[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Daniel James]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Milt Michael wrote:


> My purpose for patenting is to add value for investors. 


I believe that you are mistaken if you think that any sensible investor 
would prefer to have you spending your time and their money on tiresome 
legal paperwork rather than actual product development and execution.

I have had prospective investors ask about patents. They were not 
sensible.

Success cases in casual and core games, along with movies, internet 
media sites and many other examples have all come down to quality of 
execution rather than tiresome time-wasting legal machinations. Patents 
are an often-abused tool designed to allow technological inventors to 
enjoy a brief monopoly on innovations at the price of legal bureaucracy 
and sharing the implementation details back with their competitors.

Even for the real examples of this kind of innovation in the game space 
(e.g. I believe Harmonix has some patents on aspects of Guitar Hero's 
underlying technology) the patent has absolutely nothing to do with 
success -- making a quality experience is the number one thing (probably 
followed by marketing/distribution, with competitive worries coming a 
distant third or fifth). Anything that distracts from the main thing is, 
imho, a boondoggle.


> I don't see how it stifles creativity


For the patent to be at all meaningful you are going to have to spend 
your time writing letters to and/or suing other game developers. Given 
that the only ones worth (pur)suing have somehow executed on your idea 
in a way that makes them commercially successful, therefore they have 
arguably been creative in *some* way, it seems to me that the only point 
of a patent is to stifle their creativity *and* yours, because;


> (other than the time it takes)


Time is your most precious commodity.

- Daniel, also riled by patents

CEO | Three Rings | http://thefloggingwillcontinue.com/