Kickstarter sued - how will this affect gaming projects?

[Kawauso]

But regardless of whether the tech is pirated or not, how is Kickstarter to know? Why are they expected to take responsibility there?

They've shut down obvious scams/ploys in the past, but when someone says "we want to make a 3D printer" and gets money to do so, how and why is Kickstarted expected to keep tabs on whether or not the technology they're using is patented by anyone else?

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

If the other manufacturer provided them with reasonable evidence when the kickstarter was ongoing it'd be one thing, but expecting them to obtain (accurate) information about a product that often doesn't exist yet and measure it up against existing patents is a bit extreme.

[Nabterayl]

But regardless of whether the tech is pirated or not, how is Kickstarter to know? Why are they expected to take responsibility there?

There are a couple different precedents here that are likely to control the issue. The first is the flea market example. If you are running an actual, physical flea market, you are legally responsible for making sure people aren't selling pirated stuff at your event. It's your event, after all - you can always turn vendors away if you don't trust them. For obvious reasons, it is no excuse to say, "My flea market is so big and popular I don't have enough staff to check out all my vendors."

Then there's the example of Google. Google may well let you find pirated stuff (e.g., pirated images), but merely putting out a search tool that can be used to find pirated stuff doesn't make you contributorily liable for the piracy itself.

And then there is the example of, say, Grokster, which is a lot like a search tool but with the important difference that it is designed, and used, by its owner to facilitate piracy (and other things, but if you do a good deed and a bad deed, the good deed doesn't let you off the hook). Tools like Grokster, unlike tools like Google, are contributorily liable.

So which of these three is Kickstarter most like? Doubtless the plaintiff and defendant will have different answers, and a court will need to decide whose answer is best - even if the plaintiff is a patent troll.

EDIT: As to how Kickstarter can keep up with everybody's piracy, doubtless their lawyers have a well thought out reason why they shouldn't, and don't, have to. The question is, will a court agree? And that is a legitimate question, for which I trust Kickstarter has a budget item (because sooner or later this was going to come up). Forget that this is probably a patent troll in the instant case. Suppose some perfectly lovable indie artist was suing them instead. Wouldn't that person have the right to know whether Kickstarter's Completely Reasonable(TM) excuse for why it could earn money from pirated goods held up to outside scrutiny, instead of taking the word of Kickstarter's very high-powered attorneys?

[Nabterayl]

But regardless of whether the tech is pirated or not, how is Kickstarter to know? Why are they expected to take responsibility there?

There are a couple different precedents here that are likely to control the issue. The first is the flea market example. If you are running an actual, physical flea market, you are legally responsible for making sure people aren't selling pirated stuff at your event. It's your event, after all - you can always turn vendors away if you don't trust them. For obvious reasons, it is no excuse to say, "My flea market is so big and popular I don't have enough staff to check out all my vendors."

Then there's the example of Google. Google may well let you find pirated stuff (e.g., pirated images), but merely putting out a search tool that can be used to find pirated stuff doesn't make you contributorily liable for the piracy itself.

And then there is the example of, say, Grokster, which is a lot like a search tool but with the important difference that it is designed, and used, by its owner to facilitate piracy (and other things, but if you do a good deed and a bad deed, the good deed doesn't let you off the hook). Tools like Grokster, unlike tools like Google, are contributorily liable.

So which of these three is Kickstarter most like? Doubtless the plaintiff and defendant will have different answers, and a court will need to decide whose answer is best - even if the plaintiff is a patent troll.

[Wolfshade]

There are two issues, the first is that if they are using a technique that they thought to be out of patent and isn't then really it is a simple case of infringement.
Then there is the problem when a person/persons find/develope a technique for doing something that they think is unique and so build a business on that only to later discover that their idea/technique has already been developed but was unknown to them, this is not the case in this instance and again is a fairly open and shut case, though it generates slightly more sympathy, especially if the patent holder isn't using that patent or had figured out that it could be used for a novel way.

The interesting thing is what is kick starter. A californian judge said of amazon, who were being sued for selling/advertising counterfiet goods:

“At least in respect to the InStyler, Amazon is a service provider, not the seller. That Amazon provided the product description and handled the payments did not make it a direct seller of the products.”

While that in itself is not case law, it does seem to show the view that a service provider is not necessarily the seller despite handling payments. However, another court another judge might view things very differently. I imagine the issue would be with Kickstarter would be if they had failed to respond to a resonable takedown request. Though whether something is reasonable or overreaching is normally in the strict perview of the hindsight.

[weeble1000]

It's not completely ridiculous. Kickstarter is not a bank; it's a marketplace...
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.

I can see how it is arguably involved, but the argument borders on the absurd. Kickstarter provides a service that is unrelated to the rewards, whatever they may be, of the campaigns run through the website. Ebay is a marketplace, much more akin to your flea market analogy.

Do you have an example of Ebay being held as a seller of the goods sold by its customers? The complaint essentially alleges that Kickstarter is a partner in the sale of an infringing product, therefore sold an infringing product, and therefore is liable for the infringement.

[weeble1000]

Doubtless the plaintiff and defendant will have different answers, and a court will need to decide whose answer is best - even if the plaintiff is a patent troll.

This is the antithesis of a patent troll. Do you understand what a patent troll is? This is an established company using its patent portfolio to keep a competitor out of the market. In principle, that is exactly what patents are supposed to be used for. Now, the claims may be thin and/or spurious, or the patent may be ridiculous, I don't know. But the strength of the patents if it were relatively thin does not mean that it is a patent troll.

Spurious patents are typical of a patent troll, but only a common feature related to the nature of those lawsuits. Patent trolls seek to purchase patents that can be very broadly interpreted for a small investment and then enforce those patents against a large, established industry, typically with the willingness to settle for a nuisance fee or cost of litigation, thereby getting a grossly manifold return on a relatively insignificant investment.

[OrksOrksOrks]

This isn't copyright infrignement, its patent infringement, you're thinking of it incorrectly, would Apple now be able to sue Best Buy for selling the Samsung phones that were found to be infringing on their patents? No, the company creating the products is responsible for ensuring they have created a product that doesn't infringe on patents. They're named Kickstarter in this lawsuit for one reason and its paid off, they wanted people talking about it, otherwise, who would care about a 3d printer company suing a newer 3d printer company??

[alshrive]

This isn't copyright infrignement, its patent infringement, you're thinking of it incorrectly, would Apple now be able to sue Best Buy for selling the Samsung phones that were found to be infringing on their patents? No, the company creating the products is responsible for ensuring they have created a product that doesn't infringe on patents. They're named Kickstarter in this lawsuit for one reason and its paid off, they wanted people talking about it, otherwise, who would care about a 3d printer company suing a newer 3d printer company??

got to say i kind of agree with this comment! it is Name Dropping for the sake of attention. Given all the hype that kick starter has received it is hardly surprising that somebody is trying to use that to their benefit.

[Tynskel]

This is the antithesis of a patent troll. Do you understand what a patent troll is? This is an established company using its patent portfolio to keep a competitor out of the market. In principle, that is exactly what patents are supposed to be used for. Now, the claims may be thin and/or spurious, or the patent may be ridiculous, I don't know. But the strength of the patents if it were relatively thin does not mean that it is a patent troll.

Spurious patents are typical of a patent troll, but only a common feature related to the nature of those lawsuits. Patent trolls seek to purchase patents that can be very broadly interpreted for a small investment and then enforce those patents against a large, established industry, typically with the willingness to settle for a nuisance fee or cost of litigation, thereby getting a grossly manifold return on a relatively insignificant investment.

Wow. This is the best description of any troll I have ever heard.
I think you might find me in there...