Slashdot Mirror
Gibson Accuses Guitar Hero of Patent Violation
robipilot writes "Video game publisher Activision Inc. has asked a federal court to declare that its popular "Guitar Hero" game does not violate a patent held by real-guitar maker Gibson Guitar Corp. Gibson's 1999 patent covers a virtual-reality device that included a headset with speakers that simulated participating in a concert, according to a complaint filed on Tuesday by Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles."
Couldn't the case be made that this concept is a game (who simulates participating in a concert for any reason other than entertainment?), and therefore multiple companies can realize the idea as long as they do not use terms and images from the first company?
I hate to say this, but the patent does seem to cover Guitar Hero.
Overly broad? Possibly, but sounds like it is applicable.
If they had published a game and associated hardware, we could have been hacking the Gibson by now...
Engadget is reporting that Gibson's system is designed to be used with a real musical instrument. Hope this gets tossed out.
Speedy thing goes in; speedy thing comes out.
You gotta wonder. Why did Dibson wait this long to act on their patent? I mean, how long has Guitar Hero been around for anyways? ...I think I know the answer, and it pisses me off.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
So I guess they just completely ignored Konami, who's had "Guitar Freaks" machines in arcades for nearly ten years at this point?
Since both "Guitar Freaks" and Gibson's patent have been around since 1999, I wonder which came first. Does prior art still count if it's in another country?
=Smidge=
You'd think that Gibson would have realized that Guitar Hero violates their patent back in 2004 or 2005 when they signed the endorsement deal for the original game.
Post-rock/Ambient/Drone and other noise.
I seem to remember Gibson being a sponsor/partner for at least Guitar Hero 3...I find it hard to believe that they just "forgot" about this particular patent until now, especially since Guitar Hero has been out for so long and the controller has been a Gibson guitar mockup for the past two games.
Activision says it doesn't want or need a license under the patent.
:-)
I like that phrase. You would have thought that whether they want one or not is fairly irrelevant. Have you ever seen a case where a company wanted a license under a patent, but didn't need one?
If I've got a patent on something so general as to say "Umm... making music with an instrument is MY PROPERTY", no one is going to listen.
I guess Gibson is jumping on the patent troll bandwagon - maybe they believe that all the kids that would have previously bought a guitar to 'be cool' are now buying guitar hero kits?
Gibson is just pissed because now kids don't have to waste money on a real guitar that they will never learn how to play. Instead they can become Guitar Hero superstars in a few weeks. I'm surprised that RIAA hasn't tried to sue Activision for loss of future profits because they are reducing the music industries talent pool!
Somewhere in a dark place you will find:
www.m1
Patent holders are like the real world equivalent of Internet trolls. As soon as you get any kind of notoriety they randomly appear spouting their trash and trying to get attention.
In this case they're a little less interested in attention and a little more interested in money but the concept is the same. The entire patent system, software or otherwise, is somewhat flawed since it lasts too long and holds back the marketplace which it was original created to help.
They should change the system so you only get five-ish years of protection on research with an automatic extension by a further ten years if you release a product using that patent into the marketplace. This will stop these silly troll companies like IBM hoarding tons of patents with very few actual products.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YAUZAAAAEBAJ
:-P
Note that Gibson was clearly not thinking about video games, as it's using a real guitar--kind of like an immersive Jamey Abersold experience
So, after patenting, for any value of X, "doing X with a computer", "doing X with a client/server system", and "doing X over the web", we are now going to get a flood of patents on "doing X in virtual reality"?
Aren't the guitar hero "Les Paul" designs licensed by Gibson to Guitar Hero? If so, then I don't see how they can make a claim for infringement while also participating in the product's current material profit.
stuff |
So the "Guitar Hero" franchise has been out for a pretty long time and they're only just now filing a lawsuit? Something smells fishy here
Before we know the next corporation patents "An imaginary environment for simulated participating in the act of making love".
Guys we're in real trouble here. We're all guilty. The young ones are particularly vounrable to offending the patent multiple times a day. (We older guys envy the young ones for the favorable frequency. But I digress.)
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I'm still waiting for the new Jimmy Page signature Les Foul... and everybody knows that SG stands for Shitgabber.
Guitar Hero is a ripoff of the GuitarFreaks arcade game which according to Wikipedia first appeared in February 1999. So quite possibly the game concept predates the patent.
