Best Approach To Keeping a Virtual World Protocol Free to All?

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?"

Public domain isn't necessariliy free and open

[gujo-odori]

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.

Prior Art

[Giant Electronic Bra]

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.

Nothing can protect you

[PCM2]

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.

[fm6]

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?

Re:Who owns the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Prior art != no legal fees

[Joce640k]

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.

Name is nothing original

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely need a new name. MXP has been used by zuggsoft as the name of their Mud eXtension Protocol [zuggsoft.com] for quite some time.

GPL not in Public Domain

[DragonWriter]

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].

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.

Re:Talk to a patent lawyer

[DragonWriter]

Patent lawyer: "Why yes! Of course you should pay me $10,000! Otherwise the boogeyman will get you!"

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 should be able to determine, and should be able to assist in locating someone who isn't going to blatantly violate legal ethics by acting in their own interest rather than their clients, and, failing that, should be able to get the ball rolling on the legal malpractice action against the outside counsel if such a violation does occur.)

Re:Does it now count as prior art?

[fair use]

A patent doesn't give you the right to do anything. A patent only gives you the right to prevent other people from doing something. So getting a patent on this won't prevent other people for suing you for patent infringement. The patent could be useful from a defensive perspective. If you get sued by a competitor for patent infringement, then you could potentially countersue for infringement of your own patent. If you are sued by a troll, however, that won't help because trolls don't do anything and thus can't be sued for patent infringement.

Just publishing something makes it available as prior art and allows it to be used to prevent someone else from obtaining a patent. The prior art rules in the US are slightly different for publications and patents (look up 35 USC 102) but if there is any significant difference it probably wouldn't be worth the expense of obtaining the patent.

Re:Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge

[Lonewolf666]

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.

Re:Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge

[Insaniac99]

just to make a clarification: putting something under the GPL is not the same thing as releasing it as public domain. the GPL and other licenses like it (such as Creative Commons) still protect the works under copyright and allow the owner of the copyright to pursue people who violate the restrictions placed on the use of it. releasing something under the public domain relinquishes all control of the IP and lets people start selling, modifying, and doing whatever they want willy-nilly without any stipulation that they need to release the work as open source or keep it free (whether as in beer or freedom) or anything else.

Re:Put Your Documents & Code on SourceForge

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a protocol, it has:

a) Reference Documents
b) Technical Papers
c) A 'Review Board'
d) Implementations

Your implementation is not the be-all and end-all. It may be a good generic starting point where other systems can then be integrated - like telecommunications -

Take for instance CSTA (Computer Supported Telecommunications Applications) - which essentially yours is - a Telecommunications/Computer Application. This is a standard set by ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers Association).

I'm releasing my project based on these technical documents as well. Working all the hosting, final documentation, last release bugs etc.. It will be at http://www.opencsta.org

I'm guessing in your protocol, you send through events of the changing worlds so that there is one big universe?

I'd be interested in your stuff later this year.

Kind Regards,

MXP? Isn't this old news?

[Rhalin]

I seem to recall using MXP [zuggsoft.com] nearly a decade ago for my MMORPG's [wikipedia.org]...

First google result "MXP Protocol" and wikipedia result!

Re:Definitely cannot patent your invention

[geekoid]

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 use it without your permission.
Read the actual patent laws and regulations.

Please, just everybody stop. You are all so wrong

[psxndc]

1) I AM a lawyer

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.