I am not trying to say that it isn't like aggro. There are some superficial similarities between the marking system and aggro. However, they are only superficial. What with combats no longer being a party of PCs vs one or two monsters and now involving much arger groups of monsters and having a lot more mobility involved, making the defenders "sticky" adds an important variable to the combat. I think that the important distinction between the two systems is that in D&D, the DM controls who the monster attacks. The DM can ignore the marking penalty if the monster is one that would be able to make the tactical decision.
Ummm, no. Aggro, as used in MMOs, means that the MOB that has "aggro" on you has no choice but to attack you. It is a number in a file somewhere that MMO devs use to try to recreate the intelligence of a DM controlling a monster. In 4E, the marking may make it an unpleasent choice to attack someone else, but the option is still there if the DM determines that it makes good tactical sense for that monster. A stupid monster may just attack the last creature that attacked it and hurt it. A smart monster may say "OK, I will accept the damage I get from not attacking the dude in plate-mail so that I can take out the guy flinging around fireballs."
The comments from WotC that I saw on ENWorld seemed to indicate that the exclusion clause was to keep a 3rd party publisher from publishing the same book under both the GSL and the OGL.
I suspect that someone at WotC stepped on their crank by releasing information to a 3pp without fully confirming that what thought that they were confirming was what was actually being said.
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.
Like I said, it all depends on the wording, and how the invention of Guitar Freaks was claimed. The fact that one is a large arcade game and the Gibson patent seems to imply a much smaller device would probably be enough to make it different.
Without seeing the Guitar Freaks patent (if they have one), I couldn't make any solid judgement.
I am a patent examiner, and, according to Canadian law at least, prior implementations do count no matter where they were produced and/or used. A Patent is used to protect something new and innovative. If it has already existed somewhere in the world, it is not new, and thus, no patent should be granted. However, as in most things, it is all in the details. Depending on how the claims are worded, there may small differences that are imperceptible to the layperson, but is vitally important to the inventions, which would result in patents being granted. Really, you need to look at the patent, line by line, to determine if there is violation of Gibson's patent rights.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not trying to say that it isn't like aggro. There are some superficial similarities between the marking system and aggro. However, they are only superficial. What with combats no longer being a party of PCs vs one or two monsters and now involving much arger groups of monsters and having a lot more mobility involved, making the defenders "sticky" adds an important variable to the combat. I think that the important distinction between the two systems is that in D&D, the DM controls who the monster attacks. The DM can ignore the marking penalty if the monster is one that would be able to make the tactical decision.
Ummm, no. Aggro, as used in MMOs, means that the MOB that has "aggro" on you has no choice but to attack you. It is a number in a file somewhere that MMO devs use to try to recreate the intelligence of a DM controlling a monster. In 4E, the marking may make it an unpleasent choice to attack someone else, but the option is still there if the DM determines that it makes good tactical sense for that monster. A stupid monster may just attack the last creature that attacked it and hurt it. A smart monster may say "OK, I will accept the damage I get from not attacking the dude in plate-mail so that I can take out the guy flinging around fireballs."
The comments from WotC that I saw on ENWorld seemed to indicate that the exclusion clause was to keep a 3rd party publisher from publishing the same book under both the GSL and the OGL. I suspect that someone at WotC stepped on their crank by releasing information to a 3pp without fully confirming that what thought that they were confirming was what was actually being said.
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.
Like I said, it all depends on the wording, and how the invention of Guitar Freaks was claimed. The fact that one is a large arcade game and the Gibson patent seems to imply a much smaller device would probably be enough to make it different. Without seeing the Guitar Freaks patent (if they have one), I couldn't make any solid judgement.
I am a patent examiner, and, according to Canadian law at least, prior implementations do count no matter where they were produced and/or used. A Patent is used to protect something new and innovative. If it has already existed somewhere in the world, it is not new, and thus, no patent should be granted. However, as in most things, it is all in the details. Depending on how the claims are worded, there may small differences that are imperceptible to the layperson, but is vitally important to the inventions, which would result in patents being granted. Really, you need to look at the patent, line by line, to determine if there is violation of Gibson's patent rights.