[casual_games] Re: game copyright

[Lionel barret De Nazaris]

Kim Pallister wrote:
> ---
> Yes! I was wrong. That's what I get for typing too quickly. Not sure
> what I was thinking. I meant to use the 'snapple' and spiderman concepts
> as example of copyrights, not patents. And yes, the spiderman one would
> be on shaky ground.
>
> I stand by the 'idea' definition for a patent. Yes, it's defined as
> device, method, process, or substance. But whether any one of these for
> a particular implementation is defendable as a patent depends on whether
> at it's root, it contains some unique idea about how to solve a problem.
> Idea is, granted, a little too broad. Another way to look at it: If you
> have something you think deserves patenting, someone might ask "do you
> come up with an idea about how to solve a problem that others could
> not?".  
>   
An idea that doesn't work is not applicable. It must be a unique 
solution, meaning that no published work already proposed a close solution.
Even if it's a idea used on new ground, if this has been published 
elsewhere, it's not valid. A patent should be a rare thing, not a 
commonality.
> I was looking at it from the other side of things:
>
> You have a problem, you come up with an algorithm to solve that problem
> (say, trilinear filtering in graphics as a way to solve a rasterization
> artifact). So you come up with a black box with inputs (3D-space
> location, textures, coefficients, etc), and output (rasterization info).
> Now you have to implement that. I could be done in code, or it could be
> done in gates.
>
> When I worked at Intel I heard many problems discussed where decisions
> were made about whether the implementation should be in HW or SW. If it
> was layed out in HW, it was often patented - but this was separate from
> whether there was any trickiness or difficulty in actually *laying out*
> the HW, at which point there may have been other ideas patented, but
> that's beside the point.
>   
The HW/SW limit is the gray area and quite difficult. But It does not 
mean that everything should have patent.

Beside, your examples should not be patentable. You code with gates. If 
there is no new way to produce the gates on the fab side or to connect 
the component, it' s just very low level programming.
It's not patentable. The medium (gates/SW) does not change the 
patentability.

If INTEL implementations did get a patent, it was only because of the 
USPTO is not doing its job (and because everybody make the patent 
proposal as cryptic as possible).
Intel is very good about patent. sadly this means very good at abusing 
the systems (IBM is the best at this game).
>> case 2) You have a small company. You have a patent. which indirectly 
>>     
> use a big player (dubious) patent..you don't have pocket deep enough to 
> fight *and win*..
>
> Well, this is the same argument for individuals and healthcare, but
> there are plenty of big settlements. Granted, lawyers take the bulk of
> it, but at least the big company gets a spanking.
>   
The spanking is a bit painful but not a big threat for a company : more 
of a calculated risk. It's in the accounting of many companies.
In the long run, it's the best choice for these companies. a company 
caught correct its behavior but the rest of the pack has no incentives 
to do so.
> Immersion's force feedback patent win against MS and Sony is an example
> (not exactly a garage shop, but a small company compared to those two
> goliaths.
>   
Immersion took a financial risk because they were so sure of their 
patent. It's rarely so black and white in real life. 
Good for immersion tho.
> Another 2c worth, Kim
>   
I put also 2c in the common box.
L.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/attachments/20051111/553355db/attachment.htm