Free MMORPG Forums

BGLamb

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. That nobody would have used these techniques if they hadn't been patented? People who are into programming would keep abreast of these developments in the industry regardless of patents. But the idea of patenting these ideas for more than 20 years seems ridiculous.

I like to think that videogames have moved beyond the point where the things you describe above (used in Doom) are considered innovations. The method of rendering 3D objects on screen should be made available to all developers to use in their games without having to pay someone loads of money! What's the point in this technology being restricted to those who can afford it?

What you end up with, is people who can't afford to pay for this idea, having to do something worse, since it's not always possible to reinvent the wheel.

And when you say you're not sure if there's any patents covering this area, there are literally hundreds relevant to graphically drawing 3D. They're just not usually called in to play, because everyone uses them anyway.

If the article sounded one-sided, that's because I think that the value in patents is pretty self evident without me banging on about it. I would get bored reading about it. When you've only got 1000 words to say something interesting, a lot gets cut.

__________________

Ronin

Well, I guess you did leave out what a patent is because you after all do not really know.

"It should be available?"
To what benefit.

Pacta servanda sunt;

You can't just make a dedicated effort into motivating people to do research and development and as soon as it's done steal it.

It's looking pretty pointless, to have any form of patent law around, if you take just a handful of (imo overdrawn) examples.
That doesn't say anything, besides that you are a helpless romantic.

If you propose doing away with patents, from that limited perspective, you are just aiming above your level, aren't you.
Do you really think it's a good idea?
Or that a fair, distinct line can be drawn between research in physical and virtual applications?

Well, the real world isn't as funny after all, probably.
If you label yourself a comedian, don't expect to be taken seriously though.

Is that really the point you are making with the article?
Well, it's better that it didn't come across there, because that's a pretty stupid statement, to say that everything works, all is fine and the "problem" you describe does regularly not exist.

If there was an overwhelming legal perspective to make loads and loads of money this way, it would be done.
The perspective isn't there, the only firms that do such things are a handful of gamblers, that rarely win the cake and those rightfully entitled to their agenda because of honest investment into the ideas they once had.

Maintaining a patent doesn't come for free, nor is the process of getting one a mysterious seclusive event.
That there are a lot of them, doesn't mean that they individually are worth a lot either.

__________________

BGLamb

It should be available to what benefit? The benefit of the industry! Someone who wants to take that idea and innovate on it further! You can't make an innovative FPS if you can't make an FPS because you can't afford the patent that lets you f*cking draw on the screen.


But whoa whoa, I'm not proposing that we do away with patent law!

They generally serve a good purpose, even in software. The point I was trying to make is that there are dangers in them being too easily granted for too broad ideas. And there is also a danger in their length, due to the speed at which the industry evolves. This can, in some instances, make them restrictive.

Take for example the old Crazy Taxi patent that was famous a while back. They had the idea of putting a big arrow above the car which pointed to the next objective, and it moved as you did. Now, fair enough, that's a pretty good idea, but it's not as if nobody else would have come up with it.

The Simpsons Hit & Run game used a similar method, and god sued, and to my knowledge, nobody else has tried it since. Now you can say that this is protecting the long, hard hours and the money spent in researching this idea by the crazy taxi team, but it doesn't always work like that in the real world.

They were the first to have the idea, so they get the monopoly on it. This is an idea which anoyone could have had, and many people probably have had, but nobody can use it now. This, in my opinion, is restricting the industry and is not serving a good purpose.

Obviously people's ideas need to be protected. People do make innovations in the feild of programming, and they should be respected and have homage paid to them, but innovations that were made 20 years ago shouldn't still be restricting the industry today.

There were lots of amazing innovations done 40 years ago in computing, but they are very basic things compared to what is done now. If the usage of these things were still restricted now, people wouldn't be able to expand.

There has to come a point where the past inventions become free to use, and in software, there is an argument that this should be sooner rather than later, due to the blinding speed at which things progress.

__________________

Ronin

That's a court matter.

Also, the value of any software firm amounts to what?
Nothing but it's qualified personal and knowhow.

Even weakening the situation would create a landslide.

@Arrow:
Tbh, it's their own fault. If the gaming industry can't afford to be professional, that's the problem, over the argumentation of standard laws, that everyone else has to deal with the same way.

Can you make out a winner in the situation?

@Blinding speed:
If I would talk about the blinding speed with which the road construction technology advances, you'd think it's a silly example, right?

Well it's exactly the same...

People are just getting into this way over their heads.
Everything is labeled exciting and fast and extreme and "next generation" technology and look how long this next gen suckers hold up on the market?
How is the difference between Far cry and Crysis "blinding" compared to the "mind crushing advance" of technology from a Golf V to a Golf IV?

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty 5 show the unbelievable speed of unmatched innovation in video gaming?
Give me a break, will ya?

__________________

BGLamb

@Courts deciding; Yeah it is, but they are deciding too far one way often. You can't say that we shouldn't have an opinion because there is a court who makes the final descision. I often don't agree with the courts, tbh.

@Arrow; This is the thing that the courts are deciding the wrong way in my opinion. A patent will be denied if it is believed to be 'obvious', but in software this can be hard to judge.

@Cars; Like I said before, can you imagine what the car indsutry would be like if Henry Ford had patented steering wheels and brakes and 'method for storage in section at back of car'? Or if he hadn't been able to afford the patent on 'Internal Combustion Engine'

I know that a lot of indsutries move very fast, like the software industry, which is why the lengths of patents is not 50 years. It would be bad for the road-construction industry too! I'm not saying software is uniquie, just that it is pretty much as fast as anything gets.

I'm talking about the difference between Crysis and Doom, not Doom and Doom2 or whatever. That only, what just over 20 years? We shouldn't still be restricting Doom's technology. It's not helpful in the age of Crysis.

__________________

KryHavoc

hey its no more or less stupid than the food u eat.

the food u eat is patented if you live in the us and go to a grocery store you are buying patented food. so i dont see how games would be any diffrent.

the aids virus has a patent on it why cant games>?