody gets a patent that they do not think they can profit from. Spending up to $15,000 is an investment they plan to capitalize on bigtime, even if it's done by lawyers in court. And trust me, you do NOT want to mess with companies that have "LLC" or "Ltd" attached to their names( Auran Holdings Pty Ltd.). Those companies have proven track records of defending their IP. The company is no joke either, they have proven games, proven sales, press time, endorsements from industry leaders, etc... They can and most likely will go after anyone they feel they can beat. I believe it's $150.00 to file for a patent re-examination, and of course you would need to have prior art that knocks out as many of the claims as you can. But since we can prove the part I posted above is not valid, the rest should collapse completely in the examiners eyes because the entire basis of the patent rides on those first stipulations. They have also trademarked this "technology" with the name "WAVE" and they are not entitled to that trademark by virtue of it being based on a patent that is not valid. IMO, it would be a great "social" not to mention wise and responsible move for GG to launch a pre-emptive strike against the validity of this patent while it's fresh out of the gate(less than 4 months since publishing). It would strike a huge blow on behalf of Open Source and Independants both of which GG endorses regularly. And if they don't want the PR about it, they can just ask the examiner for confidentiality and the identity of the petitioner will never be known.
06/12/2005 (3:33 pm)
Quote:I'm certain that many of these rediculous patents are going to be covered by the "already in the public domain" clause once they are challenged.
All invalid patents will be revoked, but If I had to appear in front of a judge to explain myself and have a lawyer prepare all the info that I would have to supply to prove my innocence, I would most likely lose my home or at the very least, my truck and my wifes car just to pay for being innocent. I have kids to take care of as well, this is not an option. Ultimately though, it might not be me they come after, GG is a far more tempting target, and as the license holders of the very product that empowered me to infringe on their IP, the likelyhood that they would come after GG instead of me is very high. Unless of course I had a big hit game, then they would want my money as well as GG's. The point here is to get this invalid patent struck down before it causes this community or any other for that matter the trouble that none of us deserve. Nobody gets a patent that they do not think they can profit from. Spending up to $15,000 is an investment they plan to capitalize on bigtime, even if it's done by lawyers in court. And trust me, you do NOT want to mess with companies that have "LLC" or "Ltd" attached to their names( Auran Holdings Pty Ltd.). Those companies have proven track records of defending their IP. The company is no joke either, they have proven games, proven sales, press time, endorsements from industry leaders, etc... They can and most likely will go after anyone they feel they can beat. I believe it's $150.00 to file for a patent re-examination, and of course you would need to have prior art that knocks out as many of the claims as you can. But since we can prove the part I posted above is not valid, the rest should collapse completely in the examiners eyes because the entire basis of the patent rides on those first stipulations. They have also trademarked this "technology" with the name "WAVE" and they are not entitled to that trademark by virtue of it being based on a patent that is not valid. IMO, it would be a great "social" not to mention wise and responsible move for GG to launch a pre-emptive strike against the validity of this patent while it's fresh out of the gate(less than 4 months since publishing). It would strike a huge blow on behalf of Open Source and Independants both of which GG endorses regularly. And if they don't want the PR about it, they can just ask the examiner for confidentiality and the identity of the petitioner will never be known.
#7
Trying to dictate GG company policy, as a community member, in our forums isn't really productive. :) You might have had better mileage sending us an offline, polite e-mail about it.
There's a lot of prior art out there. If the issue comes up, it's unlikely the patent will stand.
As is, GG has a lot better things to do than protecting lens flare code which, last I checked, isn't even being used in any major Torque games.
We don't have a legal department, or even a full time legal person at all. This isn't something we can afford to chase, any more than you can. :)
06/12/2005 (4:47 pm)
Gonzo,Trying to dictate GG company policy, as a community member, in our forums isn't really productive. :) You might have had better mileage sending us an offline, polite e-mail about it.
There's a lot of prior art out there. If the issue comes up, it's unlikely the patent will stand.
As is, GG has a lot better things to do than protecting lens flare code which, last I checked, isn't even being used in any major Torque games.
We don't have a legal department, or even a full time legal person at all. This isn't something we can afford to chase, any more than you can. :)
#8
06/12/2005 (5:11 pm)
Hmm, your right, the way it's worded is kinda vague. Of course you have a LOT of prior art, heck Netrek has been around since 1988, and even IT wasn't the first.
#9
I don't see anyone dictating anything to you. Nor do I think I was being impolite. It's called an "observation" or "opinion", submitted with a "recommendation" or a "suggestion", whichever you prefer. There is a big difference.
Not to "dictate" to you, but might I suggest you start over and read it all again. I never once suggested you protect anything other than Torque and GG. And last I checked, selling patented material was infringement, of which I was trying to warn you that you might be doing. Excuse me for looking out for your interests as well as well as everyone else's. It is Torque after all that would be in violation of the patent relating to Lens Flare. And if you have better things to do than take a look at the actual patent after I dug it up and brought it here for you, then I guess that's all I need to know. No need to lecture me.
Why the insults and hostility? Last time I checked you didn't know jack about what I can or cannot afford. All you know is that I told you I couldn't afford to fight a patent infringement case. And I may not be a patent lawyer, but I have read the patent laws a few times now, I know my way around them pretty well. My sister in San Fran who is a lawyer is married to a Corporate Attorney with patent litigation experience. I have access to every patent back to 1976, I've started research on every active patent relating to software and gaming and I have started a catalog of all patents that could be dangerous to Torque and/or indy gamer makers, including patents on AI, Graphics, GameTypes, Features, etc... And I've proven on more than one occasion to be willing to help whenever I can despite the constant negativity I receive.
I posted it here instead of emailing it because it's valuable information that everyone should know. I see no need at all for this to be any more private than I have already made it. I did after all post it in the private forums so the general public would not have access.
You're welcome.
06/12/2005 (6:00 pm)
Quote:Trying to dictate GG company policy, as a community member, in our forums isn't really productive
I don't see anyone dictating anything to you. Nor do I think I was being impolite. It's called an "observation" or "opinion", submitted with a "recommendation" or a "suggestion", whichever you prefer. There is a big difference.
Quote:As is, GG has a lot better things to do than protecting lens flare code which, last I checked, isn't even being used in any major Torque games.
Not to "dictate" to you, but might I suggest you start over and read it all again. I never once suggested you protect anything other than Torque and GG. And last I checked, selling patented material was infringement, of which I was trying to warn you that you might be doing. Excuse me for looking out for your interests as well as well as everyone else's. It is Torque after all that would be in violation of the patent relating to Lens Flare. And if you have better things to do than take a look at the actual patent after I dug it up and brought it here for you, then I guess that's all I need to know. No need to lecture me.
Quote:We don't have a legal department, or even a full time legal person at all. This isn't something we can afford to chase, any more than you can.
Why the insults and hostility? Last time I checked you didn't know jack about what I can or cannot afford. All you know is that I told you I couldn't afford to fight a patent infringement case. And I may not be a patent lawyer, but I have read the patent laws a few times now, I know my way around them pretty well. My sister in San Fran who is a lawyer is married to a Corporate Attorney with patent litigation experience. I have access to every patent back to 1976, I've started research on every active patent relating to software and gaming and I have started a catalog of all patents that could be dangerous to Torque and/or indy gamer makers, including patents on AI, Graphics, GameTypes, Features, etc... And I've proven on more than one occasion to be willing to help whenever I can despite the constant negativity I receive.
Quote:You might have had better mileage sending us an offline, polite e-mail about it.
I posted it here instead of emailing it because it's valuable information that everyone should know. I see no need at all for this to be any more private than I have already made it. I did after all post it in the private forums so the general public would not have access.
You're welcome.
#10
06/12/2005 (6:06 pm)
Good job, Gonzo. Glad to have people looking out for our best interests. ;)
#11
If everyone kept track of every single patent, and made sure every single thing they produced wasn't covered by a patent, computer technology would come to a stand still. All you can really do is produce your product, and take your chances with what is the computer gaming business today. It's also very doubtful that a judge is going to let the company holding the patent sue you for more money than your game made you.
06/12/2005 (6:07 pm)
Pretty much everything is patented at this point, or in a few weeks everything will be. When a company has a patent on a technology, they don't always for someone to pay to use the technology. In some cases they apply for the patent, so no one else can get the patent and stop them from doing their what is outlined in the patent. In other cases they get the patent to use as bargain chips.If everyone kept track of every single patent, and made sure every single thing they produced wasn't covered by a patent, computer technology would come to a stand still. All you can really do is produce your product, and take your chances with what is the computer gaming business today. It's also very doubtful that a judge is going to let the company holding the patent sue you for more money than your game made you.
#12
But you could be a little more politic. I didn't denigrate your research.
06/12/2005 (6:14 pm)
You're welcome. Sorry for the nasty post. :)But you could be a little more politic. I didn't denigrate your research.
#13
06/12/2005 (6:21 pm)
Just make games people. Have fun and make games. There are plenty of other people making games and making money from them, and they aren't worrying about this kind of stuff. If it worries you that much, give up and don't write a game. Do something that isn't patented, like become a side show performer. I am sure hammering a nail into your tongue isn't patented (hell it might be). 
#14
news.com.com/A+fix+for+a+broken+patent+system/2100-1028_3-5737961.html?tag=nefd....
06/12/2005 (8:20 pm)
There may be some hope for getting out of this software patent quagmire that the industry sees itself in (or at least partway out):news.com.com/A+fix+for+a+broken+patent+system/2100-1028_3-5737961.html?tag=nefd....
#15
06/12/2005 (9:28 pm)
These patents SO remind me of House-Rules Monopoly, if you see someone landing on your property (*coughpatentcough*) then you can call rent and they have to pay. How ever if you DON'T see them, they don't have to pay. 
#16
06/12/2005 (9:35 pm)
@Karl - I like that. :)
#17
before the patent was filed in which case makes the patent voidable. I have gone down this road with a few companies of mine "copyright/patent infrengment" sorry "spelling" 6am in the morning and havent slept yet... Im not 100% sure but I could ask my lawyer who is a copyright/patent litigator and I am pretty sure he would say the same thing :)
06/13/2005 (6:10 am)
Ummmm "apple vs. microsoft" this patent is to broad and i would also have to say that most of this patent was in the "public domain"before the patent was filed in which case makes the patent voidable. I have gone down this road with a few companies of mine "copyright/patent infrengment" sorry "spelling" 6am in the morning and havent slept yet... Im not 100% sure but I could ask my lawyer who is a copyright/patent litigator and I am pretty sure he would say the same thing :)
#18
Ben's post in fact is quite valid: there are certain things that are "appropriate" for the GarageGames community discussion, and certain things (like business interests, corporate strategy, etc.) that simply aren't "appropriate" for open discussion in the GarageGames community. GG is focused on doing what's right for GG and the community, but that doesn't mean that the community here are shareholders with a say on how the company is run, and discussion in a community forum about that just isn't a good way to do business.
As Ben said, it would have been a much more savvy and effective tactic to make your case for this in an email, instead of stirring up the community by an open post where you basically dictate how GG should conduct business. I certainly think that your research is valuable to the community here, and the information in and of itself is outstanding (and thanks!), but the tone/phrasing of the initial post is basically designed to "incite a (virtual) mob" to get GG to do what you think needs to be done:
No harm, no foul or anything, but Ben's points were certainly valid ones.
06/14/2005 (11:58 am)
@Gonzo: There wasn't anything whatsoever antagonistic in Ben's post--in fact, it was presented quite "friendly". And you yourself in your post above commented about how you couldn't defend against a patent violation case, and that is what Ben was referring to.Ben's post in fact is quite valid: there are certain things that are "appropriate" for the GarageGames community discussion, and certain things (like business interests, corporate strategy, etc.) that simply aren't "appropriate" for open discussion in the GarageGames community. GG is focused on doing what's right for GG and the community, but that doesn't mean that the community here are shareholders with a say on how the company is run, and discussion in a community forum about that just isn't a good way to do business.
As Ben said, it would have been a much more savvy and effective tactic to make your case for this in an email, instead of stirring up the community by an open post where you basically dictate how GG should conduct business. I certainly think that your research is valuable to the community here, and the information in and of itself is outstanding (and thanks!), but the tone/phrasing of the initial post is basically designed to "incite a (virtual) mob" to get GG to do what you think needs to be done:
Quote:
And this patent here needs GG to step in and blast it from existance. The first claim and 5 subsequent claims pretty much describe operation of a game server exactly as it was performed when we were playing Tribes in 1999, lol.
No harm, no foul or anything, but Ben's points were certainly valid ones.
Torque Owner Teromous