Microsoft's Online Spectator Patent

Next Generation reports on Microsoft's 5000th patent: an online spectator mode for competitive games. From the article: "The system will allow online viewers who are not involved in actual gameplay to view game highlights and instant replays, as well as let them control camera perspectives. A statement from Microsoft also describes 'A portal such as a Web site to access spectator-related services such as schedules and information on multiple games and events as well as the number of spectators and participants in each. The portal allows the spectator to find the most popular games to watch, preview the action, and then connect to the desired game or event.'"

Comments

XBox port of HLTV?

[christian.elliott]

I see no one at Microsoft has every played CounterStrike. This idea just sounds like an XBox port of HLTV. If this patent is only for the XBox version of this system, power to them, they should have control over this. However, if this is an attempt to get the PC Patent for this same idea, they may have another thing coming.

Re:XBox port of HLTV?

[tsm_sf]

It's still a bullshit patent, but of a different source.

And as usual the idea isn't to come up with a bulletproof patent, but rather to raise the cost of entry for smaller players. Vivendi would have no problem taking this down if they wanted to. Popcap (or similar) wouldn't even try.

Yep, another live one

[Daysaway]

Yeah, because nobody has ever done that before *cough* Unreal Tournament *cough*.

from TFA "Microsoft's goal is to file 3,000 patents per year."

Amazing. Do they have some sort of Patent Counter in the shape of a dollar sign sitting in a Redmond office building, slowly filling with the blood of lesser companies who are being forced to compensate Microsoft when they use what was once an innovative feature, now solely under Bills control?

At the end of the year, when they are around 2900 patents, what will they resort to in order to fulfill their goal? How does this sound, "Microsoft patents interactive software." I mean, that hasn't been done yet, right?

Anti-patent and proud of it

[dada21]

My father told me never write down anything you don't want anyone else to take and use as their own.

I hold to that belief today. Everything useful to me as a trade secret stays in my head.

Patents were intended to protect the desire to invent. The slippery slope of using government to protect anything rears its ugly head here, and it is obvious that patent laws can not work -- they'll always be corrupted, slowly buy surely, over the years. Rather than try to use "men with guns" to protect inventors, how about we level the playing field and require people to actually create items and find a way to market them before they're knocked off?

Patents are counter-freedom in every way. If you have an idea, make something. Sell that something. If someone finds a better way to make that something, then take their changes and make THOSE better. That's competition.

Re:Anti-patent and proud of it

[theJML]

Yeah, that's a good idea... I did that too... unfortunatley now there are two things I'm missing out on:

Income from these ideas
Proof that I ever had such ideas first

Re:Anti-patent and proud of it

[Red Flayer]

"I hold to that belief today. Everything useful to me as a trade secret stays in my head. "

And were you to suddenly die, every brilliant idea you've had would be lost to humanity until someone else thought it up. That's not a net (+).

Re:Anti-patent and proud of it

[dada21]

I write and publish, but I don't accept copyright protections. Why? Because my words increase my worth as one individual to another. This is important.

As for trademarks, I don't see why protections are needed. If a company makes a good product, they need to make individual agreements with other individuals that want to sell their product. In the end, the retailer is the one making sure you get the product you want. Sure, someone could knock off Coca-Cola's logo and product, and some retailers might accept the new product for sale. In reality, though, the companies that offer the consumer the best product for the best price are the ones that would win out, so if Coke can't provide this quality of service, let someone else do it. I do think it is a bit odd that people pay $2 for a bottle of Coke's labeled water, but they do so out of desiring a consistent standard water. Nothing prevents retailers and Coke from entering agreements to sell the right product.

Ending copyright won't stop movies from being made -- instead, movie companies would likely enter into agreements with distribution companies (movie theaters) to protect their investment until the investment was paid off. They might also release proprietary formats to the retail market, or they might offer additional features to make it worth your while to buy the official version. In the long run, art will always survive, and the best content creators will find a way to make money without needed "men with guns" to back up their profit.

Re:Anti-patent and proud of it

[jollyjl]

Not many people knows who Philo Farnsworth is. He invented the television, among other things. RCA violated his patent, he sued, but ran out of money. The best idea for an invention, code or otherwise, is to make the thing so complicated that nobody would be willing to figure it out, so if they wanted the goods, they would have to pay up. Or if the idea is not patentable, generate enough buzz, like cocacola, as mentioned.

No, the system IS broken.

[OmniGeek]

I must disagree; the patent system IS broken if it results in the granting of large numbers of invalid patents. The USPTO admits that this is the case, and even admits that their examiners are subject to perverse incentives to let stuff through (though they don't explicitly admit the perversity of this.)

