Top Mythconceptions On VG Patent Protection

Gamasutra has up a vociferously pro-IP feature discussing some of the major misconceptions over software patent law as they regard videogames. The article is written from a lawyer's perspective, and includes details on what you can patent, if it's worthwhile to patent, and the costs involved. From the article: "As more and more companies enter the market, and spend more and more resources developing those innovations, protecting those innovations will become even more critical. We hope this article has been helpful in dispelling some of the myths surrounding patents and video games, and we encourage all software game developers to take their intellectual property rights to heart."

Comments

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mythconce ption

(not nearly as cool as "ginormous"...)

Re:zerg

[FidelCatsro]

A belife of what the myths are , though compund words like this are rather uncommen in English . I think its a missing space as opposed to a fictional word

Re:zerg

[CableModemSniper]

Actually its just a pun on misconception. If anything, it means "myths and/or mis-conceptions" not beliefs about myths, although if you didn't know it was a pun it would be easy to parse wrong. On a related note, Robert Asprin rules, and should probably have a patent on that word.

Re:zerg

[FidelCatsro]

I at first read it as Misconceptions then reread it and thought it was a space missing .
Ah well , it all works to convey the message equally well pun or not , Nice compound word though hee But i shan't remove Absobloodyloutly as my top fake word.

Again?

[Anonymous Coward]

MMmmdupe....

I'm pro-IP, too

[mangu]

After all, where would we be without the Internet Protocol?

RTFA? What FA?

WTF?

[VStrider]

That was posted yesterday.

What's the use?

[Chemisor]

I wonder if all the complaining generated by stories like this will ever amount to anything. Sure, it might "feel good" to denounce "evil corprorations" for stifling progress with their avalanche of patents, but what can a person do about it anyhow? Most people are not personally affected by the patent problem, or at least do not think they are, so any democratic way of protest will inevitably fail. Congressmen and senators will pay far more attention to those who can contribute to their campaigns than to a few free software weirdos who think (for some unfathomable to them reason) that patents are bad. Free speech is rather pointless if nobody cares, don't you think? Perhaps it might be a good idea to just abandon the entire "Your Rights Online" section, and forgo the flamewars. You can't change the world. Get used to it.

Re:What's the use?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

There's no system of government or economic power which hasn't evolved into something else over time or simply been overthrown. All by the common man. What makes you think "you can't change the world"? It is changeable. It changes. It might just take time, or waiting for the right moment.

Re:What's the use?

[toad3k]

This line of inquiry freaks me out. Video games have historically been really innovative. To pretend that having patents thrown about would improve the innovation is laughable at best.

In terms of video game years, patents last a very very long time. Even a single granted patent to a single scrupulous lawyer could potentially stunt the entire industry for nearly 2 decades.

I wish there were something I could do to prevent these patents, emailing my congressman gets a fat lot of nothing done.

Re:What's the use?

[Chemisor]

> There's no system of government or economic power
> which hasn't evolved into something else over
> time or simply been overthrown.

The key word here is "overthrown". Do you really want to overthrow the government to get rid of software patents? To go against an entire army of well-trained soldiers who will want to kill your sorry ass? Remember, that's what you have to do to change the government. George Washington had to do it. Lenin had to do it. Even George Bush had to do it in Iraq.

> All by the common man.

Nope. The common man has never done anything significant. It was always the uncommon man with a lot of armed supporters that has changed the world.

Re:What's the use?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

There have been a lot of "regime changes" which did not stem from violent revolution. You don't even need to overthrow a government to change the fscking IP law. It is not that black and white.

Re:What's the use?

[Chemisor]

> There have been a lot of "regime changes" which did not stem from violent revolution.

Name one. A peaceful regime change is only possible with the consent of the old regime.

> You don't even need to overthrow a government to change the fscking IP law.

Then what do we need to do, wise guy? Write to our congressman? Puh-lease! He'll just chuck it in the trash with all the other "nutcase letters". Write him a fat check? I'm not a millionare. Arrange a public protest? It will get totally ignored, even if you're lucky enough to get some press coverage. And it will definitely be forgotten a few days later. So tell me, what do we need to do?

Re:What's the use?

[KDR_11k]

Name one.

Gandhi taking India back from the British Empire.

Re:What's the use?

[Dr. GeneMachine]

India under the British colonial occupation, the former Soviet Union, hell, the whole Eastern Bloc. Should be enough examples for starters.
And if you don't get enough coverage now, you have to rally more supporters.

Re:What's the use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one. A peaceful regime change is only possible with the consent of the old regime.

lets see i'll give you two.
Georgia(the country) and Ukraine. I should hope i don't need to reference articles for you as the recent revolutions there were rather big news. and oh plus there was the recent ousting of syrian soldiers from Lebanon. but you are absolutely right, the old regimes had to consent to giving up power right? right? It had nothing to do with the majority of the "common man" populace protesting.

Then what do we need to do, wise guy? Write to our congressman? Puh-lease! He'll just chuck it in the trash with all the other "nutcase letters". Write him a fat check? I'm not a millionare.

actually, threaten him with the prospect of losing an election, you'd be surprised how quickly politicians change their views when faced with this prospect. And please don't give me bull about how your vote doesn't count. The votes in Ohio seemed to count a helluva lot during the last election.

Arrange a public protest? It will get totally ignored, even if you're lucky enough to get some press coverage.

right because public protests have never ever worked. I mean Vietnam protests accomplished nothing. And don't lets get started on just how pointless all those Civil Rights and women's movement protests were.

I consider myself a cynic, but jeez if you actually believe the world can't be changed, that just makes you ignorant to the historical feats mankind has accomplished. Every one of them inciting a change to this world and our way of life.

I'm not saying software patents will be changed overnight. But it can be done, with public protest and peaceful means. Why? because when push comes to shove, "the common man" has the power to incite that change. And they've exercised that right many times before. You want more examples? pick up a history book.

And If you still tell me the "world can't change, get use to it"
i'd tell you, it's people like you that can't change, the rest of the world moves on.

Re:What's the use?

[N3Roaster]

emailing my congressman gets a fat lot of nothing done.

I've found telephone calls to be rather useful in speaking to my congressional representatives (or rather, the people employed to answer those calls). They get to ask questions to make sure they understand the issue and it's a lot harder for that staff to ignore conversations than the pile of random email, fax, and postal letters, and I'd at least like to think that having that conversation helps those emails on the same issue get noticed.

Re:What's the use?

[westlake]

right because public protests have never ever worked. I mean Vietnam protests accomplished nothing. And don't lets get started on just how pointless all those Civil Rights and women's movement protests were

Social movements need a critical mass of quite ordinary people who believe that something fundamental is at stake. Patent Reform doesn't draw workers or the middle class to the barricades. Least of all when the driving force is a technocratic elite with whom they share little in common.

Myth #5 is a straw man

[mopslik]

Myth 5. The 'spirit of innovation' works best when there is a free market of ideas, and consumers are better off if video games are not patented.

A classic argument among those who feel that the entire patent system should be abolished. You might want to make that argument to your representative in Congress, because unless the Constitution is amended to do away with patents, they're here to stay. In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers recognized that the best way to promote progress in the 'useful arts' was to reward inventors who come forward and share their inventions with the public by granting them a limited period of exclusivity in which they can exploit the fruits of their labor. In other words, discouraging slavish copying encourages innovation.

The author fails to take into account what the majority of Slashdotters usually echo, which is "patents are for representations of things, copyright is for expression of ideas". Instead, the author tries to stifle the argument that some things might be patent-worthy while others are not, by claiming "but if we patent one thing, we must be able to patent everything." Why is that necessarily true?

As for the other myths? They speak nothing of patent-worthiness and deal with typical "Can I do this...?" questions that can be found in most USPTO application handouts.

Meh.

Re:Myth #5 is a straw man

[QuantumG]

Besides which, the constitution makes it clear that a copyright/patent system is OPTIONAL.

Job Security

[flood6]

"we encourage all software game developers to take their intellectual property rights to heart"

...'cause we're...you know, IP lawyers, and stuff...

Why bother?

[Cecil B ReDemented]

As far as I can tell.In the gamer world,if they "patent" an idea,all someone has to do is come along and make something similar to that idea,and presto the're out of the woods.It just seems too easy to get around a patent that anyone who would want to do it could without a problem.There was a post yesterday I believe, about EA getting all the rights for the "NFL".But what is going to stop someone from making a football game with berry saunders instead of barry sanders (the only example I can come up with,and I appologise if the names wrong)? So until they come up with an answer to that problem,I doubt this will really effect the future of games as we know it.

Re:Why bother?

[Romeozulu]

You're confusing IP and Patent. Try this as an example. Let's suppose (a long time ago), EA patented representing a Sports game on a video game or computer.

Now, everyone is screwed, including your Berry Saunders game.

Re:Why bother?

[KDR_11k]

Of course everybody else can use made up names that resemble the real ones to a degree but the average annual Madden customer wants the exact names, not some replacement.

Re:Why bother?

[hollismb]

People always seem to forget that this deal includes uniforms, logos, and stadiums as well. It's not just the player names, it's everything except how the game is played.

Innovative patent idea

[Time_Ngler]

So when will they start patenting plot points in novels?

"Method of providing a plot deviation in a written work by adding the idea or description of a butler wielding a murder weapon"

duh

[Zork the Almighty]

Lawyers: We encourage everybody to sue!

Well, duh.

Re:duh

[Vinnster]

I RTFA, and that's exactly what I got out of it too. "I'm a lawyer, and I'm Pro-Litigation!"
Seriously, I'm really disappointed that there aren't more comments on this general topic. I understood the views expressed in the article, but I must say, that I understand that they are largely propaganda. I believe that IP should be protected, but seriously, we've gone too far when a Gigabuck company can put a chain-link fence around something so basic as a Scoring "based on goals achieved and subjective elements" system, preventing anyone else from using that scoring system in a game. Honestly, I think that the best games in the market are the ones that use and perfect the good ideas from other successful games. Copyright is a much more logical (and easy to define) rule for the video gaming industry. Keep patents in the physical world, where they were intended to be in the first place. U.S. Const. Art. I, 8 "The Congress shall have Power to . . . promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.";

Pat-ents, n.: A game rewarding those with deep pockets

Video game patents, if allowed to continue, should at least be:

• Short in length (2-5 years)
• Non-renewable

Just my thoughts on the subject.
Vinnster

Re:duh

[Zork the Almighty]

The patent system is basically legalized extortion. I can see how this is useful when companies make large investments in infrastructure and equipment to support physical processes, like in manufacturing. Patents are a form of insurance which protect that investment. But how much investment goes into an idea ? Possibly lots, but probably none. It doesn't cost money for you or me to think.

Of course, it costs money for companies to think, because they have to pay you or me. The question is, do we put a value on that or not ? Is it a viable business model to sit around and dream up ideas and bill society, or do you have to make money some other way ? "Good ideas are a dime-a-dozen" is a famous phrase, but that just isn't true when you can control how they are used.

Allow me to sum up:

[finkployd]

"We are well on our way to halting any innovation or progress in many other markets and industries, but we have not yet done much damage in the video game industry."

Carmack's experience with patents and Doom3

[PIPBoy3000]

If you take a look at the wiki reference for Doom 3, you'll see there was an issue with software patents:
A week before the game's release, it became known that an agreement to include EAX audio technology in Doom 3 reached by id Software and Creative Labs was heavily influenced by a software patent owned by the latter company. The patent dealt with a technique for rendering shadows called Carmack's Reverse, which was developed independently by both John Carmack and programmers at Creative Labs. id Software would have been putting themselves under legal liability if they used the technique in the finished game, so to defuse the issue, id Software agreed to license Creative Labs sound technologies in exchange for indemnification against lawsuits.

You can find more detail here

This was posted yesterday...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Are Video Game Patents Next?"
Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday June 01, @08:55AM
from the this-could-get-scary dept.
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?"

Reactions

[MilenCent]

Hey lookit, instead of saying "misconceptions," they said "mythconceptions!" Ha, ha ha! That fills me with all kinds of respect for their opinion, that the article is titled just like Aunt Sally writing for the local church newsletter!

#1: "Many in the industry feel that games are simply software, and that they cannot be patented. This is untrue. To the contrary, patents may be obtained on "anything under the sun that is made by man,"4 and computer programs are no exception."

Right, and that's exactly what we're mad about, sport. This is actually a rather new aspect of patent law, which has, in other fields, resulted in things like patenting business methods, which is more obviously wrong to non-geeks. Software patenting is still wrong, however.

The patents listed, like one my Microsoft on a method of scoring, are all wrongheaded and could just as easily used as examples of why game patents are bad. Take a look at the footnotes at the end -- apparently Sega patented the customers that scramble out of the way of your cab in Crazy Taxi! Damn you Sega, for the patent, and for wrecking my respect for one of my favorite games with knowledge of the patent!

You can even get patent protection on purely ornamental designs associated with games. These patents, known as "design patents," protect ornamental aspects of items, such as the distinct appearance of a game console (U.S. Design Patent No. D452,282) or an onscreen icon (U.S. Design Patent No. D487,574).

Ornamental designs outside of software are irrelevant to this discussion. Design patents of digital images, frequently used by Apple, are not innovation stiflers to that degree, so they're not really what we're mad about.

(Notice how I cleverly include you into my perspective, with the clandestine use of the word "we!" Not that this is very risky, this being Slashdot and all....)

Many of these "mythconceptions" (I cringe just typing that!) are more along the lines of "hey look at how easy it is," and "look at all the cool things you can do to punish people!" My primary objection to software patents is that, if you're *not* a big corporation, you can put yourself into a lot of legal jeopardy just by programming a random idea you had, if it happens to intrude onto someone's technological backyard. The field of computer programming is uniquely suited to be advanced by hobbyists, that's how we got Linux after all, so these patent issues affect us rather heavily. However, these same issues also affect the "outside world" as well, as I noted before about business method patents.

Myth 5. The "spirit of innovation" works best when there is a free market of ideas, and consumers are better off if video games are not patented.

A classic argument among those who feel that the entire patent system should be abolished. You might want to make that argument to your representative in Congress, because unless the Constitution is amended to do away with patents, they're here to stay.

Gee thanks, my dear jerk. As it happens, the Constitution makes allowances for protecting ideas "for limited times," but leaves the precise means of this protection up to Congress, wherein was authored the worst of our current patent system. Thus, to change things you needn't amend the Constitution, but just the specific law. You can bet that the Founding F's didn't forsee the ability to protect ANYTHING by way of a patent.

After reading this article, only 2 words to say...

[mconeone]

RAT BASTARDS

Patent Lawyers agree.. "patents are great for our

[Anonymous Coward]

...personal bank accounts." They suck for everyone else, but what do we care? Oh yeah, and when founding the patent system, they said mathematical formulas and literature (that software that goes in books) can't be patented. Yet computer software, which meets the same definitions, can be patented? Even though it does absolutely nothing for the economy, and stifles innovation? The moral is: M$ and the legal community sure do know how to pay off the legislature, to get whatever they want, no matter how it hurts everyone else.

As a student planning to enter the gaming industry

[Goosey]

This made my stomach churn.

The current atmosphere of the industry is so open and friendly that it almost reminds me of the open source community. GDC is an excellent example of game developers gathering to share insights with the common goal of helping each other make better and better games.

Sadly, there is no doubt there are some companies, namely megalithic publishers such as EA and Ubisoft, that will be eager to pursue these legalistic battles to establish an atmosphere of anti-competition.

Can you imagine how things would be if such things were patented as the author suggests would have been great to grab? "concepts such as the mouselook control scheme, "rag doll" physics, and real-time resource gathering simulations". Real time resource gathering simulations?!? This would put a patent on nearly all RTS games, and could theoretically be expanded to include friggen Mario (he gathers coins, after all).

Such patents would be great for the company that snatches them up - they would have absolutely no feat of competition. "You can not make an RTS game unless you license from me, biatch".. End of a genre. All the while not helping the gaming community at all.

The author indicates that patents are not currently popular in the gaming industry. Clearly he is out to try and persuade more developers to go that route.. I can only hope they resist the dark side. :\

Turd Polishing

[Glacian]

No matter how much you polish a turd its still a turd.

As long as companys veiw patents a broadswords this will make the world shitty, quickly.

My new game patent...

[Anonymous Coward]

A lawyer 'elimination' simulator using FPS technology.

Third party observations at the UKPO

[Anonymous Coward]

The UKPO has published new guidance on how to make third party observations on patent applications:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/indetail/section21 /introduction.htm

You can now make them by email:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/notices/direction1 24a/section21.htm

Article misses the point....

[markh1967]

....that if patents on games were allowed 20 years ago, none of today's games producers would be in business. Imagine if Atari patented sprites, Xerox patented the mouse and selecting icons with a pointer, and Bressenham patented his line-drawing algorithm; the games business would have died back in the 8-bit days, or even earlier and todays multi-billion dollar industry would never have been created.

All games are built on what has been done before and I don't like the idea of today's games makers building on the hard work of others but being too selfish to allow others to do the same - much like Disney built on public domain tales then stopped their own works falling into the public domain in turn.

Duplicate

[MarcOiL]

Original discussion here.