Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Patents in videogames?!?! Legal talk is confusing...

Author
Message
Nemesis_0_
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 16:26 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 16:27
Link
Ok so I was looking through a website with all the patents pertaining to video games and some of it confused the crap out of me. I'm hoping somebody here can maybe help explain it a bit better.

Example 1: Final Fantasy's Active Time Battle.

They have a patent on the active time battle system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Time_Battle#Active_Time_Battle
^^ wikipedia site with ATB info ^^

So because they have a patent on it, If I were to make a battle system that was quasi turned based, that had an "energy" bar (in FF its the ATB bar) that had to recharge after my last turn before i could go again, Square could sue me?

Example 2: Star Wars Light Saber VS Phantasy Star Online's PHOTON SWORD



So as you can see above, it looks almost exactly like a lightsaber... but lucas has a patent on the lightsaber. So how do the makers of Phantasy Star online not owe george lucas [Insert absurd dollar amount] from a law suit?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Accoun
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Jan 2006
Location: The other end of the galaxy...
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:05 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 17:07
Link
Quote: " it looks almost exactly like a lightsaber..."

Almost makes a big diffrence. Lightsaber is more of a metal tube with some buttons and a blade that also looks like a tube. Phantasy Star is like a sci-fi looking normal sword with a blade covered in light. It's like you're making swords in ancient Rome and wanted to sue people who make medival
swords, because they are just copies...

Make games, not war.

Back to top
Profile PM
MSon
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location: Earth, (I Think).
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:14
Link
I never bother about copyright

My latest projects a WipeOut style game, so i ripped the WipoutFusion UI which im using and downloaded all the sound effects from the game.

the way i see it is i'm not going to make any money from it, but by basing my game on wipeout, is like free advertising for them so why would they complain?

Everyone Be Cool, You, Be Cool.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:28 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 17:29
Link
Quote: "i ripped the WipoutFusion UI which im using and downloaded all the sound effects from the game.

the way i see it is i'm not going to make any money from it, but by basing my game on wipeout, is like free advertising for them so why would they complain?"

Oh dear. Not good.
By that rational, if you hosted one or two MP3s from music albums for people to download it for free it would be okay and the artist/publisher would class it as free advertising? After all you are only supplying a small part of the complete package. I don't think so. Taking any part of copyrighted work without permission is illegal and wrong. When I spend a long time writing an application or doing design work I would be furious of someone took it and used it in their own work without my permission, especially if someone else had paid for that work.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Nemesis_0_
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:28
Link
Lol i'm not concerned about ME getting sued, i just want to understand it all better... So what about my example for the ATB in final fantasy? Could they potentially sue someone for making something that is similar?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Roxas
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Nov 2005
Location: http://forum.thegamecreators.com
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:35
Link
Well actually no.. Have you ever heard of RPG Maker?
It has lot of similar battle system and have it got sued?
No i dont thinks so..

[center]

Click for details!
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Nack
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Jul 2003
Location:
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:36
Link
Quote: "Almost makes a big diffrence"

Totally agreed, if everyone sue everyone for something that are almost the same, then probaly the lightsaber will get sue LOL If you take a look at gundam from the first decade (1970?), they already have lightsaber for the mechs. Star war was like 1983? if i am not mistaken. So...almost does make a huge differnence.


Nream is DONE! 3D Adventure Maker
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:37 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 17:38
Link
I think enforcing something like the Final Fantasy patent you mentioned would be difficult. If you copied it completely and it worked exactly as theirs does then they could probably ask for royalties, threaten you with legal action or as a last resort take you to court. If yours was different in any way I don't see how they could enforce it successfully as I am sure the whole concept of waiting for weapons to charge up etc. in role playing games has been around since before Final Fantasy.

Edit: Star Wars was 1977.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Hobgoblin Lord
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
Location: Fall River, MA USA
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:40
Link
A suit would most likely not occur unless you were another big publisher for something like the battle system. There is a such thing as "look and feel" which though your system may not be identicle they could pursue on if they really wanted.

http://forum.thegamecreators.com/?m=forum_view&t=73324&b=8
My RPG WIP, check it out
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MSon
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location: Earth, (I Think).
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:42 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 19:52
Link
I hate copyright, it should be binned

Orange took a company to court once or using an Orange colored box as part or its logo claiming they had copyrited an "Orange Square" Basicly thats copyrighting a color, and this is part of the reason i take no notice of copyright in that way, because vertucally everythink is copyrighted meaning nothing is origional

