Change in US copyright law could hurt indy's
by Stephen Howe · in General Discussion · 09/08/2007 (3:43 pm) · 5 replies
Http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_PATENTS?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Here's the change that affects us: right now in the USA the person who first has proof they invented something can get the patent. I can make something now & in a few years find out someone else patented it & appeal for them to have it taken away. Really good if, for example, you do something that you don't think is worth patenting (say, a whole new shadow system) & a company sues you later for violating something they patented. You just need proof you're first.
Not so soon. It will be the first person to file gets the patent, flat out. So if you didn't file for the shadow system & someone else does & a few years later you use it, you're paying.
:(
I like the limits on payments though. Mostly because some companies (like MS) wait for a while before filing (like against linux). Now that's incentive to file when you see something illegal, not when it's better for your business.
Here's the change that affects us: right now in the USA the person who first has proof they invented something can get the patent. I can make something now & in a few years find out someone else patented it & appeal for them to have it taken away. Really good if, for example, you do something that you don't think is worth patenting (say, a whole new shadow system) & a company sues you later for violating something they patented. You just need proof you're first.
Not so soon. It will be the first person to file gets the patent, flat out. So if you didn't file for the shadow system & someone else does & a few years later you use it, you're paying.
:(
I like the limits on payments though. Mostly because some companies (like MS) wait for a while before filing (like against linux). Now that's incentive to file when you see something illegal, not when it's better for your business.
#2
09/09/2007 (7:20 pm)
So if I'm reading this correctly they've created themselves an excuse not to bother looking for existing implementations before granting patents. Not that they did anyway, but this sure won't help the already sad situation.
#3
As long as console and pc games are selling there are no worries for the future for indies in terms of being shut down. You would have to do something like take over someone elses IP or charge for someone elses demo to really be sued.
09/09/2007 (10:49 pm)
I would not worry about it. LIke Mr. Blake said this is more a mechanical issue than an I.P. issue.As long as console and pc games are selling there are no worries for the future for indies in terms of being shut down. You would have to do something like take over someone elses IP or charge for someone elses demo to really be sued.
#4
09/10/2007 (6:20 am)
Or make a card game called Yu-Gi-O, because leaving off the h makes it different, you know.
#5
Monsanto is a huge seed company. They genetically engineer hundreds of custom seed varieties that they sell to farmers. They have literally hundreds of patents but many are being challenged and negated. There was a strong belief that filing a patent gave them all kinds of ancillary rights that proved false. For example, Monsanto claimed ownership of any plant growing from their seeds, even if it grew in a random field because the wind blew the seed into another farmer's field. Then they claimed that the entire crop was their because a single plant grew from their seed even if the rest of the crop was not theirs. Well, the court ruled that it was impossible to test each and every plant in every field that could contain a wind-blown seed so they cannot sue farmers who have a random Monsanto seed in their fields. Monsanto did maintain some patents but plenty have been declared void.
The patent office makes money from each patent so it's in the best interest to grant every patent, earn the money and let the courts decide who's right.
09/10/2007 (8:31 am)
Patent law is becoming more and more skewed. In a few years when patents start getting thrown out, the industry will right itself.Monsanto is a huge seed company. They genetically engineer hundreds of custom seed varieties that they sell to farmers. They have literally hundreds of patents but many are being challenged and negated. There was a strong belief that filing a patent gave them all kinds of ancillary rights that proved false. For example, Monsanto claimed ownership of any plant growing from their seeds, even if it grew in a random field because the wind blew the seed into another farmer's field. Then they claimed that the entire crop was their because a single plant grew from their seed even if the rest of the crop was not theirs. Well, the court ruled that it was impossible to test each and every plant in every field that could contain a wind-blown seed so they cannot sue farmers who have a random Monsanto seed in their fields. Monsanto did maintain some patents but plenty have been declared void.
The patent office makes money from each patent so it's in the best interest to grant every patent, earn the money and let the courts decide who's right.
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake