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

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

Re:Myth #5 is a straw man

[QuantumG]

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