digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at techdirt.com

Digg And Others Sued By Patent Holder

techdirt.com — Digg And Others Sued For Infringing Infamous Computer Solitaire Patent

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • iceniu2003, on 01/05/2008, -5/+200More reasons why the Patent Systems needs an overhaul
    • Hitpoint, on 01/05/2008, -5/+19Way to reiterate the article.
      • crash013, on 01/05/2008, -4/+2Hahaha Digg will never sell now with a lawsuit on its hands (as frivolous as this may be).
      • DarkSamus, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2This article clearly shows why i never rtfa
    • joshuaer, on 01/05/2008, -2/+14+C +V " crap i meant to take something out the article you just saw and post it here so it could get dugg up!
    • MacEnvy, on 01/05/2008, -1/+20Patent squatters, domain squatters, and e-mail spammers are the dregs of the IT world. However, sue-happy patent holders are perhaps the greatest threat, as their modus operandi is also used (and therefore defended) by larger organizations with money to burn and lobbying power, such as SCO and Microsoft (not to single out MS, but they do hold an incredible quantity of patents, many of which should never have been granted as prior art and common sense is supposed to dictate patent issuance).

      The whole system stinks, and it's going to take more than legislation to fix. A paradigm shift in the way IP is protected is the only way to rid ourselves of those who would stifle innovation for their own personal monetary gain.
    • prophetpimp, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7eBaums World Did it.
  • allanstrings, on 01/05/2008, -3/+127We should sign Goldberg up for all the porn spam lists we can find. I am getting so sick of people who get a vague patent and then do nothing with it, for the sole purpose of raping the next person who hits upon an obvious solution to a problem or delivery method. American IP and Copyright laws are so far out of whack now that nothing short of a full revamp will fix it. However, that will not happen anytime soon, because all our politicians are busy blowing the guys at the RIAA, MPAA, etc. (see the DMCA)
    • kingraoul3, on 01/05/2008, -7/+4WWJD? MGD.
    • oojamaflip2006, on 01/05/2008, -2/+9Just change your legal system. Make the person who brings these claims to court pay the defendant's legal fees when they lose.
      • theaceoffire, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5I thought of that, but there is a flaw. Large corporations can afford to pay those fees for a long time... individuals on the other hand can not. It would cripple the individuals power to defend him/her self.
        • FTLJohnson, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1I think you didn't read the words "when they lose". No cost up front, only after everything is settled.
  • nfollmer, on 01/05/2008, -1/+86It's amazing what people will sue for these days. I may be reading that article wrong, but how can that guy sue for a "network gaming system"? Wouldn't that mean things like Xbox Live? In any sense, how is Digg included under this lawsuit??
    • Petrarch1603, on 01/05/2008, -1/+22the answer to 99 out of 100 questions comes down to the $
    • worst, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2It's a specific problem with the patent system. This isn't a whacked out fake finger in the chili deal. It's not that the guy can sue for a "network gaming system". He has a patent on it, so he can sue.

      The question is how the hell did he ever get the patent in the first place?
    • archimerged, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080104/0 ... Patent Troll Tracker writes: "...So, for example, in US Patent 6,712,702, claim 53, which is longer than my forearm, is probably the only claim that Goldberg will assert in the Digg litigation. In 6,183,366, which has 132 claims, claim 116 is merely "a method of providing a presentation on a network," and claim 121 is merely "a method of providing information regarding products or services on the Internet." How much do you want to bet the Examiner never even noticed those claims had nothing to do with gaming?..."
  • raftytaffy, on 01/05/2008, -1/+123May the digg effect bury these patent trolls.
    • laaabaseball, on 01/05/2008, -27/+5and Ron Paul bury that guy please.
    • BevansDesign, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5Actually, we should be burying this story, because the thing these patent trolls are really looking for is publicity.

