Slashdot Mirror


Former Red Octane Staff Prohibited from Music Games

In what seems to be some ugly fallout from the Guitar Hero / RedOctane purchase, former Octane employees John Tam and Corey Fong are now legally prohibited from working on rhythm games. Activision has successfully brought suit against the men, arguing that they were using proprietary information gained under employ at the corporation to aid their new venture. As part their work after leaving RedOctane, Tam and Fong had begun working with the Reverb and The Ant Commandos groups on a demo for a dance/guitar game. "The demo incorporated elements of Guitar Hero and StepMania, a free dance game for the PC that supports dancepads and includes a step editor. The pair used it to solicit partners and funding for Lodestone Entertainment, the injunction states. As part of the injunction, the pair is prohibited from distributing or using the demo in any capacity and acting on or disclosing any Activision trade secrets. They are also prevented from taking steps to develop drum-, guitar-, or synthesizer-based games for the next year, nor can they work on any Xbox 360 controllers for Guitar Hero II until six months after the game's release this week. "

76 comments

  1. No Rythym whatsoever? by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't that akin to telling a computer programmer he can't use while loops?

    1. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it's like telling him he can use while loops, as long as the entire conditional is "true".

    2. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by Lockejaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't go that far, but I kinda wonder what happens if these guys happen to write some open-source code that happens to get incorporated into a rhythm game. Have they broken the prohibition by writing code that goes into a rhythm game?

      --
      (IANAL)
    3. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find out what these people were, were they programmers? If they were devs, no one says they can't code programs in general, just programs of a pretty specific type. I don't think this all that unusual.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    4. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 1

      My point is that rythym gets used in a lot of games.

      Have to shoot a boss with a certain rythym to force 'em back? Or maybe there's a rythym minigame in an action/adventure saga? What about a rythym-based hybrid (like a rythym puzzler or a rythmic combat game?)

      How does 'the ability to keep a beat' become anything even close to copyrightable, let alone enforceable, to restrict?

    5. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so terrible about not using while loops? /Haskell programmer

    6. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Better make all conditionals inside the loop false, otherwise some enterprising hacker might break out of the trap (or, god forbid, goto end).

    7. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's quite clear, looking at the games they were working on, everyone would agree that a rhythm game would be something like Guitar Hero or a dancung game. Something with vague tangential similarities wouldn't.

      Courts are allowed to use a little common sense when interpreting contracts.

    8. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA:
      "As part of the injunction, the pair is prohibited from distributing or using the demo in any capacity and acting on or disclosing any Activision trade secrets. They are also prevented from taking steps to develop drum-, guitar-, or synthesizer-based games for the next year, nor can they work on any Xbox 360 controllers for Guitar Hero II until six months after the game's release this week."

      So for the next year, they can't make games based specifically on guitars, drums or synthesizers or controllers specifically for Guitar Hero 2 and specifically for the XBox 360.

      They can make a Xylophone, Flute or Tuba game.. and they can make a Guitar Hero 2 controller for the PS2 version.

      --
      ^_^
    9. Re:No Rythym whatsoever? by Dmala · · Score: 1

      I am sooo sorry about this, I am not usually a spelling/grammar Nazi, but my head is just about to explode...

      The word you're looking for is "rhythm"

  2. madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is madness

    1. Re:madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is madness
      Um, no, that was last month.
    2. Re:madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madness?! This is Sparta!

  3. Tam and Fong are out of the porn industry too? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

    John Tam and Corey Fong are now legally prohibited from working on rhythm games...


    Tam and Fong are out of the porn industry too? I guess that leaves only one legal avenue: FPS coding (shudder).
    1. Re:Tam and Fong are out of the porn industry too? by shiva19 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was under the impression that the porn industry was all about First Person Shooters.

      --
      The `/. trolls would come out to tell him that it wasn't a real troll, since it didn't scream 'First Post'... -alexjohns
  4. Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by Morgon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I wrong in thinking that this is the result of a typical non-compete (or equivalent)? I know I've had to sign some before.
    And to answer some other posts, it's not like telling a programmer he can't use whatever control structures he wants - these guys are specifically prevented from using information they gathered while working for a company in which that information is their entire business.

