Octopus Overlords

The cephalopod roams the ocean in search of food. Likewise, there are now patent lawyers roaming for clients, yes, the underserved clients in the gaming industry. They were previously not aware they needed these services. But no more!

The patent lawyers mean to offer their good services to protect the game developers’ inventions from copycats. Do you realize this may grind innovation to a halt? Let’s look at a quote from the the most brilliant programmer to grace gaming – J. Carmack:
“Getting a patent is uncorrelated to any positive attributes, and just serves to allow either money or wasted effort to be extorted from generally unsuspecting and innocent people or companies.” (source is bluesnews.com)

Lotsa patents could produce two effects. One, gaming could become concentrated in just a few companies. Any independent developers could be sued for any copying of ideas. Ideas like 3d movement, artificial intelligence, and environmental sound effects. Do you realize this? Can small companies afford to defend themselves against a patent challenge?

Second, patents could stifle innovation. However, this effect may not be noticeable because innovation has been at a minimum lately. Can I repeat this – innovation has been at a minimum. Just as cephalopods swim the ocean for food, will you find yourself roaming the bargain bin for yesterday’s invention? Or, will new releases continue to offer novel gameplay in the face of an avalanche of patent challenges? The future is indeed uncertain.

I’ll let you decide.

One: You make very little sense

Two: However, this has, miraculously, not stopped you from actually making a good point here. Though, it's not just games suffering. It seems these days that *everything* is patented. Putting more than 3 blades on a razor is able to be patented? That's pretty well BS. You can't have minigames during loading screens because of patents? Yikes. Someday, somebody is going to patent the technology that makes it so you don't have any loading screen and then we're all totally fubared.

ChrisGrenard wrote:fubared.

I hate being f'ed up beyond all recognitioned.

If someone could patent assholes it might put EA out of business.

lorax wrote:
Second, patents could stifle innovation. However, this effect may not be noticeable because innovation has been at a minimum lately. Can I repeat this – innovation has been at a minimum.

Might the ability to patent new ideas and techniques encourage innovation?

Ironrod wrote:

lorax wrote:
Second, patents could stifle innovation. However, this effect may not be noticeable because innovation has been at a minimum lately. Can I repeat this – innovation has been at a minimum.

Might the ability to patent new ideas and techniques encourage innovation?

Could you repeat that, please?

Ironrod wrote:

lorax wrote:
Second, patents could stifle innovation. However, this effect may not be noticeable because innovation has been at a minimum lately. Can I repeat this – innovation has been at a minimum.

Might the ability to patent new ideas and techniques encourage innovation?

Points for you.

Or maybe not, since scoring based upon goals achieved and subjective elements is patented.

lorax wrote:
Second, patents could stifle innovation.

I don't think patents stifle innovation. Innovation is the act of introducing something new. Copying an idea that another company has used isn't introducing something new. And, as Ironrod suggests, patents may even inspire more innovation, if a pc game designer is confident that he will bring something unique to his game that will make his tgame more popular, without having to worry about competitors using the same feature to attract some of his audience.

What patents can do is stifle good gameplay - from the perspective of not allowing games to use good features/genres that other games have used. Of course, it could also mean fewer bad clones.

It wouldn't affect a large company's ability to produce a game with whatever features they wanted. Just because a patent exists doesn't mean that you can't do exactly what they did. What it DOES mean is that in order to do what someone else patented, you need to pay a license fee / royalties. If some small company managed to go and innovate a bunch of different game ideas right now and managed to patent them, they would stand to make lots of money from the big companies.

Also, note that a patent doesn't necessarily need to be implemented. You can invent the process for a game to do something without actually implementing it, yet reap the rewards when another game implements your patented idea. How's that for a doozy?

I suppose a new way to get into the game biz would be "I have a patent on this 'technology'. Hire me, and you can use it." :p

Fubeca wrote:Just because a patent exists doesn't mean that you can't do exactly what they did.

Webster defines patent: a grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

Let the definition speak for itself.

lorax wrote:

Fubeca wrote:Just because a patent exists doesn't mean that you can't do exactly what they did. ** What it DOES mean is that in order to do what someone else patented, you need to pay a license fee / royalties. **

Webster defines patent: a grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

Let the definition speak for itself.

There ya go Mr Reading Comprehension, I added the rest of the quote that you somehow missed.

malichai11 wrote: There ya go Mr Reading Comprehension, I added the rest of the quote that you somehow missed.

Can you repeat this?

Patent wars might be as destructive as all that. The problem comes in finding someone to cast the first stone.

An entire industry that leverages off other people's work for each and every "innovation" that comes up. Game companies don't innovate for fear of not selling, rather than worrying that their idea will be copied.

(View is opionated projection and may have no factual basis)

There is actually a patent on using the right thumb stick on the PS2 for camera control. And, the people that own it are now trying to sue most major publishers.

In fact this patent mania started some time ago. Every publisher has patents on game mechanics. Namco, for example, has the patent on mini-games during loading screens.

The industry is currently in a 'patent cold war.' Meaning, as soon as one major publisher starts suing, the others will quickly follow suit. Lawyers have to justify their existence, y'know

The problem right now is patents are issued for the most MUNDANE stuff.

Patents are supposed to be for an innovation, a brand new way to do things. Kevlar, spun liquid crystal, is derived from textiles, and is definitely worth a patent. New uses, new process, etc. It's a new physical product, not just a way to do things.

Simple stuff like "use right stick to control camera and left stick to move" on a dual-analog controller is incredibly STUPID and not worthy of a patent.

Ironrod wrote:

lorax wrote:
Second, patents could stifle innovation. However, this effect may not be noticeable because innovation has been at a minimum lately. Can I repeat this – innovation has been at a minimum.

Might the ability to patent new ideas and techniques encourage innovation?

Exactly. I know a lot of engineers that get bonuses for each idea of theirs that is patented. This encourages innovation - without any sort of carrot, there isn't much incentive to do anything but copy whatever is already available and popular.

jg93 wrote:The industry is currently in a 'patent cold war.' Meaning, as soon as one major publisher starts suing, the others will quickly follow suit. Lawyers have to justify their existence, y'know

On behalf of the cephalopods, thank you for revealing the inside workings of the game industry. The future battleground is coalescing: Innovation Wars: Attack of the Patents. And then the Revenge of the Innovators. Or maybe not.

lorax wrote:Or maybe not.

That's what I tend to think when reading your posts.

I'm not sure if everyong realizes this, but you can have a patent granted for pretty much any old crap.
However, that does not mean it will stand up in court.
A common scenario is: X gets a patent for "use right stick to control camera and left stick to move". X asks Y to pay royalties. Y doesn't believe X invented it and tells them to get stuffed. X takes Y to court. Y shows a single instance (in the court) where "using right stick to control camera and left stick to move" was used by another company prior to the patent lodgement date. Court rules in Y's favour.
The best patent case is probably Honeywell v IBM? (that isn't the correct name) back in the 50s, 60s, 70s(?). This gave lawyers a lifetime of work, and in the end the court decided that the patent was invalid.
A couple of years ago Rambus(?) tried to sue Infineon Labs about patents relating to DDR - again the patents didn't stand.
Patent lawyers are happy to waste people's time and money, but the patent still has to be a true invention.

Brain wrote:I'm not sure if everyone realizes this, but you can have a patent granted for pretty much any old crap.

The cephalopods don’t realize the repercussions. A deluge of patent challenges could very well grind innovation to a halt. Suits versus suits. Once started, would the madness ever end?

The cephalopods must realize that patent challenges are not a “carrot” that results in innovative games. Otherwise, great paintings would be painted within the confines of a cubicle. Dilbert style. But this ain’t the case.

