Distributed Gaming Patents: impact on the future of PB[e]M too? From: tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 16:45:59 +0000 This note probably doesn't have much relevance for PBM, but play by ELECTRONIC mail is certainly a candidate... Article: 269 Newsgroups: gnu.announce Path: e2big.mko.dec.com!uvo.dec.com!hollie.rdg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rms From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Subject: Another patent outrage Message-ID: <9202120447.AA27370@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu Reply-To: lpf-patent-4856787@prep.ai.mit.edu Organization: GNUs Not Usenet Distribution: gnu Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 18:47:59 GMT Approved: info-gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu Lines: 167 [The FSF is posting this announcement on behalf of the League for Programming Freedom. Please repost widely.] Someone has patented a special case of multiplayer games implemented using a network of user machines, plus a server. The patent covers a distributed system that gives each user a machine which can play several games at once (in separate windows, for example), where the various players of each game interact through a network to a server machine that keeps track of the game (like Xtrek, for example). The patent holder is said to be aggressively suing all competitors to shut them down. One of them is asking for help. You would think that this is an obvious combination of two basic techniques: multiple windows on a screen, and multiplayer games on a network of machines. But judges and juries may think that combining these two techniques takes real genius. No one would want to have to depend on convincing a court that this is obvious. It's possible that a pair of multiplayer X games would invalidate the patent, but they need to have been disclosed to the public before Feb 5, 1986. That is the date of the original patent application, so nothing counts as prior art unless it was published (and provably so) before that date. (It is not necessary that the actual source code for the program have been published. What needs to have been shown to the public is the idea.) But perhaps just any multiplayer games won't do the job. Part of the "invention" is that among the supported games are certain casino games from a particular list. Will a judge believe that implementing one game in this way makes it obvious that you could implement another game? There's no telling. So if you know of any games on this list that were implemented in a distributed fashion before Feb 5, 1986, that would be very helpful. Bingo, keno, poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, gin, and sports book. Please mail your prior art to lpf-patent-4856787@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, he 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. Patent Number 4,856,787. Issued to Boris Itkis on Aug 15, 1989, with the original application on Feb 5, 1986. CONCURRENT GAME NETWORK Abstract: A distributed game network comprising a master game device and a number of slave game devices. The slave game device is capable of playing concurrently a number of menu selectable card and chance games, such as poker, bingo, blackjack, and keno. The slave game device receives commands and random data, such as bingo patterns and called bingo and keno numbers, from the master game device and sends the local game status and accounting information to the master game device. The slave game device is equipped with a touch screen display and a smart game card interface. The smart game card associated with the slave game device has an imbedded microprocessor keeping track of wagers and outcomes of the game. The touch screen display exhibits the status of the games being played in display windows and accepts player's commands including menu selections and bingo and keno card marks. Claims: 1. Game network comprising at least one master game device interconnected with at least one slave game device; said slave game device executing concurrently at least two different distinct and independent games; each of said different distinct and independent games comprising its own unique rules of play and unique random factors; said different distinct and independent games including bingo, keno, poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, gin, and sports book; said master game device providing data for playing said games; and at least one of said two different distinct and independent games being at least partially responsive to said data from said master game device. 2. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device incorporates a local data input and output means comprising a display means displaying simultaneously the current status of each of said two distinct and different independent games, a sound and voice data entry means, a sound and speech generating means, a touch responsive data entry means, a game card reading and writing means. [This claim is noteworthy because it is nothing but a shopping list. It is as if one could patent attaching floppy disks, hard disks, and a CD rom drive to a computer.] 3. In combination, a smart game card and the combination of claim 2, wherein said smart game card incorporates an imbedded data storage and data processing means being accessible by and responsive to said game card reading and writing means. 4. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device incorporates a software and hardware means for controlling the degree of difficulty of playing at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 5. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device displays matches between data being transmitted by said master game device and the contents of at least one game card for playing at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 6. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device transmits to said master game device accounting data and the current status of at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 7. The combination of claim 1, wherein two or more of said slave game devices participate in a common game. Here's a letter that the patent holder sent to one of the companies that is being attacked: January 10, 1992 International Gamco, Inc. 9355 North 48th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68152-1541 Att: Mr. Mark Stevens, Dir. Sales/Marketing Re: FORTUNET PATENTS Dear Mr. Stevens: Please be advised that I represent the inventor and owner of U.S. patents 4,455,025, 4,624,462, and 4,856,787. Copies of said patents are enclosed for your review. Based on information currently in my client's possession, it is my client's position that your pull tab game, which appears very similar to our patented network video pull tab game, may constitute an infringement of at least one claim of each of the above referenced patents, literally and/or in view of the Doctrine of Equivalents. Please note that Fortunet has long had a patented, fully developed, and marketable networking video pull tab game but has elected not to market such a game (despite numerous customer requests for said product) due to the questionable legal status of these types of games. Please submit our patents and your pull tab game to your attorney for an overview. My client suggests that they will confirm his belief that your product (pull tab game) infringes his patents. In order to further study your product in an effort to avoid any unnecessary legal recourse, my client requests that you forward any available information concerning said pull tab game, e.g. brochures, disclosures, etc., so he may study same. Be advised that we take the matter of patent infringement very seriously, and have filed numerous lawsuits to protect our patents. Several parties, including a major U.S. video pull tab vendor, have refrained from marketing video pull tab networks following our advising them of the risks of legal confrontation. We hope that you will follow their example in this matter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we may discuss how to resolve this situation. My client's sincere desire is to reach an amicable resolution to this matter without any unnecessary judicial involvement. Please let your better business sense be your guide. Referenced By Up