    --
    [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    1. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked at place that tried to make me sign a non-compete, but the wording was so vague that it would have prevented me from doing an unrelated sideline that I was already doing, so they took it back to re-word it, and it conveniently vanished into the shuffle of paperwork.

      Years later, when I left the company after a falling out with the management, and set up shop in the same town, they tried to sue me without making sure they had the paperwork.

      It was sweet.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      If I were a lawyer, AND evil, I would argue that by working in the same field, you're necessarily using information gathered at your previous employer, because you ulimately draw on those experiences to improve what you do.

    3. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, but that's precisely the reason that non-compete complaints that go to a judge generally are decided on the behalf of the little guy. A rarity in modern law.

      (IANAL)

    4. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by Izaak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I were a lawyer, AND evil, I would argue that by working in the same field, you're necessarily using information gathered at your previous employer, because you ulimately draw on those experiences to improve what you do.


      There is actually already a body of case law about exactly this issue. Non-compete agreements are often found to be over broad and unenforceable. In general, it is expected that you will carry skills and knowledge that you learned on one job over to the next... hell, its why we list our employment history on our resume after all.


      The real issue is whether they actually carted off some sort of proprietary trade secret rather than just general knowledge/skill. That can be difficult to prove, and if these guys are smart they will counter-sue for loss of wages and professional reputation. Its a dangerous business when you decide to start suing someone for choosing to work in their chosen field of expertise. Judges often look unkindly on that.


      Cheers,

      Thad

    5. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
      They already agreed to the settlement, so I don't see them countersuing anytime soon. They essentially left Activision and tried to set up their own studio making the exact same type of games as they were making at Activision. Since they are only barred for between 6 months and year, depending on which aspect, I'd assume that its actually a rather fair noncompete agreement. They are barred from specific peripherals and a specific genre of game, so its not over-reaching IMHO.

      I ain't a lawyer either.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    6. Re:Sounds like a standard Non-Compete ... ? by AdamThor · · Score: 1

      Are they getting the standard non-compete buyout? Regular wage for the duration of the non-compete? I've seen a few comments in 'ask slashdot' articles about non-competes that suggest that the employee should get some benefits from taking part in the non-compete. Did these guys get any of that? If they didn't, is it because they were suckers who didn't ask for their due, or is it b/c the 'ask slashdot' suggestions were unrealistic?

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
  5. More was sold than just IP... by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Guitar Hero's ability to bring the rhythm game to the mainstream in Western countries made the big corps take notice. A dumptruck of money arrived to the doorstep which is a huge payday for a "mom & pop" publisher like Red Octane (while not strictly "mom & pop", in comparison to a behemoth like Activision, they are.) There's always a price to be paid and this fallout just highlights one of those prices. That's why it's called "selling out."

    Considering how "hot" the property is, I'd call it reasonable to say that any corporation that bought this IP would guard it as strongly.

    That said, TFA:
    "... Guitar Hero II executive producer John Tam and brand manager Corey Fong ..."

    Hmmm... how much success-deriding decision-making did these two actually make on GH2, anyway?

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
    1. Re:More was sold than just IP... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Not much decission making regarding the game perhaps, but they DO have knowledge of all important decissions other people made with regards to the game.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Sad, but not that sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have met John Tam back when RedOctane was marketing In The Groove and about to reveal Guitar Hero at E3. He put the kibosh on certain press groups that he felt didn't kiss his ass enough. Michael Nguyen was a great guy to work with, but when he tried to do some stuff with the website I worked with, who had been long-time partners of ours, John Tam stepped in and shut everything down in favor of trying to get in with the big gaming publications like GameSpot and 1Up. In the end we did some great promotions with RedOctane and probably contibuted significantly to the success of the first Guitar Hero. Early next year, Michael Nguyen abruptly left the company and RO quit talking to us altogether.

    They definitely have forgotten their roots. I have very little pity for John Tam.

    1. Re:Sad, but not that sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had a stupid little blog, that'd probably be true. When I am in charge of the biggest North American music games website out there, that's a bit more than a stupid little blog.

    2. Re:Sad, but not that sad. by Shinmizu · · Score: 1

      Bryce, is that you? I certainly agree with the low opinion of John Tam. (I was one of the DDR Freak members at E3 2005. Konami main representative, Jason Enos, was wonderfully gracious, but John Tam was a real dick.)

    3. Re:Sad, but not that sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ran into him pre-GH1, the biggest music games were 99% Bemani/clone, which hadn't picked up on Frequency or Amplitude, and which were self-defeating, elitist and off-putting to most normal people, and were the antithesis of what RO/HMX wanted to target. So somehow one of the the main guys who was behind the biggest thing going in music games, who helped propel GH2 to a multi-platform gigantic top-of-charts smash (compare Konami's recent Beatmania home game), might have seen that your stupid little blog... I mean major website... wasn't really the audience he wanted to target. Amazing! What a jerk!

    4. Re:Sad, but not that sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it from an uninterested third party that what the OP had to say was certainly relevant and interesting, and that you're a sad little child who has nothing better to do than fling insults across Slashdot all day. It's an old line, but there's something to be said about people who don't have the balls to do that in person.

  7. Congradulations Activision, by kinglink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First off Activision is probably right here. They had a contract, they violated it, they suffer.

    However this is the worse move Activision could make, they just jump to the head of the class in "bad producers" beating EA. It's a known quantity, developers will learn tricks at a company and bring it to a new company. This is a dirty little secret in the industry. Three guys quit a company and form a new one, did they magically get the idea for their next game at 6 o'clock on the day they quit? Nope they probably planned it a while before. This always happens and Activision crucifying someone like this is going to get a lot of attention, and this is not what a developer wants to hear of a prospective employer, that the employer will come after you when you leave the company.

    Does that mean the two developers were right in what they did? No, and honestly they violated their agreement, but to stop them from working on any rhythem game in the next year is pretty harsh.

    Btw last I checked Stepmania is still open source, Activision never bought it, but hey that's what Activision has to prove. They did work with a chief engineer on it (if you'll call him that) for In the groove but that's a different story than using stepmania code which is still public.

    1. Re:Congradulations Activision, by thelegendofzaku · · Score: 1

      Btw last I checked Stepmania is still open source, Activision never bought it, but hey that's what Activision has to prove. They did work with a chief engineer on it (if you'll call him that) for In the groove but that's a different story than using stepmania code which is still public. That's the thing. Recent versions of StepMania are MIT licensed, thus they can be kept closed for derivative works, so technically, Activision can't buy it since they can still keep the demo code closed. However, since it used their trade secrets, they should have possession of it now as part of the settlement. Looks like after the whole relicensing of that platform for In The Groove, whether it be Konami setting with RoXoR for ITG and thus aquiring the franchise and modified SM code, it seems like anyone can now expect a legal firestorm for using it to make a commercial rhythm game clone. Anyways, silly former Red Octane employees, NDA tricks are for lawyers.
    2. Re:Congradulations Activision, by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      However this is the worse move Activision could make, they just jump to the head of the class in "bad producers" beating EA. It's a known quantity, developers will learn tricks at a company and bring it to a new company. This is a dirty little secret in the industry. Three guys quit a company and form a new one, did they magically get the idea for their next game at 6 o'clock on the day they quit? Nope they probably planned it a while before. This always happens and Activision crucifying someone like this is going to get a lot of attention, and this is not what a developer wants to hear of a prospective employer, that the employer will come after you when you leave the company.

      Did you RTFA? The two didn't "learn tricks .. and bring it to a new company". According to the suit, they had Activision employees working on a demo of their new game for their new company. So it's not surprising they are banned from using the demo, and on top of that the injunction bars them from drum-, guitar-, or synthesizer-based games for the next year. I suppose that's to remove any question that they are profiting from what they tried to do.

