[casual_games] RE: Casual_Games Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7

[Kim Pallister]

   1. Re: game copyright (Lennard Feddersen)

Having a microsoft.com domain on my email address, I'll just don the
flame-retardant suit before clicking send :-)

Wow, this has been a really interesting thread. I'm not sure I have
anything conclusive to add, but I do think there are a couple
observations that might help frame the discussion:

1 - There's a difference between copyright (a name, a concept) & patent
(an artistic work - which can be defined as anything from a name like
'snapple' to a story 'a man bitted by a radioactive spider develops
spider-like powers and uses them to fight crime'). A lot of the
contention around game-related patent issues has to do with disagreement
about whether the "magic" in a game's success belongs in one bucket or
the other (i.e. is it game mechanic or game content? Or both?)

2 - This is one man's opinion, but the difference between software and
hardware patents is largely pedantic. Inventing a mechanism to serve a
function or solve a problem is the patentable idea. Building it in SW or
HW is an implementation decision. (It's an aside, but this distinction
will become increasingly blurry in the 'custom fab' generation)

3 - It's important to distinguish between the role of patents(&USPTO)
and the abuse of the patent system. There is plenty of mis-use of the
system which makes a strong case for fixing the system or finding an
alternative, but that doesn't mean there isn't a role for protecting IP
& inventors of that IP. 

Just adding fuel to the fire here. Hope this helps.

Kim