Kickstarter sued - how will this affect gaming projects?

[Denzark]

Kickstarter are getting the legal treatment - could this affect small gaming projects (ie could this wippe them out?) Also what are the ramifications for 3d printing?

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20434031[/url]

[weeble1000]

It really depends heavily on whether the Court finds that Kickstarter "sells" any product or service related to a campaign funded through its website. I don't really have a clue about any relevant case law.

It would seem to me that crowd funding websites serve a significant public good. I would not like to see a crowd funding site like Kickstarter held responsible for a product tangentially related to a funding campaign from which the company takes its standard percentage of funds raised.

That would set an ugly sort of precedent and place an undue burden on crowd funding websites. It would be like holding Ebay responsible for products sold through its website. Like Ebay, these sites perform a service of connecting parties which are interested in conducting business.

Further, a credit card company takes a percentage of sales as a fee for providing the service, quite similar to Kickstarter in that respect. Again, this claim smacks of potentially very ugly precedent.

[Bigred]

Hmmm,

Looks like a defensive patent infringement case by a company with expiring patents who is trying to fend off low priced newcomer competition.

The Kickstarter part of the suit seems minor as they are only including them as defendents because of the fee they charge for using the Kickstarter service. The primary target is the company fielding the lower cost product that rely on a patent that was filed in 1997 (so its expired).

It looks like the the sueing company is saying that they have several more recent patents "related to" the original expired one and that the defendant must have infringed on one of them (without naming which one specifically).

UPDATE: Weeble1000 is correct, patent length is 20 years. Oops - I should know better, I used to file patents...

[plawolf]

Sadly this sounds like a typical competition through litigation tactic that are increasingly the norm for American companies because of it's out of control and bonkers patent system.

The patent system in America has now been perverted to the point where it has mutated into an obstacle and threat to innovation rather than it's defender and protector.

Instead of working to make their own products cheaper and more attractive, it is often so much easier, cheaper, and faster to just sue the start-up competitors out of business even if the plaintiff company has no real case. Big established companies can easily afford the legal fees to drag a case out in the courts for years with endless discovery, appeals and extension and win by default when their target is bankrupt by the endless legal fees or forced to settle to avoid bankruptcy.

[weeble1000]

Hmmm,

Looks like a defensive patent infringement case by a company with expiring patents who is trying to fend off low priced newcomer competition.

The Kickstarter part of the suit seems minor as they are only including them as defendents because of the fee they charge for using the Kickstarter service. The primary target is the company fielding the lower cost product that rely on a patent that was filed in 1997 (so its expired).

It looks like the the sueing company is saying that they have several more recent patents "related to" the original expired one and that the defendant must have infringed on one of them (without naming which one specifically).

Patents typically have a 20 year lifespan. So a patent with a 1997 priority date would tend to be in effect until 2017. But there may be newer related patents that do not claim the early priority date. I haven't looked at the patents in any depth though, so I don't know at this point.

[Nabterayl]

As for Kickstarter, though, I'd be shocked if THEY were shocked by this development. Obviously something like this was going to happen eventually. I presume Kickstarter budgeted for this, and their outside counsel has already thought of their theory of defense.

[Lunar Camel]

Maybe I don't understand how it all works, but why would Kickstarter be sued? Don't they just collect the money that other people "donate" so someone can use for their business?

By suing Kickstarter would be like someone going after my bank just because they hold the money that I scammed from other people.

[Kawauso]

Maybe I don't understand how it all works, but why would Kickstarter be sued? Don't they just collect the money that other people "donate" so someone can use for their business?

By suing Kickstarter would be like someone going after my bank just because they hold the money that I scammed from other people.

Yeah, that was my line of thinking.
If anyone could clarify on what absurdities within the legal system(s) show otherwise I'd appreciate it.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

Yeah, that was my line of thinking.
If anyone could clarify on what absurdities within the legal system(s) show otherwise I'd appreciate it.

The gist of their stance was that since Kickstarter takes a cut of the donations for operating expenses, Kickstarter's complicit in the damage done to them. Still ridiculous, though.

[Nabterayl]

It's not completely ridiculous. Kickstarter is not a bank; it's a marketplace. Remember that Kickstarters are not investments, legally speaking, nor even donations. When you "donate" to a Kickstarter, legally what you are doing is purchasing goods (the rewards). Those goods are bought and sold for very high profit margins (which is why it FEELS like donating), but they are still selling goods and you are still buying them. It's like a kid who sells his family crayon drawings at $10 a pop so he can "earn" a bike.

Only the kid isn't selling crayon drawings, he's selling pirated tech. And he isn't selling to family. Kickstarter is running a flea market, where the kid has a booth advertising his pirated tech. Can Kickstarter just stand there, looking at that booth, and not be at least partly culpable in the piracy?

Of course the defendants, including Kickstarter, will probably argue that the tech isn't pirated at all, and thus can be sold freely. But if it IS pirated, you can see how Kickstarter is at least arguably involved.