Why current age 'video gaming' is a joke

[shmokes]

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.

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.

[ChadTower]

We care what the laws are, and what they should be, because the laws apply to us when everybody is looking.

Fixt.   

[Vigo]

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.

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]

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.

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!  (Don't stop, it is an interesting conversation)

[Vigo]

 
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.

[Thraxster]

Theres too many hack n slash clones, realistic shooter clones, bland rpgs, real race simulators and rehashing of old crap. Also too many concerned with telling a complex story. a mediocre story is fine, we want gameplay to be fun. I couldnt care less about super realistic characters. I grew up on Atari 2600, NES and, Sega Genesis.  I enjoy the graphics but im not gonna cry about this dont look real.

[shmokes]

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'm . . . pretty sure this never took place.