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."
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.
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?
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.
Overly broad? Possibly, but sounds like it is applicable.
"Overly broad" would not a problem, and this patent isn't "overly broad".
The problem with the patent is obviousness.
If this is allowed to stand, then for any human activity, people could patent doing that activity in virtual reality, and that's simply absurd.
The whole point of virtual reality is that it lets you do real human activities, but permits you to get into situations that you couldn't get into in real life. That includes performing with a band as much as dating a super model.
From TFA:
"'simulate participation in a concert by playing musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3-D display that includes stereo speakers.' The device described in the patent also includes playback of audio and video of a prerecorded concert and a separate track of audio from the user's instrument, according to the patent form."
- Real musical instrument
- Head mounted 3-D display
- Prerecorded concert
VS.
- Plastic guitar
- TV display
- Animated characters
Saying this patent applies to Guitar Hero is like saying that milk is the same as beer. You can drink them both, but the experience is completely different.
This looks like a classic poster boy for bad patents: the abstract indicates that Guitar Hero doesn't violate anything. First off, they explictly state musician. Guitar Hero players? Not hardly. Second, they state musical instrument. I don't think 4 buttons counts as an instrument. There are also no 3-D head gear, nor headphones involved.
If you start reading the claims, the entire thing falls apart at every level. First off - there's no instrument, and certainly no audio signal generated by the Guitar Hero "guitar", which appears to be the crux of their patent. Then again, IANAIP/PL (IP/Patent Lawyer).
I'm not even sure what exactly they're patenting here. There's no "System" that I can see, other than a very high level concept drawing and what looks like a basic high level distortion processor schematic. I was under the impression that "methods" like the abstract idea being described could not be patented.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
- Guitar Hero has been out for years, what were they just waiting to see if there was some money to be made from a suit?
- The game is crammed full of Gibson everything, I mean the guitar store looks more like a Gibson Factory Store than a Guitar Center. I mean who knew what a Firebird VII even was before Guitar Hero? There can't be that many Johnny Winter fans out there.
Sorry, I know these are common sense arguments, so they probably have no place in a patent discussion.As long as High School chics dig guitar players there will ALWAYS be a demand for guitars. GH3 isn't an instrument, its a guitar shaped gamepad, and a very limited one at that. Gibson has about as much to fear from GHx as The French Laundry does from Swanson TV Dinners.
Shouldn't the patent protect a specific method of solving to a problem, rather than just the idea that the problem needs a solution? That's the whole problem with the doctrine of equivalence: Far too often, it is used to bar the implementation of alternate (in many cases, better) solutions because someone else came up with a solution first. That seems at odds with the whole advancing-the-useful-arts purpose of the patent system.
I don't know whether Guitar Hero solves the given problem in the same way that Gibson did it. If they came up with a novel way to do it, then they should be allowed to make a product using that method. If it's the same solution (with different code or with minor variations in hardware) then the patent should apply (assuming the patent itself is valid).
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
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.