Main > Everything Else

Why current age 'video gaming' is a joke

<< < (16/19) > >>

shmokes:
*Sigh*


--- Quote from: shmokes on July 19, 2012, 12:13:45 pm ---Anyway, I never suggested that someone could patent code itself . . .

--- End quote ---

As in, a person could not patent code itself, as a concept, as in, "I have a patent on code. Any person writing any software of any kind without a license is in violation of my patent."

Vigo:
So what exactly at this point are you suggesting gets patented? At first it was the entire code, then it was an entire engine, then it became the code for a specific patentable feature. Now it is the innovative implementation or an outcome and I don't know if you are referring to the code or use of the concept alone.  ???

ChadTower:

Patents on software are on the algorithms.  Code itself does not get patented.  A description of an algorithm, method, architecture, or process within the software is submitted for patent.  If it were just the code or even a specific implementation of the code then you could circumvent a patent by rewriting the software in another language.

Vigo:

--- Quote from: ChadTower on July 19, 2012, 01:43:18 pm ---
Patents on software are on the algorithms.  Code itself does not get patented.  A description of an algorithm, method, architecture, or process within the software is submitted for patent.  If it were just the code or even a specific implementation of the code then you could circumvent a patent by rewriting the software in another language.

--- End quote ---

I was wondering about about how code could even be transcripted to a patent application in any useful way, but that brings up an even better point.

Also, I understand a software patents are generally for software that serves a useful function. I always understood that games did not have a real utility to ever be considered for a patent on a whole. At least anything more than a specific feature used that could be useful to more than just that particular game engine.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Vigo on July 19, 2012, 01:27:05 pm ---So what exactly at this point are you suggesting gets patented? At first it was the entire code, then it was an entire engine, then it became the code for a specific patentable feature. Now it is the innovative implementation or an outcome and I don't know if you are referring to the code or use of the concept alone.  ???

--- End quote ---

Is there a point to this? I really don't believe that my position is unclear. I can answer your question if you really want, but I'd primarily just answer it with quotes from my previous posts. I have the impression that you are pouncing on ambiguities in my posts that are not at all ambiguous in the context of our entire conversation, like you think this is some kind of rhetorical staring contest. I'm not trying to win here, honestly. Else, I would have balked at your, "Oh . . . it looks like we actually agreed with each other all along; it was all just a big misunderstanding," after your position on math and software in patents, and your reading of the relevant case law, had been shown to be incorrect. I was perfectly happy to leave it there until you brought it all back up this morning by saying that the problem all along was that I didn't properly explain myself. Not that you misunderstood various aspects of patent law or misread the controlling cases that you cited. But that I simply lacked clarity. It's silly.

But if your question is serious, I suppose I'm happy to oblige.


edit: typo

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version