**Paging Mr. Drew Curtis**

Can't this be considered prior art? I mean between comic stores, gaming conventions, video game stores, lan parties, etc.

Overusing the term "patent troll." A patent troll is a shell company, with maybe 1 employee, who acquires patents merely to sue people who are doing something remotely similar to what the patent is for.

downstairs: Overusing the term "patent troll." A patent troll is a shell company, with maybe 1 employee, who acquires patents merely to sue people who are doing something remotely similar to what the patent is for.

I see you're using the mechanism for my definition of patent troll, please cease and desist.

downstairs: Overusing the term "patent troll." A patent troll is a shell company, with maybe 1 employee, who acquires patents merely to sue people who are doing something remotely similar to what the patent is for.

Hence why they're putting on their patent troll hat. It's like cosplay, but with more lawyers.

I can't read the patent file myself. Theaeteus, what's your take on it?

Theaetetus: downstairs: Overusing the term "patent troll." A patent troll is a shell company, with maybe 1 employee, who acquires patents merely to sue people who are doing something remotely similar to what the patent is for.

Yeah, seriously...
Patent trolling is a term coined in the mid 1990′s, which more commonly refers to corporations of any size filing usually very expensive lawsuits against other companies over patent infringement.

WTF?

WTF indeed. Larger companies will often use patents as protection, sure. So if a equally-large competitor comes after them, they can find something that competitor is infringing of theirs.

And, indeed, we both agree that there are plenty of good patents used properly out there. No idea why anyone would have an issue with Sony here.

Thanks Theaetetus

Theaetetus: Mind you, that's just one broad interpretation of the claim. There's more to the application than that, which is why I say any outrage at this stage are pretty premature. The claims will get rejected and amended, likely several times, before they get issued.

I have a patent on outrage. Cash only, please.

Theaetetus: the_sidewinder: I can't read the patent file myself. Theaeteus, what's your take on it?

It'll get rejected under 35 USC 101 (patent eligible subject matter), probably 112 (written description, due to some ambiguous wording), and I bet I could come up with a 102 (anticipated) rejection. I could almost certainly find art for a 103 (obviousness)...

... but that said, this is just an application, and those claims will end up looking very different before it gets allowed.

I'd say it could probably avoid a 101 rejection - although method patents of this type (i.e. those with no technology "hook") are being squeezed out by congress and the courts, they haven't been completely removed*, and the claims could be argued to be more than just abstractions. I agree that they should get slammed with at least a 103 rejection, if not a 102. Maybe 112 too, depending on the examiner's attitude toward enablement.

Plus, I have a feeling (as you pointed out) that the claims will eventually be amended to include some technology usage (like the parts of the spec where they talk about GPS and cellphone based activities) which would mean that they would be claiming a method of organizing a RL meeting, not the method, making it easier for competitors to avoid infringing the claims. IF they get any claims allowed at all, that is.

* We will see what happens after September when the AIA starts (maybe) changing things for business method patents.

I know there's a lot of dim bulbs at the patent office, but surely this one gets turned down for prior art, yes?

irving47: Please tell me why I'm wrong... BUT,

There was a recent change to the patent system where it's not first-to-market anymore. It's first to file. So it sounded to me like prior art went right out the window...

Prior art, put simply, means that someone else has invented it before, so the invention is not 'state of the art'.

You can only patent a new invention. If you file for a patent in something that people are already doing, the Patent Office can find a document to prove it. (For example, an ad for a gaming convention that's handing out free swag, in this case). Then, that prior art document is used to reject the patent application. No patent for you.

It's actually a lot more complicated than that, depending on how much money you want to spend in the application process, but there you go.

*
The new first to file means that if two people invent the same thing at about the same time, the first to the patent office gets the patent. Previously, the two sides would fight over who had really invented it first by comparing dated lab notes, etc., but the patent office is tired of dealing with that. Congress agreed, and the regulation was changed.

Yea I don't see the first claim holding up under 103. Custom in game title rewards are known, rewards from conventions are known (blizzcon gives pets every year) which allow people to tell who went to the rl event. The title would be obvious as another type of in game reward.

Just go to mmo-champ and archive.org to the first con rewards list (depending on the filing date)

lewismarktwo: We're stuck with this Goldbergian nightmare forever.


Nightmare? The man likes cats. I'm not sure how "nightmarish" he is.

Foxxinnia: We can patent human interaction now? I'm going to patent sex.

I'll help you.

I'm patenting "The oral manipulation of the genitals for enjoyment and/or economic gain." and "The vigorous application of one's hand to one's own genitals whilst in the presence of erotic materials,"