🚀 go-pugleaf

friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
: [I'm posting this announcement on behalf of the League for Programming
: Freedom.  Please repost widely.]
:  
: A small family company in California is being sued by another company over
: some electronic bingo game machines which allegedly infringe a couple of US
: patents, one of which is #4,624,462 (an extension of U.S. Patent
: #4,455,025, the claims of which were posted in another message).  This
: patent was filed for on May 18, 1984.  We are asking the net for any known
: prior art earlier than this filing date, but preferably for prior art
: before September 1981, since that's when the first, related patent was
: filed.  Both patents have some extremely broad claims, so probably any
: known devices which are similar will help, but the closer any prior art is
: to the exact patent claims, the better.  The patent abstract and claims for
: #4,624,462 are at the end of this message.
: 
: The patent holder is said to have intimidated several other companies out
: of the electronic bingo business.  Presently the patent holder is asking
: for an injunction against the alleged infringer, which will cause them to
: lose business (which they need to get revenue for fighting the lawsuit)
: before the trial even begins. 

Hmmmm... does use of the net (even by a non-profit) to support a profit
motivated (we assume) company (even if they are "small family" oriented)
constitute "commercial use of the net"?????

Obviously from your post, the plaintiff bad guy must be some mega-corp
out to destroy your freedom to program a computer for bingo.  Is there
any room in your analysis for the possibility that their patent is and
should be valid and that "ma and pa" simply want to steal the invention
for profit?

:  
: Please mail your prior art directly to lpf-patent-4624462@prep.ai.mit.edu.
: Don't broadcast it on the net!  The reason not to tell everyone is that if
: the patent holder finds out about the prior art, they may be able to
: nullify it by asking for reexamination of the patent.  So send the prior
: art to the LPF, and the LPF will give it to anyone who is seriously
: interested in fighting the patent.

Let me get this straight!  You think that keeping the prior art (if any) from 
the plaintiff is the winning strategy?  You must feel the PTO is also out to get
ma and pa... it's a conspiracy...  stop them! stop them all before it's too
late!  Your client (ma and pa) are already in a trial.  Bring your prior
art to trial to invalidate the patent (by the way, see how the judge feels
about trial by surprise when you withhold your crucial evidence from the
other side).  Or try to stay the the trial and have your client ask for the
PTO to re-examine the patent in light of your newly discovered prior art.

If the PTO has already considered your prior art (as found by orderring the
"file wrapper" for the patent (all the stuff considered by the PTO and the
patent holder)), then you'll get nowhere with the PTO... save your efforts
for the trial.  If they haven't considered it, the re-examination is the
best (cheapest) way for your client to get the patent invalidated.  

So why is it again you need this to be kept secret???

: 
: Please send prior art before the weekend of Saturday, Jan 23, if you can.
: Anything sent after that will still be useful, but sending it sooner will
: give the defendant more time to fight the injunction and to prepare more
: adequately for the trial.
: 
: The defendants are also interested in finding expert witnesses familiar
: with these sorts of electronic board games in the 1970s.  If you are
: interested in helping, send mail to lpf-patent-4624462@prep.ai.mit.edu. 

Commercial, commercial, commercial, tsk, tsk, tsk.

: 
: 
: Note that fighting this one particular lawsuit isn't going to solve the
: general problem of software patent, though it will help a particular
: defendant.  Stopping these sorts of lawsuits once and for all and ridding
: the industry of software patetns will require political action.  The LPF
: encourages you to join.  For more information, mail lpf@uunet.uu.net.
: 

Prevent commercial exploitation of software!  Repent sinners!  The end is
near! Join us, we are pure, we are goodness... they are evil!  God is on
our side, praise God, expell the capitalist dogs from among us!

I think I heard this in some middle east holy war recently but I thought
LPF might want to adopt this battlecry.



: 
: Patent abstract and claims follow.

Note that any real analysis requires a detailed reading of the entire patent
including the figures to find holes or weaknesses if they exist!

: Abstract:
: 
: An electronic card and board game for playing bingo, keno, and the like
: games, wherein the master game board being operated by the caller generates
: and transmits random bingo numbers and game patterns, and the player's game
: board receives and processes the bingo numbers and game patterns, and the
: player's game board receives and processes the received information in
: conjunction with locally originated data determining the contents of a
: multiple bingo card.  The multiple bingo card is implemented as a
: replaceable, removable transparent template bearing imprinted bingo
: numbers.  In working position, the card overalays a dot-matrix display
: incorporated in the player's game board.  The display is controlled by a
: microprocessor.  The microprocessor activates the display dots located
: beneath the bingo numbers matching those trasmitted by the master board via
: a radio channel.  The microprocessor computes bingo numbers on the card
: using the identification number of the card in accordance with a predefined
: algorithm.
: 

OK fine... the abstract does not define the scope of the protection in the
patent... it (like everything in the patent other than the claims) only serves
to disclose the invention.  Now if the claims are not well supported by the
disclosure, you may have something (like invalid claims or even an entire
invalid patent).

: 
: 
: What is claimed is:

Now read this carefully.  Does your client do everything this claim says:
(does the claim read on you clients invention)

: 1.  In combination, a predetermined set of game cards and a game network
: for playing a game utilizing said predetermined set of game cards;
:    said game network comprising:
:    at least one master game board incomporating a master data input means,
:       a master data processing means responsive to said master data input
:       means, and a master data output means responsible to said master data
:       processing means,
:    at least one player's game board incorporating a player's input means
:       responsive to said master data output means, a player's data
:       processing means responsive to said master data output means, and a
:       player's data output means responsive to said player's data
:       processing means;
:    said master game board transmitting via said master data output means
:       predetermined data relevant to said game, and random data at least
:       partially matching said predetermined set of game cards;
:    said player's game board comprising
:    means for receiving said predetermined data and said random data via
:       said player's data input means,
:    means for storing an informational content of at least one game card out
:       of said predetermined set in said player's data processing means,
:    comparison means for comparing said predetermined data and said random data
:       on one hand, and said informational content on the other hand, and
:    means for signaling the current status of said card game via said
:       player's data output means as determined by said comparison.

Now that wasn't so bad...  yes this is a fairly broad claim.  By the way
there is nothing that makes this a "software patent", a computer running
software may be one embodiment of "data processing means" or "data input means"
or ... but so could discrete electronics, so could an electromechanical
device which processes data and transmits data (via marbles or something
else we haven't thought of yet).  Yes this is broad.  But look closer.

What if your client does not have;

    "means for storing an informational content of at least one game card out
       of said predetermined set in said player's data processing means,"

i.e. no storage in the player's device (careful now, it does not say
computer storage, just storage)... then you may not have to worry.  Other
than some legal fees, it may be an open and shut case.  Now as to the
legal fees... AAAAHHHHH now your arguing that the legal system as a whole
has a flaw... namely he with the money must be right.  Well the English
think that the loser should usually pay all attorney fees, the US says 
each side pays their own.  There are pros and cons to each approach.  Maybe
LPF should think about arguing this issue as it relates to the patent
system rather than suggesting that all patent are wrong.

Now read the rest with the same careful eye.  Notice first that each of
the following claims (2-7) are "dependent" claims, they are read in
conjunction with claim 1, your client must must do everything in claim 
2 AND claim 1, or claim 3 AND 2 AND 1, 4 AND 2 AND 1, 5 AND 1, 6 AND 1,
7 AND 1.

: 
: 2.  The combination of claim 1, wherein said player's data input means
: includes a local data entry means.
: 
: 3.   The combination of claim 2, wherein said player's game board includes
: means to compute at least a portion of said informational content by
: processing an alphanumerical identification number of said game card
: in accordance with a predetermined rule; and
:    said alphanumerical identification number being entered via said
:       player's local data entry means.
: 
: 4. The combination of claim 2, wherein said player's local data entry means
: includes lock means that is remotely locked and unlocked by a predetermined
: command included in said predetermined data.
: 
: 5. The combination of claim 1, wherein said player's data output means
: includes a data display means and a sound generating means.
: 
: 6. The combination of claim 1, wherein at least of said game cards out
: of said set is a transparent template bearing visual game symbols and
: overlaying said player's display.
: 
: 7. The combination of claim 1, wherein said player's game board includes
: means to transmit said informational content and said current status back
: to said master game board via said player's data output means.