They pulled this same crap with Paul Reed Smith guitars, claiming that PRS's singlecut guitar infringed their trademark. PRS was forced to stop making singlecuts for a number of years, until the injunction, and Gibson's lawsuit, was thrown out. Gibson is a bunch of litigious bastards, and that is why I will never purchase a Gibson guitar.
That rating is a badge of honor. It says to the world, "I may not know comedy, but damnit: I know what I like!" A valiant jest, sir; a valiant jest.
dontcha think? So, in GH3, Gibson gets their name on the 'guitar controllers' and now they are pulling this. You'd think charging 1000 dollars for a real guitar would keep you in business without having to go on this particular rampage that they've chosen.
It looks like the race to register domains names. People were registering scores of short words not because they knew what to do with it, but simply because they thought in the future someone would know.
And if that strategy does exist, how about some brainstorming to come up with a number of patented concepts which we cannot implement yet (or haven't)? Perhaps:
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
So, essentially they've patented the idea of building hardware to facilitate the playing of Air Guitar, right?
... how big of a stretch is it (really) to arrive at the Air Guitar Facilitation Doohickie of whatever the heck they've called this.
I mean, if in the 80's Wayne's World was showing everyone air guitar, and karaoke existed
This really does sound more like a concept than an actual patentable item to me.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The summary says this motion was filed by Activision, Gibson have not comment publicly.
That makes it sound like a marketing exercise to me.
You may take our intellectual property, but you'll never take...our FREEDOM!!!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Dammit, Gibson. When I saw the headline I thought it would be because the Guitar Hero controllers look like Gibsons (SGs and Les Pauls, specifically). What damage is GH doing to Gibson besides increasing interest in learning to play a real guitar?
to knock off Stratocasters and Les Pauls
why should they get a free ride on other's designs?
pay Gibson and Fender royalties for using their assets for profit.
that or make a generic guitar no one wants.
Guitar Hero games feature Gibson Guitars. GH2 and GH3 feature gibson guitars both in the game as purchasable upgrades and outside the game as controlers. The Gibson branding is all over the place in and out of the games as well.
Maybe there are just not enough people running out and buying Gibson guitars because they are too busy playing "Dragon Force" On expert.
Whatever the case it is Gibson trying to whore money from an excessively popular game. Perhaps GH4 will drop the Gibson branding and go to their competitor guitars.
I would also like to step into a future prediction: The Lawyers will be blamed for acting on their own, the case will be dropped and swept under the carpet in an official statement within the next few days.
Gibson should just release their own third-party guitar controller. I'm sure as fuck not paying $70 for Red Ocatane's, when it is essentially just a shell piggybacking on all of the Wii remote's functionality. Besides, I don't intend to give anymore money to a company that doesn't even try to appease its customers within reason. It took months for them just to get those overpriced guitars out, if nothing else. Nyko really screwed up by planning to release theirs in May instead of a few months ago. They would have made a killing.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
The patent describes "simulate participation in a concert by playing musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3-D display that includes stereo speakers."
I think they would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the junky plastic toy used in GH is comparable to a Les Paul...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Well, gibson just shot itself in the foot. Instead of creating a rock solid relationship with one of the most popular, fresh and emerging game genre's the industry has seen in a long time, it has just bit that hand that feeds it. I highly doubt Activision or Harmonix will sign these clowns again.
But don't fret(sic) gibson, there is always "Frets of Fire" *chuckle*
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Wouldn't Konami's Guitar Freaks count as prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuitarFreaks)
It came out in February of 1999 and works almost exactly like Guitar Hero, just without the extra 2 buttons and whammie bar.
...is patently absurd!