      Here's a quote from the linked article: (emphasis mine)

      "Lodestone intended to target a confidential and proprietary Activision corporate opportunity for the Guitar Hero franchise involving a certain confidential third party that was known to Tam and Fong by virtue of their employment with Activision," the injunction states. "Tam, working with Fong, directed an Activision employee and Activision independent contractors to develop, at Activision's expense, a demo of Defendents' game..."

      The demo incorporated elements of Guitar Hero and StepMania, a free dance game for the PC that supports dancepads and includes a step editor. The pair used it to solicit partners and funding for Lodestone Entertainment, the injunction states.

      As part of the injunction, the pair is prohibited from distributing or using the demo in any capacity and acting on or disclosing any Activision trade secrets. They are also prevented from taking steps to develop drum-, guitar-, or synthesizer-based games for the next year, nor can they work on any Xbox 360 controllers for Guitar Hero II until six months after the game's release this week.

    3. Re:Congradulations Activision, by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd have to see a bit more of the details before I'd accept the language the plaintiff used. "Directed an Activision employee and Activision independent contractors to develop" could translate into normal people language as "got some of their friends who also worked at Activision to work on their project in their spare time." Likewise, "at Activision's expense" could mean "they used their company laptops to post to the project message board while at home."

      The defendants may very well have done something wrong. But from personal experience, employers will often greatly overstate their case and courts will back them up. It's much like when they RIAA claims some BS number for revenue lost, even though in reality a certain percentage of the people would never have bought the music even if they couldn't download it.

      Again, I'd have to read the exact details where Activision details when and where the work was done and with what company equipment.

    4. Re:Congradulations Activision, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything I do, at all, is owned by my employer. If you're not an hourly worker (and, chances are, they weren't), then there's no such thing as "spare time": it's always owned by the employer.

      Check your contract. Every employment contract I've ever seen includes wording that indicates that anything done while employed is owned by the employer, regardless of whether it was done "in your spare time" or with "your own resources" - it's all owned by the employer.

      Hell, the college I went to had a similar contract. While you were attending, they owned everything you did, whether or not it was related to class.

      Technically this post is copyright my employer too.

    5. Re:Congradulations Activision, by Edgewize · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anything I do, at all, is owned by my employer. If you're not an hourly worker (and, chances are, they weren't), then there's no such thing as "spare time": it's always owned by the employer.

      That depends not only on your employment contract, but also the laws of your state. Some employment contracts make unenforceable or illegal claims. If you do something entirely yourself, at home, using your own equipment, in a field unrelated to your employer's business -- it's almost certainly yours. But talk to a lawyer to be sure.
    6. Re:Congradulations Activision, by illegalcortex · · Score: 1
      As the other poster already stated, just because it's in a contract doesn't make it legal in court. I think where these people got tripped up was that they somehow "tainted" it by involving company property. Either that, or they just didn't have the money to defend themselves against a giant like Activision.

      Interestingly enough, the news article says this:

      As part of their settlement with Activision, Guitar Hero II executive producer John Tam and brand manager Corey Fong consented to a judge's issuing a permanent injunction against them.
      The judge did not rule against them. If he did, there would be no question of the defendants consenting. You don't get a choice on whether you consent to a judge's ruling. Activision and the defendants settled, and the judge issued an injunction to enforce the settlement as per their wishes. So whether or not they would have won a case and which issues (contracts, non-competes, working "on the clock" versus off, etc.) would have been applicable is still unknown.
    7. Re:Congradulations Activision, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this is the worse move Activision could make, they just jump to the head of the class in "bad producers" beating EA.

      Surely Ubisoft? You may be enslaved while working for EA, but you are allowed to leave! If you attempt to leave Ubisoft they own your soul for two years across the entire games industry throughout North America - as several groups of people found out, e.g. Steve Dupont et al.

