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

I'm pro-IP, too

[mangu]

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

RTFA? What FA?

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.

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.