      Also, the only thing the Digg Effect can take down in this instance is the news site.
  • falstaff, on 01/05/2008, -1/+35The patent system is so ***** up that it's easier to sue a bunch of random companies than do any productive work with those patents, since it's usually cheaper for the defendant to settle for a small amount than fight the validity of the patent. Techdirt's got another entry just a few before this one about how long it takes to even get the USPTO to even *look* at bogus patents, let alone invalidate them: http://techdirt.com/articles/20071231/003833.shtml
    Innovation is going to hell in a handbasket, and lawyers are smiling about it all the way to the bank.
    • investr, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2Just keep in mind here folks, the lawyers are not the one to get this ball rolling. It's the patent holders. Be pissed at them. Attorney's are simply the mechanism. And no, I am not an Attorney LOL
      • SlimFastForYou, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Yeah, the SS and Nazi soldiers and concentration camp operators weren't responsible, it was all Hitler's fault and nobody else deserves blame for all the atrocities.
        Just kidding, really, I don't blame the lawyers tooooo much. They do enable this though, and too many lawyers aren't able (or willing) to distinguish between what is ethical and what is legal. But yeah, our whole IP system is ***** up. Honestly, I think if patents were both (1) easier and cheaper to get and (2) lasted only 3-4 years max.. innovation in this country would soar. Having a good idea should be rewarded, but only for a very limited time to give the inventor a head-start. After that, the inventor should no longer be protected from the free market. Our current system makes fat cats (patent trolls) more money than they deserve and stifle innovation. Are there any presidential candidates who have adopted a pro-copyright reform stance?
      • ub3rgeek, on 01/05/2008, -3/+6Godwin's Law
  • agsinger, on 01/05/2008, -0/+25Saw this too - Mike @ TechDirt is one of the best writers covering the whole patent nonsense happening in the industry.

    Hope this makes page 1 - its unfortunate a few people with dollar signs in their eyes devote their lives to leeching off others innovative works...
  • Rickler, on 01/05/2008, -16/+6Now if only someone had a ridiculous 'anonymous bury system' patent to sue digg for.
  • HanSolo69, on 01/05/2008, -4/+164Well I got a patent a few years back on horrendously buggy comment systems. Digg owes me big.
    • celkin, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8They owe me for infringing on top 10 list patents and Ron Paul patents
    • DarkSamus, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2***** you all, i've had those taser patents since 95
  • Emused, on 01/05/2008, -19/+2Digg up
  • euping, on 01/05/2008, -1/+55if only one could patent the process of suing over patent infringement. they could make a mint.
    • laaabaseball, on 01/05/2008, -9/+5I can has mint?
    • Stroggoth, on 01/05/2008, -2/+2Prior art moron.
    • ThndrShk2k, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4I'm pretty sure most popular mints are patented too.
    • Zensal, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1If I remember correctly, IBM is doing exactly that.
    • sclifford, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I have patented that idea. Prepare to be served for disclosing my trade secrets. ;)
  • Falldog, on 01/05/2008, -0/+46What a douche.
  • compgeek, on 01/05/2008, -13/+8good lord this is just another case of a dumbass lawyer trying to make money where he knows he has no case

    buried
  • .Steven, on 01/05/2008, -0/+18"Others sued over those same patents include some of the "usual targets" such as Google..."
    Why bother?
  • DreamVsPs2, on 01/05/2008, -22/+2If you break the rules, then you have to pay for it.
    • Travelsonic, on 01/05/2008, -0/+9Hmm.... simplistic, and not very constructive.
      • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Yes of course. Not as constructive as the other rants.
    • kingraoul3, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5This doesn't rhyme. Can you work on that?
      • theaceoffire, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3If you break the rules, you become my tool?
  • Petrarch1603, on 01/05/2008, -8/+1dugg, even though this is some blog i've never heard of
    • BlakeEM, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1I have been reading techdirt for over a year, first time I have seen them on the digg front page in a long time.
  • joshuaer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+38Patent file #1948457503859578404867--21
    taking a deep uncontrollable breath in to your lungs, stretching your arms in an outwardly moving fashion and making an Awwwwwww sound while tilting ones head back.
    Patent owner Joshuaer!
    that will be 45 cents a yawn please.
    • jamwil87, on 01/05/2008, -0/+23You have PayPal?
    • sjbdallas, on 01/05/2008, -1/+33My wife does that every time we have sex. So let's see....that 45 cents....times once per year.....for 15 years......
    • Stroggoth, on 01/05/2008, -6/+1Prior art moron. Patents only cover that which contains unique or existing elements supporting an unexpected or novel result where there is NO PRIOR ART. Yawning is easily shown to have prior art.
      • manicallday, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6What's with the moron insult? Digg on the weekends lacks all civility.
        • DarkSamus, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1wait a minute, why am i on digg on caturday
      • joshuaer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1How did you not get what i was doing, I created a patent that would clearly not stand in court much like the ones in the article!
    • tomisina, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Yawn is actually a trademarked... you owe me 55 cents
    • greenlight2001, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2I don't make the "Awwwwwww" sound... I'm more of a '*gasp*....*hold breath with mouth open*....*gasp*....*fast exhale*' myself.

