One major distinction between this patent and others that involve abstract or novel concepts is that those patents can tangibly be expressed in the real world, even if they haven't been. It's not an invention or an improvement upon an invention if it literally cannot ever exist or at least cannot ever exist according to our understanding. Anything associated with throwing balls and catching monsters is imagination and not reality. As intellectual property, it should therefore only be subject to copyright law unless specifically trademarked. Patents generally must represent a novel utility (e.g., the concepts you're talking about) or a novel design to facilitate utility with both needing at least the potential for practical application. That doesn't exist where fantasy monsters are concerned.
Also, I'm not talking about details like screws or whatever, I don't think that's analogous.
What are you talking about? Software has tangible application and real world expression. Fantasy does not. How do you not see the distinction? Digital applications actually exist and are also facilitated by the real-world application of physical laws (ie., the flow of current) to perform actual functions.
Software has utility, make-believe does not. I was pretty clear in that patents cover novel utility.
Software is fantasy because it is completely abstract. You can not draw a line between software that is a game and software that is a spreadsheet. Neither exist in the real world and both are abstract concepts. Both are digital applications and are governed by real world laws.
Not to mention, that's not the point of the patent, it's not trying to patent something within a fictional universe. It's patenting a function within code.
How is software "completely abstract" when it constantly affects your everyday life? Even then, that's not what I said, I said software has real world expression and fantasy doesn't. Software is facilitating this conversation. It results in objective and demonstrable changes to almost every single person's life on this planet on an ongoing basis. Fantasy monsters don't do that, they're imaginary.
If you're equating the two somehow, are you saying software is imaginary? Are you saying the logic that underpins code -- the natural mathematical and physical laws -- are imaginary? Bullshit, nothing in the universe exists without those laws. They're abstract but they're also real. You can test for them and you can channel them for tangible benefit. Pokemon are not real. Technology that could only exist if Pokemon exist is not real.
Both software and Pokemon are abstract, but software is real and Pokemon are imaginary. Therefore, all technology predicated on Pokemon existing must also be imaginary. Any patents predicated on that imaginary tech are retarded and unjustifiable. How is this such a sticking point?
What's the point of even distinguishing patent and copyright otherwise? Why don't Paramount/CBS (Star Trek) own all the cell phone patents? Why doesn't Disney/Lucasfilm (Star Wars) own all the laser patents? Making something up that can't exist isn't worthy of a patent, you have to be able to implement it, and guess what, you can implement code. It has UTILITY. It's REAL. Pokeballs DON'T HAVE UTILITY because they AREN'T and CANNOT BE REAL.
One major distinction between this patent and others that involve abstract or novel concepts is that those patents can tangibly be expressed in the real world, even if they haven't been. It's not an invention or an improvement upon an invention if it literally cannot ever exist or at least cannot ever exist according to our understanding. Anything associated with throwing balls and catching monsters is imagination and not reality. As intellectual property, it should therefore only be subject to copyright law unless specifically trademarked. Patents generally must represent a novel utility (e.g., the concepts you're talking about) or a novel design to facilitate utility with both needing at least the potential for practical application. That doesn't exist where fantasy monsters are concerned.
Also, I'm not talking about details like screws or whatever, I don't think that's analogous.
You're eliminating the concept of patenting software altogether, that's absurd. It's also not a copyright.
What are you talking about? Software has tangible application and real world expression. Fantasy does not. How do you not see the distinction? Digital applications actually exist and are also facilitated by the real-world application of physical laws (ie., the flow of current) to perform actual functions.
Software has utility, make-believe does not. I was pretty clear in that patents cover novel utility.
Software is fantasy because it is completely abstract. You can not draw a line between software that is a game and software that is a spreadsheet. Neither exist in the real world and both are abstract concepts. Both are digital applications and are governed by real world laws.
Not to mention, that's not the point of the patent, it's not trying to patent something within a fictional universe. It's patenting a function within code.
How is software "completely abstract" when it constantly affects your everyday life? Even then, that's not what I said, I said software has real world expression and fantasy doesn't. Software is facilitating this conversation. It results in objective and demonstrable changes to almost every single person's life on this planet on an ongoing basis. Fantasy monsters don't do that, they're imaginary.
If you're equating the two somehow, are you saying software is imaginary? Are you saying the logic that underpins code -- the natural mathematical and physical laws -- are imaginary? Bullshit, nothing in the universe exists without those laws. They're abstract but they're also real. You can test for them and you can channel them for tangible benefit. Pokemon are not real. Technology that could only exist if Pokemon exist is not real.
Both software and Pokemon are abstract, but software is real and Pokemon are imaginary. Therefore, all technology predicated on Pokemon existing must also be imaginary. Any patents predicated on that imaginary tech are retarded and unjustifiable. How is this such a sticking point?
What's the point of even distinguishing patent and copyright otherwise? Why don't Paramount/CBS (Star Trek) own all the cell phone patents? Why doesn't Disney/Lucasfilm (Star Wars) own all the laser patents? Making something up that can't exist isn't worthy of a patent, you have to be able to implement it, and guess what, you can implement code. It has UTILITY. It's REAL. Pokeballs DON'T HAVE UTILITY because they AREN'T and CANNOT BE REAL.