Main > Everything Else

Why current age 'video gaming' is a joke

<< < (18/19) > >>

ChadTower:

--- Quote from: shmokes on July 19, 2012, 03:30:51 pm ---We care what the laws are, and what they should be, because the laws apply to us when everybody is looking.

--- End quote ---

Fixt.   ;D

Vigo:

--- Quote from: shmokes on July 19, 2012, 03:01:10 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---

Your position may not have changed, but your explanation surely did. You previously never specified things like a "patent on their method of ray tracing" You made claims that simply stated that game makers should be able to patent the game code and cited the unreal engine as an example as something to patent. Had you pointed out clearly what you meant, then I wouldn't have been debating you.

Hence my this point this morning of you not being clear enough, and me assuming too much what you meant. From your broad statements you made in the beginning about patenting game code, it's not shocking that I thought you were talking about patenting video game code on a whole rather than a specific patentable method that may be created from within a video game engine.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: Vigo on July 19, 2012, 03:49:48 pm ---Your position may not have changed, but your explanation surely did. You previously never specified things like a "patent on their method of ray tracing" You made claims that simply stated that game makers should be able to patent the game code and cited the unreal engine as an example as something to patent. Had you pointed out clearly what you meant, then I wouldn't have been debating you.

Hence my this point this morning of you not being clear enough, and me assuming too much what you meant. From your broad statements you made in the beginning about patenting game code, it's not shocking that I thought you were talking about patenting video game code on a whole rather than a specific patentable method that may be created from within a video game engine.

--- End quote ---

It doesn't make a difference to my argument whether you're patenting a paragraph of code or an entire 3D engine. A patent on a paragraph of code would probably be covered in one or two claims. A patent on an entire 3D engine would have to contain specific claims describing each inventive concept the applicant wished to patent. If one of the claims was invalidated for obviousness or prior art or lack of innovation, the rest of the patent would survive unless the other claims were dependent on the failed claim. In any case, our copyright system currently protects videogame code on a whole, regardless of innovation. That (and the duration of protection) is why I think code should not be copyrightable, and why this whole discussion was started.

Anyway, the bulk of our argument was about whether software and math could be patented at all.

Well Fed Games:
Ha, now you are arguing about your argument!  ;D (Don't stop, it is an interesting conversation)

Vigo:
 :dunno
Guy states he thinks video games should be patentable and acts surprised that I was pointing out why patents don't work that way.

I think I'll play some super punchout.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version