[casual_games] Gameplay patents
Tom Hubina
tomh at mofactor.com
Wed Feb 14 14:19:20 EST 2007
Not true - Inventions are expected to reference previous works, and the
description of your invention needs to clearly be different from the
previous work.
For example, in Wolf3D and DOOM, you couldn't aim up/down. In Marathon (on
Mac around same time as Doom) you actually had "real" 3D physics and the
ability to aim up/down, etc. Quake (which shipped after Marathon) mostly
innovated on the control system and increased the complexity of level
geometry. After that point, the controls for navigation were mostly fixed
for every FPS that followed, and innovation was in the graphics / sound /
networking pieces.
Each title is the sum of many different inventions, some borrowed from
others and some of your own. The first guy into the market probably has
dozens of inventions but many of them get improved upon (replaced) quickly
by the next several generations and you end up with a bunch of different
people each holding inventions for various pieces. This allows for
reasonable cross-licensing to happen (which keeps the rates down) and the
goal of each product is to create something new.
Of course this also sounds like a hell of a lot of work - so much so that it
could get in the way of actually making games in a reasonable time frame ;)
*sigh*
Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Ricky Haggett
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:58 AM
> To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
>
> > In other words, patents encourage innovation by removing
> the ability
> > to
> make a direct copy.
>
> Is that true? My understanding was that a successful patent
> on a gameplay mechanic would prevent anyone else from using
> that mechanic at all - whether that be to make a direct copy,
> or to build upon it.
>
> The problem with being able to successfully patent 'UNIQUE'
> gameplay is that everything was unique once - including
> navigating a space in a FP viewpoint, a spaceship shooting an
> invader, or the bringing of 3 objects of the same colour into
> the same proximity.
>
> It seems like a lot of the discussion on this subject has
> been about the moral and practical issues surrounding patents
> without making it clear (to me, with real-world examples)
> what the exact scope of what a patent should or can cover.
>
> > Simply using a different character, or changing the images
> from gems
> > to
> flowers isn't a
> > sufficient difference to warrant a new game, but it's
> currently enough
> > to
> get a new casual game
> > up on the portals.
>
> This is absolutely an issue worth addressing, but I'm not
> sure that expensive and complex legal terminology which
> attempts to unambiguously describe something as fuzzy as
> gameplay will be the measure to resolve it.
>
> Ricky
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Hubina
> Sent: 14 February 2007 18:18
> To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
>
> There's always the ability to improve on an existing
> invention to make a new one. If the original idea is
> patented, you just have to make sure that your idea is a
> noticeable improvement. In other words, patents encourage
> innovation by removing the ability to make a direct copy. You
> either innovate, or you don't release. The only people that
> get hurt are the ones who cannot innovate. (In practice this
> isn't true under the current system, which is precisely why I
> said it's broken ...)
>
> And as for making an invention "the exclusive playground of
> the original developer" - yes. That's the entire point. It's
> definitely possible for the person holding the patent to
> license it for free/cheap, or to charge an arm and a leg. But
> they invented it. It's theirs.
>
> I'm sorry - but if you think it's ok to rip of someone else's
> ideas so you can make a buck then you're just a thief and in
> general a really crappy person. If you can't come up with
> your own ideas then you shouldn't be making games. And that's
> how I feel about every one of the knock-offs that make up the
> majority of the game releases in casual games. Simply using a
> different character, or changing the images from gems to
> flowers isn't a sufficient difference to warrant a new game,
> but it's currently enough to get a new casual game up on the portals.
>
> Tom
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> > [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Lennard
> Feddersen
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:42 AM
> > To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
> >
> > There are some very basic game play mechanics - asteroids, space
> > invaders, Castle Wolfenstein 3D (the ~1991 version) that became
> > genres.
> > Bejewelled became a genre. Making those game types the exclusive
> > property playground of the original developers would not be
> good for
> > anyone but the original developers and probably knock off
> companies in
> > territories where pursuing them would not be profitable due
> to their
> > lack of funds and enforcability issues. The publishers of each of
> > these products profited pretty well from being able to make
> cool games
> > in the right place and time. Also, in my understanding, at
> least the
> > 1st two examples made the companies and not the developers rich.
> >
> > You can copyright and protect the look of your game. This
> is a good
> > thing. If somebody makes something that looks exactly like
> Bejewelled
> > then "hangin's too good for them". But that is not what we are
> > talking about. We are talking about protecting the well
> rewarded by
> > stifling future creativity and growth. I suspect my previous posts
> > relay how repugnant I feel that direction is - it leads to
> the kind of
> > paranoia that gets you DRM in Vista.
> >
> > Lennard Feddersen
> > CEO, Rusty Axe Games, Inc.
> > www.RustyAxe.com
> >
> > Lennard at RustyAxe.com
> > P. 250-635-7623 F. 1-309-422-2466
> > P. July & August 518-863-2317
> > 5014 Walsh, Terrace, BC, Canada, V8G-4H2
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Hubina wrote:
> > > There are _many_ problems with patents when applied to
> > software, but
> > > they're all caused be the processes that are in place for
> a system
> > > that is antiquated. The system just can't handle the fact
> that the
> > > industry moves about 10x faster than it can handle. The
> result is a
> > > pure mess that's horrible for everyone involved.
> > >
> > > We _should_ be able to patent UNIQUE game play. We _should_
> > be able to
> > > leverage some form of legal protection to stem the tide
> of rampant
> > > copycats that is absolutely destroying the casual games
> > industry (buy
> > > me a drink at GDC and I'll talk your ear off about this topic).
> > > However, the current patent system is woefully inadequate
> > for the task
> > > and the one group that could do something about copycats
> > (the portals)
> > > have no financial incentive for doing so (they're turning to
> > > advertising to solve the financial problems they create).
> > >
> > > There's almost no value in patenting unique game play in
> casual. It
> > > will be roughly 3 years before you can exercise the
> > protection and by
> > > then 50 (100?) or more knock offs will have been created, the
> > > companies that created them will have gone out of
> business or have
> > > liquidated all tangible assets, and the damage caused both to the
> > > patent holder and the industry in general will have long
> > since past the point of relevant action.
> > >
> > > You can debate whether patents are evil or not till your
> > blue in the
> > > face, but given the current system it's totally irrelevant since
> > > patents are basically ineffectual in casual games (and to
> a lesser
> > > extent games in general). At best you can hope for an increased
> > > valuation by some investors, but as Daniel James points
> > out, they're
> > > probably not the kind of investors you want anyway.
> > >
> > > For my own two cents - patents aren't evil, they're just
> > horribly broken.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> > >> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org] On Behalf Of Milt Michael
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:57 AM
> > >> To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
> > >> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
> > >>
> > >> Absolutely...I've really enjoyed reading all the banter
> from both
> > >> sides - this has been a great discussion!
> > >>
> > >> We've been debated two separate issues as I see it: 1)
> > whether it's
> > >> worth a developer's time and money or not, and
> > >> 2) whether it is healthy for the industry or not.
> > >>
> > >> Me thinks it depends on your place within the industry and
> > what your
> > >> resources are as to whether it's an advantage or not. I probably
> > >> represent less than 1% of the members of this list. You
> > might refer
> > >> to me as a "basement inventor". Believe me, most of my
> friends who
> > >> have played my game and advised me have exibited more fear of me
> > >> losing my game than I feel.
> > >> There's a lot of fear and misunderstanding out there about
> > patents,
> > >> trademarks, and copyright.
> > >>
> > >> I have a team member who is experienced in patents, but
> > we're a long
> > >> way from having a development team or a distribution
> > channel, so I'm
> > >> going ahead with one but not two as I we had previously planned.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not going to patent gameplay as I think that is
> > covered mostly by
> > >> copyright laws anyways, so it's not worth it. This patent
> > will be for
> > >> a "device with game play".
> > >>
> > >> So, are patents healthy for the industry? You guys would
> be better
> > >> able to answer that one. What if PopCap had patented the 3-link
> > >> thing? Things would definitely be different!
> > >>
> > >> Maybe there would be an abundance of hungry programmers,
> > >> distributors, and investors :)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org
> > >> [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
> > >> On Behalf Of Hal Barwood
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:06 AM
> > >> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> > >> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Gameplay patents
> > >>
> > >> Have you noticed? Patents are a game.
> > >>
> > >> Jason Van Anden wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> 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_Gam
> > >> es_List_FAQ
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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_Gam
> > >> es_List_FAQ
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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_Gam
> > >> es_List_FAQ
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Casual_Games mailing list
> > > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > > http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> > > Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> > Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> > Archive Search:
> >
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8
> > List FAQ:
> > http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Gam
> > es_List_FAQ
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> Archive Search:
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8
> List FAQ:
> http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Gam
> es_List_FAQ
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release
> Date: 14/02/2007
> 16:17
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> Archive: http://www.igda.org/casual-subscribe
> Archive Search:
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010373383720242846960%3Az3tdwggxil8
> List FAQ:
> http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/Casual_Games_SIG/Casual_Gam
> es_List_FAQ
>
More information about the Casual_Games
mailing list