Putting 'Game Pieces' Together Online To Win Something Patented; All The Big Social Gaming Companies Sued

from the this-got-a-patent? dept

Someone, who prefers to remain anonymous, sent over the news that a company named Everglades Interactive has sued basically all of the big “social gaming” providers for patent infringement. Among those sued are EA, Playdom, Disney (which just bought Playdom), Zynga, Playfish, Rockyou and Crowdstar. The patent in question? It’s patent 6,656,050, for an “odds accelerator for promotional type sweepstakes, games, and contests.” If you read the details, it seems like the pretty standard process of taking various sweepstakes involving matching pieces (bottle caps, peel off stickers, etc.) to get certain prizes but moving it online. Of course, once you move such a physical process online, you can do slightly different things since you’re not limited by geography and physical distribution. But all that seems like it should be obvious. Not to the patent examiners of course, who judged it patent worthy.

So how do all these social gaming sites infringe?

… by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services that provide game pieces that are applied to a game board at a game site, make information available about the pieces needed to complete a winning combination, allow the player to share or trade the game pieces, and enable the players to easily and securely store game pieces….

Of course, you would think that since pretty much every social gaming system does this, that it would be clear that this was an obvious thing to do if you’re building a social gaming system. But, tragically (and ridiculously), that’s not how our patent system works.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: disney, ea, playdom, rockyou, zynga

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Putting 'Game Pieces' Together Online To Win Something Patented; All The Big Social Gaming Companies Sued”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Yes, but patent laws allow this BS to actually move into courts.
There are other laws that let people waste money on fighting useless legal battles, but what’s wrong with looking this one?”

You know, we the people should have a sit down. All 350,000,000 of us not in the 10%, or make 90% of all monies EARNED, own 73% of all land only paying 55% of the tax burden in the USA. And come up with a pay structure to use the court system.

Derek Bredensteiner (profile) says:

Re: Re:

These sorts of bad patents really don’t bother you at all? I would think even as someone who staunchly defends the need for a patent system you’d be concerned about these sorts of patents. Could we not talk about the need for a patent system and not talk about the need to deal with the effects (civil lawsuits) and just focus on this patent for 2 seconds? There’s clearly plenty of people willing to discuss whatever question you throw out, but don’t you think you’ll win more support with a rational discussion of the topic at hand instead of derailing the conversation? You get more attention with derailing, which I guess maybe is your goal? But I genuinely think you’ll be more effective and get closer to your goals if you consider rational discourse some of the time.

Pierre Wolff (profile) says:

2003 Patent

While I’m certainly no fan of stupid patents and of business process and software patents more generally, this patent did issue before the social gaming craze. The date of the patent is 2003, before social games and before the companies listed (w/the exception of EA) where in biz. So I don’t think one can claim obviousness here since none of these folks were doing or thinking about this when this patent was sought. Having said that, I would doubt the veracity of the patent if the status quo of quality remains the high water mark 😉

Bob Monkey says:

The patent is supported by only interface design pictures and a description of sweepstakes that uses tokens and that optionally do any of the following: trade tokens between users, use multiple tokens for a prize. Used for years by soda companies, raffles, casinos, arcades, video games companies this patents any implementation of this game mechanic. This sort of mechanic isn’t even a mechanic, but a strategy certainly employed naturally among humans for years called trade. Trade for a prize certainly occurred at kid’s birthday parties. The definition of obvious, expanded in KSR vs Teleflex (it struck down a too narrow interpretation by the federal court of appeals) must invalidate this patent.


This company probably never even bothered to code this 1 hour comp sci 201 project. I’d love to do a livestream implementing this BS

Techcrunch as the press needs to fight against the injustice of patents and for the rights of the individual in an economic market. This is critically important for economic activity and access across the globe. Techcrunch srsly should have been purchased by a democratic press company

Was posted on techdirt a little while ago

The patent office needs to rectify KSR vs Teleflex violating patents and take an extreme stance against obviousness and do what is good for the world and the people of the USA

techdirt and torrentfreak is the truth and the voice of the poor and the individual

Newsfeed of patent cases: http://www.rfcexpress.com/patent-lawsuits.asp

Anonymous Coward says:

Junk Patent Problem Yet Again

Take the reward away from these crooks. Stop letting crime pay. Repeal the part of the law that says patent infringement is illegal. Get rid of the concept. It is that part of the law which is feeding the trolls. Take it away from them. It is unjust to have such large penalties attached to such a poor quality collection of patents. The USPTO has failed to maintain patent quality, in defiance of its own legislation, so it should get punished accordingly, by having its right to grant monopolies revoked.

It is time for the patent system to transition to something voluntary. It should become a freely searchable repository of technical knowledge, organised as best the USPTO can manage. We will see how they manage, with their capacity to do harm greatly reduced.

staff (profile) says:


“But all that seems like it should be obvious. “

Don’t get all worked in to a lather. If the defendants have anything near proof the patent is invalid all they need do is file for reexam and the PTO will most always grant. Keep in mind it costs patentees plenty to bring suit. If they truly thought their patent was invalid, they wouldn’t risk the money. Have a beer and chill out.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...