Namco patented the idea of playing a minigame on a loading screen just before the PS1 launched, and for about 20 years, no one else could do it, forcing us to endure boring load times on any game that wasn't theirs. The patent expired in the mid-2010s.
You could beat eight Galaga stages in Tekken 1 to unlock Devil Kazuya, for instance.
Koei also patented how many enemies could be active at any one time in a hack-and-slash, which is why no one has ripped off Dynasty Warriors. That patent is likely close to expiring as well.
You and u/Cyberguy64 are dead wrong about game mechanics shouldn't be patentable. That's literally the whole point of a patent. Your complaint about no one doing anything with that patent is legitimate, but the question shouldn't be "why should these be patented", but instead: "why is no one licensing these patents?"
I'm all for making patent trolling a capital punishment because it is the genuine abuse of the legal system to use fraud to claim that there's something you invented, when in many cases the patent trolls didn't even make anything to begin with, and didn't buy anything from the original creator themselves. But banning game mechanics from being patented would destroy innovation in much the same way it does everywhere else when you end patents on things that aren't game mechanics. Suddenly, everyone would do the same thing that worked once, and no one would be interested on improving that system, because their is no profit incentive to make a new mechanic because the new mechanic would be copied. There's also no logical boundary to stop this from destroying the concept of making new games, because all games are effectively a series of gameplay mechanics that create a gameplay loop.
I'm not unsympathetic to your complaint, Shadow of Mordor's enemy ranking system (I can't remember what it's called now), is also encountering a similar problem. However, I'd argue that what seems to be the problem is that there is a licensing & judiciary issue. It should stand to reason that the software creators are getting more value from literally doing nothing with the property, than there is selling it to others. Now, since one literally generates profit and the other is nothing, that suggests to me that there is some sort of problem with the judiciary. It means that either the government is awarding more money from lawsuits than the company's could get from licensing (meaning the courts are over-valuing damages), or it means the courts are willing to allow for the infringement of patent protections in the event that licensing is taking place (meaning that there's no way to monetize the patent beyond lawsuits).
There's no reason why the creators of any of these systems shouldn't be able to sell a license for other companies to create similar systems. It would both protect their mechanic's patent (as people would recognize that it was theirs), and it would also make them a continual stream of income from each game sold that used their system. That's literally a kind of passive income, which is what every investor loves. So, why the hell wouldn't they be doing it? I suspect that lies entirely with the courts.
Software patents wouldn't be so bad if they patented specific code, but they're patenting vague concepts here. It's not like patents on physical items, where a competitor can research and find an alternate process to achieve the same end without violating the patent.
This doesn't seem to be the case according to the US Patent law. They're pretty clear that you can't patent a concept, only the creation from the idea. Something tangible, like the code, or perhaps a data structure graph.
This is why I think there's more going on here. I feel like this is more like a bad judiciary that's claiming "welp, you made a thing, so all variants of this thing are also yours regardless of who makes them, or why, or in what way."
E: What's with the downvotes? This is what Insurance companies do to fuck up a case and reduce their liability: hire attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant. It happened to me!
Arguing against patenting this, is arguing against the nature of patents at all.
As someone whose name is on a couple of patents, I wouldn't be opposed to this.
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
Or, say, the dude who invented a brake for table saws that make it impossible to cut yourself with them. No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
The patent system is 100% captured by large institutional players and used only as a bludgeon against legitimate competition.
No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
That's not it. He originally tried to sell it to other mfgs. They basically told him, "it's too expensive to put in our low-end saws and if we put it in the high-end ones, we'd be admitting liability for any injuries from the low-end ones."
In other words, it's the lawyers again, just like it always is. So with no one willing to implement it, he struck out on his own with a company that makes only ones that implement it. It would have been in every brand by now if not for ambulance chasers.
I'm not really objecting to the patent system as it is built with law and courts, in fact that's my point. But I don't accept that removing patents altogether is a sane idea.
No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
Same issue, where the licensing? If the problem is duration, then the period they should be waiting should be longer, not shorter. And is this even true? Are company's really just prepared to make nothing for decades to just wait, or is there a different incentive structure driving them, that would suggest it's not worth getting a license, or developing a different patent?
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
It literally happens all the time, and to be clear, incremental development is still critical to innovation. I accept that we have a large number of patent trolls, but I don't see the ide of removing patents at all. And to your point, you're talking about IP's. Now you're talking eliminating the concept of inventing things for a profit in it's entirety. At that point, there's no reason for innovation at all.
I will have you know that my retarded arguments were made of my own work and effort, and are not monetized. I will keep my $2. If you wish, you may summon the constabulary to eat my penis.
There is NO CODE being patented here. It is CONCEPTS!
The concept of "fighting more than 100 enemies at once". The concept of "riding an animal that was captured in combat by the player". The concept of "capturing an animal within a thrown containment device".
THESE are what are being patented. Not a pile of code, not a code equivalency, just vague concepts, which are then used to atrophy and stymie creativity in the rest of the industry. I'm sorry, your game has too many bad guys, it's court time for you!
The concept of patenting game mechanics is absolutely abhorrent to me.
Namco patented the idea of playing a minigame on a loading screen just before the PS1 launched, and for about 20 years, no one else could do it, forcing us to endure boring load times on any game that wasn't theirs. The patent expired in the mid-2010s.
You could beat eight Galaga stages in Tekken 1 to unlock Devil Kazuya, for instance.
Koei also patented how many enemies could be active at any one time in a hack-and-slash, which is why no one has ripped off Dynasty Warriors. That patent is likely close to expiring as well.
Just so I'm clear, yes, I agree with you.
You and u/Cyberguy64 are dead wrong about game mechanics shouldn't be patentable. That's literally the whole point of a patent. Your complaint about no one doing anything with that patent is legitimate, but the question shouldn't be "why should these be patented", but instead: "why is no one licensing these patents?"
Game mechanics were explicitly created using code, formed from an idea. Arguing against patenting this, is arguing against the nature of patents at all. See Raz0rfist's rant on why abolishing IPs are bad & Socialism.
I'm all for making patent trolling a capital punishment because it is the genuine abuse of the legal system to use fraud to claim that there's something you invented, when in many cases the patent trolls didn't even make anything to begin with, and didn't buy anything from the original creator themselves. But banning game mechanics from being patented would destroy innovation in much the same way it does everywhere else when you end patents on things that aren't game mechanics. Suddenly, everyone would do the same thing that worked once, and no one would be interested on improving that system, because their is no profit incentive to make a new mechanic because the new mechanic would be copied. There's also no logical boundary to stop this from destroying the concept of making new games, because all games are effectively a series of gameplay mechanics that create a gameplay loop.
I'm not unsympathetic to your complaint, Shadow of Mordor's enemy ranking system (I can't remember what it's called now), is also encountering a similar problem. However, I'd argue that what seems to be the problem is that there is a licensing & judiciary issue. It should stand to reason that the software creators are getting more value from literally doing nothing with the property, than there is selling it to others. Now, since one literally generates profit and the other is nothing, that suggests to me that there is some sort of problem with the judiciary. It means that either the government is awarding more money from lawsuits than the company's could get from licensing (meaning the courts are over-valuing damages), or it means the courts are willing to allow for the infringement of patent protections in the event that licensing is taking place (meaning that there's no way to monetize the patent beyond lawsuits).
There's no reason why the creators of any of these systems shouldn't be able to sell a license for other companies to create similar systems. It would both protect their mechanic's patent (as people would recognize that it was theirs), and it would also make them a continual stream of income from each game sold that used their system. That's literally a kind of passive income, which is what every investor loves. So, why the hell wouldn't they be doing it? I suspect that lies entirely with the courts.
Software patents wouldn't be so bad if they patented specific code, but they're patenting vague concepts here. It's not like patents on physical items, where a competitor can research and find an alternate process to achieve the same end without violating the patent.
This doesn't seem to be the case according to the US Patent law. They're pretty clear that you can't patent a concept, only the creation from the idea. Something tangible, like the code, or perhaps a data structure graph.
This is why I think there's more going on here. I feel like this is more like a bad judiciary that's claiming "welp, you made a thing, so all variants of this thing are also yours regardless of who makes them, or why, or in what way."
Usually when something idiotic pops up, I look to the insurance companies first for why. Trail usually ends with those fuckers.
That's because they are funding both attorneys.
E: What's with the downvotes? This is what Insurance companies do to fuck up a case and reduce their liability: hire attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant. It happened to me!
As someone whose name is on a couple of patents, I wouldn't be opposed to this.
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
Or, say, the dude who invented a brake for table saws that make it impossible to cut yourself with them. No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
The patent system is 100% captured by large institutional players and used only as a bludgeon against legitimate competition.
That's not it. He originally tried to sell it to other mfgs. They basically told him, "it's too expensive to put in our low-end saws and if we put it in the high-end ones, we'd be admitting liability for any injuries from the low-end ones."
In other words, it's the lawyers again, just like it always is. So with no one willing to implement it, he struck out on his own with a company that makes only ones that implement it. It would have been in every brand by now if not for ambulance chasers.
On a similar note, the best charge cable I've ever used for my Samsung Galaxy s9+ is...the one that came with the phone.
But it's so SHORT. So I tried to order a new, longer one.
...It's not available anywhere other than Samsung's own website. Which is so poorly-designed and hard to use, unlike the phone itself.
Why do I still use an s9+? It still holds a charge. Why would I change my phone before it doesn't?
I'm not really objecting to the patent system as it is built with law and courts, in fact that's my point. But I don't accept that removing patents altogether is a sane idea.
Same issue, where the licensing? If the problem is duration, then the period they should be waiting should be longer, not shorter. And is this even true? Are company's really just prepared to make nothing for decades to just wait, or is there a different incentive structure driving them, that would suggest it's not worth getting a license, or developing a different patent?
It literally happens all the time, and to be clear, incremental development is still critical to innovation. I accept that we have a large number of patent trolls, but I don't see the ide of removing patents at all. And to your point, you're talking about IP's. Now you're talking eliminating the concept of inventing things for a profit in it's entirety. At that point, there's no reason for innovation at all.
Sorry, but I have a patent posts that make retarded arguments. You're going to either have to remove this or send me $2m.
I will have you know that my retarded arguments were made of my own work and effort, and are not monetized. I will keep my $2. If you wish, you may summon the constabulary to eat my penis.
There is NO CODE being patented here. It is CONCEPTS!
The concept of "fighting more than 100 enemies at once". The concept of "riding an animal that was captured in combat by the player". The concept of "capturing an animal within a thrown containment device".
THESE are what are being patented. Not a pile of code, not a code equivalency, just vague concepts, which are then used to atrophy and stymie creativity in the rest of the industry. I'm sorry, your game has too many bad guys, it's court time for you!
I don't think that's true. That would be a copyright as far as it sounds to me.