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?
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?
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
Here's a link: the patent
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.
From the patent itself:
12. The system of either claim 10 or claim 11 wherein the video display and the audio playback transducer are combined in a stereoscopic head set wearable by the user.
14. The system of claim 13 wherein the audio portion of the pre-recorded musical performance comprises a separate instrument sound track and whereby the characteristic of the audio portion controlled by the source audio control circuit is a volume level of the instrument sound track played by the system.
19. The system of claim 13 further comprising a headset wearable by the user, the headset having left and right audio speakers and a stereoscopic video display, the left and right speakers operably connected to left and right channels on the source audio output and to the controlled audio output, and the video display operably connected to the source video output.
21. A system for allowing a player using a guitar to control simulated participation in a musical concert during synchronous playback of a pre-recorded concert video track, pre-recorded left and right concert sound tracks, and a separate pre-recorded guitar track, the system comprising:
27. The method of claim 26 wherein the musical instrument is a guitar.
I'm not sure which patent you were reading...
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)
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.
"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." Not if you're a "Newcomer" in Alien Nation ;-)
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.
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...
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.
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."
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
As if it matters what your fake guitar looks like...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
If I can't start with the patent and figure out how to build the "infringing" technology from it, it's a worthless patent.
If reading the patent doesn't give me some insight that makes building the "infringing" device easier, it's a worthless patent.
This is a worthless patent. They might as well have written "Play the guitar... on a computer!!! And see pictures!!! ZOMG!"
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
If you are getting legal about it, the Guitar Hero guitar is not a guitar, its a [insert selected console here] controller, in a plastic shell that resembles a guitar. You dont need their guitar controller to play the game, although it does make it easier to play the game, and it makes you look manly infront of your male gaming friends when you mastered Through the Fire and Flames by DragonForce on expert....have fun finding a girlfriend, you losers.
Totally agree with you.
I am an IP paralegal and have training and real experience with patents specifically (relating to computer tech). I read the claims, and frankly, I can't see how Guitar Hero possibly infringes. There are so many claims, you would have to have that exact embodiment to infringe.
Patents are counter-intuitive: you would think that the more you claim, the better your patent; but that really isn't the case. The more ambiguous your claims, the better off you are.
For example, if I claimed that my patent is "a computer in a vehicle", it is not better to say "a computer having a at least 512MB of RAM and standard keyboard interface and display permanently affixed to a mobile system with 4 wheels." The 2nd just narrowed my claims. All a potential infringer has to do is have the same computer but with 511MB of RAM, or put it in a motorcycle, or an 18-wheeler.
If I claim A, B, C, and D, but you infringed on only A, B, and C, then too-bad-so-sad you did not infringe my patent.
It's not if I claim A, B, C, and D and you infringe on B that you infringe my patent (like this suit seems to suggest).
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
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.
I think they would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the junky plastic toy used in GH is comparable to a Les Paul...
Although I would find it totally amusing to watch *Gibson's* lawyers try and convince a court that they are comparable.