  8. Read the article guys... They screwed up big time by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They really did screw up with this. They instructed other activision employees (they were managers), to develop a demo for a new game. They then left the company and used that demo that was made while at activision by activision employees to sell as the basis of a new game. If they had done it on their own time with their own resources without involving other activision employees, hardware or software, they would probably have been ok. However, they didn't.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  9. Sensantionalistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're only banned for one year. That's pretty common in the games business after you leave a company on bad terms with your boss. They may have already had a non-compete clause in their contract - not uncommon in the games business although I've never signed one and I've worked for EA and SOE.

    1. Re:Sensantionalistic by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      It's not uncommon outside of the game industry: I've had one-year non-compete clauses in at least two of my programming jobs.

    2. Re:Sensantionalistic by geekoid · · Score: 1

      In some states, they aren't binding.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  10. No loopholes whatsoever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Have they broken the prohibition by writing code that goes into a rhythm game?"

    You tell us? You can read the intent as well as the rest of us. Why does the inclusion of that magic word "open source" change anything?

    1. Re:No loopholes whatsoever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell us? You can read the intent as well as the rest of us. Why does the inclusion of that magic word "open source" change anything? It is a fair question *if* the code is unrelated, e.g. they contribute to libsdl or one of the open source audio layers and that code ends up in the game. But if the OP meant as a new open source project 'libguitar' or something then yes that's an obviously dumb question.
  11. okay, so? by Speare · · Score: 1

    Noncompetes are not uncommon, and even in "Right To Work" California, they're seen as a way of avoiding the loss of well-trained employees.

    So, these guys spend a little while writing either (1) serious musical instruction software for the PCs and Apples of the world, like GarageBand assistants, or (2) games which don't leverage your typical musical instrument but do develop a certain motor skill to play, like iToy-enabled Sonic titles. Anyone who loves to write code that focus on the smooth and artistic participation of the user should be more than creative enough to walk away from Guitar for a short respite.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:okay, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A. This wasn't due to a employment contract non-compete clause. They used Activision resources (employees, etc.) to create a demo which they got caught pitching externally. It looks like part of the settlement was a non-compete clause as additional punishment.

      B. They were an executive producer and a brand manager. They don't write code. And they will have a tough time getting work again in the industry, I imagine.

    2. Re:okay, so? by sqldr · · Score: 0

      I find remuneration to be the best way to retain well trained employees.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    3. Re:okay, so? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Non-competes hold no merit is CA. It is specifically forbidden.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:okay, so? by Speare · · Score: 1

      I wrote "Right to Work California" for a reason. They're not forbidden, they're just typically unenforceable. Big difference. They're written all the time, and there are many employees who don't know the law is on their side.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  12. Re:Read the article guys... They screwed up big ti by Threni · · Score: 1

    And that lets them decide what the guys are able to do once they've left and are working elsewhere? I dunno about the US but that's not tolerated in the UK.

  13. Re:Read the article guys... They screwed up big ti by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

    It probably does, when there would be a question of where and when those ideas were thought up and developed. They already stole from Activision by using their employees and contractors to develop the demo at Activision's expense. What gives them the right to use those projects that were developed on Activision's dime, and how do you know what else they might have had the employees do? The only sure way to keep them from using the product of their theift is to bar them from being able to use any of it for a certain amount of time, while the rest of the industry is allowed to move forward.

  14. So this is where Activision is taking the series.. by realinvalidname · · Score: 0

    ...into the realm of mean-spirited lawsuits. Maybe Activision should change the series into RIAA Hero, in which you search the net for file-swappers, and throw down awesome legal whoop-ass on them. I imagine that would suit the joyless Activision drone units just fine.

  15. Lets Not Forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That RedOctane and Activision didn't even make Guitar Hero, Harmonix did. But they certainly did their share of taking credit.

    These two are probably rich, and goofed up trying to make even more money. No pity.

  16. RTFA!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, RTFA! ALL of you! Don't comment until you have!
    grrrrrr......

