To patent or not to patent
by Jonathon Stevens · in General Discussion · 02/14/2007 (3:52 pm) · 23 replies
Sparking from what started to turn into a flame war at www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=12310 I've decided to start up a thread. I wasn't going to, and was just going to let it lie until my statements were called "grossly incorrect."
If you patent gameplay on a game that you are releasing, you are saying that no one else can even get near. A patent doesn't protect you simply from the EXACT duplication, but a close enough duplication depending on your lawyers. I know, I've been in a patent wars legally before.
No game is 100% original. Most aren't even 50% original. Do you think half-life would exist if someone had patented the FPS gameplay mechanics? Even if it did, should the first guy to win the patent race to get an FPS patented should get paid for everyone else's game?
Should you protect your investment? Yes. Should you patent it so no one can even come close to what you have? No. Every game takes from other games, period. Just like every movie takes from other movies. It's few and far between when you come across something incredibly unique.
If you patent gameplay on a game that you are releasing, you are saying that no one else can even get near. A patent doesn't protect you simply from the EXACT duplication, but a close enough duplication depending on your lawyers. I know, I've been in a patent wars legally before.
No game is 100% original. Most aren't even 50% original. Do you think half-life would exist if someone had patented the FPS gameplay mechanics? Even if it did, should the first guy to win the patent race to get an FPS patented should get paid for everyone else's game?
Should you protect your investment? Yes. Should you patent it so no one can even come close to what you have? No. Every game takes from other games, period. Just like every movie takes from other movies. It's few and far between when you come across something incredibly unique.
About the author
With a few casual games under his belt as CEO of Last Straw Productions, Jonathon created the increasingly popular Indie MMO Game Developers Conference.
#2
I won't go so far as to say that there's no such thing as a good software patent, but I will go so far as to say I've never even *heard* of one in all the years I've been aware of the issue.
The issue with software patents is generally one of the two following things:
1) A patent is supposed to protect a process or device, not an idea or result. Prior to computers that wasn't much of an issue because you could point to two different devices that went about completely different processes to reach the same result, and the patent on the first wouldn't cover the second. Unfortunately, in software patents, the 'device' at issue in the patent(s) is a general purpose computer programmed to reach result 'X'. It's completely changed the nature of the patent protection without adjusting the rules to compensate.
2) Math, laws of nature, etc are not supposed to be patentable (check the statutes in question), but nobody patents the math. They patent a device that performs the math. The device in question? Again, it's a general purpose computer running software that peforms said math.
3) Software patents tend to be written *extremely* broadly. They don't purport to cover a particular method of reaching result A. They purport to cover any method of reaching result A, including, but not limited to, the method described in the patent.
I have yet to see a software patent that actually covers material that would be patentable in any other form, but somehow the slight-of-hand of an off-the-shelf computer running software lets it slip through. How? That I don't know.
Why doesn't software deserve patent protection? Simple. The patent system was designed to protect inventors whose device/process took capital to create. Software can be created literally free, so there is no initial investment to incentivise.
As for the Coke/Pepsi example, you said:
The alternative to patents are trade secrets, which means, you keep it secret, but if someone figures out your secret, you don't have any protection. If you're familiar with trade secrets, you'll note that all trade secret protections are created by means of contracts between parties. (Incidentaly, never sign an NDA that doesn't have a time limit, or a clause that says you don't need to keep a non-secret secret, or you'll get stuck in a position where you cant utilize information that literally *everyone else* can.)
I find it kind of interesting that in any forum related to game development, the most common advice given when you say you don't want to someone to 'steal your idea' is that ideas are a dime a dozen, but here you actually claim that your *idea* deserves patent protection. See above, where I pointed out that patents aren't designed to protect ideas.
Also, the fact that you *can* get a patent on a game mechanic because it's done on a computer, doesn't mean you should. (Not the distinct spellings of the two words, 'can', and 'should'.) It also doesn't mean that it should have been approved. Better than 50% of all contested software patents are overturned and invalidated.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, don't take anything I've said here as legal advice.
02/14/2007 (6:08 pm)
As a professional developer (business software), and aspiring indie, I find it absolutely intriguing that so many things that cannot be patented (game rules, math, etc.) somehow immediately get through the patent process simply by virtue of being attached to a computer as software.I won't go so far as to say that there's no such thing as a good software patent, but I will go so far as to say I've never even *heard* of one in all the years I've been aware of the issue.
The issue with software patents is generally one of the two following things:
1) A patent is supposed to protect a process or device, not an idea or result. Prior to computers that wasn't much of an issue because you could point to two different devices that went about completely different processes to reach the same result, and the patent on the first wouldn't cover the second. Unfortunately, in software patents, the 'device' at issue in the patent(s) is a general purpose computer programmed to reach result 'X'. It's completely changed the nature of the patent protection without adjusting the rules to compensate.
2) Math, laws of nature, etc are not supposed to be patentable (check the statutes in question), but nobody patents the math. They patent a device that performs the math. The device in question? Again, it's a general purpose computer running software that peforms said math.
3) Software patents tend to be written *extremely* broadly. They don't purport to cover a particular method of reaching result A. They purport to cover any method of reaching result A, including, but not limited to, the method described in the patent.
I have yet to see a software patent that actually covers material that would be patentable in any other form, but somehow the slight-of-hand of an off-the-shelf computer running software lets it slip through. How? That I don't know.
Why doesn't software deserve patent protection? Simple. The patent system was designed to protect inventors whose device/process took capital to create. Software can be created literally free, so there is no initial investment to incentivise.
As for the Coke/Pepsi example, you said:
Quote:Imagine the gameplay being the equivalent of Cola -- Pepsi and Coke both have patents ... theres still tons of 'colas' out there two ...Actually, Coke & Pepsi don't use patents to protect their product. They use trade secrets. If Coke & Pepsi relied on patents, you'd be able to do a patent search and turn up their recipies. Trade secrets are the antithesis of patents. A patent is supposed to disclose the invention to the degree that, working only from the patent, someone 'normally skilled in the art' can recreate the invention in question. In exchange for making this information public, the inventor is granted a temporary monopoly on the use of that invention.
The alternative to patents are trade secrets, which means, you keep it secret, but if someone figures out your secret, you don't have any protection. If you're familiar with trade secrets, you'll note that all trade secret protections are created by means of contracts between parties. (Incidentaly, never sign an NDA that doesn't have a time limit, or a clause that says you don't need to keep a non-secret secret, or you'll get stuck in a position where you cant utilize information that literally *everyone else* can.)
I find it kind of interesting that in any forum related to game development, the most common advice given when you say you don't want to someone to 'steal your idea' is that ideas are a dime a dozen, but here you actually claim that your *idea* deserves patent protection. See above, where I pointed out that patents aren't designed to protect ideas.
Also, the fact that you *can* get a patent on a game mechanic because it's done on a computer, doesn't mean you should. (Not the distinct spellings of the two words, 'can', and 'should'.) It also doesn't mean that it should have been approved. Better than 50% of all contested software patents are overturned and invalidated.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, don't take anything I've said here as legal advice.
#3
Great insights and accurate info, together with varying yet reasonable opinions...
Don't you just love a great Forum thread?!
>>>>Optional Aside (You will not be tested on this.)
