Slashdot Log In
Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 04, 2009 03:30 PM
from the generous-coders- dept.
from the generous-coders- dept.
arkowitz writes "I invented a protocol called CICP for interacting with virtual worlds, and filed a provisional patent application on it March 20 of last year. I have since declared the protocol open and public, and contributed an implementation of it to the Sun Wonderland project, which is GPL; and made public the LSL code and accompanying Java servlet for the Second Life implementation of the protocol. I've been collaborating with a fellow in Finland named Tommi S. E. Laukkanen on a new protocol called MXP: Metaverse Exchange Protocol (here's a full description at cybertechnews.com). MXP is and will always be public domain; we intend it to enable an open and ubiquitous metaverse. My question is this: is there any reason to complete the patent app for CICP, which could potentially cover MXP as well, and release it to the public domain? The full app is due by March 20 and the legal work would probably cost my company $10k. Would finishing the patent protect the open and public protocols from patent trolls, or would it be a waste of money? Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge (Score:5, Insightful)
Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?
But I'm guessing you haven't been awarded the patent? I think you've done more than most people would have. If you're worried about someone suing you for using a protocol, why not just upload all the documentation for it to a SourceForge Project or make it available on your site and date it? I'm guessing it's a bit more tricky than software [gnu.org] as you need the required documentation to define a protocol but why shouldn't that be releasable under the GPL? If you really wanted to ask for help, you could seek help from the EFF [eff.org] in establishing prior art now.
Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?
If you have the source code, just drop it on SourceForge or make it available for download on your site with a copy of the GPL as a license file [gnu.org]. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about it being adopted and supported widely rather than having it be a GPL protocol. I wish you the best of luck--I think something very neat could come of this!
Re: (Score:2)
You're being overcharged. (Score:3, Interesting)
As for defensive patents
GPL not in Public Domain (Score:4, Informative)
No, the GPL will not "make official the public-domaining of the app". The GPL is a copyright license that imposes all kinds of terms on those making derivative works, while something being in the public domain means there are no copyright-based restrictions on those making derivative works. A BSD-style license would be more like releasing it into the public domain, but still quite distinct.
Strictly speaking, there is, AFAIK, no way in the US to release a copyrightable work to the public domain officially. When you say that a work that you control the copyright is in the public domain, you've mostly just issued a gratuitous public license for other people do with it what they want, that is as revocable as any other gratuitous license, but may be enforceable to the benefit of the licensee (e.g., anyone who acted under the purported release into the public domain) under the principle of promissory estoppel.
Anyhow, asking Slashdot for this kind of business/legal advice is like asking a forum of MBAs or lawyers for programming advice.
Parent
Re:Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge (Score:4, Informative)
Also, if you are comfortable with giving up your copyright, you could ask the FSF if they are interested in having code and patent donated.
If you offer that and they accept,
-you would be limited to GPL use of the project yourself
-but the FSF would handle the legal stuff and bring lawsuits against GPL violators if necessary.
Parent
Who owns the patent? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have kept the rights then you don't have to do anything special to keep it free for all. Just tell people that it is.
Re:Who owns the patent? (Score:4, Informative)
The rights are assigned to Green Phosphor LLC, the company I founded. I own 60% of the company. :)
So when I say it's free, I guess it must be!
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You could well lapse the patent.
Prior art = prior patent.
Prior art != no legal fees (Score:3, Informative)
Even when there's prior art it doesn't mean somebody else can't patent it and try to sue you.
You'll win ... but in the USA at least you'll ruin yourself in the process.
Talk to a patent lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
Your company presumably has one. You know damned well it's a waste getting any legal advice from /. so why bother?
TALK TO YOUR DAMNED PATENT LAWYER!
Re: (Score:2)
seconded
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your company presumably has one. You know damned well it's a waste getting any legal advice from /. so why bother?
TALK TO YOUR DAMNED PATENT LAWYER!
I quite frankly disagree.
If this guy is legit and he owns the rights to this and his company is backing him, do it. People need to get it through their heads that you don't need an army of lawyers to donate to the community. That's an old dead Microsoft/SCO way of thinking. If you want to open source something that is originally yours, it does not--I REPEAT DOES NOT--cost you anything or require a law degree!
I don't even think he needed to file for a patent unless he had the intention of selling
Re: (Score:3)
He's asking whether he should continue the patent process which costs $10K, and which potentially covers the new protocol. That involves the patent lawyer, and that is why he needs to continue talking to the patent lawyer instead of random /. strangers.
Re:Talk to a patent lawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
That involves the patent lawyer, and that is why he needs to continue talking to the patent lawyer instead of random /. strangers.
Patent lawyer: "Why yes! Of course you should pay me $10,000! Otherwise the boogeyman will get you!"
Sometimes a second opinion is a good idea. Whether slashdot gives a good second opinion is left as an exercise to the reader.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The $10,000 cost referred to is the cost of filing the final, non-provisional application, not the cost of legal fees. Since the cost is to the company, if the company has in-house counsel, talking to them should be far less expensive, and would be the kind of thing that would be pretty irresponsible not to do (and if special talent that is outside of the company is needed, that's something in-house counsel s
A patent means nothing until upheld in court (Score:5, Insightful)
A patent merely helps you argue your case.
It guarantees absolutely nothing.
A patent troll may be able to outspend you in
court.
Does it now count as prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if an abandoned patent application is sufficient to give you that protection. Finishing it and then not keeping it up is definitely going to do it (usual IANAL disclaimer).
Re: (Score:2)
The only way he would not be free to practice it is if it has already been patented by someone else. If he has been practicing this (with dated documentation, such as a patent application), that's automatic prior art invalidation.
Now, if a troll can forecast something you want to do in the future that you have not yet documented practice of, they can run ahead of you and patent that, but having a full patent is no more protection from that than dated, documented practice of the art.
Lots of ways to establish prior art (Score:2)
Poor name choice (Score:5, Funny)
Public domain isn't necessariliy free and open (Score:4, Informative)
You are, to some extent, talking about creating two different things: public domain Vs. GPLed.
If you release something to the public domain, I (or anyone) is perfectly free to take it and make a proprietary version which may or may not be fully compatible with the PD version.
If you release it under the GPL, it's very difficult for someone to do that without violating the license.
That said, you need to talk to a good intellectual property lawyer, not Slashdot. You'll only get one shot at doing this so that it comes out the way you want, and a good lawyer's guidance through the process will make your success a lot more likely.
Agree for the same reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL license includes some restrictions on use and redistribution (if don't want it to remain free to all, you could use the BSD license..(IANAL, all the rest, so this is only my personal understanding.)
Being a usual /.er, I haven't read the article, but it sounds like you're talking about a protocol layout--a communication schema. In that case, talking to the IP lawyer would be a good way to go. However, in dealing with the lawyer, don't let them decide "the plan"--you should lay out your plan, and s
Use GPL version 3 (Score:2)
Version 3 was updated for this specific problem. Otherwise, how can the community have any assurance that your contribution will remain free from your own patents? Supposing your company and its patents were bought and the new owners decided against letting the community freely use those patents?
The patents themselves may be a waste of time and money. They are for software, are they not? And it is not clear that software should be patentable. (I'm of the opinion it is clear that software should not b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OP seems pretty clear that they are looking to release the protocol to the public domain, while the software they have so far released that implements the protocol is released under the GPL. Those are, quite clearly, two different things, but they are not at all in conflict.
Prior Art (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming your invention is not already covered by someone else's patent, then essentially, no. IANAL, naturally, but I think you basically would just want to get a good description of the patentable claims, probably with a reference implementation, out there.
If I understand the legal situation correctly the formulation is something like your prior art has to be 'published'. My guess would be the more prominently, the stronger its claim is. In other words ideally in some "major" print publication dealing with the subject matter might be ideal.
An RFC might not be a bad idea either. Or two as the case may be.
Getting a patent issued in any case is not strictly required and as you observe, kind of expensive and time consuming as well. The only thing having a patent would likely do for you is allow you to refuse to license purely commercial implementations or collect royalties from them. Doesn't really sound like either of those things are on your agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
An RFC might not be a bad idea either. Or two as the case may be.
