What is Digg?130 Comments
- puelocesar, on 03/10/2008, -2/+68patents are stupid.. Some day long time ago they were created to protect innovation, but today they are just destroying innovation
- LiebeMachtFrei, on 03/10/2008, -1/+59I hope they patent escort missions, so we NEVER HAVE TO PLAY THEM AGAIN
- Aliminator, on 03/10/2008, -0/+56I want to patent the health gauge. Hell, I also want to patent extra lives.
- terrix, on 03/10/2008, -1/+34I'd be willing to boycott Namco, and any other game development company who tries to cripple its competitors by proxy the industry, in this manner.
- Kasot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+31Not much pisses me off more than software patents.
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -0/+30The patent system is definitely broken and out of date.
- doctorfungi, on 03/10/2008, -1/+30We should patent the process of patenting video game mechanics.
- kmckanna, on 03/10/2008, -1/+29Words cannot describe the ridiculousness of what these companies are doing. Patenting the idea of "arrows pointing to a destination?"
Umm, last time I checked, THE ENTIRE POINT of an ARROW was to indicate a direction to what IDEALLY is a destination. I am pretty sure these (arrows, and the concept of them) were long created before Crazy Taxi... ***** wankers. - smacksaw, on 03/10/2008, -0/+15Quick. Let's patent riding in an elevator.
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -1/+14Isn't this a little like the porn industry trying to get a patent on pussy?
- scarab5, on 03/10/2008, -0/+11It is if your not even sure your game will make you money and now you have to pay royalties on top of that. Kills the little guy. Patents only help companies with enough lawyers to read and enforce them.
- chingy1788, on 03/10/2008, -0/+11I want to patent use of controlling device to control game
- GramarNatzi, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9Like you say, patents are a necessity in many cases, but some patents are ***** stupid like SEGA patenting the arrow. Imagine GM patented the wheel. The only car you could buy with wheels would be from them, all other cars would have square wheels. How does that encourage innovation?
Great ideas are often built upon other great ideas. Locking out access to great idea's is essentially destroying innovation. Patents should only be effective for a few years, allowing the inventor to cash in, and after that the idea should become public domain. - SabrinaHeaven, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9This is like if I patented a method for creating suspense in mystery novels.
- atreusk, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8ha! i got the patent be4 u
- FredFredrickson, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Patents themselves are not stupid - people being allowed to patent things that are well within the bounds of public domain are.
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -2/+9What incentive is there to innovate when you've already locked out the competition? Whereas, if your competition can copy your every move, you're forced to constantly innovate just to stay in the game. You have to find new and innovative ways to distinguish yourself from the competition.
- Ellipsys, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7The ways patents are used today are pathetic. Drug and software patents are by far the worst.
- CaptMonkey, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Too late.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=9I04AAAAEBAJ&dq=r ... - MxM111, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6"Patent's protect the innovator to ensure a reward for the work put into innovation. Without a patent, there is not incentive for people to innovate because their ideas are available for everyone."
If creating new game with interesting new innovative gameplay that sells millions of copies is not reward, then I do not know what is. - yohnstoppable, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Or kill collection quests. Or grinding. Or... you know what, ***** mmorpgs
- imikedaman, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Most people don't have a problem with patents, because they too would want protection for their ideas when the time comes. The real problem most people have with patents is that they overstay their welcome.
In this day and age, patents should only last for up to 6 months after you finish implementing your idea. That would give you quite a head start in terms of marketing and brand recognition, it'd guarantee that you have a chance to make a healthy return on your investment, and it give others a chance to enter the market and force you to rely on your superior product and marketing instead of your timely patent filing. - zengonzo, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5And the difference between stealing the code and using a similar game mechanic is that it would take less time to write up your own version than it would be to reverse engineer the code.
Which should probably be the gauge for denying a game mechanic patent .. - PhantomRogue, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Patents should last for 4 years, enough time to get it to market and make your money. You cant patent idea's without ever trying to produce them. Its that simple.
People try to patent the Future of an item, now what its for. Patent your INVENTION, not some theoretical use of an item that may or may not ever come to fruition! - trogdor282, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Sure, in the ivory tower it works great, but then people patent things like 'method of shooting a video game character with a mouse'
- Yamoth, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4that would be a little hard for a gamer to so seeing how pretty much every company do this...
- fryguy1013, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Do you really think reverse engineering compiled and optimized code is that easy to do? Even looking through your own optimized and compiled code is difficult. And no project manager is ever going to allow that. It is vastly easier to just implement it from scratch.
- dynamik, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Why would you want to never want to play.. oh... you mean when you're the escort...
- Stupidumb, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5You can't do that. I already patented the idea of "quick-patenting". Give me money.
- dc_dog, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4The Senate is set to vote on a the Patent Reform Act next month. The bill is designed to improve patent quality and put an end to junk patent lawsuits. Call your Senators and tell them to vote in favor of the Patent Reform Act. It will take you all of 3 minutes to look up their number and pass along your thoughts. Better yet, go to their website and send an email.
They count the calls and emails...tell them you care about this issue and you think the current patent system is hurting innovation. - imikedaman, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5I want to emphasize your second paragraph: I'm fine with patents protecting ideas (I'd want my ideas to be protected when the time comes), but they need to be a lot more specific and pivotal to game play (mini-games during a loading screen?) and should expire after your idea is implemented (or up to something like a year, whichever is shorter).
It's vital to companies that they get protection for any ideas they come up with, but they only need that protection until their idea is fully implemented. After that, the patent needs to expire and they'd have to rely on their superior craftsmanship to retain their market position. - ScaredOfTheMan, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4yeah I mean, our patents are really protecting us from China and India, those IP Respecting nations are just lining up to pay our royalties when they innovate (Copy) on our "IP". Patents' are a way to create control and scarcity of ideas, nothing else. While we sit around expecting people to pay us simply because we were smart enough to patent some vague concept, process or idea, the rest of the world is blasting past us. So keep thinking Patent is a valuable thing, and in 10 years you will see how far behind we fall.
- zengonzo, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4So if the game has already sold well, why should anyone be locked out from developing something along the same lines?
I agree that patents are generally good. However, video games have a vastly different market than, say, engine components, or just about any other media product. They should probably be evaluated with those differences in mind. - grumbel, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3"colossal amounts R&D", yeah, expect of course that a lot of ***** that gets patented these days costs close to zero in development, with by far the most expensive part being the lawyer who writes the patent text.
- smacksaw, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4After reading a lot of the posts here, I think...
A lot of people have a point about patents being useless nowadays. There's really not much stopping people who steal. The ones who should be punished get away with it, while patent trolls are stifling innovation.
I think we can all agree in principle that people should be compensated for their efforts. However, that being said, that's why there's no patent on the Coke formula or KFC spices. It's kept a secret. Maybe that's an idea.
I'd like to see more research and development done in the public domain, mainly at universities. Competition is great, duplication of effort is not. It seems to me that instead of a few companies hiring R&D people and working in parallel, working collaboratively would deliver far more bang for the buck, and then whoever can implement the invention best wins in the marketplace of competition.
Finally, I think copyright and patents should not be overly confused. Art is emotional property while a design or an invention is intellectual property. No one should be able to use Mickey Mouse without paying Disney, but anyone can make a cartoon mouse. No copyright precludes you from having invented Jerry from Tom & Jerry. But if it were patented, no one would be able to make a cartoon mouse without paying Disney. That's the difference in the sanity (or lack thereof). - CedEx, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3In addition to that, some of these patents are so vague, even the inventors don't bother trying to come up with HOW they want to implement their patent, so they just wait for someone to fill in the details to their ideas, and BLAME-O... hit them with a patent suit.
And just like that, I would like to patent 3D holographic display for a gaming device of some conventional design.... blah blah... now I just sit and wait. - Stupidumb, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Yes but I have the patent on patent pa...Oh never mind.
- austin63, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3that would also be prior art,
but we could patent the process of patenting patent processes. Oh, wait this could get out of control. - austin63, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3You are correct if you patent the process of making the house for $1, but the problem here is patenting the idea of making a house for $1.
If i took the time to find my own way in making houses for $1 we would be participants in a low cost housing market.
Protecting the artist is important, but the other side of the coin is to maintain a healthy marketplace. - gthyb, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I'm reminded of the guy who came up with the head-tracking Wii setup. He didn't say "I patented this and now I want to see some money". I believe the end of the video ended with "I want to see some games".
- Pixelante, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5You say "Willow" and "Pussy", I say "Tara" and "Tongue".
- phosphite, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Go look up what prior art is, and then realize how nice iD (or others) were not to patent the FPS.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3If your competition could innovate, they wouldn't rip off your IP.
- CedEx, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2PROTECT THE VIP!
- pnmoore, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Software patents in general are the issue. They are usually so vague and general that you could legitimately interpret so many things as falling under that patent that it truly does stifle any kind of innovation.
Even if it is a gaming mechanic that does not fall under software, if allowed to patent very vague and general type items companies are destroying innovation with the same issues mentioned above. - Cerebral, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Is "playing games in loading screens" really something that deserves a patent? I mean we all sat there at our Playstation and said "damn I wish this was a little game or something." Now if they wanted to patent the technical aspects that went into allowing the game to be playable while still caching the real game, fine. Otherwise this is the problem with the patent game right now.
- scarab5, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Dugg for content and the use of ***** wankers.
- warriorscot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2There is a difference between patenting a drug or a piece of technology, patents in my mind should only be granted for specific things, eg actual products things you can hold in your hands. Intellectual property should not be covered unless it is of such difficulty and expense to create that it is unique and difficult to reproduce but such patents should be short and only last as long as it takes someone else to independently reproduce the same thing.
Games are software, they are the creations of peoples minds, you can't patent that as its reproducible, also many of the game mechanics are universal to it as maths is to engineering, can you imagine if Newton patented calculus it is the same principle and you can't do it any other way by your logic even if someone else also invented it independently it is still newtons and needs paying for. And if we had to pay for it Newtons estate would have more money than any nation on the planet and nothing to spend it on. - EmeraldTsurugi, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2As much as I understand that if the gaming industry consolidated to a single MASSIVE company, I kind of feel that there should be some collaboration on how to improve games. Like maybe discussion on how to make more efficient code, better loading times, better graphical detail techniques, etc. Would we be able to improve the quality of games at a faster rate?
Or is the gaming industry, in the end, just another case where it's all money-focus? - JoshReflek, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Ars's article poorly explained the bredth of their example. It appears they just read the documents related to the case and made their own assumptions.
You should actually go and play Sega's Crazy Taxi for a few minutes.
Got a feel for it?
Ok, now go play Simpson's Road Rage.
They blatantly ripped off Sega's "taxi gameplay"' concepts and execution down to triggered voicefile events, camera movement and control of the vehicle.
It's the same damned game. Not just "they both use arrows to point, cry moar nub".
Another great example is CapCom's Street Fighter versus Fighter's History.
Six buttons to attack, three punches and three kicks
Special moves are done with:
- the Ryu / Ken "fireball" motion, the "dragonpunch" motion as well as
-Guile's Charge back then push forward and a button "sonic boom" motion, charge down then push up and kick "flash kick",
Fighter's History doesn't attempt to innovate at all.
The cast of Fighter's History is a rehash of Street Fighter, their normal attacks are the same, but reassigned a little.
Everytime a character does a special move they yell some unintelligible phrase.
Look at Mizoguchi's specials, he has a fireball, hurricane kick.....
The large character Marstorius has a big throw attack done with the same motion as Zangief's.
Character's get dizzy from too many hits using the exact same animation of an icon floating in a circle above their heads.
Both have yellow lifebars at the top of the screen that collapse in the middle with the current round's time as well as the score being shown above the player's lifebar and name beneath that.
CapCom's mistake with their lawsuit was the attempt to say "Since we invented the fighting genre, noone else deserves to make fighting games EVER", instead of a more realistic stance that "Fighter's History is a blatant copy with all of it's gameplay elements directly lifted from Street Fighter"
You can't patent an entire genre, but doing little more than reskinning the beast should require some kind of royalty to and permission from the originator of the concept. -
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is