Game patents

[Jeeper]

Hey there, recently I learned about Namco having patented mini games in Loading-screen(http://www.sticktwiddlers.com/2012/08/0 ... g-screens/). That got me thinking, are there any other features that are currently patented and unavailable for use?

It seems strange to me that such a thing even can be patented and all it does is hurt the game industry. Source code and all art/sound assets should obviously be protected, but concepts like this seems quite stupid.

[Ranguna259]

What do they mean by " auxiliary game program code"

[Jeeper]

What do they mean by " auxiliary game program code"

I think its like, something that is not in any way part of the main game. If you would load in a simple tetris that you made into a more advanced space shooter game.


Also here are more patents, http://kotaku.com/these-patents-video-g ... -511731513

+ Riot Games very recently patented a "smart moving camera" in their spectator mode.

[alesan99]

Hey there, recently I learned about Namco having patented mini games in Loading-screen(http://www.sticktwiddlers.com/2012/08/0 ... g-screens/).

hm, that's strange.
This reminds me of the nintendo eshop on the wii U. You can play a slot machine while the eshop was loading. Though it's not really a game.
I guess some loading screen stuff are still possible.

[Jeeper]

Hey there, recently I learned about Namco having patented mini games in Loading-screen(http://www.sticktwiddlers.com/2012/08/0 ... g-screens/).

hm, that's strange.
This reminds me of the nintendo eshop on the wii U. You can play a slot machine while the eshop was loading. Though it's not really a game.
I guess some loading screen stuff are still possible.

We also do not know who pays licence stuff. For all we know Nintendo pays Namco X amount of money to be able to have that.

[kikito]

That got me thinking, are there any other features that are currently patented and unavailable for use?

Not a single game feature is "unavailable for use". They might have patented it, but that's just crazy in the first place.

Spending time pondering about the whole patent thing is validating their rules and ultimately a waste of time, since they can sue you for any reason they choose anyway.

So, just ignore the patents and keep on hacking.

[Ranguna259]

And maybe they have patented stuff so that everyone can use these features.
Imagine if some evil company patented those game features so that you'd have to pay to use them, now they can't because they are already patented by the good guys (kind of).

[ejmr]

…are there any other features that are currently patented and unavailable for use?

There are so many gameplay patents—like the kind in that Kotaku article—that I personally believe it would be a challenge to create a non-trivial game that did not infringe on something. The patent minefield is ridiculously large, and I share kikito’s stance on just ignoring them and doing whatever you’re going to do. That said, in my experience companies tend to go after other large companies with patent infringement cases instead of smaller, independent developers. It does happen sometimes with indie developers, but over the years I’ve more often seen the companies that hold these patents go after each other instead, such as when Wizards of the Coast took Nintendo to court over their Pokemon trading-card game; Wizards—specifically Richard Garfield—holds a patent for tapping a card or turning it sideways to indicate it’s being used in a game. Nintendo settled out of court for an undisclosed amount instead of fighting the case in court, which I am sure is what Wizards expected the entire time, and is a reason they go after each other more than after independent developers: we can’t afford to settle out of court.