If hes got the money he can always get an ISO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Arrrhhgg. .ISO- for free!
If he has Ktorrent, he can just download the
Re: (Score:2)
I think it depends on arkowitz's goals. Nothing can stave off a lawsuit; the real goal is to skew the risk/reward and ROI toward you and away from your hypothetical foe.
Reading between the lines, arkowitz is creating a very useful platform that could be used in the future. A legal stake in the ground may be the cheapest and most efficient way to set the prior art bar high. As others have noted, a drop to sourceforge or an RFC would unambiguously set a public date for your invention.
US patent 5841980, assign
Nothing can protect you (Score:5, Informative)
My gut says that if you're expecting this one patent to protect you from anybody filing an opportunistic lawsuit against you then it's a waste of money.
It's certainly not illegal to invent a new protocol/new software and give it away for free. If someone later patents the same thing and comes to get you, then what you did is prior art. The thing is, just saying it doesn't make you immune from lawsuits -- the point of the lawsuit is to prove that you don't owe anybody anything. Likewise, your one patent wouldn't stop anyone else from writing a slightly different patent and trying the same thing. In other words, so long as software is patentable, you'll never be safe from patent lawsuits.
Maybe the thing to do is to file a copy of your specifications and your software code with the U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright protection for software is automatic, just like it is for written works or anything else. Registering your copyright does confer certain advantages, however. In this case, the point would be to grant you a recognized legal document establishing that your work was completed before any future patents came into being. It would certainly be cheaper than $10,000.
The real thing you have to worry about is the likelihood that there are already 200+ patents on the books covering the ideas that you have implemented. No patent registration will protect you against that.
One. More. Time. (Score:5, Informative)
Also, what kind of document would I need to make official the public-domaining of the app?"
See. A. Lawyer.
Nobody on Slashdot is a legal expert, except in their own minds. The exceptions are the few actual lawyers who hang out here, and they all know better than to offer legal advice based on the kind of vague information you're providing.
This point gets made every time we have one of these give-me-legal-advice Ask Slashdots. It's vaguely possible that the submitter hasn't heard this before. But why do the editors refuse to hear it?
Public Disclosure May Be Enough (Score:2)
That said, I hope all software and business patents are abolished as soon as possible.
Is it really worth it? (Score:2)
Why are you bothering to patent it? Doesn't that kinda contravene the point of making it "open" and "free for all"?
I mean, once you publish it and implementations using it, it becomes prior art and no one else can patent it, either.
Besides my general distaste for process, software, and business-method patents, I have to ask:
Is it really worthy of patent protection? Is it really that new and novel to deserve 20 years of government-mandated monopolistic protection? Do the development costs justify it?
I've yet
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you bothering to patent it? Doesn't that kinda contravene the point of making it "open" and "free for all"?
Not at all. Ogg is patented, yet open.
I mean, once you publish it and implementations using it, it becomes prior art and no one else can patent it, either.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Is it really worthy of patent protection? Is it really that new and novel to deserve 20 years of government-mandated monopolistic protection? Do the development costs justify it?
Patenting it allows time for this standard to become adopted on a widespread basis before it can be hijacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. Ogg is patented, yet open.
Ogg is NOT patented. Come on, dude. Don't post bullshit.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Perhaps, but it isn't a justification for patenting something that you want to remain open.
Patenting it allows time for this standard to become adopted on a widespread basis before it can be hijacked.
Ummm.. could you explain how you "hijack" an OPEN standard. I am a little fuzzy on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, after reading the spec, I don't see anything patent-worthy about it at all.
It's basically nothing more than an externally-driven meta-scenegraph, and a VERY generic one at that. One that would encompass a GREAT DEAL of content already in existence in virtual worlds, even in Second Life. It is WAY WAY WAY too broad.
You do know that similar functionality is already in use in SL by a number of different projects, right? Object backup/copying solutions, web-driven interfaces, etc.
I mean, this smacks so
create a 'defensive publication' (Score:5, Interesting)
From DefensivePublications.org [defensivep...ations.org] ...
