Main > Everything Else

Why current age 'video gaming' is a joke

<< < (14/19) > >>

Gray_Area:

--- Quote from: Vigo on July 16, 2012, 02:49:56 pm ---Half a novel of debating...
--- End quote ---

That's what I meant, V.

Vigo:
In all fairness, shmokes had a lot that he did not thresh out. You can't just state that you think video games should be patentable and expect that to make sense. We are talking about a work that for most cases is completely unoriginal and unchanged except on the creative end and mathematical details. It's kinda like claiming wall clocks should be presently patentable. Even a law degree doesn't give you a pass on that without better explanation.

I'll admit though I did make a lot of assumptions on his argument that drew things out much longer than needed. In the end it panned out to be another pointless internet argument, but I don't think either shmokes or I are phased by it.  :dunno

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Vigo on July 19, 2012, 10:30:09 am ---It's kinda like claiming wall clocks should be presently patentable.

--- End quote ---

You are still suggesting a serious flaw in your understanding of patents. Wall clocks are totally patentable. Obviously you cannot patent the abstract idea of a wall clock. But a specific implementation of a wall clock, if it's innovative and non-obvious, can be patented. This was the frequent subject of our disagreement about patenting code. You would say, "You can't patent making a guy jump or light rendering," but that's not how patents work. You can't patent those obvious or abstract ideas in the same way you can't patent wall clocks in general. But you can patent specific, innovative implementations. You can certainly patent the better wall clock. And until your patent runs out other people will have to make due building regular wall clocks, or wall clocks that are better in some other non-patent-infringing way.

In short, yes, saying that code should be subject to patent rather than copyright is very much like saying that clocks should be subject to patent rather than copyright. And in more-or-less exactly the same way.

Vigo:

--- Quote from: shmokes on July 19, 2012, 11:08:53 am ---
--- Quote from: Vigo on July 19, 2012, 10:30:09 am ---It's kinda like claiming wall clocks should be presently patentable.

--- End quote ---

You are still suggesting a serious flaw in your understanding of patents. Wall clocks are totally patentable. Obviously you cannot patent the abstract idea of a wall clock. But a specific implementation of a wall clock, if it's innovative and non-obvious, can be patented. This was the frequent subject of our disagreement about patenting code. You would say, "You can't patent making a guy jump or light rendering," but that's not how patents work. You can't patent those obvious or abstract ideas in the same way you can't patent wall clocks in general. But you can patent specific, innovative implementations. You can certainly patent the better wall clock. And until your patent runs out other people will have to make due building regular wall clocks, or wall clocks that are better in some other non-patent-infringing way.

In short, yes, saying that code should be subject to patent rather than copyright is very much like saying that clocks should be subject to patent rather than copyright. And in more-or-less exactly the same way.

--- End quote ---

Not a misunderstanding of patents at all. Notice I said "presently patentable". A quartz clock today is not patentable. I am pointing out exactly why your argument is confusing. If from ground up, I designed an new concept for a clock, yes it could potentially be patented. You do not buy that kind of clock at the store though. I go to K-mart, Target, Walmart....I find the same standard quartz clocks no matter where I shop. None of those clocks are patentable. None. Sure, there might be some wacky Talking fishhead clock that projects the time through LEDs when you clap that could be patented. However you come across a wall clock that is actually patentable like that only once upon a blue moon.

When you were first pressing your case, you were talking about how video games should be patentable like drugs, it was the precise ingredients that made up a game that made it patentable. That is what really threw me off the trail, because it is suggesting that any game that is designed from the bottom up could be patented as a whole because the "ingredients" were unique. I could equally point out your failed logic, but I am going to go on a limb and say that was just a bad analogy.

shmokes:
A quartz clock is patentable. You wouldn't even know whether the clocks on the wall at Target have patented tech in them. You come up with a method of making a quartz clock more accurate, more efficient, cheaper to produce, etc., and you'll get a patent. You don't just get patent on things that are completely brand new. You can patent improvements to existing technology.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version