I know how you people feel, but you might want to try some objective
analysis rather than yelling fire every time the opportunity arises.

BTW, how about disclosing who the poor little guy is and the big bad guy!

Dan Fishman (dfishman@csn.org) 

>Is there any room in your analysis for the possibility that their patent
>is and should be valid and that "ma and pa" simply want to steal the
>invention for profit?

It is the official position of the League for Programming Freedom that
software patents are harmful to the industry, and its goal is to lobby for
clarification in the law which would prohibit them (as well as for
copyright on user interfaces to programs).  If you want more information,
write to lpf@uunet.uu.net and ask.

Dan Fishman (dfishman@csn.org) recently responded to a query about
prior art for Patent # 4,624,462.

I would like to add that you should order the "file wrapper" or
prosection history of the patent also, before you seriously decide
to evalute the patent. It appears to me that some of the limitations
in the claims may have been added to overcome specific examiner
objections. This, and other information enclosed therein may be
significant in determining the breadth of the patent.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

In article <C1FqwB.GDs@csn.org> dfishman@teal.csn.org (Dan Fishman) writes:
>Let me get this straight!  You think that keeping the prior art (if any) from 
>the plaintiff is the winning strategy? ...
>                                                   ...  Bring your prior
>art to trial to invalidate the patent (by the way, see how the judge feels
>about trial by surprise when you withhold your crucial evidence from the
>other side).
>
>If the PTO has already considered your prior art (as found by orderring the
>"file wrapper" for the patent (all the stuff considered by the PTO and the
>patent holder)), then you'll get nowhere with the PTO... save your efforts
>for the trial.  If they haven't considered it, the re-examination is the
>best (cheapest) way for your client to get the patent invalidated.  
>
>So why is it again you need this to be kept secret???

Apparently, RMS talked about this a little bit when he spoke here at UIUC
(which I missed due to a prior commitment, argh!). The problem is if the
patent holder brings the reference to the prior art to the PTO, says "we
wish to have this considered, and here's why it doesn't apply to our
patent"; the PTO then rubber-stamps it and now it is on record as not
being applicable prior art, which makes any further legal actions much
more difficult and costly. By forcing the prior art to be examined in
broad daylight, as it were, it can be more fully disclosed. Anyway, that's
my understanding of the possible pitfalls of allowing the patent holder
to instigate the re-examination.

>Note that any real analysis requires a detailed reading of the entire patent
>including the figures to find holes or weaknesses if they exist!

True, but for finding prior art that MAY apply, the abstract and claims are
about as good as you need. Presumably a lawyer will then sift through anything
discovered and determine what is actually applicable.

>Now read this carefully.  Does your client do everything this claim says:
>(does the claim read on you clients invention)

Since the patent holder is suing for infringement, obviously THEY think
so!

[list of claims omitted]

>Now read the rest with the same careful eye.  Notice first that each of
>the following claims (2-7) are "dependent" claims, they are read in
>conjunction with claim 1, your client must must do everything in claim 
>2 AND claim 1, or claim 3 AND 2 AND 1, 4 AND 2 AND 1, 5 AND 1, 6 AND 1,
>7 AND 1.

[list of dependent claims omitted]

Note that in a re-examination, even if the independent claim is killed,
they might get by with re-writing it to also include one or more of the
dependent claims, if the prior art doesn't cover all of them. If the
alleged infringement included the dependent claims, they are still in
trouble. This is why there ARE dependent claims. The DEC patent that
was the subject of a previous inquiry to the net for prior art seemed
to have been through at least one re-examination where the claims had
already been significantly narrowed (BTW, it might be nice to hear the
gory details of the outcome of that case).

Now, here's a question: a patent holder of a broadly written patent
claims that something infringes. Prior art is found that doesn't
seem to exactly fit the claims, but is practically identical to the
claimed infringement. If it goes to trial, is it more likely that the
patent will be invalidated, or found that the patent doesn't apply to
the case (since to try to prove that it WAS infringing is tantamount
to proving that the prior art also applies to the patent, and thus
the patent should be invalidated)?
-- 
Steve Peltz
Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu	PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl