As VB predicted two weeks ago, Reuters is now reporting that the “John Doe” in the Eros litigation left a digital trail that ties his real-life identity to his Second Life avatar, and PayPal is going to provide his name in response to Eros’ subpoena.

He’s not “some kind of n00b” or anything, it’s just a reality of moving money around now; in all but a very few cases, the perception of anonymity is false. Now that PayPal has, apparently, decided not to move to quash, it will be interesting to see what Linden Lab does with its subpoena. They got an extension, so we won’t find out until around August 3.

This is going to be a short post because there’s really not enough information out there to justify the hand-wringing that is going on right now about this issue. Apparently someone, maybe ‘FlipperPA Peregrin,’ has applied for a patent, possibly, on something that might have to do with pay-per-video in a virtual world, maybe Second Life. Or maybe not.

Given the almost total lack of information on this maybe-filed patent application, there’s an awful lot of noise right now.

I’d not usually cover what may well end up being a non-story, but this one is fairly close to home. I’m a patent litigator who is pretty familiar with the patent application process, and I’m going to tell you that none of it means anything at this point, even if all the speculation about the application is true.

Patent law is notoriously complex, but here are the five things you need to know about this issue:

First, the fact that a patent has been applied for does not mean one will be granted. According to the USPTO, in 2006, only about 54% of the patent applications reviewed were granted.

Second, while patent applications are pending, they are sometimes amended significantly, and they are sometimes abandoned.

Third, as a result of amendments, when a patent is granted, its coverage is often less than originally sought.

Fourth, patent applications aren’t generally made public until 18 months after application. It’s going to be a while before we have any idea what was originally claimed.

Fifth, to get a patent at all, the claimed invention must be “novel” in light of the “prior art. ” I’ll leave that analysis on the table for readers. Don’t be sad, think of it like Picture Pages.

The Metaverse Republic, a “legal system for Second Life, with real powers of enforcement originating in user-created tools, and a democratic parliament,” publicly opened its website today. Though the MR is a relatively new project (“Metaverse Republic” is a great name, but somebody has to be the first to abbreviate it), the organizers are obviously dedicated to the effort, and it appears to have real potential.

You can learn quite a bit about the nuts and bolts of the project by reading this Executive Summary of the MR’s Founding Charter, and by listening to this podcast interview with one of the people driving the effort, from the blog Metaversed. (VB pointed readers toward the podcast yesterday.)

I’m making this item a “Reader Roundtable” and specifically soliciting comments because I think it’s a topic that is going to be important to a lot of readers, and of course, to the organizers — who I know read VB.

So what’s your opinion on the project? Will it work? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it good or bad for the grid? If you’re a land owner, is it something you’d participate in? See you in the comments.

I’m going to track this case somewhat more closely going forward as the discovery process is about to get underway.

Taking a close look at court filings is a new feature for VB, and regular readers will notice that these posts contain only a tiny bit of opinion and not much personality at all. That’s because I am an attorney, and I need to be able to take positions in the future that are in my clients’ best interests on both sides of disputes like those that are likely to come up here. If I plastered this blog with my personal opinions about discovery disputes, motion practice, and judges’ likely reaction to various tactics, I would probably end up seeing those words in a filing against my future clients at some point, and that’s not fair to them (or very good for business).

I will call readers’ attention to things that most litigators would notice as anomalous (one of those is going to come up today, actually) and I will highlight excerpts from the filings that will be interesting to readers, but I’m not going to make broad predictions or generally critique the filings.

Enough lawyer words. Let’s get to it.

Yesterday, Defendants filed a Report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and Bragg filed a motion to strike and/or amend this Report.

• Rule 26(f) Report (PDF)
• Motion to Strike and/or Amend (PDF)

The relevant rule here is FRCP 26(f). It requires that the parties nail down what are basically “ground rules” for the discovery process before it gets started (for non-litigators, “discovery” is the required exchange of relevant information — in this case, it will largely consist of information kept by the parties about Bragg’s transactions, and about Linden Lab’s decision to terminate his account). Some of these “ground rules” include electronic discovery procedures, the treatment of confidential information, whether special procedures will be needed for certain kinds of discovery, and what general topics the parties will want discovery into. Typically, parties meet and confer and produce a single document that contains both parties’ positions, outlining areas of agreement where possible, and areas of dispute where agreement cannot be reached.

It appears that process broke down in this case, and as a result, Linden Lab submitted a Report that was not signed by Bragg (actually, his attorney would have been the person who signed it, but I’ll use plaintiff’s and defendants’ names for clarity) entitled “JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 26(F) – SIGNED BY DEFENDANTS ONLY.” This is atypical. Usually, even if the parties disagree about the content of a Rule 26(f) Report, they still produce a single Report that they both sign identifying the disagreements.

Bragg claims that Linden Lab refused to include several statements he wanted included in the Report, and has moved to strike and/or amend the Report. Linden Lab will presumably respond to this accusation when it files its Response to Bragg’s Motion.

Below are a excerpts from the documents that readers may find interesting.

Read the rest of the post »