The cephalopods must realize that innovation is at a minimum and the best solution is the promotion of creativity. How do constant patent challenges encourage creativity? Just as octopuses freely roam the ocean in search of food, game designers need to be free to invent and rescue PC gaming from the doldrums of the rehashed sequel.

One cannot patent a painting. May we assume that you meant to refer to copyrights, which are an entirely different concept?

lorax wrote:The cephalopods must realize that innovation is at a minimum

You'll have to repeat this several more times before it's true.

Just out of curiousity, when exactly did "innovation" peak?

Scanner wrote: Just out of curiousity, when exactly did "innovation" peak?

Innovation peaked with the invention of Sliced Bread. It's all been downhill since then.

Tareeq wrote:One cannot patent a painting. May we assume that you meant to refer to copyrights, which are an entirely different concept?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Nade wrote:

Scanner wrote: Just out of curiousity, when exactly did "innovation" peak?

Innovation peaked with the invention of Sliced Bread. It's all been downhill since then.

I dunno. Have you seen what they've been doing with bagels lately? Pretty intriguing stuff.

Kadoth Nodens wrote:

Nade wrote:

Scanner wrote: Just out of curiousity, when exactly did "innovation" peak?

Innovation peaked with the invention of Sliced Bread. It's all been downhill since then.

I dunno. Have you seen what they've been doing with bagels lately? Pretty intriguing stuff.

Sliced Bageds?

It's the best thing since sliced bread. Course, it's still not as good as sliced bread.

Tareeq wrote:One cannot patent a painting. May we assume that you meant to refer to copyrights, which are an entirely different concept?

Patents and copyrights are forms of intellectual property. Further, a painting method can be patented.

It is fantastical to arrogate similar concepts as "entirely different". Just as octopuses have many arms, concepts have many meanings. Can I repeat this? Concepts have many meanings.

Patents and copyrights are forms of intellectual property.

You know - it's ok to admit you don't understand the difference between patents anc copyrights. We won't stop loving you. In fact, I think admission could result in us growing closer.

lorax wrote:

Tareeq wrote:One cannot patent a painting. May we assume that you meant to refer to copyrights, which are an entirely different concept?

Patents and copyrights are forms of intellectual property. Further, a painting method can be patented.

It is fantastical to arrogate similar concepts as "entirely different". Just as octopuses have many arms, concepts have many meanings. Can I repeat this? Concepts have many meanings.

I'm going to make this thread my registered trademark.

As a patent examiner, I need to chime in!

On the painting issue: yes, you can get a patent on the method of painting something. However, you cannot get a patent on a painting itself. That's a copyright, as has been mentioned earlier.

As for the quality of patents, yes, there are a lot of mundane, pretty worthless patents that are issued nowdays. But, you have to look at it from the prospective of the examiner as well. We aren't given a lot of time to fully look at an application. Our production rate is set at a level from the 1970s(!!). With the increasing complexity of most applications, we have less time to search, and with things working the way they are now at the patent office, if you can't find the claimed invention, you pretty much have to issue it. That "Scoring based on goals achieved and subjective elements" is a weak patent, I agree. But if the examiner couldn't find a reference in our allotted time of any sort that didn't disclose that invention before, she was stuck in issuing it.

If we had more time, I'm sure the quality of patents that are issued would increase. We don't. So you get crap like this. I've never personally issued anything like that, though.