Everyone Be Cool, You, Be Cool.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nemesis_0_
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 17:42
Link
That's what i thought... Thanks everyone! I always love learning new stuff, not matter how irrelevant it currently is in my life

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 18:05
Link
I doubt the Orange square was copyrighted. More likely it was trademarked and the other company infringed that trademark. Copyright is different and very important to protect your work. If we didn't have copyright then someone could stick their name on your work and sell it as their own. Or worse still, take something you are selling and give it away for free.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Guyra
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Nov 2005
Location: Norway
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 18:41
Link
Actually, I believe the big coompanies usually sends a "Cease or Desist" letter to the developer, as was done with the guys who was doing a remake of the Chrono Trigger game. (And that remake looked GOOD!)
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 18:44
Link
I just want to point out the difference between a patent and copyright. First of patents costs money, have to be applied for in every country you want protection (I think you can apply for an EU patent now) and they last for 21 years (IIRC). You can not patent a shape or a piece of art, you can only patent a technical solution (and nowadays DNA for some odd reason).

Copyright applies to all works of art without the need of an application. Everything you do that can be considered an original work of art (even source code counts) automatically falls under copyright laws. These laws varies from country to country.

If anyone can find the ATB patent it would be an interesting read.

[center]
CREATE games with ease! NO programming required!
WIP
Back to top
Profile PM Website
SpyDaniel
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Feb 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 19:34
Link
MSon, I think you would care if you did get sued and ended up in jail, in a cell with a big muscly guy with "MUM/MOM" tattooed on his forearm

Home Page
Back to top
Profile PM
Nemesis_0_
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 20:19 Edited at: 1st Nov 2007 20:19
Link
Active time battle patent is right here My only issue is i wanna see all the diff pics that were submitted along with the patent.. which aren't available.http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5390937-description.html

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 1st Nov 2007 20:34
Link
Gaaaaah... That's a lot of words... Anyway, it specifies the ATB in FF pretty specific and there are some notes about CPUs and storage. It may be possible to replicate the FF ATB without getting sued depending on how you use the CPU, not sure about that. But if you make your own ATB system that is similar but not exactly like the FF one you're most likely safe.

[center]
CREATE games with ease! NO programming required!
WIP
Back to top
Profile PM Website
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 04:57
Link
You can patent DNA? So you could like sue your kids if you had an argument? Savage...

Back to top
Profile PM Website
dark coder
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Oct 2002
Location: Japan
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 08:25
Link
If you don't like copyright/patents move to China as they don't care at all. They practically rip off anything that makes money.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 14:04
Link
demons breath:
If you patent a gene you have found then no one else may do research on that gene. This was done (in US I think) because of the cost to do research so that a company may gain profit from it. But it's been abused by companies who can't even afford the research and it's seriously hampering the research for various cures that would benefit mankind. This is an old conflict and I don't know if they have worked it out somehow.

[center]
CREATE games with ease! NO programming required!
WIP
Back to top
Profile PM Website
MSon
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jul 2004
Location: Earth, (I Think).
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 14:30 Edited at: 2nd Nov 2007 14:39
Link
Thats kind of my point about copywrite being out of control

You may cure cancer and any other deacease therefore doing a good thing for mankind, but ONLY if you pay us lots of money for the right to do so.
its the same with programmes where they make them neccessary for Business and your Personal life, and they basiclly say you can ownly use if if your rich.
Its no longer aout protection, but the ability to charge more and get more profit which was not the origional intension of copywrite

I mean how much is the new MSOffice?
I earn minimum wage in the UK, (Which is not much when you consider the prices here), so how i I suppose to pay several hundered pound for a peice of software?
Although I do agree that if you intend on making money from there product then you should pay.

Everyone Be Cool, You, Be Cool.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 14:38
Link
MSon:
The difference between a patent and copyright is quite huge, do not mix up the two.

Personally I don't understand why anyone would be allowed to patent a gene, it's not like they invented the gene itself.

A patent is a way for inventors to protect their technical solutions so that they may earn money from them, without others copying their ideas and making money when they didn't invest any time and money in finding the solution. Only problem is the cost for a world patent is so high and then comes the legal costs of defending it.

[center]
CREATE games with ease! NO programming required!
WIP
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 15:57
Link
MSon, I think you need to look up the differences between Copyright, Patent and Trademark. You seem to be confusing them all.

With regards to the price for something like MS Office, how many people and how many hours do you think it took to write it, test it, document it etc? Do you think those people wrote it without getting paid? How would they eat and support their families?
I agree that some software is overpriced simply because they know that people will pay it regardless (possibly because there is no competition), but you have to understand that programmers need to earn a living too and so have to charge for their time, so do testers, manual writers, package designers, marketing people, retailers etc. There are alternatives to MS Office which are free but you won't get the same support or level of compatibility.

I agree that sometimes the patent system is abused and patents are handed out without the proper research or ownership being investigated, but consider the alternative for a moment. You spend years and tens of thousands of pounds developing a revolutionary device to stop car accidents. You would like to sell your devices and make a nice living out of it, after all it was your brains, hard work and money which made it possible. A huge company buys one, reverse engineers it and then sets up their own production line meaning they can sell it for a tiny fraction of what you need to charge. They may even make a loss (after all they can afford to) just so they can drive you out of business before jacking up their price to a nice tidy profit. How fare would that be?
Back to top
Profile PM Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 16:41
Link
Let's get the three terms explained, and also describe what the idea is behind each one - they seem to be getting jumbled in peoples minds.

Copyright covers the "form of material expression." i.e. it covers the end result, not the method of producing that result. It provides a limited monopoly for the provider and restricts the rights of the general public in regard to it. Basically, I can draw a mouse, but if I draw Mickey then I'm liable to get a visit from the Disney Lawyers.

A patent is a contract between the state and the inventor that is supposedly for the benefit of the general public - the inventor gets a limited monopoly on their invention in exchange for making all of the details of the invention public. Remember, it's for the benefit of the public, not the inventor.

Trademarks are for the protection of the consumer, to ensure that you are getting what you think you are buying. No-one but MacDonalds can sell you a MacDonalds burger, however there's no reason that you couldn't use the word MacDonalds in the name of a bookshop for example. Again, remember that it's for the benefit of the public, not the owner of the trademark.

Utility plugins collection and
http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk for older plug-ins and example code
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 17:11
Link
Quote: "There are alternatives to MS Office which are free but you won't get the same support or level of compatibility."


I hate to break it to you, but the open source market has a lot of products which are superior to products that cost money. And in the case of MS Office, OpenOffice has far more compatibility with other software than MS itself

You'll see this especially in web software, like joomla or coppermine, but also in regular apps, like gimp, which may not be as good as photoshop, but is far better than most cheap image editors. There's a lot of animation and production software too that rocks.

And lets face it, last time I got decent support from calling MS was... never? It's no surprise that this forum and many others are filled with help requests regarding their products

Money does not always equal good, same as free does not necessarily equal good.


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zappo
Valued Member
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Oct 2004
Location: In the post
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 18:25
Link
I am well aware of the benefits of Open Source and look after several Linux servers, as well as writing many applications using Open Source software myself.
By compatibility I meant compatible with MS Office which is still the industry standard for office applications. If you started offering training courses for businesses on using office software (e.g. word processing), the majority would want to be taught MS Office (e.g. MS Word), not Open Office or Star Office etc.
CMS software like Joomla are very good and I have tried out many in the past (as well as writing my own). The downside is that 'support' usually means 'Google' or posting in forums and waiting for someone with a decent answer to reply. As least with purchased software if you have a problem or it doesn't do what its supposed to do you can go back to the supplier and ask/demand for help. There is more chance of training courses being available too as well as printed manuals and more 3rd party books.
You are right in that 'money does not always equal good' but there are certain expectations which have to be legally adhered to if you pay for something - 'fitness for purpose' is one. If you download something for free and spend several days configuring it and getting it working only to find it doesn't work or do what the Web site says it will, you have wasted time and therefore money. Sometimes "free software" isn't cheaper in the long run.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 18:43
Link
I can't disagree with you there!


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
gamebird
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 2nd Nov 2007 22:52
Link
Copyright can also be applied for in the U.S. to give you more options in court. The limited copyright which applies to works of art is disputable and usually does not get you anything but the other party stopping. If you apply for copyright there is a much higher chance of you getting reimbursment.
Back to top
Profile PM
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 02:43 Edited at: 3rd Nov 2007 02:59
Link
Patents protect an idea for 10 years so only you can sell the idea for this period. e.g. You invented the bagless cyclone vacume cleaner. Competitors would have to wait 10 years to make a clone or pay you a licence fee.

Tradmarks protect a brand. I.e. some making fake Levis jeans. No one can make an inferior product that could be confused as your brand identity.

