I don't claim to be an expert, but I did a lot of reading about patents not so long ago since i was kinda interested in one.

Here's the thing, noone can patent the whole of "System and Method for Enabling Users to Interact in a Virtual Space."

In fact, the wording alone is saying a SPECIFIC system or method just by how it's written.

This isn't the whole story, I'm sure....


You see, you can only patent a specific method. Me, painting cars, I can't patent painting cars, but I could patent painting cars using a kitchen blender instead of compressed air.

And even then, i have to mention the type of blender AND the speed i did it with (chop, puree, liguify etc) I couldnt patent the whole spectrum. (This is why I decided against a patent, because people could do the same thing a different way unless i got patents for every possible way!)

They can't patent internet chat within games. They can only patent chatting in internet games using a specific method, or even code.

One would need to read the whole patent to get the specifics.

Look how it's read... it doesnt say anything about chat, just 'interact'

And it also says 'system and method'... that means the patent infringement is because the claim says they used a patented system and method. They could use a different system and method and be well within their rights.

On the face of it, it almost looks like it says internet game chat is patented, but it's not. Maybe their system was to interact by throwing coconuts at each other. Maybe it was using a language using shapes instead of the alphabet.

The point is, text chat and even multiplayer games ARE a system and method of interaction,
BUT
it's obviously not the patented method by this company.

There's more to this story, and I think it's just being worded to get people in an uproar... (that's what journalists do :P )


One last things... everyone talks of precedence and how enough people doing something can't be patented because people have been doing it for years...

That's wrong.

Why do you think people kick themselves for not patenting something when they find that someone else did?

You cant go to court saying you've been doing it for years before it was patented, the courts will say that now you can't without their permission because they patented it. (And that you should have applied for the patent first!)

This is generic patent law, but it hopefully will educate a little.

Again, there's more to this story, and I know it has to do with the unmentioned specifics of the patent left out of the article.

- Jason