Slashdot Mirror
Are Video Game Patents Next?
MarcOiL writes "Gamasutra is running an article titled It's Just a Game, Right? Top Mythconceptions on Patent Protection of Video Games where two IP lawyers try to convince the videogame industry of patenting everything in sight: ideas, technical contributions, etc. They show as an example a Microsoft patent on Scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements. They also have created a weblog, The Patent Arcade, to promote their business. Will this be the real end of innovation in videogames?"
Signed,
Human Capacity for Lameness is Apparently Inexhaustible, Esq.
it goes one stating the following
what do I think? I think the idea of petent is a selfish act. And every selfish act should be discouraged. So yeah... I dont like patents... Only way to truly own anything is to give it away. But enough of my dogma... I just hope nintendo would revitalize the industry... One can hope... right? ^^;;
------ http://timothylive.net
That patent can probably be killed with prior art. The Commodore 64 had "Mix-E-Load" during loading of the cassette version of Thalamus' Delta in 1987. This had music playing and would let you mess with the tracks, changing the bass line, drum beat, etc. and letting you mix your own music.
A year later, in 1988, the Mastertronic game Kane 2 had a Space Invaders game (called Invade-A-Load) that you played while the main game was loading. Again, this was on the cassette version.
These can be played by downloading the relevant .TAP files and loading them into an emulator such as x64.
Anyway, back on-topic, most of the classic games in existence would not be with us had game companies been patenting stuff like these mutants are suggesting.
kangaroo (1982)
i,robot (1983)
5 years (hard drivin', 1988)
And for a cancer detection firm in Utah, it ahs paid off. They "patented" a gene sequence which tests for the likelihood of breast cancer (I think). Note that they didn't patent the test process, but the information in the gene. Now, no matter what process you use to determine the condition of the gene, you cannot use it for cancer detection wihtout paying a $10k fee to that company. They "own" the exclusive right to the "data". Sort of like patenting moon-dogs as a predictor of coming precipitation, or the presence of a high pressure as a predicter of clear weather. They're natural facts, observable by anyone with the proper instuments. But they're patentable now. (iirc, Canada got into trouble over the cancer detection thing).
**note: this is all from memory of a (single?) online news story quite some time ago, the facts may be significantly different that I have implied**
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The UK anti-softwarepatent site Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure has already written up an excellent peice on exactly that point, except it works far better with trying to claim a movie patent than book patent. :) You'll see why.
It perfectly illustrates how they play wordgames in order to illegally issue software patents. A must-read for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes, but that's not the sort of thing that gets patented. I've done this before, so I know a bit about it:
...in a 3D world ...with some elements that move and others that are static ...where some of the moving elements are controlled by players connected
...where one of the guns is a railgun that uses said supply of ammunition at a fixed rate as long as said player continues to depress the fire button.
A patent application is usually done as a series of claims from most general to most specific. Let's take Doom as an example. The claims might be:
#1. We invented interactive entertainment.
#2.
#3.
#4.
[snip]
#99.
This is done with the expectation that the patent examiner strikes most of the early claims and the hope that he allows as many of the later as possible.
Doom came out in 1995 IIRC. So, maybe Doom would have gotten a patent on 3D worlds where a player manipulates and maneuvers through said world, shooting other players.
To actually sell Doom, they would have to license Origin Systems' patent on Ultima Underworld where a player manipulates and maneuvers through a 3D world.
Both Id and Origin would have to license Sirius Software's 1979 patent on their Apple ][ game WayOut, where a player maneuvers through a 3D world.
Oh, and if *you* wanted to write a game, maybe just a "simple shooter" - bring out the lawyers because there's gonna be a hell of a lot of licenses to negotiate.
This is only true to some extent. Take NFS Hot Pursuit 2. For Gamecube, the loadtimes are almost non existent. For XBox, the load times are quite noticable.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.