Thomas Warfield of Pretty Good Solitaire is reporting in his blog that he has been contacted about violating a patent on computer solitaire games: "My company has received the following letter from a law firm claiming to have a client that has patented computer solitaire. And by extension, all computer card games. I am not kidding." Read the full blog here: A Shareware Life -David DavidRM
Samu Games
The Indie Game Development Survival Guide

How bizarre!

I hope they don't get away with such a sleezeball act!

DISCLAIMER: If any of the above statements are incorrect, feel free to deliver me a good hard slap!

My game: Swift blocks

[edited by - JohanOfverstedt on February 2, 2004 5:59:36 PM]

Amazing.

Hmm, there are lot of interesting Sheldon Goldberg''s out there (the name of the guy with the patent) including:

President and CEO Alzheimer''s Association
President and Owner of New England Championship Wrestling
author of a beginner''s guide to Self-Mutilation
more presidents/CEOs of other organizations
doctor
photographer
...

I wonder who this one is?

Tadd
- WarbleWare

> ... a client that has patented computer solitaire.
> And by extension, all computer card games.

I''ve skimmed through the patent text and it protects the advertisement display and related statistics info during a card game. If the game doesn''t show any advertisement whatsoever, there is no infringment. But that puts a dent in your business model if you have a web-based card game and your only source of revenue comes from advertisement banners.

I don''t think there is any claim here. It''s cheap to send a "Cease-and-Desist" letter and lawyers frequently cry wolf on potential competitors just in case they find one that would get scared and run out of the market.

-cb

quote: Original post by reana1
author of a beginner''s guide to Self-Mutilation

This one!

This is actually pretty funny, if you stop to read his patent and then associate it with computerized card games in general.

Break down his patent into simple concepts:

1) a "dealer module", which is very specifically outlined in the patent;
2) a specific methodology, i.e. his specific software;
3) the gathering of personal information during the card game;
4) gearing specific advertising, based on #3, towards the player;
5) modifying that advertising from player to player, based on the demographic information outlined in #3

Just to give an example of how specific he has to be:

quote: In FIG. 1, a block diagram is presented of a first embodiment of an electronic system 10 for the present invention for playing blackjack, wherein data flows are represented by solid arrows and control flows are represented by dashed arrows. In particular, the embodiment of FIG. 1 presents an architecture for the present invention for use on, for example, a local network within a casino, wherein low cost gaming stations may be utilized. Accordingly, the blackjack gaming system 10 includes a blackjack game controller 14 electronically connected to one or more potentially remote gaming stations 18 so that for each gaming station a player may play blackjack. In the blackjack gaming system 10, the blackjack game controller 14 functions substantially as a dealer would in a manually operated blackjack game and each gaming station 18 provides a blackjack player with an electronic representation of a blackjack game wherein it may appear that the player (i.e., user) at the gaming station 18 is the only player playing against the dealer (i.e., "head-to-head" against the blackjack game controller 14). Accordingly, each gaming station 18, as will be discussed with reference to FIG. 2 below, includes a display for displaying both the dealer''s cards and the player''s cards. Each gaming station 18 also includes player interaction capabilities for requesting additional cards, activating various blackjack player options at appropriate times, and potentially increasing various wagers at predetermined phases of a blackjack game. Further note that each gaming station 18, when in operation, may request a security code be provided by a player for identifying himself/herself or, alternatively, the gaming station may request the player to insert an electronic card (not shown) into the gaming station 18 so that information electronically encoded upon the card is read at the gaming station and transferred to the blackjack controller 14.

That''s only a small part of his process - the very, very specific process which he''s outlined and patented. In no way, shape or form does a combination of card game software and banner advertising infringe on his patent.

What I''m betting (pun intended) is that he''s relying on most people to focus on the "cease and desist" letter instead of actually reading through the entire patent, which is pretty detailed and extensive. Fear is a powerful tool, especially in this age of RIAA lawsuits.

I''m writing to his attorney, a Mr. Lee Grossman (a respected patent attorney) to see if he is willing to comment on the alleged claim. I''ll share what he has to say, if anything, when I get a response.

This lawyer is obviously fishing for settlements. What do you think will happen when/if Microsoft gets this letter?

* STOMP !!!! *

This sounds like the same guy who recently contacted the management of www.starchamber.net about their online CCG game...definitely sounds fishy to me.

This is complete crap. This is why we need to end software patents.
Unfortunatly this is only the beginning of the problems.

This is why companies involved with software should move to non-US countries, where people like this cannot enforce these software patents that should never have been granted in the first place.

www.tornadogames.com was also served with these patents. They accuse us of infringing because we offer a Blackjack game, advertising and high score lists for the games. Didn''t QuantumLink (Q-Link) have Blackjack in 1988 before it became AOL? I seem to remember playing some casino games on a BBS that ran software called Wildcat in the early 90''s. Can anyone help get more detailed information about those services (Compuserv, AOL, Q-Link, Prodigy). Overall we feel these Patents are a far stretch of the imagination and believe the Patent Office was smoking something the day they approved these, there is a lot of prior art for every one of the claims. Solitaire on a computer, did anyone ever play solitaire in Win 3.1(Released 1992)? Games on a network, Network Hearts in Win 95(Released 1995.. duh). The earliest file date of these patents was 1996. Maybe the Patent office needs to purchase a computer. Anybody friends with Bill Gates or Steve Case, if so could you give them a call.

I dare you to read the claims of the patent... it''s like your reading something Yoda wrote. Said this Said that of said.