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?"
"where two IP lawyers try to convince the videogame industry of patenting everything in sight: ideas, technical contributions, etc. "
Q. What do you have when you have 2 lawyers buried up to their necks in cement?
A. Not enough cement.
I thought I remembered seeing a Slashdot story or post about Namco holding a patent on "displaying a mini-game while the actual game is loading" not too long ago.
I would imagine any D&D would be prior art in a general games category? MSoft wasn't exactly the first company to get into games. I'm not sure how they can get a pantent on how points are awarded. Any D&D DM has subjective power to award points, and MS didn't exactly put D&D out there.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Will this be the real end of innovation in videogames?"
Yes.
Wow that was an easy Ask Slashdot!
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Note: I don't agree with software or videogame patents, because I think they screw the consumer in the end by providing a crappy product, at likely a high price. But still, that last sentence made no sense.
I saw that on slashdot last week with 'A Gamers' Manifesto'
From the essay:You can't patent general ideas. Someone might be able to patent a specific implementation of a fighting game, or the software to render the fighters quickly. They couldn't patent 2 guys fighting in a game.
As far as team games, we're getting close to being screwed already. I think EA has exclusive rights to the NFL next year. That means if you want to play as the World Champion New England Patriots, you will only be doing it in an NFL game. That is terrible since ESPN NFL2K5 was better than Madden to me. Now we will have ESPN Football2K6 with fake teams. Half of the fun is being your team with your players.
/. ++
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.
what was the first arcade game to feature a "punch" button?
Double Dragon.
How about the first solid-object polygon game?
Um... Double Dragon!
How many years before the 2nd one?
Double Dragon?
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
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, this is true. For more information (from the trouble Canada got into over this) see this site: http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182, 3172_61901275__langId-en,00.html
Yay for patents! Now that your health is dependent on licensing a patent, I think it's time for a social revolution.
Perhaps I will try to get a DNA sample from the CEO of that Utah company, and file for a patent on his specific gene sequence. If he can patent a gene sequence that has existed for 2 million years, then I should be able to patent one that has existed for less than 100...
Wouldn't it be funny to sue him for existing? "Hey, you're existence infringes on my patent! Either pay up or change your DNA!". :-)
I'm proud that there is "a relative dearth of patent applications for the video game industry, especially considering how technology-dependent the video game industry is, and given its size in terms of annual sales."
Before issuing a condemnation, I try hard to think about it from their point of view -- the laws of the land set the rules of the game, and lawyers are deeply confused at why some of us aren't using all the tools that the game gives us.
Patents are usually discussed in the context of someone "stealing" an idea from the long suffering lone inventor that devoted his life to creating this one brilliant idea, blah blah blah.
But in the majority of cases in software, patents effect independent invention. Get a dozen sharp programmers together, give them all a hard problem to work on, and a bunch of them will come up with solutions that would probably be patentable, and be similar enough that the first programmer to file the patent could sue the others for patent infringement.
Why should society reward that? What benefit does it bring? It doesn't help bring more, better, or cheaper products to market. Those all come from competition, not arbitrary monopolies. The programmer that filed the patent didn't work any harder because a patent might be available, solving the problem was his job and he had to do it anyway. Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.
Yes, it is a legal tool that may help you against your competitors, but I'll have no part of it. Its basically mugging someone.
I could waste hours going on about this. I really need to just write a position paper some day that I can cut and paste when this topic comes up.
John Carmack