Showing posts with label Game Apps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game Apps. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Patent licensing firm K.Mizra suing Pokémon GO maker Niantic (Google/Nintendo) over cloud architecture patent: Munich trial scheduled for July

The Landgericht München I (Munich I Regional Court) has informed me of a pair of patent infringement cases by U.S.-based patent licensing firm K.Mizra against Pokémon GO maker Niantic, a Google-Nintendo joint venture. The case numbers are 7 O 13977/21 and 7 O 10368/21 (Seventh Civil Chamber; Presiding Judge: Dr. Matthias Zigann), and the patent-in-suit is EP2433414 on "servers for device identification services."

The two cases will be heard on July 14. Counterintuitively, there is no prayer for injunctive relief in those cases, though I remember that Nokia didn't initially request an injunction against Daimler, but later amended its complaints accordingly. In German patent infringement proceedings, plaintiffs are even free to seek additional remedies during the appellate proceedings (as German appeals are rather broad in scope).

The name of the game is the claim--and claim 1 is usually the broadest one. This is what it covers (or just click here to skip the claim language):

A system for identifying proximate devices arranged for detecting a sensory identifier and transmitting request messages comprising representations of the detected sensory identifier, the system comprising:

  • means for correlating representations of the detected sensory identifiers from the request messages received from the devices so as to match two or more of those devices, and

  • means for carrying out an application involving devices that have been matched by said means for correlating representations,

wherein said means for correlating are at least one correlation server and said means for carrying out the application are at least one application server, the at least one correlation server and the at least one application server being distinct servers,

wherein the proximate devices are arranged to include, in the request messages, an indication of an application to be executed, the at least one correlation server being configured to compare the applications indicated by the request messages, and causing a transmitter to transmit the match message based on the match to an application server identified by the matching indications of the application in the matched request messages.

The TL;DR is that there are different types of servers,

  • with one type having the task of identifying users who are in the same vicinity and

  • the other providing the actual application that those geographically close users are using--and "sensory identifiers" (meaning something you can see, hear, smell...) are used to figure out whether users are really next to each other.

Pokémon GO was a blockbuster from the outset. A few years ago, Niantic added a "Buddy Adventure" feature. Here's a YouTube video from Santa Monica that wonders whether this is "[t]he FUTURE of Pokémon GO" and in which you can see the use of QR codes (such as on the title picture but also in the video, especially around 8m15s):

The user who initiates a multiplayer session then shows the QR code to others who must scan the code with their phones to join. The QR code is an imagine, so it undoubtedly represents a sensory identifier.

A quick Google search for information Pokémon GO's cloud architecture leads to--guess what--a Google blog post, "How Pokémon GO scales to millions of requests?"

When I became involved with patent policy in 2004 as a campaigner opposing the proposed EU directive on computer-implemented inventions (aka Software Patents Directive), I was an adviser to an open-source software maker (MySQL) and frequently raised the concern that open-source program code was available for inspection by patent holders looking to identify potential infringements. Reverse engineering often works as well, but it takes a lot more effort. Generally speaking, software makers can be too open for their own good if they reveal the inner workings of their products. Here, the defendant didn't open-source Pokémon GO in its entirety, but disclosed a whole lot of information in an interview published on a Google website. That wealth of information would normally require pretrial discovery in the United States. It may have been unwise to reveal so much. Also, Google's Kubernetes Engine, which is mentioned in that Google interview, is a piece of open-source software.

It's been more than nine years since I attended a Munich trial--before the same division, Presiding Judge Dr. Zigann's Seventh Civil Chamber--involving Google's infrastructure: Microsoft was asserting a patent against Google Maps and on the winning track with respect to infringement, but the patent was later deemed invalid by the Federal Patent Court. The Google Maps case raised a question of first impression: whether a cloud service that is partially provided by servers located outside of Germany can infringe the German part of a European patent. There have since been various German court rulings that have developed a certain standard for what constitutes an infringement in such setups.

Pokémon GO was a smash hit from the moment it launched and had to scale its server infrastructure to huge numbers of concurrent users more quickly than any previous game. What Google did was--and still is--admirable. I remember how at the height of the Pokémon GO frenzy there were groups of children running around trying to catch Pokémons. It's an augmented-reality game, and when I tried it out, I caught a first Pokémon on my desk and the second one in the garden. However, there was one aspect of it that I found highly objectionable (I didn't experience it myself but read about it): the random generator that decides where to place those Pokémons sometimes picked places like graveyards or private properties, resulting in trespassing or at least in inappropriate behavior. I believe it was highly irresponsible and reckless on Niantic's part not to ensure that Pokémons would be found in public spaces only.

