Online Casino

[Anonymous]

Yes.

My initial thoughts were it was a clandestine US government setup using a Washington State puppet judge to try and use civil procedures to lure in sucker into US territory.

The “patent” certainly seems to be no more than someone thinking about how online casino games might be played.

There’s no technology, no REAL definable uniqueness that makes this stick. Its hugely unlikely that Bodog or other casinos used ANYTHING from this mans papers in designing their systems.

It’s summary judgments like this that make the whole intellectual propety area a laughing stock.

I am waiting for the day that someone gets a retrospective patent on IP addressing and then wants to start charging by the IP packet.
:Cry:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out though …
:sarcasm:

[PatrickM]

@antoine 136721 wrote:

I doubt that SEO is even 1 percent of their bottom line.

SEO is a sizable part of Bodog’s strategy although it’s not it’s “bread and butter”.

It’s definitely more than 1%.

[PatrickM]

@john1124 136768 wrote:

Bodog got Fu*king screwed!

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,800,268.PN.&OS=PN/5,800,268&RS=PN/5,800,268

This is the patent they “Allegedly” infridged on. Good god, talking about “Obviousness”. This Patent basically covers ALL ONLINE GAMLBING.

This patent seems to describe in detail the DIRECT withdrawal of money from a bank account RATHER than a pre-paid chip stack.

[Anonymous]

But it doesn’t “describe it” – does it?
It glosses over the process in the highest level.
This isn’t a techincal process – it’s a high level sketch of some ideas.

Are you saying I can write a patent for internet business processes like :

– (1) make money
(1a) send out lots of email
(1b) write high pressure sales pitch
(1c) sell lots of stuff for profit

– (2) hold out for buyout
(2a) come up with something trendy (but stupid) for teenagers
(2b) don’t bother trying to breakeven
(2c) spend up large on wacky publicity
(2d) agree to sell only once they bid hundreds of millions of dollars

And then sue the arse of anyone who uses these methods for an internet business? Youtube, Facebook, you guys are gonna hear from my Lawyer !!!
:tongue:

OK – I know I’m being tongue in cheek …

But unless the author of the patent specifies the technical processes – and is the bonefide owner of the exact methods being used .. then this highlevel and theoretic patent is bollocks.

(IMO)

But of course the US government has a very vested interest in seeing it succeed – as part of a “big stick” to make all internet companies come back to the table and agree to pay US taxes (no matter where they are registered).

Make no mistake – the patent is bogus – but I’m sure there are “powerful forces” behind the scenes.
:sarcasm:

[Author]

Posts