Note: I am doing this quick and dirty, and electronics is not my field (I am a chemical examiner). The following is my opinion only, and should not be considered binding. Claims 1-12 do not apply as there is no musical instrument, the guitar in Guitar heroes does not produce music on its own. It is a game controller that mimics a musical instrument. Claim 1 is the only claim that mentions the guitar, however the remainder of claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, so they are assumed to incorporate all of the same elements. Claim 13 defines, in very general terms, a system for simulating participation in a pre-recorded musical performance. Not having played guitar hero before, I understand that the guitar chords that are played depend on the keys pressed on the guitar. That would probably remove it from the definition of "pre-recorded". However, the judge that will rule on this probably has never played guitar hero in his/her life. This may come down to the lawyers and how well they clarify/obfuscate things. The further dependent claims 14-20 get into the details of the pre-recorded tracks. If Gibson could manage to show that all of the guitar chords played by the user are individual pre-recorded tracks, and that the guitar soundtrack played by the XBox is supressed and the individual audio track that corresponds to the chord pressed by the user is played when the user plays the guitar, there may be a very strong case for infringement. Claims 21-22 might cause problems, it will all depend on interpretation of the wording. Some of the parts as defined are all integrated into the XBox. Thus, it might be considered infringement. Claims 23-24, nope. No effects simulator or headset to be worn by user. Claims 25-30 look very similar (in very broad terms) to what guitar hero does. The only difference might be the use of "pre-recorded concert video track". That might result in no infringement as there is no pre-recorded concert video track. It is generated by the XBox. However, if Gibson's lawyers could successfully argue that the video produced by the XBox is pre-recorded, these claims may as well be infringed upon.
Gibson Inc. will hire the same lawyers who worked for SCO and the recording industry, and then sue everyone who ever played "air-guitar" at a concert, beginning with the Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1964.
Remember the future...
Everything about "Guitar Hero", involves instrumentation, timing, discipline, group involvement(for me, it was the Chilly Peppers, "California"), enthusiasm, no drugs, Sam's Club...creativity vs. what sells, Gibson, just set back, and sipped Jack. Ah, the days, when I bought a "Black Beauty LesPaul Custom," In 1976 for US$625.00...the loan amount(with Mom co-signing...), was US$750. Back then, imported rosewood, mahogany was cheep, heck you could buy a used one, in Lakeland, FL, in 1988, for US$325. Today, import taxes, and the lack of availability, is jacking Martin Guitar, Inc, and Gibson, for a serious ride...new axes?...think US$2,000 to $5,000....whilst the Strat, took the cheap way out a long time ago... ...I always wondered why Guitar Hero, always stayed with Strat's...
If Gibson, has a patent number...
And...to what does "head mounted" mean...I have two heads(monitors), on this single computer. I could do my e-mail, and "rock-out" at the same time!
So...I never made a dime in sixteen years, off the "Black Beauty"...I don't pick in bars......
Don't you think...? Or don't you?
Note... Gibson's lawyers approached Activision outside of court. Unlike the title to the article suggests, Activision is the company that actually invoked the courts to settle the issue...
From previous comments it is obvious that most have no idea how to read a patent or how to determine infringement. So here goes:
The actual patent can be read at System and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert
Only the claims are relevant
It does not matter what the abstract or description says. In other words: A product can be non-infringing even if the abstract or description seems to perfectly cover that product. Likewise, a product can be infringing even if the abstract or description doesn't seem to match at all.
Drawings are also irrelevant unless they are specifically referenced in claims, and then they are only relevant for claims that reference them. In this case, the drawings are not referenced by claims, so they can be safely ignored.
Each individual claim matters
If a product infringes on just one claim, it infringes the patent. However see next paragraph.
Look at independent claims first
Most patents have several claims that reference previous claims. These claims are only infringed upon if a product also infringes on the referenced claim. Therefore one starts by reviewing those claims that do not reference other claims.
In the patent at hand, the independent claims are: 1, 13, 21, 25 and 28.
Steps or components
Claims are either system claims, which may contain several components or method claims, which may contain several steps. For something to infringe on such a claim, it must consist of all the steps or components in the claim. If one is missing or replaced with something else, it is a different (and thereby non-infringing) system or method.
My Analysis
Claims 1-12 In claim 1, the system requires a musical instrument, which generates an audio output. In my opinion, the GuitarHero controller does not qualify as a musical instrument, but this does not actually matter here, because the system as claimed specifically uses the audio output from the instrument. The GuitarHero controller has no audio output and at no time does an audio signal for the controller exist, so the GuitarHero system does not have the component of 1e. Claim 1 is not infringed upon, and therefore the same goes for 2 through 12. Claims 13-20 These also require an instrument with an audio output, so GuitarHero is not infringing. Claims 21-24 These specifically require a guitar, and while it could be contested whether the GuitarHero controller is a musical instrument, and while the controller is shaped like one, it is definately not a guitar. No infringement here either. Claims 25-27 These are method claims, but not much new here otherwise. Claim 25c specifies that the output is modified by audio signals from the player, so no infringement. Claims 28-30 And once again the claims fall for specifying an instrument with an audio output.Oops. Seems there are no claims left. My conclusion: Not infringing!