Main > Everything Else
Why current age 'video gaming' is a joke
shmokes:
--- 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 ---
Yes yes . . . the code is copyrighted. Which is a stupid. That's the WHOLE point. That is what started this entire conversation.
Vigo:
Maybe if you didn't change your stance every other post, you would make sense. I was under the impression that you were agreeing earlier that you didn't make your position clear initially. The whole part where you were agreeing with me that 99.9% of video games today have nothing to patent, I didn't really mean to point that this morning to put you down at all, I thought that you accepted we both made mistakes there. Sorry if that bruised your ego for me to lay it out there this morning.
That of course is a 180 of your initial point that game companies should patent their code as their secret recipes to their games. That game engines should be patented like viagra. Only an arrogant ---tallywhacker--- would think that they can make a statement like that and anyone who questions them must not understand patent or case law, but you would never do that, right? ;)
shmokes:
It's not even a 1 degree change in my position, let alone a reversal. My position is that code should be 100% uncopyrightable. Anything in it worth protecting should be patented. And in that case, yes, I think that Viagra makes a nice illustrative analogy. Viagra is a patented drug that causes erections. Cialis, released years later, is another drug that causes erections. There's another made by Bayer that does the same, but the name escapes me. All of these drugs do the same thing, and none of them violates each other's patents because they do it in different ways. Similarly, the Crysis engine and Unreal engine both accomplish many of the same things. If the creators of the Crysis engine believe that their method of producing whatever, ray tracing, is new and innovative, I think they should be granted a patent on it. Not a patent on ray tracing, but a patent on their method of ray tracing--sort of like Pfizer doesn't have a patent on erection production, but only a patent on their particular formula for producing erections. And yes, the code in my comparison is analogous to the recipe for Viagra. Their method is their code.
This has been my position all along. And it's a general position. I'm sure that in drafting actual software patent legislation there would be all kinds of caveats I haven't thought of that would have to be addressed. But in this discussion what I wrote above was my original position and it remains my position. Nothing's changed.
Gray_Area:
Vigo. Lawyers debate. I'm not saying shmokes doesn't have a point, nor a wish for resolution.
I don't know why ya all care about this anyways. You aren't the ones making law and such.
shmokes:
We care what the laws are, and what they should be, because the laws apply to us.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version