Top Mythconceptions On VG Patent Protection 41
Gamasutra has up a vociferously pro-IP feature discussing some of the major misconceptions over software patent law as they regard videogames. The article is written from a lawyer's perspective, and includes details on what you can patent, if it's worthwhile to patent, and the costs involved. From the article: "As more and more companies enter the market, and spend more and more resources developing those innovations, protecting those innovations will become even more critical. We hope this article has been helpful in dispelling some of the myths surrounding patents and video games, and we encourage all software game developers to take their intellectual property rights to heart."
zerg (Score:2)
(not nearly as cool as "ginormous"...)
Re:zerg (Score:2)
Re:zerg (Score:1)
Re:zerg (Score:2)
Ah well , it all works to convey the message equally well pun or not , Nice compound word though hee But i shan't remove Absobloodyloutly as my top fake word.
I'm pro-IP, too (Score:3, Funny)
RTFA? What FA?
WTF? (Score:1)
What's the use? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the use? (Score:2)
> which hasn't evolved into something else over
> time or simply been overthrown.
The key word here is "overthrown". Do you really want to overthrow the government to get rid of software patents? To go against an entire army of well-trained soldiers who will want to kill your sorry ass? Remember, that's what you have to do to change the government. George Washington had to do it. Lenin had to do it. Even George Bush had to do it in Iraq.
> All by
Re:What's the use? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the use? (Score:2)
Name one. A peaceful regime change is only possible with the consent of the old regime.
> You don't even need to overthrow a government to change the fscking IP law.
Then what do we need to do, wise guy? Write to our congressman? Puh-lease! He'll just chuck it in the trash with all the other "nutcase letters". Write him a fat check? I'm not a millionare. Arrange a public protest? It will get totally ignored, even i
Re:What's the use? (Score:1)
Gandhi taking India back from the British Empire.
Re:What's the use? (Score:2)
And if you don't get enough coverage now, you have to rally more supporters.
Re:What's the use? (Score:2)
Social movements need a critical mass of quite ordinary people who believe that something fundamental is at stake. Patent Reform doesn't draw workers or the middle class to the barricades. Least of all when the driving force is a technocratic elite with whom they share little in common.
Re:What's the use? (Score:1)
In terms of video game years, patents last a very very long time. Even a single granted patent to a single scrupulous lawyer could potentially stunt the entire industry for nearly 2 decades.
I wish there were something I could do to prevent these patents, emailing my congressman gets a fat lot of nothing done.
Re:What's the use? (Score:2, Insightful)
I've found telephone calls to be rather useful in speaking to my congressional representatives (or rather, the people employed to answer those calls). They get to ask questions to make sure they understand the issue and it's a lot harder for that staff to ignore conversations than the pile of random email, fax, and postal letters, and I'd at least like to think that having that conversation helps those emails on the same issue get noticed.
Myth #5 is a straw man (Score:4, Insightful)
The author fails to take into account what the majority of Slashdotters usually echo, which is "patents are for representations of things, copyright is for expression of ideas". Instead, the author tries to stifle the argument that some things might be patent-worthy while others are not, by claiming "but if we patent one thing, we must be able to patent everything." Why is that necessarily true?
As for the other myths? They speak nothing of patent-worthiness and deal with typical "Can I do this...?" questions that can be found in most USPTO application handouts.
Meh.
Re:Myth #5 is a straw man (Score:3, Informative)
Job Security (Score:1)
Why bother? (Score:1)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Now, everyone is screwed, including your Berry Saunders game.
Re:Why bother? (Score:1)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Innovative patent idea (Score:1)
"Method of providing a plot deviation in a written work by adding the idea or description of a butler wielding a murder weapon"
duh (Score:2)
Well, duh.
Re:duh (Score:1)
Seriously, I'm really disappointed that there aren't more comments on this general topic. I understood the views expressed in the article, but I must say, that I understand that they are largely propaganda. I believe that IP should be protected, but seriously, we've gone too far when a Gigabuck company can put a chain-link fence around something so basic as a Scoring "based on goals achieved and subjective elemen
Re:duh (Score:2)
Of course, it costs money for companies to think, because they have to pay you or me. The question is, do we put a
Re: (Score:2)
Carmack's experience with patents and Doom3 (Score:3, Informative)
A week before the game's release, it became known that an agreement to include EAX audio technology in Doom 3 reached by id Software and Creative Labs was heavily influenced by a software patent owned by the latter company. The patent dealt with a technique for rendering shadows called Carmack's Reverse, which was developed independently by both John Carmack and programmers at Creative Labs. id Software would have been putting themselves under legal liability if they used the technique in the finished game, so to defuse the issue, id Software agreed to license Creative Labs sound technologies in exchange for indemnification against lawsuits.
You can find more detail here [shacknews.com]
Reactions (Score:3, Insightful)
#1: "Many in the industry feel that games are simply software, and that they cannot be patented. This is untrue. To the contrary, patents may be obtained on "anything under the sun that is made by man,"4 and computer programs are no exception."
Right, and that's exactly what we're mad about, sport. This is actually a rather new aspect of patent law, which has, in other fields, resulted in things like patenting business methods, which is more obviously wrong to non-geeks. Software patenting is still wrong, however.
The patents listed, like one my Microsoft on a method of scoring, are all wrongheaded and could just as easily used as examples of why game patents are bad. Take a look at the footnotes at the end -- apparently Sega patented the customers that scramble out of the way of your cab in Crazy Taxi! Damn you Sega, for the patent, and for wrecking my respect for one of my favorite games with knowledge of the patent!
You can even get patent protection on purely ornamental designs associated with games. These patents, known as "design patents," protect ornamental aspects of items, such as the distinct appearance of a game console (U.S. Design Patent No. D452,282) or an onscreen icon (U.S. Design Patent No. D487,574).
Ornamental designs outside of software are irrelevant to this discussion. Design patents of digital images, frequently used by Apple, are not innovation stiflers to that degree, so they're not really what we're mad about.
(Notice how I cleverly include you into my perspective, with the clandestine use of the word "we!" Not that this is very risky, this being Slashdot and all....)
Many of these "mythconceptions" (I cringe just typing that!) are more along the lines of "hey look at how easy it is," and "look at all the cool things you can do to punish people!" My primary objection to software patents is that, if you're *not* a big corporation, you can put yourself into a lot of legal jeopardy just by programming a random idea you had, if it happens to intrude onto someone's technological backyard. The field of computer programming is uniquely suited to be advanced by hobbyists, that's how we got Linux after all, so these patent issues affect us rather heavily. However, these same issues also affect the "outside world" as well, as I noted before about business method patents.
Myth 5. The "spirit of innovation" works best when there is a free market of ideas, and consumers are better off if video games are not patented.
A classic argument among those who feel that the entire patent system should be abolished. You might want to make that argument to your representative in Congress, because unless the Constitution is amended to do away with patents, they're here to stay.
Gee thanks, my dear jerk. As it happens, the Constitution makes allowances for protecting ideas "for limited times," but leaves the precise means of this protection up to Congress, wherein was authored the worst of our current patent system. Thus, to change things you needn't amend the Constitution, but just the specific law. You can bet that the Founding F's didn't forsee the ability to protect ANYTHING by way of a patent.
After reading this article, only 2 words to say... (Score:1)
As a student planning to enter the gaming industry (Score:2)
The current atmosphere of the industry is so open and friendly that it almost reminds me of the open source community. GDC is an excellent example of game developers gathering to share insights with the common goal of helping each other make better and better games.
Sadly, there is no doubt there are some companies, namely megalithic publishers such as EA and Ubisoft, that will be eager to pursue these legalistic battles to establish an atmosphere of anti-competition.
Can yo
Turd Polishing (Score:1)
As long as companys veiw patents a broadswords this will make the world shitty, quickly.
Article misses the point.... (Score:2)
All games are built on what has been done before and I don't like the idea of today's games makers building
Duplicate (Score:1)