Slashdot Mirror
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."
After all, where would we be without the Internet Protocol?
RTFA? What FA?
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.
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.
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
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.