Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Atari, Others, Settle Game Patent Suit

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the just-don't-use-camera-movement-anymore dept.

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.

5 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Re:They have learned from the RIM debacle by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes it is better to buy out the problem than it is to do the right thing.

    For "better" read "easier."

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  2. Re:it is better... by bentcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  3. why should this patent be nullified? by Surt · · Score: 2, Informative

    It was innovative at the time of filing: 1987-04-06

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4734690.html

    And people are only now violating it, nearly 19 years later. Give it one more year and it will have expired!

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  4. Re:Expired? by panda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  5. Re:They have learned from the RIM debacle by Kintar1900 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem, though, is that they're setting a precedent in patent cases. This is an absurdly wide-ranging patent, and should never have been upheld, especially as the patent is being enforced on games nearly 20 years after it was granted. I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought the failure of the patent holder to offer due dilligence on any other game in that span (say...Quake? System Shock? Descent?) would have given the companies a much easier time in fending it off.

    I'm just scared of where software patents are leading. Speaking as a professional software developer, there's hardly anything I do in day-to-day app design that hasn't been done before, and isn't more specific than this patent.