      So, no money for you.
      • joshuaer, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Stop trying to pull a Vanilla ice on me! one beat of is close enough.
    • DarkSamus, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1fail, it's hawwww
    • donkeySays, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Patent No.: 345345345334555343453535
      Patent: Thrusting the diaphragm muscles upwards in a periodic repeated manner while emitting a "ha ha" sound simultaneously from the mouth.
      Patent Holder: donkeySays

      $1.99 for each ha of the laugh. Thank you.
  • twiztidsinz, on 01/05/2008, -15/+48nvm... just burry this comment.
  • dunezone, on 01/05/2008, -1/+29I bet the patent went something like this...
    "A method for two pieces of software to communicate over a network for a fun experience
    • ThndrShk2k, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8Wait... digg.com is a fun experience?

      Man, have I been coming here for all the wrong reasons.
  • Truzseeker, on 01/05/2008, -2/+9Frivolous and vexatious lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised if these net powerhouses counter sue for damages and an injunction.
    • xptoast, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Dugg for the word vexatious.

      PS..Diggs speck check oversights the spelling of dugg.
  • DtotheC34, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6this is exactly why lawyers are the stereotypical scum of the earth
  • jemminger, on 01/05/2008, -0/+50are you all crazy? this guy clearly has a valid case for patent infringement! digg is obviously all about playing solitaire on a network.
  • Erealz, on 01/05/2008, -8/+2even if they win the case digg's response should be, to go ***** them selfs!
    • JenadaeXX, on 01/05/2008, -0/+6Why is that comma there?
      • xptoast, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3Maybe he sneezed a comma or has defective fingers.
      • boflaade, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2"themselves" may be ***** but your spelling and grammar shouldn't represent Digg.
    • styromaniac, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Because the colon is already vaguely patented.
  • laaabaseball, on 01/05/2008, -9/+7***** the Riaa, Mpaa and ***** patents! Go open source!
    • ajwinder, on 01/05/2008, -1/+6...is this one of those tests where you have to find the term that doesnt fit? Patents are a good idea, you have to protect the right of an individual to their own unique ideas, its pivotal to maintain a balance between huge megacorporations with infinite resources, and smaller entities. Whats not a good idea is liberally granting patents, especially in the computer arena. There wouldnt be a problem if the US Patent Office hadn't dropped the ball big time.
      • xptoast, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Patents just need fixed. To be honest the rules of making a patent do oversee the stupidity of these patents but somehow are still being made. Reminds me of checks and balances that oversee our countries government that are supposed to work and did till people manipulated them like childish punks so they could have more cookies than the other kids.

        DISCLAIMER: If you cant understand analogies that are intertwined with the statements that were not an analogy then I am sorry for you and this comment was not made for you. No refund on your time or efforts either.
        • manicallday, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2Patents really do need to be updated. Technology just evolves faster now than they did before. Patents are intended to foster the growth of technology, not hamper it.
    • init100, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3"Patents are a good idea, you have to protect the right of an individual to their own unique ideas"

      Remember that if you get an idea that someone else already got and patented, you do not own it. You would even have to pay the patent holder to use your own idea. Sounds great, eh? Not.
  • jeffsback2223, on 01/05/2008, -1/+28Patent Squatters. Work like domain squatters except with intellectual property. And that sort of thing can set back an entire civilization from advancing. I hope he looses.
    • ArandiaT, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Thank god patents expire...
    • sinrtb, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2I think patent squatters are much much worse then domain squatters. No advancement is being slowed when you have a someone else's domain. But when you have someone else's idea and and are charging for it then that can slow down advancement.
    • khyberkitsune, on 01/06/2008, -0/+2The fact you can't differentiate between 'lose' and 'loose' is already holding civilization back from advancing.
  • noahhoward, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8You know your system has problems when the postal service can trademark 'Zip Code'.
    • xptoast, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3They have zip code as a trademark?
    • secrity, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Do you have a problem with the USPO trademarking ZIP code? You are going to love the trademarked "Mr. ZIP" cartoon character. The ZIP code trademark has expired.
  • jmarzo, on 01/05/2008, -5/+3Let's all bury those who are threat to DIGG.
  • JoseFaz, on 01/05/2008, -6/+1I'm sure a couple of beers and a rant from Kevin and Alex on Diggnation will fix this whole situation. Digg RulezZZzz WWoOOOooOOTTtt!!!
  • norsurfit, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8The best way to fight this is to find what is called "prior art." Prior art is the legal term for articles, books, or prior patents that may have previously described the patent in question. The point is to show that the patent is invalid because it is obvious, based upon what had already been public before.