Now Pokémon GO is facing what could be a serious and costly patent infringement problem. Google's go-to law firm for defending against patent lawsuits is Quinn Emanuel. The daughter of John Quinn (the "Quinn" in "Quinn Emanuel"), Megan Quinn, joined Niantic's board in late 2017 according to Wikipedia.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Class action complaint against Apple over offering Apple Arcade while not allowing Microsoft xCloud, Google Stadia, Facebook Gaming, GeForce Now

App distribution antitrust cases--especially class actions--are springing up like mushrooms now. A few days ago I was wondering about the connection between Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney and Bonny Sweeney, a San Francisco-based antitrust lawyer suing Google over its Google Play terms on an indie app developer's behalf. But there's also a new case against Apple. It was filed five days ago and I just became aware of it because it was referenced in a case management statement. The new complaint is Pistacchio v. Apple and alleges that consumers overpaid for Apple Arcade because of Apple not allowing allegedly competing services such as Google Stadia, Microsoft's xCloud, Facebook Gaming, and Nvidia's GeForce Now (this post continues below the document):

20-10-08 Pistacchio v. Appl... by Florian Mueller

As the aforementioned case management statement notes, the Pistacchio case appears to be related to the other App Store cases already pending in the Northern District of California (Epic Games v. Apple, Pepper v. Apple, and Cameron v. Apple. Presumably it will soon be assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. And then the question will be what implications this will have for the schedule. Potentially, this new case could even cause a delay for Epic Games v. Apple.

In addition to its own Google Stadia service, Google does allow xCloud (Xbox Game Streaming), Facebook Gaming, and GeForce Now on Android. Whether the unavailability of those alternative game services on iOS actually results in Apple Arcade games being more expensive is going to be hard to prove--but without evidence that there is such an effect, the theory of harm will be limited to the vague notion of "limited choice, stymied innovation, and reduction of quality of service associated with subscription-based mobile gaming services on iOS" (para. 16 of the Pistacchio complaint).

As always in antitrust cases, and especially in those app distribution cases, market definition is the single most important question. The Pistacchio complaint is centered around a very narrow one, the "iOS Subscription-Based Mobile Gaming Market." Why only iOS and not including other platforms? Why only "mobile" when gamers play on all sorts of devices? Why only "subscription-based" when gamers actually have the choice between free-to-play games with in-app purchases, free-to-play games without in-app purchases, free-to-play games with optional subscriptions, pay-for-download games, and so forth?

In the Pepper case, the Supreme Court basically sidestepped the Illinois Brick doctrine regarding indirect purchasers' antitrust standing by holding that consumers are direct purchasers from Apple, also paving the way for the Pistacchio complaint:

"When [Pistacchio] and the Class purchased Apple Arcade, they did so directly through the App Store and paid Apple directly, using their credit card or other payment sources."

This new complaint also tries to get mileage out of the recent Congressional report, Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets, and the ongoing European Commission investigation of Spotify's complaint against Apple. By the way, there is a discovery dispute between Apple and counsel for the plaintiffs in the earlier-filed class actions over whether any documents Apple provided to the European Commission must be produced in the private U.S. antitrust actions in the Northern District of California. That one may have to be resolved by the court.

The Pistacchio complaint was filed on the same day on which Microsoft made a public statement on app distribution terms (seeking to distinguish Microsoft's own Xbox developer terms from mobile app stores on the basis that console hardware is less profitable, a theory that Judge Gonzalez Rogers has meanwhile rejected in the Epic case as being unsupported by antitrust case law and which long-standing Microsoft critic Dr. Roy Schestowitz dismisses as "Microsoft 2020 Spin: We're a Tiny Little Startup Challenging Giant and Evil Monopolies"). But the Pistacchio complaint quotes an earlier and shorter statement by Microsoft:

"[W]e do not have a path to bring our vision of cloud gaming with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate to gamers on iOS via the Apple App Store. Apple stands alone as the only general purpose platform to deny consumers from cloud gaming and game subscription services like Xbox Game Pass."

But the complaint mentions an example in which a game streaming app ultimately was approved by Apple after complying with the App Store terms: Steam Link.

Two months ago Epic CEO Tim Sweeney even predicted that "games with user created modes" (I guess that's a typo and he meant "mods") such as Fortnite, Minecraft (which belongs to Microsoft), and Roblox would be affected by a change in Apple's App Store guidelines (this post continues below the tweet):

So far, only Fortnite has run into problems, but not because of mods. It was removed as a result of Epic's strategic decision to fall out of compliance with the App Store rules.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Friday, July 22, 2011

Lodsys sues Rovio over Angry Birds for iPhone and Android

Today Lodsys has amended its complaint against mobile app developers and modified the list of defendants, leaving out one of the seven developers sued on May 31 (Vietnamese company Wulven Games) but adding five famous games companies:

  • Rovio is accused of infringing at least one of Lodsys's patents with Angry Birds for iOS and Angry Birds for Android -- here's the related paragraph (click to enlarge):

  • Electronic Arts: The Sims 3 for iPhone

  • Atari: Atari's Greatest Hits for iPhone and Atari's Greatest Hits for iPad

  • Square Enix: Big Hit Baseball for iPhone and Big Hit Baseball for iPad

  • Take-Two Interactive: 2K Sports NHL 2K11 for iPhone

The number of defendants in this lawsuit has now increased from 7 to 11 (7 original defendants, 1 left out, 5 new ones added). Here's the header of the amended complaint:

I have also uploaded the complaint to Scribd.

This amended complaint shows several things:

With today's amended complaint, Lodsys is currently suing a total of 37 defendants, and there may be more to come.

In this context I'd like to recommend an article written by a staff attorney of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in light of the fact that there are app developers who have removed their products from the U.S. market due to the rampant patent troll problem (a fact that was reported on by The Guardian).

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents.


Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:

Quizcover game app (by Quizista GmbH) [U.S. trademark application data on Justia.com]