[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Kirby, Neil A (Neil)]

See quoted text below.

Well, I think that Jonas would not take that course because he's mentioned it in an internet forum and that would look bad in the lawsuit.  But if the patent is held by a for-profit, ethically-challenged corporation, the calculus he mentioned might happen.  The sequence might be:

1. Ignore the patent till the inventor informs you of infringement.  Claim ignorance.  There are a LOT of patents out there and bright people think alike.  Developers are too busy to keep current of what all those yahoos out there with more lawyers than sense are getting past the patent office these days.

2. Dispute the validity of the patent (lawyers make money).  Show prior art and threaten the inventor with having their patent overturned if they bother you.

3. Optional: Counter sue for infringement.  This is what keeps the big players in IP mostly in line.  IBM and Microsoft rarely get into full-blown cat-fights over patents because it's simpler to cross license and make money from patents than to sue and be sued.  That note under item 1 about "a lot of patents out there" and "bright minds think alike" means that a good deal of unintentional infringement goes on.  

4. Vigorously defend self if it gets that far, especially if there is a lopsided difference in available funds to spend on the war.  Spend the patent holder into submission.

All of this boils down to:
Wherever there is power, there will be those who abuse it.  The world is only as just as we make it.


Me, personally?  There are good patents and bad patents.  

Some software patents are perfect poster children of patenting the obvious that had prior art but no one challenged it in court.  Those are bad.  

I have seen a software patent for an algorithm that cuts many orders of magnitude off the run time for a certain class of very useful software.  As in millions or billions times faster.  It took about twenty years for PCs to get a thousand times faster CPUs.  This software gives you the computer from forty years from now today, in effect.  There are 31.5 million seconds in a year if that helps.  This is the classic case of a very innovative, non-obvious invention that merits a patent.

There ARE good software patents out there, but the bad ones give them a bad name.  



>Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 07:37:12 -0500

>From: Jason Van Anden <robotissues at gmail.com>

>Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents

>To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List <casual_games at igda.org>

>Message-ID: <B44BBAAC-FAFA-476A-AFDD-08681CE6D966 at gmail.com>

>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

>

>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.

> _______________________________________________

>


---
Neil Kirby              +1.614.367.5524        Hope is not a strategy
Bell Laboratories     nak at alcatel-lucent.com   Prayer is not a process
6100 E. Broad St.                              Tuning is not a plan
Columbus, OH 43213      USA                    Chaos does not scale