Defending against a bogus patent in court is WAY beyond the means of most mortals; justice overpriced is justice denied. Preventing worthless patents in the first place is the way the system is intended to work, and getting it back there is, alas, the only real solution to the present idiot situation.

patent defense is expensive

[Ender Ryan]

Defending yourself against a patent claim is expensive. Considering that you don't have to even be making any money to violate a patent, that already means the patent system is not setup to do what it was intended to do, hence, broken.

Add to that the ridiculous patents being awarded today, and we are completely fucked by this shit.

woo!

[Anonymous Coward]

absolute retardation ftw!

OMFG

[JustNiz]

There is SO MUCH prior art that this can't be considered a serious patent.

Re:Poo on you

[Peyna]

Ever heard of Coca-Cola? They've been incredibly successful using trade secrets to protect their most important IP: their formulas. If they had patented it, they would have lost the exclusive rights to it already.

Trade secret protection lasts indefinitely, but cannot be exploited in the same way patent protection can.

Re:Legitimate Via Bungie?

[tricorn]

Haven't looked at the patent yet, so I don't know exactly what they're claiming, but I wrote an on-line spectator mode for the PLATO game Empire in around 1981. It allowed for changing view (by choosing which ship to follow), and also recorded the game for later playback (in 5 minute increments). The earliest game I still have recorded that I know about is from 1984.

I would think that any enhancements to the basic concept (such as moveable cameras, looking at stats, live replaying as opposed to waiting until the game is over, ability to choose from multiple games) are all obvious, and the methods for doing so are essentially trivial. We didn't do those mods because we cranked it out as a modification to the original game in a very short time, there wasn't a huge audience for it, it wasn't a 3-D shooter, etc. Given a 3-D multi-player shooter, doing all of those things would be obvious, probably even "patently obvious".

Now, if the patent is on some particularly clever method of implementing such a spectator mode, say one that reduces network bandwidth or server load or improves the viewing of the game in some way, I'm all for that (if it truly is innovative, clever, and useful). If it is a patent on the IDEA of a spectator mode, I don't see how it can stand.

Re:Poo on you

[Haeleth]

Ever heard of Coca-Cola? They've been incredibly successful using trade secrets to protect their most important IP: their formulas.

Good God, you don't seriously believe that, do you?

Coca-Cola's formula is worthless. If you produced a product that was identical down to the last molecule (either by acquiring their formula somehow, or simply by buying Coke and rebranding it), you would sell no better than any of the myriad other fizzy brown sugar waters, and I would be able to produce thousands of witnesses willing to stand up in court and swear on everything they hold sacred that "real" Coke tasted better than your perfect clone.

The only things the Coca-Cola company has that it needs to protect are its trademarks. The myth of the irreproducible formula is just a facet of the brand; it's the brand, and the brand alone, that turns their fizzy water into something the masses actually want to buy.

Re:Defensive Patent

[MBraynard]

Thanks for saving me the trouble of pointing this out. It's mostly to stop an RIM-type situation.

But don't expect this to stop the slash-herd from making dozens of +5 insightful comments about M$ being evil.

Re:Defensive Patent

[sumdumass]

But don't expect this to stop the slash-herd from making dozens of +5 insightful comments about M$ being evil

The problem isn't that microsoft is some sort of white hat only out to protect themselves. If it were true, then some licnese that allow the use of thier "protective" pattents without royalties would be availible and publicaly known. Germany said it was protecting it's borders and we belived them while they built armies up along thier borders in a situation that later became known as World War Two.

The reason we don't have a license that allows others to use these pattents that they plan to "not enforce" but need so someone else doesn't pattent it and sue them is because they want the right to use the patten aggresivly when they decide there is a need. It is foolish to think that because they aren't enforcing a patent now they won't in the future. The fact is that nobody using most (if any) of thier patents has created a threat to them. The idea they need them but aren't going to enforce them looses credit when you try to get access to use one. If we were to belive then thay would make them publicaly accessible to people wanting to use them.

In reality this means you can violate thier pattents as long as you don't get successfull or threaten one of thier revenue streams. This is like saying "sure you can open a convience store but you have to place it were no one ever goes and you cannot advertise in my areas". While no one knows for sure we can guess the intention but not getting a low royalty or royalty free license from the start. If you want to belive Microsoft is all whitehat and out to protect themdelve so they can benefit you then I would suggest you wise up a little. Although not neccesarily evil, any corperation is out to make money and when it presents itself, microsoft will use anythign it can (look at the fat32 debacle).