I will provide a bit of background here, for those just tuning in...
My name is Brian Colin, I've been designing and developing games for about 25 years for arcade coin-op, console, PC and the Legal Gambling Industry. About 5 years ago we invented a number of new brand new games of chance. Naturally, we patented many of these inventions. (NOT Software Patents mind you; Method Patents, which can be used in slot machines, in board games, for your state lottery, in a mechanical device, with a deck of cards, dominos or even colored gumballs)
Skip ahead five years...
Well, because we used some of our five-year-old inventions in our brand new game, ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN, we were denounced as being "sleazy". Apparently, a Patent in any form is a hot button topic... and the release of our new game was quickly being overshadowed by strong, if slightly misinformed, opinions.
(Thanks for moving the Thread here.)
<<<<
OK, here's my take on the issue, for what it's worth:
Everything David and Theo said regarding their understanding of Patents, how they work, what they're for, what they do and don't do... is pretty much "dead on balls accurate". (My Cousin Vinny) Although, I believe that Theo's concerns about the ease of getting through the patent process is a bit dated. The average patent takes about 5-six Years these days, and the rules for Software Patents are much tougher today than they were two years ago.
But here is the point: If you have worked hard creating something that has never existed before, you should absolutely do everything you can do to protect it in every way possible! If you want to share it later with absolutely anyone or everyone, great; you've got that right. But if you've protected it, you can STOP the big bad game companies from stealing it! Where's the down side?
A Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark.
It doesn't discourage imitation... it does, however, discourage theft.
(Also, I think that the fact that people sometimes confuse the word "idea" with the word "design" tends to exacerbate the problem....But that's another Thread)
02/14/2007 (9:09 pm)
Thanks David, Thanks Theo...Great insights and accurate info, together with varying yet reasonable opinions...
Don't you just love a great Forum thread?!
>>>>Optional Aside (You will not be tested on this.)
I will provide a bit of background here, for those just tuning in...
My name is Brian Colin, I've been designing and developing games for about 25 years for arcade coin-op, console, PC and the Legal Gambling Industry. About 5 years ago we invented a number of new brand new games of chance. Naturally, we patented many of these inventions. (NOT Software Patents mind you; Method Patents, which can be used in slot machines, in board games, for your state lottery, in a mechanical device, with a deck of cards, dominos or even colored gumballs)
Skip ahead five years...
Well, because we used some of our five-year-old inventions in our brand new game, ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN, we were denounced as being "sleazy". Apparently, a Patent in any form is a hot button topic... and the release of our new game was quickly being overshadowed by strong, if slightly misinformed, opinions.
(Thanks for moving the Thread here.)
<<<<
OK, here's my take on the issue, for what it's worth:
Everything David and Theo said regarding their understanding of Patents, how they work, what they're for, what they do and don't do... is pretty much "dead on balls accurate". (My Cousin Vinny) Although, I believe that Theo's concerns about the ease of getting through the patent process is a bit dated. The average patent takes about 5-six Years these days, and the rules for Software Patents are much tougher today than they were two years ago.
But here is the point: If you have worked hard creating something that has never existed before, you should absolutely do everything you can do to protect it in every way possible! If you want to share it later with absolutely anyone or everyone, great; you've got that right. But if you've protected it, you can STOP the big bad game companies from stealing it! Where's the down side?
A Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark.
It doesn't discourage imitation... it does, however, discourage theft.
(Also, I think that the fact that people sometimes confuse the word "idea" with the word "design" tends to exacerbate the problem....But that's another Thread)
#4
Please don't compare apples and oranges; it's not a good comparison. Pepsi and Coke have patents yes, but they certainly don't have patents on the TASTE or FORMULA of their products. Their formulas are trade secrets, nothing more. You can't patent a taste, just like you can't patent a smell or a formula leading to a smell. (Just finished reading the Theo's post.. beat me to it =P)
OK. Please don't post things as fact when you don't actually know them as such. DVD as a technology was created by 10 companies: Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson, Time Warner, and Toshiba. For anyone outside these companies to use DVD technology, they have to divvy up for it. To be exact:
This isn't exactly true either. If I were to create something similar that produces the same END RESULT, I could be sued for it and if my lawyers aren't better than the person sueing, chances are I'm going to loose.
That is the one statement I'll retract. It was an assault on the original poster because I was pissed off about the patent. I will however ask how many resources in the community were used in this game or influenced this game? Just something to think about.
What do you consider stealing? If I made a game where you had to fight to get your poker cards, is that stealing? If I make a game where you run around shooting demons in a FPS, am I ripping off Doom? Brian's game as a whole may be new, but the components of it certainly are not.
It's only a flame war if people attack other people as you are doing. I made every attempt to describe my concerns about the patent without flaming someone. My post was firm and matter of fact, but I did not attack anyone. I said the act of patenting gameplay was 'sleazy', not the person doing it.
Exactly. They are written this way to block anyone from coming close to what you did. This is a PRIME example of the problem I have with patents on gameplay. Patents have their place, but not in games.
Come on Brian. At least show me the respect I showed you. You can't possibly look back at my posts and say I out and out flamed you. I said the process was sleazy. After that, I dropped no names. I stated in EVERY post how I thought the game was very well done, polished, looked great and was fun to play. I said the idea of the game was fantastic.
You also didn't say that you used technology from a slot machine in your game. You made it sound 100% like you had patented part of your gameplay in that game. Don't mislead people, and they won't be misled.
I apologized and moved it from the dev snapshot to your blog. I stated 'not sure if this should go here' more than once and apologized if I offended anyone. As soon as a forum was suggested, I moved it to the forum. I hardly see an overshadowing of your game by my posts. How can you expect me to be informed on your patent if you haven't informed me yet?
Length of time to get through has nothing to do with the ease of the patent process. Creating the patent and submitting it are fairly easy. You can get a Provisional patent which takes far less time to go through the chains. If your patent is accepted, you are protected from the date you submitted it, not from the date of acceptance. Software patents are tougher in some ways now than a few years ago yes, but they are also easier in other ways.
Stop the people from making an exact duplicate or close duplicate yes. If someone came out with Arctic Stud Poker II, then you should fight them on it. But if someone uses part of your gameplay in their game, what right do you have to say 'Hey that is MINE?' You didn't invent poker and you didn't invent snowmobile battles. You simply put the two together.
A patent offers MUCH more protection and legal recourse than a copyright or trademark. Please don't make blanket statements which, based on your level of knowledge of patents, are completely incorrect and off base.
Patents completely discourage imitation. They are there to say, if you make something that looks like this, acts like this, ends up like this... then we'll sue.
You can't patent a design either. That's why all financial software pretty much looks the same, as does graphic design software, etc.
You can't even patent a website. I could make a site that looked 100% like yahoo and no one can touch me.
Edit: I purposely left out the background Brian as I wanted this to be a general discussion and not an attack on you. The only reason it's mentioned above is you brought it back into the conversation.
02/15/2007 (1:06 pm)
Quote:Imagine the gameplay being the equivalent of Cola -- Pepsi and Coke both have patents
Please don't compare apples and oranges; it's not a good comparison. Pepsi and Coke have patents yes, but they certainly don't have patents on the TASTE or FORMULA of their products. Their formulas are trade secrets, nothing more. You can't patent a taste, just like you can't patent a smell or a formula leading to a smell. (Just finished reading the Theo's post.. beat me to it =P)
Quote:Sony has patents on there DVD players, but Magnavox still makes DVD players too
OK. Please don't post things as fact when you don't actually know them as such. DVD as a technology was created by 10 companies: Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Philips, Pioneer, Sony, Thomson, Time Warner, and Toshiba. For anyone outside these companies to use DVD technology, they have to divvy up for it. To be exact:
Quote:Any company making DVD products must license essential technology patents from the " 3C ' pool (LG, Philips, Pioneer, Sony: 3.5% per player/drive, minimum $3.50; additional $0.75 for Video CD compatibility; 5 cents per disc), the " 6C " pool (Hitachi, IBM, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Time Warner, Toshiba, Victor: 4% per player/drive, minimum $4; 4% per "DVD Video decoder", minimum $1; 7.5 cents per disc) and from Thomson (~$1 per player/drive). Patent royalties may also be owed to Discovision Associates , which owns about 1300 optical disc patents (usually paid by the replicator).
Quote:There's nothing that says someone can't make a similar game, the patent prevents someone from duplicating the thing in your game that makes your game, what it is ...
This isn't exactly true either. If I were to create something similar that produces the same END RESULT, I could be sued for it and if my lawyers aren't better than the person sueing, chances are I'm going to loose.
Quote: the fact that someone paid $100 for a license to use the code that 'drives' there game is irrelevant to the fact that the gameplay is what makes the game fun
That is the one statement I'll retract. It was an assault on the original poster because I was pissed off about the patent. I will however ask how many resources in the community were used in this game or influenced this game? Just something to think about.
Quote:now to have someone turn around and 'steal' that idea, is awful
What do you consider stealing? If I made a game where you had to fight to get your poker cards, is that stealing? If I make a game where you run around shooting demons in a FPS, am I ripping off Doom? Brian's game as a whole may be new, but the components of it certainly are not.
Quote:Oh and ... just because you started a 'flame war'...
It's only a flame war if people attack other people as you are doing. I made every attempt to describe my concerns about the patent without flaming someone. My post was firm and matter of fact, but I did not attack anyone. I said the act of patenting gameplay was 'sleazy', not the person doing it.
Quote:Software patents tend to be written *extremely* broadly
Exactly. They are written this way to block anyone from coming close to what you did. This is a PRIME example of the problem I have with patents on gameplay. Patents have their place, but not in games.
Quote:Well, because we used some of our five-year-old inventions in our brand new game, ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN, we were denounced as being "sleazy".
Come on Brian. At least show me the respect I showed you. You can't possibly look back at my posts and say I out and out flamed you. I said the process was sleazy. After that, I dropped no names. I stated in EVERY post how I thought the game was very well done, polished, looked great and was fun to play. I said the idea of the game was fantastic.
You also didn't say that you used technology from a slot machine in your game. You made it sound 100% like you had patented part of your gameplay in that game. Don't mislead people, and they won't be misled.
Quote:and the release of our new game was quickly being overshadowed by strong, if slightly misinformed, opinions.
I apologized and moved it from the dev snapshot to your blog. I stated 'not sure if this should go here' more than once and apologized if I offended anyone. As soon as a forum was suggested, I moved it to the forum. I hardly see an overshadowing of your game by my posts. How can you expect me to be informed on your patent if you haven't informed me yet?
Quote: believe that Theo's concerns about the ease of getting through the patent process is a bit dated. The average patent takes about 5-six Years these days, and the rules for Software Patents are much tougher today than they were two years ago.
Length of time to get through has nothing to do with the ease of the patent process. Creating the patent and submitting it are fairly easy. You can get a Provisional patent which takes far less time to go through the chains. If your patent is accepted, you are protected from the date you submitted it, not from the date of acceptance. Software patents are tougher in some ways now than a few years ago yes, but they are also easier in other ways.
Quote:If you have worked hard creating something that has never existed before, you should absolutely do everything you can do to protect it in every way possible! If you want to share it later with absolutely anyone or everyone, great; you've got that right. But if you've protected it, you can STOP the big bad game companies from stealing it!
Stop the people from making an exact duplicate or close duplicate yes. If someone came out with Arctic Stud Poker II, then you should fight them on it. But if someone uses part of your gameplay in their game, what right do you have to say 'Hey that is MINE?' You didn't invent poker and you didn't invent snowmobile battles. You simply put the two together.
Quote:A Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark.
A patent offers MUCH more protection and legal recourse than a copyright or trademark. Please don't make blanket statements which, based on your level of knowledge of patents, are completely incorrect and off base.
Quote:It doesn't discourage imitation...
Patents completely discourage imitation. They are there to say, if you make something that looks like this, acts like this, ends up like this... then we'll sue.
Quote:(Also, I think that the fact that people sometimes confuse the word "idea" with the word "design" tends to exacerbate the problem....But that's another Thread)
You can't patent a design either. That's why all financial software pretty much looks the same, as does graphic design software, etc.
You can't even patent a website. I could make a site that looked 100% like yahoo and no one can touch me.
Edit: I purposely left out the background Brian as I wanted this to be a general discussion and not an attack on you. The only reason it's mentioned above is you brought it back into the conversation.
#5
The length of time taken during the patent-grant process has little if anything to do with the current ease of being granted the patent in the end. An example (admittedly non-US) is the Australian patent granted a few years back on... wait for it... the *wheel*.
On top of that, since patents are protected IIRC either 20 years from the date of issue, or 24 years from the date of initial filing (whichever is less), software techniques discovered in the '80s are just *now* falling out of patent protection. (There'a a patent out there on providing a 'ghost' of a previous race so you can see what you did before while you're driving the track again. Unfortunately, that patent is written broadly enough that you could potentially run into trouble for any sort of in-game re-play in any sort of game where you are active at the same time as the 'ghost'. (That's from the mid-'90s, so you won't be clear to use it for another decade or so.)
The side issue to this is that it's possible for a patent to still be in the private review phase, develop a similar technology, be on the market with it for several years, and then get nailed for patent infringement when the patent is approved.
Personally, I'd think that independant invention *before* the patent was public would be a pretty good indicator that the invention failed the non-obvious test, but I've had a corporate patent attorney tell me point-blank, "If it was so obvious, why didn't anybody else patent it before." The two answers to that question are, "Because they felt it was obvious, and therefor not patentable.", and "Just because you're the first person to solve the problem doesn't mean your idea is non-obvious. It could just mean you were the first one to run into the problem and have the time/resources to bother tackling the issue."
Copyright, Patent, and Trademark laws are almost completely different than one another because they serve different purposes.
Trademarks protect a company's public identity. (Note, not the quality of said identity, just the identity itself.)
Copyright protects the particular fixed form of a work. Independant creation is a defense against copyright, but not against patents. We can both write stories about snowmobilers collecting poker cards without a problem. Heck, if we've never seen each other's story, they can be word-for-word identical without a problem. (It's an uncommon occurrance to say the least, but it is the law.) There are some recent additions to copyright law that run counter to the constitutionally stated goal of the system, but that's another topic entirely so I'll leave it at that.
Trade Secrets are protected entirely through contracts.
Patents as applied to physical objects protect the particular method/device. Two devices can have the same result (and even very similar methods) without issue. Do a patent search for ergonomic shovels some time, you'd be amazed how many different takes there are on the subject.
Patents as applied to software invariably protect a device running software which provides the described result. Sadly, most software patents don't even get into the method actually *used*, they describe the device (a computer) which results in X and all things similar enough to X to squeeze into the patent. They also invariably fail to describe the invention in enough detail that someone 'ordinarilly skilled in the art' could reproduce the patented invention simply by reading the patent.
Name me one other field where the legal response to patent questions is to tell the people creating the product to actively avoid looking into potential patent hits. Why is this advice given? Because if you knew or should have known that you were infringing a patent, damages are tripled. What does 'should have known' mean? It doesn't mean you found a match and ignored it, or even that you found a match and incorrectly thought it didn't apply to your work. It means you *looked* for patents that potentially covered your work.
What are the main, root causes of the current software patent mess?
1) Lack of Experienced Patent Inspectors - Relatively few programmers take jobs at the patent office because the pay there is so much lower than the pay in the private sector ($35-40K near the top end, IIRC)
2) Stupid Procedural and Policy Directives - Patent inspectors get, on average, less than a day to look at a patent, search for prior art, and give their written ruling (Pass, Fail, or Clarify are the options). Patent inspectors are currently graded on how many patents they issue, not how many patents the handle. A fairly recent policy shift at the patent office changed the default for a questionable patent from *deny* to *approve*.
3) Lack of Reliable Information - Software is a fairly new field. This means there isn't a wealth of prior-art specific to the field, and the information readily at the disposal of the patent inspectors isn't consistently categorized.
An example of software patent stupidity that just came to mind is the patent on LZW compression, most commonly known as the compression algorithm used in GIF images, but also used in a couple other image formats like (TIFF). Not only was something that is *expressly* a mathmatic algorithm patented contrary plain statutory language, but it was independantly patented by TWO different companies a couple years apart. That's right, a patent on the same, legally unpatentable 'invention' was granted twice, once to IBM, and once to CompuServe. IBM is the lesser of two evils in this case, because they use their patent pool almost exclusively for defensive purposes (never sue IBM for patent issues, they'll have a paralegal spend 30 minutes and come back with 20 patents they *know* you're infringing, and file a counter-suit). CompuServe sat on the patent for nearly 10 years before deciding to make their claim on the GIF image format.
I'm pretty sure you can all guess my position on the topic. :)
02/15/2007 (6:02 pm)
Quote:
Quote:
-----
believe that Theo's concerns about the ease of getting through the patent process is a bit dated. The average patent takes about 5-six Years these days, and the rules for Software Patents are much tougher today than they were two years ago.
-----
Length of time to get through has nothing to do with the ease of the patent process. Creating the patent and submitting it are fairly easy. You can get a Provisional patent which takes far less time to go through the chains. If your patent is accepted, you are protected from the date you submitted it, not from the date of acceptance. Software patents are tougher in some ways now than a few years ago yes, but they are also easier in other ways.
The length of time taken during the patent-grant process has little if anything to do with the current ease of being granted the patent in the end. An example (admittedly non-US) is the Australian patent granted a few years back on... wait for it... the *wheel*.
On top of that, since patents are protected IIRC either 20 years from the date of issue, or 24 years from the date of initial filing (whichever is less), software techniques discovered in the '80s are just *now* falling out of patent protection. (There'a a patent out there on providing a 'ghost' of a previous race so you can see what you did before while you're driving the track again. Unfortunately, that patent is written broadly enough that you could potentially run into trouble for any sort of in-game re-play in any sort of game where you are active at the same time as the 'ghost'. (That's from the mid-'90s, so you won't be clear to use it for another decade or so.)
The side issue to this is that it's possible for a patent to still be in the private review phase, develop a similar technology, be on the market with it for several years, and then get nailed for patent infringement when the patent is approved.
Personally, I'd think that independant invention *before* the patent was public would be a pretty good indicator that the invention failed the non-obvious test, but I've had a corporate patent attorney tell me point-blank, "If it was so obvious, why didn't anybody else patent it before." The two answers to that question are, "Because they felt it was obvious, and therefor not patentable.", and "Just because you're the first person to solve the problem doesn't mean your idea is non-obvious. It could just mean you were the first one to run into the problem and have the time/resources to bother tackling the issue."
Quote:
Quote:
-----
A Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark.
-----
A patent offers MUCH more protection and legal recourse than a copyright or trademark. Please don't make blanket statements which, based on your level of knowledge of patents, are completely incorrect and off base.
Copyright, Patent, and Trademark laws are almost completely different than one another because they serve different purposes.
Trademarks protect a company's public identity. (Note, not the quality of said identity, just the identity itself.)
Copyright protects the particular fixed form of a work. Independant creation is a defense against copyright, but not against patents. We can both write stories about snowmobilers collecting poker cards without a problem. Heck, if we've never seen each other's story, they can be word-for-word identical without a problem. (It's an uncommon occurrance to say the least, but it is the law.) There are some recent additions to copyright law that run counter to the constitutionally stated goal of the system, but that's another topic entirely so I'll leave it at that.
Trade Secrets are protected entirely through contracts.
Patents as applied to physical objects protect the particular method/device. Two devices can have the same result (and even very similar methods) without issue. Do a patent search for ergonomic shovels some time, you'd be amazed how many different takes there are on the subject.
Patents as applied to software invariably protect a device running software which provides the described result. Sadly, most software patents don't even get into the method actually *used*, they describe the device (a computer) which results in X and all things similar enough to X to squeeze into the patent. They also invariably fail to describe the invention in enough detail that someone 'ordinarilly skilled in the art' could reproduce the patented invention simply by reading the patent.
Name me one other field where the legal response to patent questions is to tell the people creating the product to actively avoid looking into potential patent hits. Why is this advice given? Because if you knew or should have known that you were infringing a patent, damages are tripled. What does 'should have known' mean? It doesn't mean you found a match and ignored it, or even that you found a match and incorrectly thought it didn't apply to your work. It means you *looked* for patents that potentially covered your work.
What are the main, root causes of the current software patent mess?
1) Lack of Experienced Patent Inspectors - Relatively few programmers take jobs at the patent office because the pay there is so much lower than the pay in the private sector ($35-40K near the top end, IIRC)
2) Stupid Procedural and Policy Directives - Patent inspectors get, on average, less than a day to look at a patent, search for prior art, and give their written ruling (Pass, Fail, or Clarify are the options). Patent inspectors are currently graded on how many patents they issue, not how many patents the handle. A fairly recent policy shift at the patent office changed the default for a questionable patent from *deny* to *approve*.
3) Lack of Reliable Information - Software is a fairly new field. This means there isn't a wealth of prior-art specific to the field, and the information readily at the disposal of the patent inspectors isn't consistently categorized.
An example of software patent stupidity that just came to mind is the patent on LZW compression, most commonly known as the compression algorithm used in GIF images, but also used in a couple other image formats like (TIFF). Not only was something that is *expressly* a mathmatic algorithm patented contrary plain statutory language, but it was independantly patented by TWO different companies a couple years apart. That's right, a patent on the same, legally unpatentable 'invention' was granted twice, once to IBM, and once to CompuServe. IBM is the lesser of two evils in this case, because they use their patent pool almost exclusively for defensive purposes (never sue IBM for patent issues, they'll have a paralegal spend 30 minutes and come back with 20 patents they *know* you're infringing, and file a counter-suit). CompuServe sat on the patent for nearly 10 years before deciding to make their claim on the GIF image format.
I'm pretty sure you can all guess my position on the topic. :)
#6
Once again, some great info regarding IP protections in general, & the pitfalls & foibles of Software Patents in particular. (I personally feel that salting the text with the word "stupid" tends to diminish the objectivity of the points you're making, but they're still good points, nonetheless.)
------
ET AL...
I'm guessing too, that almost everyone who've been following this probably understands my position as well, but since I've been quoted out of context a couple of times I'm going to restate one comment (that was meant to be encouraging) again using the nifty bold text feature so as to eliminate any possible confusion... & remember, I'm speaking here, not a a lawyer, but as an individual who has spent his entire life creating, designing, developing and inventing stuff that wasn't there before I started... :)
"...a Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark"
A thoughtful reading of the numerous previous posts should be enough to convince everyone that problems can be found in many aspects of our (and from the sound of it, Australia's) legal systems, ...but when all is said and done, it's what we've got to work with.
My advice to the Community-At-Large: (as if anyone cares)...
Stay reasonably well informed, do your due diligence, and do your best to be original.*
You'll have a nice life, and have some fun while you're doing it.
-------
*On the other hand, if you're worried that you can't be original, or that your best isn't good enough, then yeah; you probably should fear all aspects of Intellectual Property Protection. Hopefully, it won't negatively affect your outlook.
02/16/2007 (1:31 pm)
Note to Theo...Once again, some great info regarding IP protections in general, & the pitfalls & foibles of Software Patents in particular. (I personally feel that salting the text with the word "stupid" tends to diminish the objectivity of the points you're making, but they're still good points, nonetheless.)
------
ET AL...
I'm guessing too, that almost everyone who've been following this probably understands my position as well, but since I've been quoted out of context a couple of times I'm going to restate one comment (that was meant to be encouraging) again using the nifty bold text feature so as to eliminate any possible confusion... & remember, I'm speaking here, not a a lawyer, but as an individual who has spent his entire life creating, designing, developing and inventing stuff that wasn't there before I started... :)
"...a Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark"
A thoughtful reading of the numerous previous posts should be enough to convince everyone that problems can be found in many aspects of our (and from the sound of it, Australia's) legal systems, ...but when all is said and done, it's what we've got to work with.
My advice to the Community-At-Large: (as if anyone cares)...
Stay reasonably well informed, do your due diligence, and do your best to be original.*
You'll have a nice life, and have some fun while you're doing it.
-------
*On the other hand, if you're worried that you can't be original, or that your best isn't good enough, then yeah; you probably should fear all aspects of Intellectual Property Protection. Hopefully, it won't negatively affect your outlook.
#7
*sigh* I guess there's just no getting through.
So you're not saying a patent is like a copyright or trademark, but that they shouldn't be feared any more than the other? This is still a poor comparison since patents award a LOT more to the person filing than the other two do.
I wont repeat everything I said before, I'll just say to reread what I and Theo wrote as it explains this pretty well.
Another unprofessional and direct stab since you are obviously pointing this at people who disagree with patents. Since we're obviously beating a dead horse, I'm going to leave it at that until there is something productive moving this conversation forward.
02/16/2007 (1:51 pm)
Quote:(as if anyone cares)...
*sigh* I guess there's just no getting through.
Quote:"...a Patent is nothing to fear; no more than a copyright or a trademark"
So you're not saying a patent is like a copyright or trademark, but that they shouldn't be feared any more than the other? This is still a poor comparison since patents award a LOT more to the person filing than the other two do.
I wont repeat everything I said before, I'll just say to reread what I and Theo wrote as it explains this pretty well.
Quote:On the other hand, if you're worried that you can't be original, or that your best isn't good enough, then yeah; you probably should fear all aspects of Intellectual Property Protection. Hopefully, it won't negatively affect your outlook.
Another unprofessional and direct stab since you are obviously pointing this at people who disagree with patents. Since we're obviously beating a dead horse, I'm going to leave it at that until there is something productive moving this conversation forward.
#8
Some time ago I have read following article at gamasutra.com,
and I have to say that I understand Brians concern about a clone or a copy of his game.
Let's say some big game publisher comes along, makes a kind of clone or copy of your game
and sells it big over the Internet, and actually makes tons of money, without even quoting your game or you.
On the other hand, don't forget that the game combines and is based on two existing gameplays or elements. For example Space Panic was one of the first platformers, one year later we had Donkey Kong.
I don't think that Miyamoto or Nintendo have bought any patents from Universal...
What I see is that IP-rights and creativity don't like each other.
Yes your IP should be protected! But how much of your idea belongs to you? Isn't your idea based on someone elses idea?
Gameplay should not be patented! But how do you want to protect your idea from being ripped of, leaving you alone in the dark?
I don't know how to solve the problem... i would suggest to listen to one of Lawrence Lessigs lessons,
it's Freeculture form OSCON 2002, it opened my eyes to some general problems of copyrights and patents.
02/17/2007 (3:17 am)
Phew... a very hot topic.Some time ago I have read following article at gamasutra.com,
and I have to say that I understand Brians concern about a clone or a copy of his game.
Let's say some big game publisher comes along, makes a kind of clone or copy of your game
and sells it big over the Internet, and actually makes tons of money, without even quoting your game or you.
On the other hand, don't forget that the game combines and is based on two existing gameplays or elements. For example Space Panic was one of the first platformers, one year later we had Donkey Kong.
I don't think that Miyamoto or Nintendo have bought any patents from Universal...
What I see is that IP-rights and creativity don't like each other.
Yes your IP should be protected! But how much of your idea belongs to you? Isn't your idea based on someone elses idea?
Gameplay should not be patented! But how do you want to protect your idea from being ripped of, leaving you alone in the dark?
I don't know how to solve the problem... i would suggest to listen to one of Lawrence Lessigs lessons,
it's Freeculture form OSCON 2002, it opened my eyes to some general problems of copyrights and patents.
#9
What if I had been working on a game for 2 years as an Indie that you happened to think up last year and were able to build your game faster which had the same basic gameplay as mine which I'd been working on for longer? Then you patent that gameplay thinking it's original since no one else has yet. Now all that work I'd done on a game that I was the first one to come up with and I can't make it anymore?
The reason I had such a problem with the game was that it said the gameplay was so fun it was patented, which implies all of it was patented, not one small piece of it. Poker runs are NOT a new thing, Poker is NOT a new thing, and snowmobile combat is NOT a new thing. With that in mind, since you shouldn't be able to copyright a formula or algorithm, I don't get why the patent was allowed on the algorithm that determines what the best cards available are....
02/17/2007 (5:59 am)
You have grounds to sue in cases such as what you see in the Gamasutra article you mentioned above even without a patent. You don't have to patent gameplay to sue someone for ripping your game off. Is it easier to sue with a patent? Yes. It's also easier to sue people who DIDN'T rip you off, but simply incorporated part of your gameplay or something SIMILAR but not the same as your gameplay, which is why I have a problem with it.What if I had been working on a game for 2 years as an Indie that you happened to think up last year and were able to build your game faster which had the same basic gameplay as mine which I'd been working on for longer? Then you patent that gameplay thinking it's original since no one else has yet. Now all that work I'd done on a game that I was the first one to come up with and I can't make it anymore?
The reason I had such a problem with the game was that it said the gameplay was so fun it was patented, which implies all of it was patented, not one small piece of it. Poker runs are NOT a new thing, Poker is NOT a new thing, and snowmobile combat is NOT a new thing. With that in mind, since you shouldn't be able to copyright a formula or algorithm, I don't get why the patent was allowed on the algorithm that determines what the best cards available are....
#10
Why is it that you think you need to "get thru" to them? Game Refuge isn't some big bad company that is going to get in the way of you making a game. You don't need to convince them that their patent is hurting anyone, because it isn't and they know that and all they hear is some internet guy taking a stab at them while they are just trying to sell their game they worked on in their spare time for 2 years. You DID call them sleazy. ONLY AN IDIOT would read what you said and not think you were directly calling them sleazy.
They release a game they busted their ass on for 2 years and you jump on their ass at the launch and announce that they are sleazy... which is the ONLY reason you are getting any attention on this topic. If you had just said you thought patents were bad... you'd have been ignored... but you called them sleazy on their lauch of their game and how would you feel if someone did that to you?! Is there no getting that thru to you?
It was an incredibly unthoughtful thing for you to do and you should stop talking about the topic like it is some abstract topic and treat it like what it is... a fucked up thoughtless act that you did because reading that they had a patent got your blood boiling. Yes... this is a vocal community but it is also a place to hopefully make dreams come true as an indie and you just started labeling them as sleazy right when they were trying to make that dream real and sell their game thru Garage Games.
You have a lot that you know about this topic... but the ONE single point you make is that an indie spends two years slaving away on a game and releases it and then can't sell it because of a patent... well, how about 2 years slaving away on a game and releasing it and having someone label you as sleazy... what do you think that does? They got the patent because that what people do and some people use it to harm and others for defense and you label Game Refuge as the sleazy people who want to harm. And that's simply not true and YOU are ignoring that. Ideals are great but this is the real world. Where labeling a company as sleazy is something that is potentially incredibly damaging. Don't you get that?
Let me restate one thing... if you hadn't called them sleazy then you would have been ignored. This is a conversation about how you are questioning a company's behavior... you seem to think it's just a discussion about patents in games. You layed a heavy heavy label on them and though you tried to say you mean no harm... hello!?!?! that's like accusing someone of un-ethical behavoir and thinking it won't harm them to be accused if they are proven innocent?! IMAGE IS EVERYTHING in sales. The game wasn't a hobby... it's for sale. They aren't Microsoft for god's sake. You label them sleazy on an indie website and it WILL hurt the sales of the game. And what is that called?
02/17/2007 (4:57 pm)
@Jonathon StevensQuote:*sigh* I guess there's just no getting through.
Why is it that you think you need to "get thru" to them? Game Refuge isn't some big bad company that is going to get in the way of you making a game. You don't need to convince them that their patent is hurting anyone, because it isn't and they know that and all they hear is some internet guy taking a stab at them while they are just trying to sell their game they worked on in their spare time for 2 years. You DID call them sleazy. ONLY AN IDIOT would read what you said and not think you were directly calling them sleazy.
They release a game they busted their ass on for 2 years and you jump on their ass at the launch and announce that they are sleazy... which is the ONLY reason you are getting any attention on this topic. If you had just said you thought patents were bad... you'd have been ignored... but you called them sleazy on their lauch of their game and how would you feel if someone did that to you?! Is there no getting that thru to you?
It was an incredibly unthoughtful thing for you to do and you should stop talking about the topic like it is some abstract topic and treat it like what it is... a fucked up thoughtless act that you did because reading that they had a patent got your blood boiling. Yes... this is a vocal community but it is also a place to hopefully make dreams come true as an indie and you just started labeling them as sleazy right when they were trying to make that dream real and sell their game thru Garage Games.
You have a lot that you know about this topic... but the ONE single point you make is that an indie spends two years slaving away on a game and releases it and then can't sell it because of a patent... well, how about 2 years slaving away on a game and releasing it and having someone label you as sleazy... what do you think that does? They got the patent because that what people do and some people use it to harm and others for defense and you label Game Refuge as the sleazy people who want to harm. And that's simply not true and YOU are ignoring that. Ideals are great but this is the real world. Where labeling a company as sleazy is something that is potentially incredibly damaging. Don't you get that?
Let me restate one thing... if you hadn't called them sleazy then you would have been ignored. This is a conversation about how you are questioning a company's behavior... you seem to think it's just a discussion about patents in games. You layed a heavy heavy label on them and though you tried to say you mean no harm... hello!?!?! that's like accusing someone of un-ethical behavoir and thinking it won't harm them to be accused if they are proven innocent?! IMAGE IS EVERYTHING in sales. The game wasn't a hobby... it's for sale. They aren't Microsoft for god's sake. You label them sleazy on an indie website and it WILL hurt the sales of the game. And what is that called?
#11
The 'get through to them' bit wasn't to talk them into thinking their patent is bad, it was to get them to see where we're coming from, which they aren't. He is simply seeing it as an attack on his specific game, when the topic is patenting ANY game play elements at all. I don't want this to be personal, but it seems that the issue can't be discussed without being personal.
Again, this isnt' personal. It started personal because I was talking about their game, however I left out everything personal when I moved it to this thread, but people keep bringing it back to the personal realm, which is why you feel you need to defend him instead of just giving your point of view on the topic.
Just to recap since people keep saying I said stuff I didn't say:
And for the statement in question:
As you can see, I did in no way call them sleazy. What I said specifically was:
My wife can be really bitchy, but that doesn't make her a bitch. This is a general comment that I even directed at ANYONE who wants to patent game play by saying:
AND
I have said in several posts that I am sorry I started the thread in the dev snapshot originally and continued it (after deleting what I said in the dev snapshot) in his blog. I stated I didn't know the best place to put this publicly, and as soon as a forum was pointed out, I moved the conversation there. If I just wanted to throw stones, I would have left it in the dev snapshot. I wasn't asked to move it, I did it almost immediately because I thought to myself "If someone had a problem with something in my game, would I want them posting it in the dev snapshot?" and the answer was an obvious no.
I'm not a thoughless prick who just says what he feels whenever he wants and to hell with everyone else. I apologized about putting it in the blog and dev snapshot, I moved it to a forum. I've done what I could to remedy those two things. I am sorry that I started this there instead of here, but I am not sorry for the topic at hand and will not stop talking about it just because someone might not want to hear it.
I never said this was my main (or only) point. I've never focused on Indie development at all in fact. What my points have always been are that patents for game play #1 shouldn't even be allowed since you are patenting algorithms and code and #2 are made so broad that if your game loosely resembles or just comes to the same conclusion, you can be sued.
Again, this is not what this conversation is about except that you seem to want it to be. If you or Brian are pissed off at me, feel free to email me outside the thread as that's where flames belong. Let's get this thing back on topic to Patents and Game Play like it should.
I'm sorry to Game Refuge for originally posting on their game instead of in a forum and I'm sorry to you Anton because this is obviously something that hit home for you. I'm not sorry for my view on Patents and will continue this conversation about such without discussing the game in question any further. Let's put out the flames and get back to constructive discussions please?
02/17/2007 (6:23 pm)
Quote:Why is it that you think you need to "get thru" to them?
The 'get through to them' bit wasn't to talk them into thinking their patent is bad, it was to get them to see where we're coming from, which they aren't. He is simply seeing it as an attack on his specific game, when the topic is patenting ANY game play elements at all. I don't want this to be personal, but it seems that the issue can't be discussed without being personal.
Quote:all they hear is some internet guy taking a stab at them
Again, this isnt' personal. It started personal because I was talking about their game, however I left out everything personal when I moved it to this thread, but people keep bringing it back to the personal realm, which is why you feel you need to defend him instead of just giving your point of view on the topic.
Just to recap since people keep saying I said stuff I didn't say:
Quote:I have to chime in here on a couple things. The first would be to congratulate you on the release. I downloaded the demo and played this game and it is a great looking and playing game. It's a great idea and it's good to see things like this come out of Indie development shops.
And for the statement in question:
Quote:On to the bad stuff. I see the tagline and saw in the splash screens that you have a patent. I didn't google the patent, so don't know exactly what it's on, but am HOPING it's not on the game play. Patenting game play is one of the quickest ways to get me not to play a game. Everyone gets ideas and inspirations from other games, period. To patent game play is a sleazy move that should never be done.
As you can see, I did in no way call them sleazy. What I said specifically was:
Quote:To patent game play is a sleazy move that should never be done.
My wife can be really bitchy, but that doesn't make her a bitch. This is a general comment that I even directed at ANYONE who wants to patent game play by saying:
Quote:Everyone gets ideas and inspirations from other games, period. To patent game play is a sleazy move that should never be done.
AND
Quote:Don't patent game play folks, just keep coming up with innovative and fun games and leave sleazy moves to the lawyers of big game dev studios who have nothing better to do than try to hold the industry down.
Quote:It was an incredibly unthoughtful thing for you to do...
I have said in several posts that I am sorry I started the thread in the dev snapshot originally and continued it (after deleting what I said in the dev snapshot) in his blog. I stated I didn't know the best place to put this publicly, and as soon as a forum was pointed out, I moved the conversation there. If I just wanted to throw stones, I would have left it in the dev snapshot. I wasn't asked to move it, I did it almost immediately because I thought to myself "If someone had a problem with something in my game, would I want them posting it in the dev snapshot?" and the answer was an obvious no.
I'm not a thoughless prick who just says what he feels whenever he wants and to hell with everyone else. I apologized about putting it in the blog and dev snapshot, I moved it to a forum. I've done what I could to remedy those two things. I am sorry that I started this there instead of here, but I am not sorry for the topic at hand and will not stop talking about it just because someone might not want to hear it.
Quote:but the ONE single point you make is that an indie spends two years slaving away on a game and releases it and then can't sell it because of a patent
I never said this was my main (or only) point. I've never focused on Indie development at all in fact. What my points have always been are that patents for game play #1 shouldn't even be allowed since you are patenting algorithms and code and #2 are made so broad that if your game loosely resembles or just comes to the same conclusion, you can be sued.
Quote:This is a conversation about how you are questioning a company's behavior
Again, this is not what this conversation is about except that you seem to want it to be. If you or Brian are pissed off at me, feel free to email me outside the thread as that's where flames belong. Let's get this thing back on topic to Patents and Game Play like it should.
I'm sorry to Game Refuge for originally posting on their game instead of in a forum and I'm sorry to you Anton because this is obviously something that hit home for you. I'm not sorry for my view on Patents and will continue this conversation about such without discussing the game in question any further. Let's put out the flames and get back to constructive discussions please?
#12
I know you didn't mean anything by what you said and I think the topic is great.
02/17/2007 (11:18 pm)
@Jonathon StevensI know you didn't mean anything by what you said and I think the topic is great.
#13
The first half of that is actually the *opposite* of the advice you'd get from a patent attorney. They'll tell you, specifically, in no uncertain terms, to *avoid* becoming informed about patents, and to *avoid* your due dilligence.
Sounds like stupid advice from an attorney, so why do they give it? Here's a repeat of my paragraph on this topic before...
Just something to keep in mind. Actually a good discussion here.
02/18/2007 (12:02 pm)
Quote:My advice to the Community-At-Large: (as if anyone cares)...
Stay reasonably well informed, do your due diligence, and do your best to be original.*
You'll have a nice life, and have some fun while you're doing it.
The first half of that is actually the *opposite* of the advice you'd get from a patent attorney. They'll tell you, specifically, in no uncertain terms, to *avoid* becoming informed about patents, and to *avoid* your due dilligence.
Sounds like stupid advice from an attorney, so why do they give it? Here's a repeat of my paragraph on this topic before...
Quote:Name me one other field where the legal response to patent questions is to tell the people creating the product to actively avoid looking into potential patent hits. Why is this advice given? Because if you knew or should have known that you were infringing a patent, damages are tripled. What does 'should have known' mean? It doesn't mean you found a match and ignored it, or even that you found a match and incorrectly thought it didn't apply to your work. It means you *looked* for patents that potentially covered your work.
Just something to keep in mind. Actually a good discussion here.
#14
I don't know what Patent Attorneys other people have talked to...
But my IP Attorneys ALWAYS begin by performing extensive due diligence. At their urging, I am asked to review hundreds of examples and thousands pages of "possible" prior art, for the express purpose of determining whether I (and they) feel that the invention(s) I am considering Patent protection for have already been anticipated by someone else.
Its not fun, but it is an essential part of the process; and as it has been pointed out elsewhere, ignorance is no excuse. So I prefer to do my due diligence so that I know about possible problems beforehand.
If I discover that the invention I was thinking about patenting might have been anticipated,
then I forget about patenting it and, if need be, try and find a different creative solution for the particular application.
If nothing looks similar, then I move forward. (With no guarantees that I'll get it, regardless of the erroneous implications elsewhere that a patent can be purchased.)
My name appears as an inventor on several US patents. I have been through the process several times and
I feel my understanding of the process is pretty good, for a game designer, anyway.
PATENT? - OR DON'T PATENT?
Spend an hour with a good Intellectual Property attorney. Then do whatever is right for you, and have fun doing it. www.arcticstud.com www.gamerefuge.com
02/18/2007 (2:43 pm)
Regarding "Due Diligence".I don't know what Patent Attorneys other people have talked to...
But my IP Attorneys ALWAYS begin by performing extensive due diligence. At their urging, I am asked to review hundreds of examples and thousands pages of "possible" prior art, for the express purpose of determining whether I (and they) feel that the invention(s) I am considering Patent protection for have already been anticipated by someone else.
Its not fun, but it is an essential part of the process; and as it has been pointed out elsewhere, ignorance is no excuse. So I prefer to do my due diligence so that I know about possible problems beforehand.
If I discover that the invention I was thinking about patenting might have been anticipated,
then I forget about patenting it and, if need be, try and find a different creative solution for the particular application.
If nothing looks similar, then I move forward. (With no guarantees that I'll get it, regardless of the erroneous implications elsewhere that a patent can be purchased.)
My name appears as an inventor on several US patents. I have been through the process several times and
I feel my understanding of the process is pretty good, for a game designer, anyway.
PATENT? - OR DON'T PATENT?
Spend an hour with a good Intellectual Property attorney. Then do whatever is right for you, and have fun doing it. www.arcticstud.com www.gamerefuge.com
#16
Ahh. Difference of end-goal there. The advice I've forwarded is the advice you get if you're trying to avoid patent-related problems. If you're trying to patent something you do have to do a prior-art search.
Yes, the advice does seem counter-intuitive, but it's the only way to protect yourself against being nailed with treble damages.
02/20/2007 (5:48 am)
@Brian ColinAhh. Difference of end-goal there. The advice I've forwarded is the advice you get if you're trying to avoid patent-related problems. If you're trying to patent something you do have to do a prior-art search.
Yes, the advice does seem counter-intuitive, but it's the only way to protect yourself against being nailed with treble damages.
#18
02/28/2007 (8:57 am)
If you cant patent a book, why in the hell should you be allowed to patent software code? Just because something is "Legal" doesn't mean it's even remotely the right thing to do. Software patents should be abolished, and in other countries that aren't run by greedy rich morons they have abolished the practice. You can bet that the USA will be the last country on the planet to stop patenting software.
#19
"What do you consider stealing? If I made a game where you had to fight to get your poker cards, is that stealing?"
Actually, Assault Poker, released by Virtual Vegas, in 1996 for Microsoft Windows was a multiplayer FPS game where you selected a character (avatar) and ran around in an FPS environment, killing other players (you had a default weapon and could pick up more powerful weapons, medical packs, body armour, etc) to steal their cards to make the best poker hand you could, it supported various game variations as Five Card Stud and Seven Card Stud.
A little known FPS called "Quake" came out around the same time and torpedoed AP which quickly disappeared in to oblivion.
http://technoculture.mira.net.au/hypermail/0033.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n19_v18/ai_18661255
http://www.otakunozoku.com/Articles/Ludography/AssaultPoker.html
P.S. If anybody has any screen shots for the Assault Poker game I would love to get them for my website.
04/28/2007 (1:27 am)
Necromancing the thread, because:"What do you consider stealing? If I made a game where you had to fight to get your poker cards, is that stealing?"
Actually, Assault Poker, released by Virtual Vegas, in 1996 for Microsoft Windows was a multiplayer FPS game where you selected a character (avatar) and ran around in an FPS environment, killing other players (you had a default weapon and could pick up more powerful weapons, medical packs, body armour, etc) to steal their cards to make the best poker hand you could, it supported various game variations as Five Card Stud and Seven Card Stud.
A little known FPS called "Quake" came out around the same time and torpedoed AP which quickly disappeared in to oblivion.
http://technoculture.mira.net.au/hypermail/0033.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n19_v18/ai_18661255
http://www.otakunozoku.com/Articles/Ludography/AssaultPoker.html
P.S. If anybody has any screen shots for the Assault Poker game I would love to get them for my website.
#20
Now... I sorta get the feeling that your question was less about the Patent/No Patent Topic and more of a friendly dig at our new game, Arctic Stud Poker Run.
It raises an interesting point about originality, however.
As Peter Berger observed in a recent PTDMagazine Article... "Some people like to argue about whether or not a game is "really" original, since, as the saying goes, there are only 5 plots in Hollywood."
In my experience, one guy will praise you for being original, while at the same time another will condemn
you for being derivative. Often, the same folks who claim they want to see "something new" are the first to
dismiss something because it doesn't fit neatly into an existing genre. I've read comments about Arctic Stud ranging from "...thematically challenged" to "...a game with a seriously fun identity problem"... (I think the latter was meant to be a compliment; not sure about the former.)
Clearly no two people have the exact same definition about originality; and the line between homage, imitation, borrowing & stealing is even harder to pinpoint.
...Which is exactly why I think it's important, as a designer, to consider every means available to Define & Protect your original intellectual property.
04/28/2007 (6:09 pm)
Was the game you mention above ever actually released? (The links you provide are press releases suggesting that the game would be released in the future, but I couldn't find anything about the finished product.) In any case, I never heard of it before today; but I'd be interested in seeing what was done with the concept.Now... I sorta get the feeling that your question was less about the Patent/No Patent Topic and more of a friendly dig at our new game, Arctic Stud Poker Run.
It raises an interesting point about originality, however.
As Peter Berger observed in a recent PTDMagazine Article... "Some people like to argue about whether or not a game is "really" original, since, as the saying goes, there are only 5 plots in Hollywood."
In my experience, one guy will praise you for being original, while at the same time another will condemn
you for being derivative. Often, the same folks who claim they want to see "something new" are the first to
dismiss something because it doesn't fit neatly into an existing genre. I've read comments about Arctic Stud ranging from "...thematically challenged" to "...a game with a seriously fun identity problem"... (I think the latter was meant to be a compliment; not sure about the former.)
Clearly no two people have the exact same definition about originality; and the line between homage, imitation, borrowing & stealing is even harder to pinpoint.
...Which is exactly why I think it's important, as a designer, to consider every means available to Define & Protect your original intellectual property.
Associate David Higgins
DPHCoders.com
Imagine the gameplay being the equivalent of Cola -- Pepsi and Coke both have patents ... theres still tons of 'colas' out there two ...
Sony has patents on there DVD players, but Magnavox still makes DVD players too ...
There's nothing that says someone can't make a similar game, the patent prevents someone from duplicating the thing in your game that makes your game, what it is ...
And ... as far as I'm concerned, if the Patent office lets you patent it, then by all means, go ahead and patent it ... and to spin off your previous comments in the Dev Snapshot and the .plan -- the fact that someone paid $100 for a license to use the code that 'drives' there game is irrelevant to the fact that the gameplay is what makes the game fun ...
GG makes an awesome engine, and they provide it at a VERY reasonable cost to the general public, this allows the general public to get into an industry that used to be over run by AAA Title Makers like Sony, Blizzard, etc ... Indie games were hard to find for a while there ...
But, to be perfectly clear, the technology (in this case TGE) that drives the game, does not MAKE the game ... the unique idea, energy and imagination of the game developers made the game ... now to have someone turn around and 'steal' that idea, is awful ...
I love making remakes, but I try to limit myself to making remakes of things I can't "put out of business", such as retro games or AAA titles where some competition is well needed ... BUT, competition in the Indie world? Seriously now ... thats just ****ed .... if your too creative to come up with your own idea, then at least steal your ideas from someone who won't feel it financially ...
Oh and ... just because you started a 'flame war'... I'm gonna chime in with my two-cents about your ridiculous 'signature' that you spam all over the place --- ITS HUGE, IT"S OBNOXIOUS, IT'S ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY --- If you want to promote the IMGD then WRITE A DAMN .PLAN ....
*Takes a breathe ... *
K, I'm done ...