  17. Sounds almost... familiar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple: We have something to show you Bill, we call it Mac OS!

    Microsoft: We have something to show you world, we call it Windows!

    Apple: o_O

  18. NOT a non-compete by Wordplay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't be. They're unenforceable in California by statute.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16 607.html

    16600. Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which
    anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or
    business of any kind is to that extent void.

    The exceptions have to do with breaking up a company. I don't think the acquisition would qualify.

    This is probably due to trade-secret knowledge.

    1. Re:NOT a non-compete by dosius · · Score: 1

      Except, a court judgment isn't a contract.

      -uso.

      --
      What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
    2. Re:NOT a non-compete by Wordplay · · Score: 1

      Sure. But lots of people were answering that they must have had a standard non-compete agreement anyway, or that this was because they broke a non-compete.

  19. Dangerous precidence by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    This has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. As in, what this basically amounts to is that these guys learned something while working at a company and are know bared from using that knowledge. I mean, any non-compete clauses that I've seen means that you can't take anything with you went you leave the company e.g. research papers, contact info, etc. But, never have I seen one that prevents the /reproduction/ of results which would prevent people from working in the same field.

    When I worked in industry, I had to learn PHP for a project. Going along the same logic here, I wouldn't be able to program in PHP b/c my former company owns that knowledge.

    This is a dangerous precedent. One that needs to be challenged. Otherwise, many others will be screwed as well.

    1. Re:Dangerous precidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "dangerous precedent" is commonly known as "freedom of contract". Why do you want to deny them the freedom to contract as they wish?

    2. Re:Dangerous precidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the fucking article or any of the other posts before spouting your ignorant babble? They used activision's resources and employees to make the demo. It wasn't even their fucking work or skills. Activision didn't care if they used their knowledge or skills to make another game, they cared that they used activision's resources to do it. Please RTF before you inform everyone of how stupid you are.

    3. Re:Dangerous precidence by datawhore · · Score: 1

      This is a dangerous post. One that needs to be challenged.

      Your PHP analogy is entirely false as it relates to non-competes. They don't say that *anything* you learn on a job is non-transferable to the next job. I know almost nothing about non-competes but I do know that your interpretation could at best be considered 'creative' but really, it's just plain ridiculous.

      If you learn something specific as it relates to methods that a company considers 'trade secrets' you might be more on track regarding the actual usage of the law (e.g. I'm coding in PHP for a specific set of routines that deal with X Y Z that are new and super secret and that somebody in the company showed me was how we do it).

      To be a little more blunt, what right do you have to someone else's IP? If you walked in and saw how some code worked at a company, then promptly quit and got another job, and then took that knowledge to a new company doing the exact same thing, that's treading more towards stealing trade secrets and not woe-isth-me-I-can't-work working stiff sob story. There are grey areas in these situations, and that's where the interest of the employee and the business are managed through things like non-compete agreements and subsequent rulings relating to them.

    4. Re:Dangerous precidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not ridiculous, its fairly common outside of the computer industry as well, especially at management levels.

      All the article is saying is that these two cannot work on rhythm-based games for one year and have to wait 6 months on 360 GH controllers. The latter is simply just fair, as their intimate knowledge of the game would give them an unfair advantage against other companies.

      The former, again, seems pretty standard in knowledge-based industries. The thought process is that most "trade secrets" are not as valuable after a year...that in that time, all companies have a pretty equal chance to reverse engineer something. While it doesn't become open-source, competitor's will have ample chance to understand and/or improve on the initial concept...so with these two being involved in the inside operations, its only fair to force them to wait a year before being able to utilize that inside information.

  20. What trade secrets? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    A guitar game isn't exactly the most advanced sophisticated piece of engineering imaginable. You score points if you press the buttopn at the right time. That's about it.

    1. Re:What trade secrets? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the premise behind most ANY game? Activision's trade secret or not, there's nothing more to it than timing the press of a button to an action.

