Social Gaming Patent Troll Goes After Facebook, Zynga For In-Game Purchases
from the some-build-bridges,-some-live-under-them dept
Another day, another patent troll. Ars Technica reports that a shell company called Gametek LLC is suing a bunch of social gaming giants, including Facebook and Zynga. The patent? Patent #7,076,445: "A system and methods allowing the creation, integration, and transaction of advantages," later clarified (somewhat) as giving the user "access to and purchase offered advantages and interact with interactive advertisements to purchase products and or services." In other words, in-game purchases. The one and only point in the patent's favor is its early registration date:
"It looks like the patent was filed June 20, 2000, and at that time, I'm not sure this isn't a novel idea," Dallas attorney and Law of the Game blog author Mark Methenitis tells Ars Technica. The early filing means the patent "predates Facebook and most all of the social games as we know them," Methenitis notes, though older gaming services like AOL and Yahoo Games may have been using similar techniques before that.
Even if there is no prior art, this just demonstrates the problem with software patents. Software innovation moves fast, and the majority of "novel" inventions are still pretty obvious and inevitable, usually being developed by multiple people at once. More importantly, they don't require any actual implementation, just laughably vague descriptions of a concept like the ones above. That allows companies like this to buy a patent, sit on it, do nothing, and attempt to place a private tax on the actual innovators:
But the lawsuit doesn't seem to comes from a company that actually makes such games. The patent in question was granted in 2006 as the sole protected invention for one Shawn Cartwright. It was then transferred to little-known "revenue transaction software" company Theados Corp. last year, before being reassigned to plaintiff Gametek earlier this month.
The Gametek LLC that filed the lawsuit is based in Newport Beach, Ca., but shares a name with a Florida-based, early-'90s game developer best known for game show adaptations which closed its doors in 1998. The shell company doesn't seem to have any legitimate products in social gaming or any other field, and may have been created specifically to argue this case.
When companies are able to hold back real progress while contributing zilch, it's just more evidence that the patent system is broken.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: in app payments, in game purchases, patent troll, patents, social gaming
Companies: facebook, zynga
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Patents for not doing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents for not doing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior art? from the future?
He was in fact a computer program fighting for his life against similar entities, so our MMOG was his Real Life, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The patent system should never have issued patents for things that people have been doing for thousands of years, just because someone did it with a computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have to aggre with AC's point of view. Apt business model...I'll sue ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Either way it seems like this is an idea. You can't patent ideas. Did Facebook/Zynga copy some invention or even some code of the plaintiff's that made this possible?
These types of patents make no sense to me. It talks about methods of doing this without being specific to what that method is. It seems is all you need to get a patent is a few pictures and some super general descriptions of how you wish something would work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As in an arcade game showing the message "Insert Coin To Continue" to transact the purchase of extended or additional lives for the player character?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also remember text adventure games from the 80s and 90s where in game purchases were part of the game. And they are in lots of graphic based games from complex to simple first person shooters.
Prior art doesn't just apply to a platform or programming language. Prior art is just that no matter where it first appeared in the software world.
It's this kind of blatantly ignorant granting of a patent to a software process that has existed almost as long as desktop machines (or longer) that has had me opposing software patents from the very start.
This is the height of absurdity. Right up there with one click patents and other idiotic nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apt business strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prior art from 1980s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUD1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prior art from 1980s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I haven't read any of the comments yet, but I guarantee that at least one un/intentionally misinformed troll will start prattling off about how this guy is an innovator and how these evil companies are siphoning his livelihood. And how no one did microtransactions before ever before Facebook or Zynga.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One major problem with this. Zygna is not and has never been an innovator. Making almost identical copies of games from other companies is not innovation. I understand what you are trying to say, but this logic does not apply to Zygna. This lawsuit does not hold back progress at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBS_door
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure there's a lawyer somewhere who'd take it on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sure you'd get it past the examiner by spewing enough B.S. about the physics and simulation side, you could then sue every racing game manufacturer on the planet $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1 &u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5443036.PN.&OS=PN/5443036 &RS=PN/5443036
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 6th, 2012 @ 8:51pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disclosure
For me it's the lack of any real disclosure that annoys me. Patents are supposed to provide sufficient information that a person skilled in the art can reproduce it with relative ease. Generally this means it should be sufficiently detailed that the recipient does not need to add any significant creativity or ingenuity of his own.
So for example, if I were attempting to patent the Carburetor, I should need to provide blueprints and specifications such that anyone with a workshop and sufficient skill would be able to build one. It would be no good me putting "a device that mixes gasoline and air" and more or less leaving it at that! Even a lengthy explanation of what it does and the principles on which it operates would still be considered insufficient disclosure in most fields.
The equivalent disclosure for software patents should be to provide full source code such that any reasonably skilled developer can reproduce the invention without writing the thing from scratch himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's kind of ironic that DRM could expose Apple to patent trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cases thrown out...
http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/california/b/newsheadlines/archive/2014/04/25/ea-zynga-beat- gametek-video-game-purchases-patent-suit.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]