Zynga attempts to patent virtual currency.

[diamabel]

I wonder if this one will slip by the USPTO (which seems unable to grasp current technology).



http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...zynga&RS=zynga

Is Zynga moving into patent trolling or have they just run out of games to 'improve'?

You overlooked following statement:
(2) The method of claim 1 wherein the computer-implemented game is a gambling game.

If they really can pull it off with this patent, online casinos and related services might get some headaches. How are patents handled in the US? Do you have to describe some kind of technical process/mechanisms? If they formulate it too narrowly and focusing on a certain technology then the patent's usefulness will be situational at best. If they describe it in a too general way would it still be considered a valid patent?

[donfilibuster]

Can imagine this latest attempt is just trying to throw more money at it than all others that tried it before.

After all there were all the casinos and Second Life, etc.

[CaptainCameo]

I wonder if this one will slip by the USPTO (which seems unable to grasp current technology).



http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...zynga&RS=zynga

Is Zynga moving into patent trolling or have they just run out of games to 'improve'?

I have a feeling if this did pass, there would be a lot of backlash from it. I can see video game companies not even bothering to release certain games in the US because they have currency in it. I can already see people in the US sneaking over to Canada just to buy those games.

You know what? They should pass it just to see what happens.

[lekkus]

Hm 'turbine points' is of course not the same as 'virtual playing chips' nor are they compatible and even if Zynga made a case (which I doubt very much), Turbine could counter they didn't infringe no one and could demand Zynga be enjoined from pestering for money.

[cardmj1]

You overlooked following statement:
(2) The method of claim 1 wherein the computer-implemented game is a gambling game.

If they really can pull it off with this patent, online casinos and related services might get some headaches. How are patents handled in the US? Do you have to describe some kind of technical process/mechanisms? If they formulate it too narrowly and focusing on a certain technology then the patent's usefulness will be situational at best. If they describe it in a too general way would it still be considered a valid patent?

If I am not mistaken, real casinos copyright their chips with logos so they can track them and protect themselves from fraud. Is this or can there be an issue with virtual casino chips?

[donfilibuster]

Casino chips can be spared because you don't use them for in-game purchases.
The wording of the patent speaks of crediting from an account for secondary purchases, which describe the way a lot of MMOs use in their stores.
Likewise the virtual currency in Second Life, three rings and other games are more like real currency with which you can actually trade so those stay out of scope as well.

If things go bad maybe WotC can come to the rescue with some of their own patent stuff like booster packs, etc. to replace the point based store, assuming of course that they ever managed to patent that.

[LordMond63]

I remember reading a history of the Ford Motor Company a while back and one of the early challenges to the company was a group of what I'd guess might be called today "patent trolls" who claimed that they came up with the concept of the automobile and that all companies which were manufacturing automobiles would have to pay big bucks for a license from the consortium that would permit them to make cars legally. Not only that but the consortium would get a small royalty from the same of each car.

One by one most of the car companies gave in and paid tribute. Dodge. Chevrolet. But not Ford.

Henry Ford put his (considerable) money where his (equally considerable) mouth was and challenged the consortium and agreed to indemnify his dealer network against royalty payments if he lost.

Which he did. The first round, at least.

He ultimately prevailed on appeal when among other things, an automobile actually manufactured by the consortium under their 'patent' failed to start.

So before you dismiss this as nonsense...remember what almost happened less than 100 years ago with the automobile.

[evilgardengnome]

Everything that can be invented has been invented.
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899 (attributed)

Apparently, this is all irrelavent because there has been nothing new since 1899. I wasn't around back then, so I will have to trust Mr. Duell.

[Tom318]

You can't patent something someone else made before you. Otherwise I'd be patenting bedsheets. And bread. And plates. And...

[LordMond63]

You can't patent something someone else made before you. Otherwise I'd be patenting bedsheets. And bread. And plates. And...

Seems eminently logical.

Which means it is probably incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter

Applicable law states:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.- Section 101, Title 35 of the United States Code

So bread, typical bread anyway, might not be patentable. But bread made thru a new and/or improved process and from new combinations of ingrediants probably can be.

One consistent faling in the law is that it essentially never keeps up with technology proactively; it only does so in reaction to someone raising a point that had not thentofore been considered with respect to applicable law.

[Tiberius0000]

"That reminds me, I haven't checked my fish in 3 months!"...."checking"....}< *> "Ahhhhhh ya, their all dead."