[casual_games] Gameplay patents

[Alex Amsel]

Interesting debate on patents but I do have some more thoughts.

Tom, I honestly think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think 
that's how it would work. I've got experience with big publishers, and 
their legal depts. If gameplay could be patented, rightly or wrongly 
they would chase down ANYONE coming close to what they have. Some do 
anyway, mentioning no names. That's what big business does even when 
they are in the wrong. I also know from experience that David vs Goliath 
legal action is not something you enter into lightly, however right you 
may be.

The other thing you seem to have forgotten is that the corporates would 
have depts dedicated to creating & patenting, just as happens in other 
industries. In a creative industry like ours, that would be an 
incredibly bad thing. Imagine if an artist patented a particular art 
style - in my mind that's what you're saying. Now yes, I know there is 
some protection in patent law about this, but can you fight a court 
battle? Probably not.

Patents are not for gameplay. This is regardless of the pros and cons of 
the patenting system, which isn't perfect.

As for clones - yes it's annoying but that just means you have to have 
more than a good idea, you need to implement it well too.

Zuma and Luzor vs Puzz Loop. Neither would have happened without Puzz 
Loop, but Puzz Loop (IMHO) is not a great game. Zuma and Luxor are 
superb. The core gameplay mechanic is the same and I'm pretty sure 
patenting the technique would have meant those "clones" not appearing.

Remember, there are good clones and bad ones. It's all about creating 
content that your audience wants, and about implementation of ideas. 
Anyone who's been in the industry for a while will tell you that ideas 
are in plentiful supply, implementation of them is not.

-- 

Alex Amsel
Tuna Technologies Ltd (Sheffield, UK)
Cross Platform Game Development
Tel: +44 (0)114 266 2211  Mob: +44(0)7771 524 632