[casual_games] game copyright

[Sangwoo Hong]

Hello.  Been lurking here for a while.  I haven't been
paying much attention recently but I'm glad I decided
to read this thread.  I'm very interested in the
subject of software patents at the moment since I am
planning on filing some myself in the near future...
(Should I put my flame retardant suit on now?)

Anyway, I should first mention that I am no patent
lawyer by any stretch of the imagination so if someone
more savvy on the subject sees flaws in my logic
please correct me through the list.  I think the
subject of software patents is one of the most
important issues facing indies like us and anyone and
everyone with good information should share with the
rest of the community.

Okay, so I read U.S. Patent 6,200,138, the so called
"Crazy Taxi" patent and it's really a fitting nick
name.  The way I read it the first part of the patent
deals with the "pedestrians diving out of the player's
way" aspect of Crazy Taxi's design.  Then it moves on
to some rather cryptically worded claims which I
understand as describing the appearance of on screen
arrows and such which points in the direction of what
I gather are destinations and goals for the player.

So does "Simpsons Road Rage" infringe on "Crazy
Taxi"'s patent?  I think most likely if the point of
contention is whether it's possible to run people over
in "Simpsons Road Rage".  It's been a while since I
played "Simpsons Road Rage" so I don't remember if the
virtual pedestrians in "Simpsons Road Rage" jump out
of your way when you're about to run them over.  Maybe
someone who's played the game more recently can verify
but if the virtual pedestrians in "Simpsons Road Rage"
do in deed jump out of the way of on coming players
then this is a open and shut case in favor of Sega. 
(Kind of makes me wonder, are there pedestrians in GTA
that jump out of the player's way?  Now that could be
huge for Sega.)

On the other hand, if the point of contention is about
these directional cues Sega seems to be describing
with much of the jibberish which fills the latter half
of their claims, I'm not so sure.  I would think some
driving game of some sort must've had on screen
directional cues based on "two objects" but who's to
say.  Even if they did if there are no "prior art" in
the patent world describing such things then it might
not matter at all in which case Sega wins again.

One interesting thing to note, and to me this is the
most important legal sticking point, is that the
patent actually describes a machine which plays "Crazy
Taxi" and not necessarily the software that runs on
it.  I suppose one could argue that "Simpsons Road
Rage" could not possibly infringe the "Crazy Taxi"
patent since "Simpsons Road Rage" is SOFTWARE which
allows a general purpose device like a playstation to
behave like a machine dedicated to playing only "Crazy
Taxi".  And since software is technically speaking not
patentable "Crazy Taxi" could not have patent rights
over the software portion of their claims.  Right?  I
donno. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer or a judge. 
*shrug*

I'm not sure what most people think of the software
patents.  Is it even a hot button issue?  Probably not
to the general public but one thing seems clear to me.
 The current interepretation of the "rules" seems to
be that not just software patents but patents in
general will play an even BIGGER role in the future of
doing business.  In this world of companies who
infringe up on each other's patents inevitably ganging
up through legal action on those without any patent
leverage, I think it's important for even indies like
us to take a good look at patents as an inevitable
part of doing business instead of reacting emotionally
to the "wrongness" of the situation.

phong.

btw, do I think it's "wrong" that big corporations
with big moolah have all the advantages in this setup?
 Hell yeah!  But the law is and has never ever been
about right or wrong.  As long as the law says so
people will do what they are allowed under the law. 
Unless one's willing to pick up guns and fight in the
streets I think it's pointless to discuss these types
of matters in such moralistic views.


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com