you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 179 points 2 years ago* (51 children)

Patents and video games huh? We can't ignore what John Carmack had to say about this:

The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.

--John Carmack

  • source
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    More like he wouldn't be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (19 children)

    Imagine if you had a hammer and decided to use it to hit a nail and then someone came along and said "I see you're using my method to build a house! Pay up!"

    Well, you can't patent something like that!

    Imagine you open up a game engine, any engine, and decide you need to point to an objective so you decide to use an arrow. A game company says "You're using our method to identify objectives! Pay up!" and that one is a unique mechanic?

    How long has humanity been using arrows to point to things? How can you patent it just because it's a digital arrow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • load more comments (19 replies)
  • [+] -16 points 2 years ago* (14 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    You are conflating copyright and patents. Copyright is protection for the expression of an idea, like the art design. This is a patent issue, which is a protection of how something works.

    If somehow I patent a vague mechanic like "a method of selecting weapons with the directions of an analogue stick or mouse, presented as an 8 direction on screen circle." Then I could sue Red Dead Redemption and Batman Arkham, despite there being no copyright infringement with whatever game I made with that feature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Aren't they suing because of the 3d models?? not the design of them but the fact they took Nintendo models and tweaked them???

    If im deadass wrong I will 100% shut tf up and delete my rants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Aren’t they suing because of the 3d models??

    No, they're not. The word "patent" is used in every single article about this repeatedly. Patents are not the same as copyrights.

    A copyright protects a creative work: A work of fiction, a movie, a character.

    A patent protects the method in which the way a thing functions: A machine, a chip, an algorithm, or in Nintendo's assertion certain vague gameplay concepts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I said this many times before. I was assuming the PATENT they are suing was the base model. Not the design, the base model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    according to first sentence of article, it was a patent infringement lawsuit, so you are deadass wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    i already admitted to being wrong. Name calling isnt needed anymore

    edit: I LOVE HAVING READING COMPREHENSION ISSUES!!!🩷🩵🩷🩵

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Being called wrong is not the same as being called a name.

    But respect for admitting being wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (13 replies)