Copyright protects your creative work from being used without your express permission, unless you were paid to do it by an employer.

Sotware patents only exist in the USA and Japan (as far as i can rember) so if your a UK/EU programmer u be fine... for now.

Software is a creative work, like a book or a song so proection is best served under copyright law. Moan about it to your MP before it's too late! The UKs biggest export is software and we will be swamped by US litigation!



DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Insert Name Here
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 10:15
Link
So what are royalties?

Nya!
Well, yes but - wait, what?
Back to top
Profile PM
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 13:05
Link
Quote: "Sotware patents only exist in the USA and Japan (as far as i can rember) so if your a UK/EU programmer u be fine... for now"


... as long as you don't distribute in the US or Japan. Why do you think that Lee never included GIF support in any of his products? The patent has only just expire worldwide (late last year I think).

Trademarks are not there to protect a brand. They are there to protect the consumer. A trademark owner can only sue for trademark violation if there is clear confusion between two products. If I open up a MacDonalds car franchise I am totally in the clear, as that cannot cause confusion in the consumer - If I also sold burgers for car shoppers then they might have a case.

I do agree that software is best covered by copyright though.

Quote: "So what are royalties?"


Royalties are a financial agreement between the patent owner and someone who wishes to use what the patent describes in their own product. It's a way to compensate the patent owner for the use of the patent.

Or as sometimes happens, especially with software patents, it's a way to mint your own money for a small up-front cost

Utility plugins collection and
http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk for older plug-ins and example code
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 21:21
Link
Software should be patentable. If somebody can give me a good argument as to why a programmer can't patent a complex algorithm then I'd be happy to hear.

An electronics engineer can patent a new, efficient way of doing something, so a programmer should be able to do the same.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
Dr Schnitzengruber
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jul 2007
Location: C:/Projects/failed/ schnitzengruber
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 22:37
Link
Quote: "If somebody can give me a good argument as to why a programmer can't patent a complex algorithm then I'd be happy to hear."


That's okay as long as complex is defined i don't want anybody patenting

or

or


the answer to life the universe and everything = 42
Back to top
Profile PM
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 23:03
Link
Well there are patent workers who have to assess whether or not a patent is even a new invention. The fact that many silly software patents pass through the system is a different argument altogether.

Back to top
Profile PM Website
IanM
Retired Moderator
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Sep 2002
Location: In my moon base
Posted: 3rd Nov 2007 23:32
Link
Ok.

You have a difficult problem to solve, and you solve it then start to patent it.

Six months later, I have the same or similar problem to solve and solve it in a similar way. I have no knowledge of your solution and there's no way for me to find out about it (patents are kept secret in the US until they are granted).

12 months after I've written, published and used my solution, I'm suddenly in the position of infringing your patent. Along you come and ask for royalties. The software industry moves so fast that there's no way to avoid this problem - after all, all you need to do is sit down and think a bit. No investment required except a little time.

The only way that I can defend against this is to patent my own solutions and hope that you infringe on one or more of them yourself - a cold war of mutually assured destruction by software patents. If you don't then I have no choice but to pay you off ... something that John Carmack once referred to as effectively being mugged by a patent.

I have no problem with you copyrighting your algorithm, and I have no problem with you keeping it as a trade secret, but I do have a problem with patents limiting my independent methods of solving a problem by saying that I can't think of the same solution as you did. That's the reason that Mathematical formulae are also not patentable.

Now it's your turn. Patents are intended to encourage innovation for the benefit of society (you are awarded a limited monopoly in turn for making your invention public, purely so that when you pass on, your secret isn't lost with you). Show me the evidence that patents in software actually do this. The European parliament had the examples of all the software patents within both the Japanese and US systems, and still didn't implement them in Europe. The calls within the US to remove patents from software get ever louder. If software patents are such a good idea, why is that?

Utility plugins collection and
http://www.matrix1.demon.co.uk for older plug-ins and example code
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Digital Awakening
AGK Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Aug 2002
Location: Sweden
Posted: 4th Nov 2007 20:16
Link
Royalties have noting to do with patents or such things. It's a form of payment from a publisher/manufacturer/etc to a creator based on earnings or products sold.

If I make a game and get someone to publish it then they can pay me a certain percentage of their earnings every month, these are my royalties. If the publisher payed me a fixed sum up front instead then I would get no royalties.

[center]
CREATE games with ease! NO programming required!
WIP
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 11:45:04
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 11:45:04