Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gibson Accuses Guitar Hero of Patent Violation

Posted by samzenpus on from the karaoke-crack-down dept.

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."

11 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Patenting games by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Patenting games by cizoozic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Damn right. I happen to have one in Cherry Red with gold hardware. The fact that Guitar Hero had it too is one of the only reasons I played the game as long as I did. Anything difficult in GH and I would think to myself, "Why am I spending time improving Crossroads on Expert when I've been able to genuinely play it for years?" It's time better spent (for me) on my real technique. When they made fun of people who play real guitar and put down GH on South Park, I felt a bit sheepish as it hit so close to ome.

  2. Took their time by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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=

    1. Re:Took their time by ohtani · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IANAL, but from my understanding, no it doesn't. Konami can continue to make drummania as is, for example, but apparently they cannot bring it to the US like they were hoping to do because MTV was awarded a patent for drumming games. MTV did have one in the arcade prior to Rock Band. But it just had no "game" feel to it from my understanding.

      --
      Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
  3. jealous much? by molex333 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  4. Re:We don't want it by nguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You would have thought that whether they want one or not is fairly irrelevant.

    Not at all. If they don't "want" a license, it means that either they think the patent is invalid and they intend to fight it, or it means that they are going to work around it.

    There are good reasons to reject even a "free" license for a patent.

    Have you ever seen a case where a company wanted a license under a patent, but didn't need one? :-)

    All the time. Companies want licenses for patents if it is in their business interest to help another company establish the validity of a patent. Apple, for example, wanted a patent for one-click from Amazon even though it is unlikely that they actually needed it.

  5. I don't get it by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Crucify me, baby by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The problem with this is that Guitar Hero hasn't even come close to their patent. The patent doesn't seem to be overly broad to me.

    Their patent shows that there is a VR headset attached to the player's head (though it does mention a VR 'environment'. I don't think that a TV counts). That would include the video aspect. I haven't read the whole patent, but the experience is quite the opposite of GH. Their patent covers wearing these goggles and playing from a First Person View, as explained in the second paragraph of the patent.

    Another problem is that the words "prerecorded video" are thrown around a LOT. All the game play video in GH is generated on the spot.

    I think the last problem is that the patent states that you would be playing a particular instrument (as opposed to an input device) so the GH guitar probably won't be covered as it doesn't produce any signals that can be representative of music.

    --
    This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  7. Re:Crucify me, baby by bcat24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Exactly. The patent appears to cover a "real" guitar, complete with its own audio output. On the other hand, a Guitar Hero "guitar" is really just a fancy (PC|Playstation 2|Playstation 3|Wii|Xbox 360) controller.

  8. Re:We don't want it by reebmmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    where a company wanted a license under a patent

    Most definitely. Most of what I do is technology licensing.

    For many companies, getting a license to a patent is just as good as owning the patent (and usually without the unknown risks/costs associated with patent prosecution). In particular, an exclusive patent license basically gives the same right to exploit an invention as a patent owner would have had, and stops others from doing the same.

    The problem the slashdot crowd has is a statistical one. It only gets reported when the claims are so outrageous or so painfully obvious. But, this makes up an increasingly small portion of the patents currently in force. Many companies see great value in some patents.
  9. Re:Making claims on the moon by russotto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I mean, suppose you think about something that could be done, not the how, really, but the product, the result. You just go ahead and patent it. One day, someone creative, resourceful will be able to implement it and -- there -- you pull your patent out of the drawer!


    Yes. The Supreme Court noticed this tendency in Atlantic Works v. Brady in 1882.

    "It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts."