Slashdot Mirror
Atari, Others, Settle Game Patent Suit
Atari and other game publishers have come to a settlement with American Video Graphics, a company which claims a patent on (essentially) an in-game camera POV. Atari agreed to pay the company $300,000 for 'irrevocable' rights to the company's patents. From the article: "In a recent IGDA column on the subject, lawyer Jim Charne commented on the danger of this exceptionally wide-ranging patent, noting that: 'Several of these defendants have joined together to mount a common (and very costly) defense', and further commenting: 'The '690 patent litigation is an attack on the industry as a whole. It is indeed something for developers to worry about.'" The other companies mentioned, apparently, came to similar settlements. It's frustrating to me that these companies chose to buy off a pointless suit like this, rather than see the patent nullified.
For the big players in any industry, all show-stopper patents that you can buy a license for are good for you - even if it's you paying the license. Why? Because each such patent presents a barrier to entry into the market that prevents new upstart companies from competing with the established ones.
If someone had a patent on "programs that run on a computer" and charged Â$30 billion for a license, Microsoft and IBM couldn't be any happÃier. For a one-off large sum, they would effectively lock down their market for two decades to come . . .
sigs are hazardous to your health
Never mind. I'm a doofus. I was thinking that patents only last 17 years from date of issue. Turns out its 20 years from application date as hinted at below.
I found an interesting site about patents in the U.S. here:
http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.