Techdirt. Stories filed under "multimedia"

New York Times Adapts Open Source Mini-Game For Some Meta-Journalism

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 4 Apr 2012 23:59:00 PDT

By now you've probably caught a link or two to the New York Times' layout-obliterating mini-game embedded in an article about so-called "stupid games". The article itself is an interesting (if slightly long-winded) history and mild (if slightly self-indulgent) condemnation of the "dark side" of hyperaddictive games from Tetris to Angry Birds, and while I don't agree with much of the message, I'm glad to see it's garnering quite a bit of attention for this clever idea to illustrate the point by including a distracting game right there on the page.

The Nieman Journalism Lab got some details on how the game was created, including the fact that it's a fairly simple adaptation of another open source game. Jon Huang, the man behind the NYT version, sounds like a guy who really understands and embraces the potential of open sharing:

“I give all the credit to the guys behind Kick Ass. They’re a really excited pair of 18-year-old twins in Sweden,” Huang told me Wednesday. “I love that’s how the Internet works these days.”

Kick Ass is the open source game that made the Times’ interactive possible. It’s essentially a bookmarklet that allows you to wreak havoc on any given site you find yourself on. It was a perfect fit for the the theme of Sam Anderson’s Sunday magazine story, which examines the rise of games like Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, and others that inhibit a world very different from what we might traditionally think of as regular video games.

They also rightly praise Huang and the NYT for their creative use of technology and multimedia to enhance journalism—though, it seems worth pointing out that the more the game enhances the message of the article, the more it paradoxically weakens it as well: by using a completely pointless but addictive game found on github to improve a story, they've proven that such toys can have uses beyond what is immediately apparent.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

It Appears That The Encyclopaedia Britannica Entry On Shaking Down GPS Providers With A Bogus Patent Needs Updating

Mike Masnick — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:56:24 PDT

The Encyclopaedia Britannica has not exactly been having a good decade. In the minds of much of the public (though, certainly not all), the usefulness of Britannica has long been surpassed by Wikipedia. A couple years ago, we gave Britannica's president a chance to explain his views on where Britannica is going, but it still seems like an uphill battle. Among the more ridiculous things that Britannica has tried to do is to also turn itself into a bit of a patent troll. Back in 2007, it sued a bunch of GPS companies for patent infringement. Scratching your head over why Britannica holds patents on GPS technology? The answer is even more convoluted than you can imagine.

Through a series of events, Britannica ended up in possession of a rather infamous patent (5,241,671), originally granted to Compton's back in 1993. That patent was initially used to claim control over... well... pretty much all multimedia, including CD-ROMs and certain aspects of computers and software. The story got so much attention that the USPTO's boss stepped up and directly ordered a re-exam of the patent. All of the claims were struck down, but Compton's (and soon Britannica who took over ownership of the patent, being an investor in Comptons) kept trying. After eight long years of fighting back and forth, the patent with narrower claims was granted, which Britannica decided covered GPS technology.

To make matters even more confusing, during all of this Britannica had also filed for two continuations patents (the sneaky process we've discussed a few times recently whereby patents holders try to submarine in later offerings with an earlier priority date). Those patents were at the center of the lawsuit we mentioned in 2007.

At the end of 2008, we noted that that original '671 patent had finally been declared invalid. Last summer, we noted that those two other continuation patents had been dumped as well. Britannica, with nothing to lose, appealed.

Last week it lost that appeal. The actual ruling focuses on a technicality in terms of how Britannica filed for those continuation patents. Basically, it screwed up the filing process and that killed any chance of the patents to actually be considered continuations. Because of that, the patents get tossed out as being considered neither new nor non-obvious as they're anticipated by other patents. Either way, hopefully this really is the end of Encyclopaedia Britannica's short life in the world of patent trolling GPS companies...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Encyclopaedia Britannica Loses Patent Battle... Yet Again

Mike Masnick — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:20:00 PDT

Last year, we wrote about the incredible story of how Encyclopaedia Britannica had ended up with an infamous patent (5,241,671) and was using it to claim ownership over basic GPS functionality. The patent had originally been granted to Compton's back in 1993, and was insanely broad. Compton's quickly told the world that pretty much any and all multimedia systems out there (such as CD-ROMs) violated the patent. The outcry was so great that the commissioner of the patent office initiated the re-exam of the patent himself, and eventually tossed out the whole thing. But, as things go, there was some back-and-forth, and eventually a few greatly narrowed claims were allowed. EB ended up with the patents as an investor in Compton's, and then not only got some other patents based on the 671 patent, but claimed that they could be asserted against GPS systems. And, just like that, rather than doing something useful, like figuring out how to compete with Wikipedia, Encyclopaedia Britannica started filing bogus patent infringement lawsuits.

We wrote about it last November to note that a court had thrown out the entire 671 patent as invalid. While EB is appealing that ruling, it also pushed ahead with the lawsuits based on the other patents it had received that were built on the 671 patent. However, Slashdot alerts us that the same court that tossed out the 671 patent has now dumped these two patents as well. EB, of course is expected to appeal this as well.

This seems like a subject that could use a decent Wikipedia entry, doesn't it?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Encyclopaedia Britannica Fails In Attempt To Revive Infamous Multimedia Patent

Mike Masnick — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:53:00 PST

Last year, we pointed out how rather ironic it seemed that a company like Encyclopaedia Britannica, who is supposed to be in the business of spreading knowledge, would sue GPS makers for patent infringement. However, at the time, we were unaware of the history of the patents in question. Joe Mullin, over at The Prior Art, has the full story, including the fact that the case relied on a rather infamous patent, that gave many folks a preview of future patent battles to come.

The patent in question was about doing searches on CD-ROMs and was granted in 1993. The original patent holder, Compton's, claimed that: "Everything that is now multimedia and computer-based utilizes this invention," and noted, of course, that basically everyone in the industry now owed it money. The outcry over this was so great that the commissioner of the patent office initiated a re-exam by himself, eventually getting all of the claims of the patent rejected. However, with some back and forth, eventually greatly narrowed claims were approved in 2001. In 2005, EB, who had taken control over the patent (it had been an investor in Compton's) decided that the patent applied to GPS systems, even though it's pretty clear that the patent had nothing to do with GPS systems.

After a few more years of battling, the good news is that a court has, once again, found the patent to be invalid, more or less (hopefully) closing the book on this patent, but demonstrating how the patent system has been misused yet again. The original patent was clearly way too broad, and it took years to get that worked out. And, then, even the eventually-allowed patent was asserted against totally different systems, only to finally be brought down years later. While some patent system defenders may suggest that the system works, since the eventual outcome was okay, there was an awful lot of time, money and effort wasted on all of this that could have gone towards actual innovation.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story