Finally, as for the innovation stuff. The patent system was designed to encourage innovation. One of the laws in the patent code says you can get a patent for a non-obvious improvement of an existing idea. As a real basic example, you can't change the color of something from red to blue just to change it and get a patent. But if this color change produces a wholly non-obvious benefit (say, you decrease something's operating temperature by x degrees due to the color change), that can be patented. People are highly encouraged to try to improve on existing inventions; it's what leads to innovation and greatly increased technology. If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

Mike

well at least someone official piped up on this, but i still think this is going to be bad news as small companies will get sued out of existance by big ones just for their idea being simmilar. They can't affod to spend umpteen million on a legal defence of a game that could flop. I agree that a patent is a good thing when they are actualy important to the person doing some innovation getting their due credit and cash if they so choose, but this bs of companies theoretically patenting everything immaginable that they can just so they can sit back and make a killing by telling everyone else "if you want to use my wildly great idea pay me now. ohh, you have children give me their piggy bank too." And the smaller companies will have to pay even if the patent wouldn't stand up because they can't afford the legal cost and their game won't get released until it is considered crap anyway.

pr0ner wrote:As a patent examiner, I need to chime in!

So you handle copyright registrations?

Just to reiterate, you don't have to be a big company to come up with an original patentable idea. You can be joe-schmoe, come up with an awesome game idea, and patent it. Eventually, a big company is going to come out with a game that uses your idea. You wait for it to release, then you sue. Get tons of money off of royalties.

At least, that is what has happened to companies I've worked for in the past. Seems to work well enough for those individuals.

Another tactic that seems common is to wait until the statute of limitations is almost up so that you can get as much as you can (because the sales are already done, and can't be taken back, and you have a sure win in your bag).

Personally, I prefer the up-front approach, but that gives the game designers a chance to change the design. And, after all, you can't get rich if no one uses your patent by accident...

pr0ner wrote:If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

By definition, innovation is an original idea. Therefore, how could “original ideas” cause “innovation to slow to a crawl”? The truth is it can’t.

lorax wrote:

pr0ner wrote:If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

By definition, innovation is an original idea. Therefore, how could “original ideas” cause “innovation to slow to a crawl”? The truth is it can’t.

Then by (your) definition, any game that would run into trouble with patent issues is not innovative at all.

I think if killer robots ever attack the earth, we should show them this thread. They’ll be stuck in a logic-loop for weeks and we can whack them on the head with sticks.

Kadoth Nodens wrote:

lorax wrote:

pr0ner wrote:If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

By definition, innovation is an original idea. Therefore, how could “original ideas” cause “innovation to slow to a crawl”? The truth is it can’t.

Then by ... definition, any game that would run into trouble with patent issues is not innovative at all.

Whether an idea has a patent or not, the definition of innovation stays the same. An original idea.

The poster stated that "original ideas" result in less innovation. This is untrue for as long as the dictionary is available.

lorax wrote:

Kadoth Nodens wrote:

lorax wrote:

pr0ner wrote:If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

By definition, innovation is an original idea. Therefore, how could "original ideas" cause "innovation to slow to a crawl"? The truth is it can't.

Then by ... definition, any game that would run into trouble with patent issues is not innovative at all.

Whether an idea has a patent or not, the definition of innovation stays the same. An original idea.

The poster stated that "original ideas" result in less innovation. This is untrue for as long as the dictionary is available.

No, the original poster (and that would be you, lorax) stated that patents could stifle innovation. But if we use your definition of innovation - a completely original idea - then it has nothing to fear from any existing patent.

No, the original poster (and that would be you, lorax) stated that patents could stifle innovation. But if we use your definition of innovation - a completely original idea - then it has nothing to fear from any existing patent.

Except, perhaps, STDs.

Parents, tell your patents never to jump without a parachute!

Scanner wrote:

lorax wrote:

pr0ner wrote:If we were wholly reliant on 100% original ideas, innovation would slow to a crawl.

By definition, innovation is an original idea. Therefore, how could "original ideas" cause "innovation to slow to a crawl"? The truth is it can't.

No, the original poster ... stated that patents could stifle innovation. But if we use your definition of innovation - a completely original idea - then it has nothing to fear from any existing patent.

Are you suggesting that innovation is "slowed to a crawl" by innovation?

lorax wrote:Are you suggesting that innovation is "slowed to a crawl" by innovation?

He's saying that your incosistent definitions of innovation have resulted in you contradicting yourself.