Patent law needs to die -- no, scratch that, IP law, period. Just torch the entire set of books. They're not doing anyone any good at this point, and they're doing a hell of a lot of damage.
Sega Sets Its Lawyers on Professor Layton Developer
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Pathetic and idiotic. Inazuma is incredibly popular, there's no better way to alienate yourselves from videogame fans.
It all comes down to the specifics. To be honest SEGA likely has a legitimate point if they pioneered a lot of this touch screen technology and had a patent accepted on it. That said, it probably comes down to specific code being used for this game, and the way the effect is being acheived, rather than any claims to the tech in of itself. We're missing details.
People tend to be very protective of game engines and code, this applies to PNP RPGs and such as well. The bottom line is that one of the reasons why you don't see games combining the best features of everything, is because the guys creating a lot of those effects and features own their code and engine and other people can't use it without their permission and doubtlessly paying a bunch of royalties. This is incidently why certain engines that worked really, really, well like say the old "Infinity Engine" that spawned "Torment", "Baldur's Gate", and "Icewind Dale" was used for so many games for example, it was simply a great way to make games and while the technology might be aging the playstyle and the engine itself holds up fairly well today.
At any rate, if the details were forthcoming I'd imagine the bottom line is pretty much going to be less about using the touch screen as touch screens are used, but about the code and engine. Beneath the obvious the game is probably very similar, or identical to, code for games produced by SEGA. You take someone's game engine (copy theuir code) and simply put new graphics and writing on top of it, and it tends to slot them off. That's my guess as to what the gist of the accusation actually is.
People tend to be very protective of game engines and code, this applies to PNP RPGs and such as well. The bottom line is that one of the reasons why you don't see games combining the best features of everything, is because the guys creating a lot of those effects and features own their code and engine and other people can't use it without their permission and doubtlessly paying a bunch of royalties. This is incidently why certain engines that worked really, really, well like say the old "Infinity Engine" that spawned "Torment", "Baldur's Gate", and "Icewind Dale" was used for so many games for example, it was simply a great way to make games and while the technology might be aging the playstyle and the engine itself holds up fairly well today.
At any rate, if the details were forthcoming I'd imagine the bottom line is pretty much going to be less about using the touch screen as touch screens are used, but about the code and engine. Beneath the obvious the game is probably very similar, or identical to, code for games produced by SEGA. You take someone's game engine (copy theuir code) and simply put new graphics and writing on top of it, and it tends to slot them off. That's my guess as to what the gist of the accusation actually is.
Incorrect, You're describing a Copyright issue. This is a Patent Issue. Patents are used to protect concepts and inventions from being reinvented or reconceptualized by others. Copyright is used to protect the code itself.Therumancer said:
Sega is attempting to establish precedent. If anything, they want to establish that the patent has value. I'd bet Sumitomo Corp is looking to sell off even more of Sega. Their commercial hocking of Sonic to Progressive was out of left field, but they clearly wanted the money. The attacks on Shining references is probably related to them wanting to find a buyer/renter for the IP as well.
In fact, a lot of the weird Sonic marketing matches up to Sumitomo Corp buying CSK who owns Sega.
I honestly don't get it. It seems incredibly weird that you are even allowed to patent such things as control schemes in videogames. I mean, what if, say, John Carmack patented the concept of first person view and charged insane piles of cash for the right to use it? This kind of bullshit only leads to stagnation in the long run. If in a couple of years everyone will be suing each other over gameplay mechanics and control schemes, then it won't end well for the industry.
I think it's time that I pull out my "press Button to perform action" patent. I will sue the entire world and be rich!
You in these forums! Stop typing! You are infringing on my patents!!!
/sarcasm end
I think we need to create a law where if you patent air or anything in that category you are automatically declared bankrupt and all your stocks are sold off to people who know how to make money properly.
You in these forums! Stop typing! You are infringing on my patents!!!
/sarcasm end
I think we need to create a law where if you patent air or anything in that category you are automatically declared bankrupt and all your stocks are sold off to people who know how to make money properly.
I wonder if anyone has patented moving one's eyebrows to communicate emotions?
In all seriousness, these patents are getting ridiculous. Why don't you just patent every imaginable control scheme using the conventional buttons? I'm sure patenting R1 for fire would make a tidy sum.
In all seriousness, these patents are getting ridiculous. Why don't you just patent every imaginable control scheme using the conventional buttons? I'm sure patenting R1 for fire would make a tidy sum.
Level-5 only has to point out how other games also use this control scheme and ask why Sega hasn't sued them as well. Zelda and Starfox being two of the biggest Nintendo examples and I'm sure you can find other developers that used the same controls. Sadly I can't think of any others right now. Level-5 can basically get some free money from Sega if they win the counter-lawsuit for legal fees.
snekadid said:
While I know nothing about Japanese Patent Laws, in the US (where most of the previous stuff you guys are referencing takes place), there actually is something known as FRAND policy that basically says that something that is a universal innovation cannot be patented under traditional terms, the only way they're allowed is under, Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rules that make it easy for everyone. Everyone who's into computer history or was alive at the time should remember that the first Windows Operating System the windows could not cascade/overlap even one pixel due to patents that apple owned, until judges threw it out because overlapping windows is a universally beneficial innovation that all should have fair access to.Neronium said:
Assuming Japan has any similar policy, this would be why Take 5 is so confidant about this; they know that SEGA's patents are not fair and are unreasonable. If this was in US court Take 5 would be winning this hands-down.
There may be plenty of examples of patent law needing to be reformed, but this (someone simply announcing taking someone else to court) does not indicate a broken system. In fact, the ability to take someone to court indicates a well-functioning system. Don't make rash statements "THIS PROVES THAT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND NEEDS TO BE DESTORYED!!11!" until the outcome has been announced, otherwise, if the system works in our favor, you wind up looking like a complete asshat.
You know.. I used to like SEGA, even though they had terrible luck at a lot of things. They made excellent arcade games, and I have fond memories of both the Genesis and Master System. To see them stooping to something as inane as this.. it's just sad.
Interesting that Sega hasn't pointed its lawsuit cannons at Nintendo, given that the DS and 3DS also use touchscreen technology and sell like crack-laced hotcakes.
Possibly out of a fear of being blown out of the water in innumerable tiny fragments if Nintendo fired back in that situation.
Possibly out of a fear of being blown out of the water in innumerable tiny fragments if Nintendo fired back in that situation.
Why isn't Sega dead yet? Because they should be. Using bullshit patents like this to stifle a small competitor, its criminal. They should be ashamed of themselves.
its easy to get a patent, even an invalid one. Its hard to keep it.
Patents can be voided for being overly broad/vague.
This description sounds like sega's might be overly broad (but who knows how much license the original story writer took, we'd have to see the actual patent to really know).
On the other hand, if sega's patent is specific enough to itself withstand a challenge, then the alleged violator need only be outside those specifics to avoid violating sega's patent, which is something else we don't know.
Of course, im talking US law, no idea what japanese law is. Courts will decide I guess. =>
Patents can be voided for being overly broad/vague.
This description sounds like sega's might be overly broad (but who knows how much license the original story writer took, we'd have to see the actual patent to really know).
On the other hand, if sega's patent is specific enough to itself withstand a challenge, then the alleged violator need only be outside those specifics to avoid violating sega's patent, which is something else we don't know.
Of course, im talking US law, no idea what japanese law is. Courts will decide I guess. =>