    If the Digg community can come up with examples of "prior art" -- links to articles, web pages, etc existing prior to the grant of the patent (1996) -- we have a good chance of invalidating this ridiculous patent.

    http://w2.eff.org/patent/wanted/prior.php?p=sheldo ...
  • CaviMike, on 01/05/2008, -1/+9eBaums world *gag* Even though I know they won't, I hope they get royally screwed. Every year that loser would smear our Park Ave. fest here in Rochester with his crap, making fun of overweight and handicapped people and basically just acting like an insecure grade-school bully. ***** that ***** and his dumbass dad for giving him the money to start the site.

    Sorry for the rant but it felt good to let it out.
  • justinjstark, on 01/05/2008, -0/+17Patents need to be done away with entirely. They were originally implemented in order to foster invention but they are obviously only making it more and more difficult for any person or start-up company to release a new product. Meanwhile, giant corporations and companies whose sole purpose is to buy, sell, and license patents are using the idea of intellectual property to drive away competition.

    "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
    -- The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
  • D3koy, on 01/05/2008, -3/+1BS until I hear it from Digg?
  • sjbdallas, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2Real quick: can someone please patent the process of identifying end-users of digital media that has been copied from it's original format?
  • Samzo, on 01/05/2008, -14/+4Jewwwwwwwwww baaaaaaag.
  • erbalot, on 01/05/2008, -2/+6Didn't read the article... didn't read the summary... just read the title and i've concluded one thing... ***** patent holders...
  • Khast, on 01/05/2008, -1/+8Computer Software patents should be detailed, to file a software patent, there should be over 1500 lines of code, and the patent owner must release the source code to the patent office. If the source code, doesn't match the infringing code....throw the case out.
    Vague software patents should ALL be nullified. Cursor, window, slider bar. And software patents should only last for 10 years, or until 80% of computers use the patented code.
    • obxjdt, on 01/05/2008, -5/+2Dew to the weight of todays code, I think 1500 lines is too small. I'm not a coder, but I'd be willing to bet that every email client shares about 1500 lines of code if not more. If you write 2 separate email programs in, let's say "C++ & Python", the chances that they will share some code is obvious. That doesn't make the code stolen/copied. Just needed to work. It's like Ford sewing GM for having tires on their cars.
      • Khast, on 01/05/2008, -1/+0true, however most software patents don't even involve code. It usually is a "feature" like the example of slide bar. Most of the software pattents seem to be like patenting the color purple, or brown....oh wait....
        • obxjdt, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Don't you have to write code to add a side bar or add color?
          • Khast, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0Yes, you have to write code for the side bars, or colors. However the pattent spams the idea of "Side Bar (tm)" T-Mobile copyrighted Purple, UPS copyrighted Brown. For the software pattent it should not be allowed to say "Window" "Side bar" "mouse pointer" are copyrighted, nobody else can use these features. It should only allow a specific code, but not every possible code combination to make the same effect.
    • Mizerooskie, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Code is protected by Copyrights, not by patents. Patents are NOT issued for software, but for the methodology behind the software.
  • RandomTaskMan, on 01/05/2008, -4/+1come on Netizens!

