[casual_games] RE: game copyright

[Sangwoo Hong]

--- David Wessman <wessmaniac at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the purpose of patents is to protect and
> encourage innovation, then it seems you'd want to 
> ensure that you don't empower big corporations
> to squash little ones...

I think this problem may stem from the fact that mega
corporations the likes of which run the world today
did not exist in the early days of the "invention" of
patents.  But I guess that's besides the point...

> You'd also want to prevent people from filing 
> patents simply to maliciously prevent others from
> using a new idea.

I am interested in patents for the inverse of this
very reason.  That is to say, If I don't want someone
to prevent me from applying my ideas then I'd better
have my own ass covered with my own patents.

Right or wrong being besides the point, if big
corporations have decided this "putting as many sticks
in the mud" approach to patents are a valid way to do
business then the small fry like us must pay even
closer attention and get in on the act quick.

Ironically, one could even argue that maybe the reason
big corporations are so obsessed with patents is
because they've had to fork over big bucks to
individuals who got to certain patents before they
did.  It's cheaper for them to pay a tiny legal team
to file shady patent applications like crazy then to
settle infringement suits for millions upon millions
of dollars.

> In a case like this, it seems absurd that you could
> patent "pedestrians diving out of the way" in a
> driving game. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1976
> arcade game Death Race had pedestrians trying to
> avoid getting run over.

Unfortunately this obviously correct logic does not
work in the case of paptents because as far as I know
infringing patents is technically not a criminal
offense.  I don't know about you but I've never heard
of any cases where the government prosecuted a patent
infringer on behalf of the patent holder.

This means that it's up to the holder of a patent to
decide if they want to take legal action.  After all,
that's all the patent laws guarantees a patent holder.
 If the patent holder doesn't see enough upside to
pursue legal action then that's the end of the line
for the supposed protection the patent offers.

A good example is the amount of patents for a simple
TV remote.  Do a search for patents related to TV
remotes and you'll find that hundreds of such patents
exist.  If you care to read a few of them you'll
quickly see that pretty much all of these patents are
basically the same patent with different drawings
describing different arrangement for circuits that
pretty much accomplish the same thing, remotely
control another electronic system.

Given the sheer volume of such similar patents, one
would think the whole electronics industry would grind
to a halt but that's just not what happens.  You want
to make a remote, you file a patent application that's
different enough to pass muster and move on to
manufacturing.  The chances are if some other giant
electronics company with a remote patent wants to sue
you they're probably infringing on one of your own
patents anyway and that'll be the end of that.

Besides, who wants to spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars to argue over 5% royalty rights on a stupid
remote that'll cost a few dollars wholesale at most
anyway?  BTW, that 5% royalty payment I'm told is
usually how the suits end, with the presiding judge
granting 5% of of total sales resulting from the
infringing action to the patent holder as damages from
missed royalty payments had the infringer applied for
a license to reproduce the patented item just like
everyone else.

You might be saying "That's it?  All this is over
lousy 5%?!?".  Well, actually no.  This segways in to
an interesting black hole in patent law.  The fact
that people who "unwittingly" infringe a patent are
treated differently then those who do so "knowingly". 
A good example of this is the infamouse Atari vs
Nintendo "NES authentication scheme reverse
engineering" case.  Atari had to "cease and desist"
and pay damage payments substantially higher then 5%
because they were found to have knowingly infringed up
on Nintendo's copyright and patent. (Apparently, one
of Atari's guys had literally walked in to the patent
office and took a copy of the patent grant which
described all the technical aspects of how the hand
shaking system worked.)

I say this is a black hole because this precedence of
punishing those who knowingly infringe a patent has
created a practice of "knowlingly infringing a patent
unwittingly".  That is to say, people are making it a
point to not do a patent search anymore before
implementing patentable ideas and submitting an
application.

Why?  Because if you don't know what's been patented
before you implement and submit and application then
you can't be "knowingly" infringing a patent.  This
means the worst that can happen to you even if you
loose a patent case is you'll most likely be made to
pay 5% of your gross sales where as if some how you're
proven to have known the existence of a prior patent
or published application and still went on to "copy"
the patented then you're liable for much much more. 
This I believe explains much of the frenzy surrounding
the irresponsible deluge of patent applications of
late.  After all, it's crystal clear that it pays to
be irresponsible in this way.

I found out about this phenomenon of "knowingly
infringing unwittingly" after some rather lengthy
searching and reading about patents on the internet. 
Needless to say I was quite shocked to hear this is
going on but after some mediation on the subject I've
come to the conclusion that I too must sadly do the
same in order to protect my own behind.

Trust me, I am just as frustrated as the next guy that
the whole patent thing's been turned on its head like
this.  I mean the system is so obviously broken! 
What's worse is that I don't see how the situation
could possibly change for the better.  The issue of
patent law is not going to help any one win elections
you know what I mean?  I think the best we can do is
try and learn as much about the process as possible
and become an active participant as soon as possible.

phong.


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