This week in Live Action Role Play (LARP) news, Jordan Gwyther–priest, father, avid LARPer, and founder of larping.org–is no longer being sued by an Indiana archery company for patent infringement.

Let’s back up and talk about this step by step. For some background knowledge, LARPing is defined as:

A type of role-playing game in which each participant assumes a particular character and acts out various scenarios at events which last for a  predetermined time.

Essentially, people dress up in all kinds of outfits and act as those characters in a group setting. It is common for people to LARP as comic book characters, anime characters, and even medieval characters. Fighting in some form is frequently involved.

In this case, Global Archery sued Jordan Gwyther last October for patent and trademark infringement because he was reselling foam arrows shipped from Germany to people in the LARP community to use in LARP battles. The Indiana-based company was enraged by Gwyther’s competition and filed a complaint against him in an Indiana district court claiming they own the patent on all foam arrows used in LARP.

Part of the drama surrounding this case is the public stir that it has created among LARPers. Global Archery started the suit by bragging about their large legal budget, over $150,000, and filing for a gag order against Gwyther when he attempted to start a GoFundMe campaign to raise money to cover his legal costs. The account, which was started around a month ago, has raised almost $8,000 to help pay for legal fees and features a compelling video from Gwyther about how the very fabric of LARP is being challenged by this lawsuit.

Between the slow build of the dramatic background music and the serious rhetoric about the endangerment of the LARP community, the video makes a compelling argument as to why people should give money to Gwyther’s cause. He also claims he will donate all funds leftover after the lawsuit to a charity of the donors’ choice.

While Global Archery has decided to drop the lawsuit surrounding patent violations, they are still suing Gwyther for infringement of Global Archery’s trademark, Gwyther’s purchase of Google Ads surrounding his business, and for false advertisement. John Jackson, the founder of Global Archery, told Ars Technica the following upon review of the original case:

After the dust has settled and our legal counsel has had time to analyze a translated copy of the German prior art reference provided to Global Archery by Mr. Gwyther’s counsel, Global Archery has decided to voluntarily dismiss the patent counts against Mr. Gwyther with prejudice.

The good news for Gwyther is that, within the past few days, he has received word that Newegg, a tech company supported by Lee Cheng, a famous anti-patent-troll legal expert, has reviewed this case and is going to support him throughout the legal proceedings. Newegg has donated $10,000 to Gwyther’s case and created new t-shirts partially designed by Gwyther to sell in order to raise even more money. Newegg is well known for helping defend against patent trolls and Cheng specifically spoke out about this case claiming that it,

Represents the same type of abuse of intellectual property rights Newegg has stood up to for years. Global Archery’s patents would likely not withstand an invalidity challenge, but they are leveraging them to demand settlement terms that would effectively force this enthusiast and entrepreneur out of business.

So what does this mean for all you LARP fans out there? Well, if Gwyther loses this case, there is a high probability that Global Archery will become one of the only places to get your foam-tipped arrows. But, we can all probably rest easy knowing that some of the best legal counsel when it comes to patent trolling is on Gwyther’s side. And, hey, if you feel so inclined, buy a shirt to help out Gwyther’s cause.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post LARPer Goes to Battle in the Courtroom Over Foam-Tipped Arrow Patents appeared first on Law Street.

Google and Microsoft are finally putting a five-year legal battle to bed. A series of roughly 20 lawsuits in the United States and Germany over various patents and technological innovations were all settled, based on an agreement between the two tech monoliths.

The two companies were involved in disputes involving a wide range of products, including Motorola phones and Xbox technology. It’s unclear what sort of financial agreements were exchanged between the two companies.

The statement put out by Google and Microsoft executives included the following explanation:

As part of the agreement, the companies will dismiss all pending patent infringement litigation between them, including cases related to Motorola Mobility.

Separately, Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our customers.

So what does this mean for Google, Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole? Well it may be indicative of the fact that these companies have bigger and more menacing enemies than each other. For example, both companies have been fighting patent trolls. Patent trolls buy up patents and then use them to file a number of lawsuits, but without any intention of actually utilizing the patents. These lawsuits are pretty prevalent in the United States, and with the European Union setting up a new patent court, Google and Microsoft are both lobbying to pass legislation that will ensure these kinds of lawsuits won’t explode in Europe as well.

Additionally Google and Microsoft, as well as a whole bevy of other tech companies, are working on a project called the Alliance for Open Media. Other partners in the venture include Cisco, Amazon, Netflix, Intel, and Mozilla. The purpose of the project is to create media formats, particularly video, that are royalty-free and work “across devices of all kinds and for users worldwide.” This will save these companies money, and probably lead to less expensive patent fights between them when it comes to video streaming. Moreover, it’s a smart PR move, as it will allow customers who probably don’t much care about patent battles between tech companies to more easily share videos across a wide range of devices.

So, Google and Microsoft burying the hatchet, at least in part, may be indicative of an overall shift between the two companies. However there are still some legal issues between the two companies pending, and there’s no guarantee that more–including patent issues–won’t arise in the future. For now, however, it looks like Google and Microsoft are mending some fences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google and Microsoft End Long Patent Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

As I’m sure you are all aware, Twitter is planning to go public and aspiring to make $1 billion, despite profits that have come up short. Sure, nearly 500 million tweets circulate throughout the service daily, but Twitter has a dirty, dark secret that may hold it back from the greatness it envisions for its IPO.

Twitter only holds nine U.S. patents.  Nope, not 90, but nine.  [You can check for yourself.] This is child’s play when compared to the nearly eight hundred patents owned by the formidable Facebook when it was gearing up for its initial public offering in May 2012.  But this is actually commendable when we look into Twitter’s reasoning for owning so few patents. They want to allow their engineers and web designers to maintain ownership of their own creations.  Well look at that – a company using our intellectual property laws as a spearhead to invite more innovation.

This past May, Twitter effectuated the Innovator’s Patent Agreement, which puts the choice in the inventors’ hands as to whether they want their patents to be used offensively.  YES! I must say my heart twerked for proprietary joy when I learned that Twitter was implementing such measures.  Shouldn’t an inventor be allowed to determine if she wants her patent(s) to potentially be a weapon for patent trolling? Licensing your patent to a major company shouldn’t carry the consequence of possibly creating barriers to creation by others.

Although the benevolent intentions behind Twitter’s actions should be applauded, it may prove to be detrimental for their upcoming IPO.  Patent ownership allows investors to place a value on the technological innovations created by a company. And unfortunately, this makes plenty of sense. For instance, if Twitter were to be faced with a patent infringement suit, their minimalistic approach to patents doesn’t give them much foundation to file a counter suit.  Also, investors are cognizant that innovators who own their own inventions may very well pack up their bag of tricks and take them to a competitor willing to pay a higher licensing fee.

So what’s a lady to do when her pleasantries cause her skirt to bunch up? Well for one, there’s always the argument that the scarcity of patents doesn’t equate to an empty barrel of IP ownership. The San Francisco based company can still litigate on the basis of copyright law, which may not carry the same financial momentum as patent suits, but can still pack a mean punch when used against the right defendant. Also, the naysayers mustn’t forget about Twitter’s recent acquisition of Bluefin, a company that merges tv and twitter events into a service that can be used to boost ad sales.  And finally, our nation should want to support a company that encourages the minds of our engineers and voices of our innovators.

Here’s to hoping patents will one day be restored as the deputies of novelty:

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Andreas Eldh via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter: When Being the Nice Guy Bites You in the Offering appeared first on Law Street.