    Bite the bait!
  • zapass, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4foster creativity, my ass!
    software patents should be buried with no funerals.
  • obxjdt, on 01/05/2008, -3/+2All hail the trial Lawyers!!! Let find someone to sue!!!
    Why not, that's how John Edwards got his money....
  • greeninoregon, on 01/05/2008, -0/+8Who ISN'T suing ebaums world?
  • meaxsom, on 01/05/2008, -3/+2Huzzah! Perhaps an end to Digg!!
  • digjam, on 01/05/2008, -0/+7I so love playing solitaire on digg....please dont take it away! :-(
  • manicallday, on 01/05/2008, -1/+5Let's just make this really easy. Here are his websites:

    * http://www.asharewarelife.com/2004_01_25_archive.h ...
    * http://www.scwatch.net/modules.php?name=Forums&fil ...
    * http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?N ...

    Ramming speed.
  • tingrin87, on 01/05/2008, -0/+12there should be a "delete" option as part of the 120 sec edit :/
  • bwdd, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1what a money whore.
  • mdietz1, on 01/05/2008, -0/+5Patent trolls. The best business plan ever: Let's buy up the outdated intellectual property of others and use our highly paid lawyers to blackmail businesses to pay out settlements to avoid costly litigation.
    • DestroyFascism, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1And that is how the legal system works....ARIA..Boiler plate IP numbers only....
  • UrlorJkron, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3His earliest patent is from October 20, 1998. All three (US Patents Nos. 5,823,879, 6,183,366, and 6,264,560) will probably be considered invalid due to prior art.
  • DestroyFascism, on 01/05/2008, -0/+4Yeah I can see the games section at Digg clearly....
  • Scheissen, on 01/05/2008, -3/+4Get rid of the whole damn patent system.
    • GreenAlien, on 01/05/2008, -1/+4We need a patent system. We just need one that works and isnt abused. Otherwise you get someone investing millions in a radical idea then when it can be seen that it works some jackass comes along and rips it off. It could mean large companies never do R&D and just cherry pick the ideas from smaller companies (*cough* MIcrosoft). Imagine spending 5 years of R&D on an concept, you're just about to launch it when a gigantic company like LG copy the idea and mass product it in the 10's of millions by the following week, with no royalties. Then you'd be thankful for a patent system.
      • Scheissen, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1That company should be able to make their money by actually producing what the patented. Patents are government protected monopolies, and then you wonder why that company has so much power. Patents are against a free market, anyone who could actually produce that patent is screwed over by their own country's laws. But if there was another country then they are legally fine to produce it.
        • Rammsteined, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3But if an individual can't patent their idea, they have no protection against a company/someone else taking the idea to make money for themselves.

          I don't know what the solution is, but it's not to get rid of patents entirely.
      • mousky, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Shaking my head. If it takes someone millions of dollars or "5 years" to 'invent' something, it is unlikely that others will be able to simply 'rip it off' in a week.
        The whole "if there is no patent system, companies will not do R&D" argument is a red herring. Pharmaceuticals spend more on marketing than R&D. If R&D were so important, wouldn't they be spending more, or at least more wisely, on R&D?
      • cyphin6, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Has anyone told you Green Alien how much of a UK fag you r? Lately lol
        • GreenAlien, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Didn't realise you were a fan. Thanks!
  • julianvs, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1Here is his blackjack game he has patented:
    http://casinotime.com/
  • Abomonog, on 01/05/2008, -1/+3It's an unfortunate (but required) ruling that makes this all possible. What open this all up was the patent ruling that handed all of Marconi's radio patents to Tesla. The ruling states that you cannot used previously patented components to make up a new invention and expect to patent it.
    Marconi created his radio out of components that were patented by Tesla. Marconi was considered the inventor of the radio until about 2 years ago when someone realized that Marconi's radio contained nothing but Tesla's parts. Tesla had already invented the radio piece by piece years earlier. he just hadn't actually put it together. So years later Tesla's estate won this ruling that not only gave Tesla the patents and credit for radio but opened up things for patent trolls. The problem is that a single equation in Diggs web coding, if it matches with this trolls claims, is enough to shut down Digg. That's what this guy is doing. He's looking over the code looking at the equations and line formatting and if he sees something that matches his code he files a lawsuit claiming it was copied. The problem is that with coding is that the exact same equation is going to appear across thousands of similar programs simply because that equation is the fastest one to get a task done. If the line, "if a=b then do c" is the fastest way to get the mouse cursor across the screen than that line will end up in thousands of programs.
    But if someone patents a program that contains that line than no one after is allowed to use it.

    ***** up system.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.