selectparks.net- games by artists - Patently Absurd, A Rant

Clearly the most miserable creature walking the earth is the software patent lawyer. This parasite is carefully trained to be above ethics or practical sense, seeking only to drain capital from software developers so that it can afford an island cruise for its equally miserable spouse. And just like the zombie, dying companies infected with the Patent Virus will often rise up from the grave and start filing patents, essentially moving from software development to Full-Time Nastiness.

While not as severe here in Europe, software patents are a lurking threat to commercial game developers; you need a lawyer in a watchtower scouting for a potential breach before you fall into it's smelly maw..

These days, what consitutes evidence of 'prior art' (required to file a patent) can almost be "60 years ago, I was packing frozen catfish in a factory when i had the idea.. A system whereby a 'player' in some kind of 'game' must sort and orient a precipitation of units (blocks) as a function of gameplay" (later filed against Alexey Pajitnov, creator of Tetris).

Here is a real example I stumbled upon today. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,823,879; 6,183,366 and 6,264,560 covers the use of player ranking systems in multiplayer games. Another, that I'm probably in breach of right now (by implementing this very 'invention' in about 20 lines of Python code), is "Method and apparatus for creating and playing soundtracks in a gaming system" .

The US patent office is inundated with such patent claims currently, and as this equates to good business (being essentially a private firm) they will do all they can to process them. The 'market' for patents has greatly increased in the last years, with the US relaxing the criteria for making a claim. M$ for instance is extending their own patent net at the rate of 8 a week, resulting in stupidities like a patent on the double-click and "the body as a communications network".

When discussing patents, we need to remember they are rarely about protecting IP (that is the job of copyright) so much as marginalising or directly damaging competition by creating IP.
Many patent holders for instance, never ever wish to manifest the given invention. Instead, they register a patent on an 'invention' to ensure no one else invents this product, a product that might threaten the stable returns of their existing, inferior product.

Regardless of the intentions behind registering patents, the risks they pose small commercial studios is high; patents are always used as weapons, not responsible revenue generation (whatever that is). Software patents are also bought and sold like fine art, traded as commodities. For this reason, and as 'assets', creating and investing in them makes short term business sense. However, in the long term (and like the value of any other asset) as the patent market becomes saturated with software patents, their relative value (also as claims) will drop. The patent holders themselves will not have the investment backing or liquid capital to file against larger corporations. At this point they'll start firing at the little fish before it all finally collapses when someone patents "A method for Entering a Room before Someone Else."

That said, right now the Little Bastards are hitting hard - otherwise unknown company Immersion filed, and won against Sony to the tune of US82 million in damages, ontop of a US26 million license payout.

On average it costs about EU3M to fight a software patent claim, while this ticket will drop, it will mean smaller companies will be increasingly targeted.

A rant this is, and I wouldn't want to spread so much FUD without waving a flag of action. A huge number of corporations and independent software developers are shifting the MEP vote for the proposed ammendment to EU software patenting, which seeks to bring software patents in Europe in line with that of the cannibalistic US patent system. If you are European, save game and sign here:

http://www.ffii.org

By law, there is no patent that can't be revoked, but the point here is that software patents make dark skies for small game studios - historically where the bulk of innovation has come from. Remember Prince of Persia? That was made by a father and son team - their lawyer was probably 'Uncle Kev'.

In the meantime, and to lighten the burden of such uncertainties, here is my most cherished example of the patently absurd, one that proves the saying that once software can be patented, anything can be patented... A Method for Swinging on a Swing.

Further reading:

The EFF are fighting patents of this kind, especially those relating so software patents. Many in their target portfolio affect game development.
http://www.eff.org/patent/

Harvard Economics professor explains succintly the extreme dangers of the current patent system.
http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/7810.html

And an excellent article, specifically relating to issues of IP, Copyright and Patent in Game and Game development.
http://www.armchairarcade.com/