[emphasis mine]
Honestly? (Score:2)
Honestly? The chances that anyone will ever be interested in even implementing your protocol, much less copying it in a way which your patent would protect, is close to zero.
The only reason you have for patenting it is an over-inflated sense of its worth. So no, I wouldn't spend $10k on a patent.
SIX INCHES OF AIR (Score:2)
Seriously. Unplug it. Protocol free!
the main benefit is defensive (Score:2)
(I'm nothing close to a lawyer, as probably goes without saying here. An IP lawyer is necessary if the answer to this question has any significant value to your business.)
As far as prior art goes, there may be a minor practical benefit to registration. Publishing your stuff publicly is enough to establish that your thing exists and is public domain, and will prevent someone else from legitimately patenting it. However, having an actual patent registered might make it more likely that a patent examiner would
I should add that it's somewhat tricky to do this (Score:2)
An important caveat I forgot: If you do plan to use patents on open-source software defensively, it's fairly tricky to figure out the right way to do it. You cannot just give a blanket grant to anyone to use the patent for any purpose, since then it loses its defensive value: you have to be able to retain the right to threaten the extension-patenter with a patent-infringement suit. But at the same time you clearly don't want normal users to feel thus threatened.
You instead need to take an approach that gran
Re: (Score:2)
An IP lawyer is necessary
I'm not sure if there is such a thing. There are copyright lawyers and Patent lawyers and Trademark lawyers. All are considered "imaginary property" lawyers, but the laws differ in each instance. For instance, patents last twenty years, copyright lasts close to two hundred years, and trademarks never run out.
If someone infringes your copyright you still hold copyright. If someone infringes your trademark you have to defend it.
BTW, speaking of copyright lawyers, where's Ray Beckerman
wait.... wait.... hold on.. (Score:2)
You put source code into a PDF file?
Stop the patent filing process immediately.
Stop the development process immediately.
Stop working in any computer-related field immediately.
And stay out of Second Life!
Remember, a patent is about proof. (Score:2)
My grandfather was an inventor. He made several small items that he sold with varying success.
He would take all his information, get it notarized put it in an envelope.Get two people ti sign and data across the flap, and then put that in another envelope he would mail to himself and not open.
This gave him proof with a date on it. The few times protection came up, it was enough for the courts. Cost him very little money.
Another thing you can do is just do the patent yourself and send it in. A few hundred buc
Question (Score:2)
Free Patent Advice (Score:4, Funny)
Don't get your free patent advice from Slashdot.
Please, just everybody stop. You are all so wrong (Score:5, Informative)
2) As proof, what I am about to tell you is not legal advice, nor is me telling you this creating an attorney/client relationship
3) Hire an attorney.
That all said, a patent is not a freedom to operate document. If you have a patent on ABCD, and someone has a patent they claim covers ABC, nothing stops them from coming after you. They may win, they may not, but your patent does not protect you. It only allows you to prevent others from doing ABCD (it is a 'negative right'). Secondly, if you do want to ensure no one can own it, publish it yesterday. The longer you delay, the worse off everyone is because publications are an absolute bar to someone else patenting your invention only a year or more after the publication. Each day you wait pushes that statutory bar another day. Now, without reading your links, your 'publication' here - or more specifically whenever you put those up - is sufficient. You do not need to make it a peer journal or anything like that. It just needs to be available to the public.
Seriously, don't heed most of the advice here. It is just plain, outright wrong.
Again, get a lawyer, talk to him or her, and I'll bet you they give you the same advice. Not that I'm giving you advice.
Dont worry about it. (Score:3, Funny)
Don't bother reading any further, I went ahead and filed for patent on this while he was waiting for his. In Canada, you don't wait for patents, you get them as you file for them.....ok, let me see now, where did i place my bank book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
You can create any agreement you want with your patent.
You can even give different rules to different people.
You can even file for infringement years after people have been using it; However if the court feels you were waiting to 'trap' someone else intentionally the courts may decide against you. Most likely you will not be able to collect royalties from that entity.
Your quote is a brief summary of what a patent is. It does not mean you can't liscence it to someone else, just that sonmeone else can't