[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Jason Van Anden]

It sounds to me like you suggesting that if someone has gone to the  
trouble and expense of legally protecting their intellectual  
property,  you would decide to violate this right based solely on  
whether you had more resources than your competitor.  It seems to me  
that this is morally and ethically perverse, and ought to be  
discouraged more so than patents themselves.  Does anyone (else) out  
there feel that (reasonable) patents are a good thing - or is  
"patents == bad" the general consensus of the casual games community?


On Feb 11, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Jonas Beckeman wrote:


> The substantial amount of time and money to get the patent approved is

> *nothing* compared to what it will take to defend it.

> The patent itself doesn't really give any protection, only when  

> tried in

> court will you know if it's solid. It probably isn't (although your  

> lawyer

> will work very, very hard to write a specification that is  

> impossible to

> interpret), and then you'll only be left with a huge pile of lawyer  

> bills.

>

> But it's true some investors like software patents, however ridiculous

> they may be - it looks good on paper and adds a whiff of the "serious"

> research-intense industries.

>

> If I feel like infringing on your patent, I will assess your financial

> status and if I think I have more resources than you, I'll simply  

> ignore

> it. With more money, I'll wear you out in court, if it comes to that.

> _______________________________________________

> Casual_Games mailing list

> Casual_Games at igda.org

> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games

> Archive: http://seven.pairlist.net/pipermail/casual_games/

> Archive Search: http://www.google.com/coop/cse? 

> cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8

> List FAQ: http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/ 

> Casual_Games_List_FAQ