      Activision is meritless, and has been since they uber-whored the fuck out of the Mortal Kombat franchise.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:What trade secrets? by LocalH · · Score: 1

      It's a hell of a lot more complicated than you'd think. For example, the engine is quite loose - you can actually strum BEFORE hitting the correct fret, and if the time in-between is short enough, the game WILL count it as a hit. Also, regardless of where you hit a sustain note, if you hold the fret for the entire length of the hold, you always get the max possible score for the hold, whether you hit it early or not. Also, much of the complexity is in the note chart creation - humans very rarely play at a consistent, specific speed, and these variations must be taken into account in order to have a note chart that properly syncs.

      --
      FC Closer
    3. Re:What trade secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a hell of a lot more complicated than you'd think.

      Uhhm... Believe me, it isn't.

      you can actually strum BEFORE hitting the correct fret,

      Yes. if(strumming && fret) score++; Hardly rocket science. And yes, it is that simple. The sustain isn't a lot mopre complicated. As for player speed, if it was really like you said, then by the end of most songs, all the instruments would be out of sync. The player follows the note chart. Not the other way round.

    4. Re:What trade secrets? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      SO? it's input and output. Big deal.
      In fact, it's realy slow input and output.
      Yes, there are some rules with when the button is press compared to when the 'ideal' press happens.

      This is done in many industries, just in the nano seconds rand instead of 16th of a second.

      It's a cool game, great idea, hope it is even more successfull. It is not a huge technological advance.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:What trade secrets? by LocalH · · Score: 1

      Um, just to clarify, I wasn't talking about the player when I said "humans very rarely play at a consistent, specific speed". I was referring to the artists who recorded the covers (as well as in the case of the bands that made master tracks available). The note chart has to have slight BPM adjustments to compensate for these slight tempo changes.

      --
      FC Closer
  21. Lodestone Entertainment? by Quarters · · Score: 1

    There was already a Lodestone Games. They did work for Sony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodestone_Games

    1. Re:Lodestone Entertainment? by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      It's a small world, apparently. Your resume's out of date :-)

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
  22. Oh Well. by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    They should make a fighting game instead. There's a lot of similarity as both are based on timing, and I have a feeling that the crosstraining would pay off once they can jump back into the rhythm genre.

  23. I nearly got bitten by this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apologies for AC.

    Scenario: My first job
    Duties:
    - Setup and maintain servers (linux / NT)
    - Code websites in PHP
    - Update static websites
    - Onsite support
    - Netowkring (setup new networks, fix and extend existing ones - not the laying of CAT5 part, just the computer side (we had a contractor technician for laying the CAT5))

    After being in the position for about 2 months I was talkng to the boss and he mentioned that he had trained the guy I replaced from the ground up. After 2 years the guy, now reasonably good in a couple of areas, had left. He then said I would be signing a non-compete (can't use the above skills) if I was accepted as full time. Needless to say, I spent my last month there seriously considering that: Do I stay for the first fulltime job that came my way.. or do I go back to the dole because if I stay then I won't be able to work *anywhere* in IT for 12 to 24 months if I quit.

    In the end, I didn't stay (for other reasons). The company eventually busted and no longer exists.

    I can't say I really blame the boss for how he felt.. but.. on the other hand.. me not being able to get a job for 1 to 2 years in IT would have really crippled me. I was 24 years old, and just out of Uni.

  24. Re:Read the article guys... They screwed up big ti by BobSutan · · Score: 1

    Sounds a lot like how Cisco got started. The husband and wife team used the husband's college class he taught to develop the first routers for the school he worked at (forget which one). When they realized how important the devices were to the function of the fledgling internet they went to VCs and began Cisco. The rest is history.

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
  25. Re:Read the article guys... They screwed up big ti by geekoid · · Score: 1

    So if you worked at a company, took there core technology and started you own business, there is nothing they can do in the UK?

    Thats the problem with this SPECIFIC issue. Non-compete are worthless in California. That's not the issue. the issue is they had it developed by activision employees, while on the clock, and took it to get VC funding.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect