As far as this goes, I am againt's it.

If this were to happen, it would open a whole can of worms in the long run. And from my perspective, I believe it would end up hurting us, the gamer/consumer through higher cost, longer times on games, while we waited on companies to come to an agreements on patents, and how they could be used and in what games and how they were to be applied...

*I somewhat rambled after "higher cost"*

Anytime politics get involved in anything that's when the BS starts comming through and things take a turn for slow down, going no where quick.

--Core--

the patent system is flawed. Aye, there definitely needs to be incentives for innovation. But when you have patent holding corporations suing the crap out of anyone who tries to create anything, are we really better off?

Bootyology

Patents on software and games are absolutely necessary. People have forgotten what the patent system was originally designed for. What happens if it wasn't Namco, but an individual inventor who created the idea. He or she would have no protection when large companies stole the idea and made tons of money.

Patents might stifle some innovation, but the system creates the incentive for even more innovation to occur.

Copyrights don't offer the same protection as patents, and in exchange for the broader protection, a patent's term is shorter. Therefore, while copyright protection exists for software it is often times inadequate.

Stop leaching off the hard-work and research of others, starting inventing your own code, and then maybe you think about patenting software differently.

Paul

many years ago i patented "innovation" in america and this is why we only produce FPS sequels now. My bad. I made the silly mistake of thinking that one of these companies would license this technology from me. Alas, they're just cheap mofos. I ruined video games :(

Bootyology

As a developer, the answer is obvious: All software patents should be illegal, game or not. Software is already protected by copyright, and that is enough. Next question.

@ibelli: Your hypothetical creation already is protected by copyright, even without patents.

@Pezdispenser: Your post is supposed to be ironic, right?

Zegridathes wrote: "If someone comes up with a good idea, they should get a few years to profit from their design exclusively."

And why would that be? Essentially, you're telling me that I am not allowed to have an idea that somebody else has already had. That's just insane.

@SSJPabs: Innovation happens regardless of patents. It happened before patents, and it will happen once they're gone. Modern companies can't survive without keeping ahead of the competition. In fact, patents prevent innovation because they create artificial monopolies, which destroys competition.

@TempvsMortis: I don't even know where to start... You really have no idea what you're talking about. Your post is so confused that I really have no clue what to tell you, other than that you're just plain wrong.

L_K_M

huh.. Dragonball Z budokai tenkaichi 2 had a minigame while stuff loads...

Should I not have said that?

JamieA

Game patents should not be legal. If developers feel as though their material has been plagiarized in some way, then obviously there should be legal proceedings.

Imagine if EPIC patented the cover system in Gears of War, we wouldn't have this dynamic gameplay element that could continually be tweaked and improved. If there's one thing that makes video games wonderfully unique, its the idea that if one mode of gameplay isn't well-executed, another company can use that mode in an entirely different setting and make it work.

JohnnytheFuture

@TempvsMortis: As long as the patents are as specific as possible, I have no problem with them. Broad-reaching patents, however, only serve to stifle creativity.

RawSteelUT

@teh_joe: I also doubt we'd see it survive in court. These patents are far too vague, and specific ripping off of games is usually covered by copyright laws.

RawSteelUT

Oh my god. There used to be load screen games on some C64 games well before the playstation even existed. How does such a patent even hold up?

God I hate companies some time. The worst thing is how often patents are made, and then never used. I mean.. come on.

Polite_Society

Software patents should be abolished altogether.

hansamurai

You obviously don't understand WHY one can even patent software. Originally you could only copyright the code, but then what ended up happening what opponents would buy your product, reconstruct it, and find a slightly different way to achieve the exact same thing. In this way, they were able to essentially steal from you without legal repercussions. Thus, it was instituted that functions of the program itself, it's functionality, could be patented. This way if you came up with a new concept for how a game could operate (quicktime events, for example, when Shenmu used it) you would own the intellectual rights to the function, not the code. If you disable this, then you'd have to return to copyright, which will destroy all software industries... AGAIN!

TempvsMortis

Well I just finished my Entertainment Law class about a week ago and this was a big point that was made. YOU CANNOT, PATENT AN IDEA EVER...that will not change, it shouldn't change. Plus a problem with patents is they have a very limited lifespan in comparison to copyrights...patents up to around 20 years if it meets certain criteria and in limited cases they are allowed to be extended...copyrights on the other hand are generally life of the copyright holder +70 years.

TopcatF14B

absolutely. and i should hold all of them.

if any of you use Blackboard/WebTC for school, they just won their infringement lawsuit against another elearning system for such gems as .. students use a login/password to connect to their courses, students can be given assignments online, and students can enter a chatroom. wtf. so weak shit like this can be enforced.

i see a company like EA jumping all over the idea and im surprised they havent but maybe theyre afraid of being burned to the ground by us.

cswat

I f all games were patented, we would have no Halo.

mferrari

MS patented crappy DLC...

Gam3r

CarbonatedWater:

Yes, this is exactly why this can't work. A patent protects a method of achieving a purpose, not the achievement of the purpose. Who exactly is going to poke through all that source code and decide?

liquidnumb

patents were meant to encourage innovation, with drugs, it makes sense since there is sometimes no such thing as a better drug, but for some technology and all software, patents inhibit innovation, so why allow it?

ban_hammer

I'm not sure if patenting software is such a good idea since there's millions of ways to write the code to do a certain thing. So even if your version of a game does the same thing (or close to it), it could be made completely differently. This could potentially require all the same work as before so I think that's enough to have a new patent. And that's my next point, how the hell are people supposed to make millions of code patents and be expected to understand them? Sure they could just describe what the final product does but then everything would be too confusing.

I guess after writing all that my conclusion is that certain video game and software patents shouldn't be allowed. Whatever, I don't think I should be worrying about it.

CarbonatedWater

@Pezdispenser: Your comment is unintende fun, because Id software released his engine for free on the internet. And Halo do exist. Patents are evil. Today we live ignoring patents, but on a strongly patent industry, only the big ones will work.

tei

Ooh, Ooh! Can I patent Rising Conflict, Climax, and Resolution? How about the Hero's journey? Can I patent that? Oh man, I can't wait to start collecting royalties for every movie ever made.

Jawajoey

@jun581: Whoops, I went down the wrong path a bit on business methods (Not enough coffee I suppose). I thought it was "Patenting business methods that use a computer" that opened up the door on "Patenting software algorithms", but I think I am mistaken after a bit more research. It does appear that a lot of software patents existed well before that change. A lot of the crazier patents came out after that change, but I suppose one could argue it was just because folks realized that adding "on the web" to normal, everyday activities was patentable. For example: Buying 1 item quickly, on the web. (Buy it now)

Wiki does have a history of software patents in the US that seems pretty through:
[en.wikipedia.org]

There is a metric ton of software algorithm patents, so I just guess I don't see what statue 35 U.S.C 101. has to do with anything at this point. Seriously, all of the following are computer algorithms and are covered by patents:
MP3 encoding - [www.mp3licensing.com] (there is a bunch!)
Carmack's reverse - US patent 6384822
LWZ compression (GIFs) - US patent 4558302
JPEG compression - US Patent 4698672

And all sorts more:
[en.wikipedia.org]

NateN

As long as styles of painting can be patented.

---

The industry is really in a tug-o-war. Are games art? Or are they products shoveled out to consumers for money?

ostartero

Absolutely not. Copyright provides ample protection for the intellectual property. Patents would simply stifle development and creativity. Simply put, there is no market need to promote such development and creativity with patents. They would serve no public good and only serve to benefit a handful of individuals.

Process patents in general are a bad idea and the patent office has already greanted far too many. Game developers don't need to get in on the act. With game patents, there would be no Rock Band, and also no Guitar Hero. There would be no Halo or any other shooter. Virtually all games draw upon gameplay elements and design cues from earlier games. These motifs are part of the cultural impact of gaming and just as you can't patent a quick pan or push-in close-up in cinema, you shouldn't be able to patent gameplay elements.

BStu

@Pezdispenser: Did you know that copyrights and patents are different?

TMYK

Anyway, imagine the scenario that @teh_joe mentioned where Nintendo patented sidescrolling. Where would games be now? Probably in the crapper.

notalkjustrock

I would like to point out something.

First: Patents expire after 20 years.
Second: The purpose of patents it to get people to invent stuff and put it out in the market and you do that by giving them a monopoly on it for a limited tme.

Finally: Patent attorneys for a very long time were taught to patent EVERYTHING in their applications. So for a long time broad generalities were encouraged, lest you miss something that should be yours and get your market ripped apart. However that changed as specificity requirements got increased. So now you have to plead extremely specific elements so you have a ton of elements lest you not list something and it be missed.

SSJPabs

"..citing an example from Namco's PSOne version of Ridge Racer in which they patented, we kid you not, load-time minigames."

But Fifa 08, iirc did just that? The little game where you could practice your shooting skills?

Whiternoise

@ibelli:
You can copyright the game code, and then no one will be allowed to copy it and use it in their game (without your permission). What you can't (or shouldn't be able to) do is patent the idea of having physics in a game.

dowingba

@NateN: i can check, but it somes cases, those patents might've already been invalidated.
There are patents regarding business methods. There's a divisijon in the office specifically called business methods.

jun581

That Ridge Racer game was awesome! Because it loaded completely to the machine, while you were playing you could put in whatever music cd you wanted and listen to it while you played. I loved that idea. Now I will get all nostalgic and remember days long gone racing along ridges to "Rock you like a Hurricane" and "Panama". Good times.

curtisawa

@ibelli: read the article? or at least the title?

The Designer's Notebook: Damn All Gameplay Patents!

pasquinelli

@jun581: Well, I might not be able to patent that, but they sure did. Those are existing patents, and they are all pretty darn old!

Seriously, you used to be able to patent business methods and such by just including a computer in the loop:
[en.wikipedia.org]

And now you don't even have to do that:
[patentlaw.typepad.com]

NateN

Wait... does this mean that no one but Namco can make a minigame to be played during a load screen?

If so... FUCK THAT. What the fuck is Namco's problem?

8bitcity

@Mr.SithNinja: It was a vicious cycle, the history of the modern computer:

Xerox invents all this super cool stuff and does NOTHING with it. (Seriously, if management at Xerox had any sense would all be using Xerox computers.)

Apple sends some folks over to check out all this cool stuff happening at Xerox. They end up taking all the good ideas and running for the hills, leaving a nice little pile of stock options behind at Xerox.

Microsoft is hired to write software for Apple computers (gasp!). Microsoft looks at what Apple is doing and goes "We gotta do that too!". They end up licensing some GUI elements from Apple and creating Windows.

Apple notices their declining market share and decides that Microsoft is using more then they licensed. Apple sues Microsoft. (around 1988).

Xerox decides they got the short end of the stick in their contract and sues Apple.

Xerox loses their suit. (Took to long to sue)

Apple and Microsoft kiss and make up. This leads to IE on the the Mac, as well as Office on the Mac.

Microsoft makes umpteen billion dollars.

Apple makes less, but still billions of dollars by now.

Xerox walks off singing "Didn't we almost have it all..."

NateN

@NateN: i don't know where you got that, but you can't patent that. 35 U.S.C 101. so, i don't how that's possible cause that statue prevents that.

jun581

That's why no one has done load screen minigames since?? It was a great idea and I didn't know why more companies didn't do it. I think I may hate Namco now.

creid

I think the patent is bad if it comes from prior art (non-video game) and limits the field in general. There are other ways to do an arrow pointing which way to go, but the Eternal Darkness Sanity meter patent is so incluisive it even says that in the CODE you can't have a variable that changes and causes effects in the game. This is far too encompassing and limiting to other developers.

So I think we should go the way of books and movies. IPs are patented, like Halo or Zelda, but not the methods for doing it.

I get the patents on engines too. That is a huge code base, so someone just ripping it off word for word would be wrong. However if I look at your pretty shadows and work at learning how to do them and then create them in my engine, not using your code but my own, thats fair. Plus it would imply that you made it to market with your shadows first.

Also this is going to bring up the entire virtual vs. real arguement again. Do I have any right to the things I "own" in a virtual world.

emberdione

I think there's a problem with patents in general.

"Hey, lets be cocks and try and cash in on useful contributions to society!"

Yeah, sounds like a wild time. They really need to revise exactly what a patent can protect...

Legion329

@tehFluffz: I got dibs on the square and all shapes that could be derived from the square.

Mr.SithNinja

@darthmole12: You want to really get pissed off, look up Monsanto.
Company: [en.wikipedia.org]
Court case: [en.wikipedia.org]

In a Nutshell:
Monsanto makes GM (genetically modified) crops like corn.
Monsanto requires farmers to buy new crops every year. If you take the corn you grew last year and replant it, they sue you. (Yay!)
Corn, like just about every other seed crop known to man, uses pollen to actually go about making the seeds. Pollen pretty much goes where the wind goes.
A man living next to a field that has the GM corn notices that some of his own strain of corn has the same properties as the GM corn. He has never purchased the GM corn himself, and he puts it aside to grow next year.
He grows this new cross-breed for a few years. Monsanto eventually notices that this farmer has a variety of corn much like the one they have under patent, and sues him. They win.

So this means that a farmer can get sued for violating a patent on GM crops if it ever makes it into their fields. Score one for Goliath!

NateN

@Mr Fortitude: I think some of you are confusing the difference between a copyright or trademarked material and patents. Characters and stories and stuff is copyright or trademarked.

greeble

@Pezdispenser: I can't believe you're being serious. I certainly hope not. What you are talking about is COPYRIGHT, not patents. No one can "rip" another game and release it for free thus bankrupting the company. That is utterly ridiculous. The "rippers" would get sued for copyright infringement and rightfully so.

Stop confusing patents with copyright, people!

MattGS

I'm going to patent the motherfucking circle.

tehFluffz

Software patents in general suck. Video games are just another version of it. Here is a really good example of why software patents are a terrible idea. (Go EU for fighting against them!)
[www.mimesis.net]
It shows all the various patents you run across setting up a simple online store. Real obvious crap like a preview window is patented.

greeble

Namco is the reason loading screens are so boring. I remember they even went after Naughty Dog for letting people move Crash around during loading screens. What a bunch of jerks.

NoBullet

I do not think they should patent anything other than character names and or story ideas if even that. If you start patenting game concepts and gameplay elements things will get boring quick. Game companies would only be able to implement gameplay elements that they came up with, who wants that?

Mr Fortitude

@NateN: Nobody is perfect. :D But you have to admit that they wouldn't be where they are today without having ripped off Xerox and Apple back in the day.

Mr.SithNinja

This reminds me of the time a group tried to patent arc-rotation of a camera. The games industry lead a public campaign to try and find an early published work containing this idea.

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, this is the idea of calculating the position of a camera based on a 3D sphere. Any mathematicians will immediately think "Trigonometry!" which is indeed correct: Sine and Cosine are used to calculate the positions.

Yet this company tried to patent this scheme. This circulates back around to mathematical theories mentioned in this article. The camera movement is purely mathematical, and is therefore a kind of theory. And yet the patent office was willing to give them a patent on it.

RealmRPGer

No, no and again no!

Garo

The patent system with regards to tech patents really is broken across the board. You see this in every tech sector really, patents granted for things that are "obvious" and/or really not something you should be able to own.

And don't even get me started on Biotech companies and their gene patents. How can you own the rights to something which occurs in nature?

darthmole12

@Mr.SithNinja: Just like they did with EOLAS! Hrmm, wait, bad example...
[en.wikipedia.org]

Just like they did with Immersion.. oh wait, they lost that too. (Rumble patent)

Vs. Forgent Networks? Nah, they paid that one off. (JPEG patent)

Vs. Carlos Armando Amado? Hrmm, still in the courts, but doesn't look good for Microsoft. (Mr. Amado has a patent for moving data from a database to Excel).

Feel free to hate Microsoft (or M$), but they aren't exactly batting 1.000 as far as patents go.

NateN

@Pezdispenser: Yet some how iD managed to survive, both Halo and Half-Life exist and all this without iD pattenting FPS. Crazy huh.

brandonf

The premise of patents aren't a bad thing, the system is probably suffering from too few resources to adequately review the backlog.

If someone comes up with a good idea, they should get a few years to profit from their design exclusively. Recently though, it seems like too many non-innovative, non-patent-worthy things or things that are far too ubiquitous are being patented and no one with the power to say, "Sorry, you're too late" is exercising that power.

I don't associate patents with "Oh hey, lets make clicking a button a new way to buy things!? e???", I think of things like stealth lawnmower blades (you can't hear it until it's too late) and closet organizers... tangible things you can touch or do.

As an aside, do you suppose we could clog up the USPTO by filing all manner of patents for Rube Goldberg- inspired contraptions?

Zegridathes

I have been a patent examiner for 6 months at the Patebt and trademark office and first I would like to say that the patents get complicated and I have not evan began to understand the whole thing. but here is what i have to say;

the article states "...guidelines for patent examiners requires that the invention produce a concrete, useful, and tangible result, and gameplay patents are being allowed."

This is true (35 usc 101 based from the consititution) but this is only a small part examining applications, 98% of rejection are based on prior art meaning stuff that is already known (not always patents) and def not usc 101.

About the Ridge Racer patent this is a GOOD thing. Think about it if they were the first* to come up with the idea why shouldn't they get a patent and make money from it?(*the examiner did a good job and did not find anything like it before) This is why we have industry people need their ideas to be protected so that they can make money from them. And just because they have a patent on load time games doesn't mean nobody else can make them, others just have to find a new or better way to make or use load time games. THIS IS HOW TO PROMOTE INOVATION.

Somebody patented a cell phone a long time ago, this does not mean nobody could make cell phones for 20 years after that. Thousands of cellphones have been created and pateneted and the industry moves forward.

Also if you get a patent you have to diclose how and what you did to everyone so people can look for improvments.

Finally I would like to say that I examine patents for weapons and explosives and software things are different but what I have said here is sound and better informed than the guy who wrote the article.

patents

Kotaku (and "tech" sites in general) are to reasoned discussion of law what Jack Thompson is to reasoned discusion of video games. Only less bogged down by fact.

emag

Even worse, while you can't patent mathematical theorems, you can patent software algorithms and hinder SOFTWARE IN GENERAL. That should be illegal.

[techreport.com]

fuchikoma

Gamasutra did an article on this a while back. It focused on the fact that Midway owns the patent for ghost racers in racing games, and any game that uses ghost racers must pay Midway a licensing fee. Crazy stuff.

I wonder if anyone owns the patent on double jumping?

skullivan

This country seriously needs patent reform...

Benstein

@icepick314: You forget, it is Micro$! They would lawyer their way around it and steal the concept just like they have with every thing else that they have ever put out.

@ibelli: I am sorry i meant to say that engines should be able to be patented, but once you do that you open the door to have everything else be pattented as well. One could make the argument that a physics engine is a "gameplay element" and equate it to something lame like a "life meter" in order to try to patent it as well. I am not saying it is right, I am saying it would be possible.

Mr.SithNinja

Vague patents are terrible for innovation, as much as they keep the lawyers in green paper. Software patents in particular are absurd -- I submitted one myself, for which I never wrote a line of code. Ridiculous. I'm glad the EU didn't make the switch to allowing them.

If I ever thought I'd invented something truly useful, there's no way I'd patent it. Everything needs iterative improvement. Thank crap Tim Berners-Lee thought that way.

playclever

EDGE magazine had a interesting article about the history of game patents in the industry.

While there's the issue of developers and publishers patenting ideas that they've used or are planning to, a larger threat are companies with patent ideas with no other intent but to file lawsuits against unsuspecting comanies who happen to develop games that feature something related to their vaguely worded patents.

If I remember right, Nintendo was rumoured to having bought 'wii.com' from a paper company, from anywhere between 50k and 1m. Its surprising to see where companies are willing to strike a quick buck from the gaming industry.

RabbidMickeyMouse

@ibelli:
I think in that scenario, you would be able to patent the way's in which the physics calculations are done if they are indeed novel; and claim copyright on the sourcecode and implementation.

However it wouldn't stop anyone else from making a physics engine that is able to mimic real-world object interactions, as long as they don't copy the procedure in which you evaluate the calculations and they don't use your code...

Sasuntsi|Davit

@ibelli: under 35 USC 101 you can patent real world simulations, even if computer executable

3inst3in

@hahnchen: Well said!

UltimatePancakeSensation

@verrius: standard filing costs $1,040.

honestly, I don't see how you could patent a video game. it's nonstatutory subject matter under 35 usc 101. your wording would have to be along the lines of :

"a computer readable medium carrying instructions which when executed by a computer caused..." what? a character to swing a sword? that's not a tangible result.

3inst3in

@tei:

Getting rid of Patents is bad and evil, because it kill s evolution, and are demonized in an evil way to force revolution.

Imagine a world with an FPS by id Software, but someone ripped it, released it for free over the internets, and caused iD to go bankrupt. All other FPS, like Halo or Half-Life would never exist, on account of fear from the same thing happening to them. Interesting. I hate the "forced everything is either black or white" ideology that a lot of people have.

Realistically, patents are good for everyone. They give dev's some added security and give lawyers something to do. (Remember, Lawyer's are people too, some more than others).

So Z say,.. HELLL YES, DO WANT!

Pezdispenser

@Mr.SithNinja: Perhaps I am not understanding this properly. If I am a game engineer, and I develop a highly sophisticated physics engine that mimics real-world situations with particular quality, I am going to want to protect that creation. I understand that gameplay elements are a different story.

ibelli

@ph15h: You fill out a form and give the USPTO $10,000 for each one. So it's probably not a good idea unless you actually plan on making a controller. Or have looooots of money to burn.

verrius

i thought you can patent codes, not formats...

think if Apple first patented mouse gui interface, then where would Windows be?

the idea of patent for games is too vague even to try since there same gameplay concepts but in different settings and characters...

icepick314

@hahnchen: Thanks for the example and good post. I learned something new.

jarjarwang

@jun581: Computer methods and algorithms are patentable.

Examples:

IBM had a patent on XOR (exclusive OR)
[www.google.com]

RSA had a patent on Public Key Cryptography:
[www.google.com]

Hellman also had a patent on Public Key Crypto:
[www.google.com]

NateN

I'm going to send my 53 controller designs in for patenting... all from kindergarten to 11th grade... :( I made a Wii-like controller when people were talking abut the ultra 64. lol

how does one go about filing patents?

ph15h

Patentas are bad and evil, because kill evolution, but are usefull in a evil way to force revolution.

Imagine a world with FPS patented by id Software. All other FPS, like Halo or Half-Life never existed, but a different games existed. Interesting. I hate the "genres" where people make a RTS, or FPS, or 3LA (3 letter acronim) genre.

Realistically, patents are only good for lawyers, and mean less money for dev's, and more for lawyers. And another way game studios can go bankrupt.

So Y say,.. HELLL NO, DO NOT WANT!

tei

This just in, EA has patented squares.

Mii

@Sasuntsi|Davit:
damnit, I should learn to re-read the whole post before sending it through, to avoid stupid mishaps like creating double negatives!

Sasuntsi|Davit

Unless game companies have been applying for patents in say, the past 13 years since Ridge Racer was first released, I'd say this is a moot point. If no one is applying for patents anymore, why bother question it?

rkr215

I don't think the HUD feature is not a good example though, since it's an implementation derived from something in real life...

But I agree that patent laws should be tightened up so that people can't apply for one willy-nilly ;P

Sasuntsi|Davit

No to all software patents. Ideas should not be patented, products should.

The American system is severely broken, with eBay having recently to settle out of court and license the "buy it now" button from trolls mercExchange. Sega own a patent on floating arrows used to direct the player, as seen in Crazy Taxi - [en.wikipedia.org] . It's ridiculous. Heck, Nintendo should take out a patent on a system to defeat on screen enemies by manipulating a character into jumping on their heads.

This is not the same as patenting a new hinge for a door. It's patenting the entire idea that doors can be opened with hinges. Innovation is better served without these hindrances, with the only benefit going to patent trolls with no intention of creating products or technologies and their very rich lawyers.

hahnchen

Patents in the US in general have gone a bit bonkers. Part of the problem (IMHO, IANAL, etc) is that you used to be unable to patent business methods*, but now you can (as long as it involves a computer). This has basically caused an explosion in the number of patents. Plus if you currently have anything even remotely resembling a new idea, you better patent it to avoid having someone suing you for your own idea.

*Well, ever so technically you COULD get some business methods patented, but vast majority of them would get shot down.

I personally think they need to start cutting down on the number of patents in general. How about requiring folks to implement their patents within 5 years or so or the patent becomes public domain? That would at least cut down on the folks that patent every idea that they can come up with in the hope that some other company that they can sue will implement the idea.

And don't get me started on the length of copyright these days.... :-P

NateN

Thats stupid. How can you patent a videogame idea? Thats like someone trying to copyright the term "pwnage"....

Modus_Operandi

Software patents in general should just go away, or people submitting them should have to include specific source code as part of the documentation. Being able to patent little more than an 'idea' for software is ridiculous.

Bael

Vague patents only stifle creativity and increase risk of ridiculous litigation. If there's something truly innovative and specific, sure... let them patent it. If it's generic and broad encompassing... reject it.

randlsa

Gameplay shouldn't be able to be pattented. Engines, however, should.

gamadaya

@ibelli: Actualy it is a stupid question becasue they shouldn't. If gameplay patents are allowed, what would stop a developer from patenting something like the HUD feature in a game? It would mean only THAT developer would be able to make a game that uses that feature. ( or they would charge a company to use it and drive the price of games up. ) The same would be applied to gameplay engines like UT and physics enigines as well.

Mr.SithNinja

Personally I say no.

Dont really want to go into detail why, since it should be self explanatory, with all the current problems we are having with the patent system now.

Witzbold

Whether it's patentable or not, how is it enforceable considering games are an utter free-for-all of mutual immitation. What feature comes out one year and isn't in a dozen imitators in the next? id hasn't been making a point out of going after people for first person shooters... Kali hasn't been attacking people for putting multiplayer in their games.

It's a derivative industry. It's going to be weird as hell if people start trying to corner the market on new gameplay features.

deathbunny

@duckmouth: i didn't know namco got a patent for it. I don't think you can get a patent for it. I know (as mentioned above), you can't get a patent for computer code or algorathim, nor can you receive one for signals, waveguides and meduims such as those. it has to be tangible and useful.

jun581

Considering how vague, and half baked most patents are.. No.

weasl

@teh_joe: That's a really, really good point. The statement is probably intentionally vague for that reason. For example, what if someone replicated that load mini-game with graphic elements that make the new product appear completely different? There would be so many restrictions that we would run out of games to play/make/buy real fast.

Dyslexic_Alucard

How does this apply to game engines?

ibelli

I patented "1" when used in conjunction with "0" in "several different combinations" years ago. Where's all my money!

dowingba

I'm a painter, and I'm going to patent putting blue and orange next to eachother.

Moonshadow101

I don't know much about patent law (actually, I know nothing about it), but patenting broad notions such as the load-time mini-game sounds very stupid to me.

duckmouth

i don't think you should be able to patent certain things. like what if Nintendo patented "side-scrollers"? we wouldn't have Mega-Man and Sonic games.

teh_joe

@ibelli: Wait...

ibelli

Thats a stupid question. Of course they should.

ibelli