Atari, Others, Settle Game Patent Suit 45
Atari and other game publishers have come to a settlement with American Video Graphics, a company which claims a patent on (essentially) an in-game camera POV. Atari agreed to pay the company $300,000 for 'irrevocable' rights to the company's patents. From the article: "In a recent IGDA column on the subject, lawyer Jim Charne commented on the danger of this exceptionally wide-ranging patent, noting that: 'Several of these defendants have joined together to mount a common (and very costly) defense', and further commenting: 'The '690 patent litigation is an attack on the industry as a whole. It is indeed something for developers to worry about.'" The other companies mentioned, apparently, came to similar settlements. It's frustrating to me that these companies chose to buy off a pointless suit like this, rather than see the patent nullified.
They have learned from the RIM debacle (Score:1)
Re:They have learned from the RIM debacle (Score:3, Insightful)
For "better" read "easier."
Re:They have learned from the RIM debacle (Score:1)
Re:They have learned from the RIM debacle (Score:2, Informative)
The problem, though, is that they're setting a precedent in patent cases. This is an absurdly wide-ranging patent, and should never have been upheld, especially as the patent is being enforced on games nearly 20 years after it was granted. I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought the failure of the patent holder to offer due dilligence on any other game in that span (say...Quake? System Shock? Descent?) would have given the companies a much easier time in fending it off.
I'm just scared of where softwar
Expiry (Score:1)
especially as the patent is being enforced on games nearly 20 years after it was granted.
Yeah, but make it 21 years, and expiry will be a defense. Unlike copyrights, which are periodically renewed through amendments to the Copyright Act and foreign counterparts, patents actually expire.
If I own stock... (Score:2)
Hell, I've seen employees that were busted for theft - after stealing a fair bit of stuff, got recorded on video, got a confession, etc. - have the balls to sue for wrongful dismissal and watch HR settle with them for a few thousand. All about risk management, not about rig
Re:If I own stock... (Score:2)
it is better... (Score:2)
Re:it is better... (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone had a patent on "programs that run on a computer" and charged Â$30 billion for a license, Microsoft and IBM couldn't be any happÃier. For a one-off large sum, they would effectively lock down
Patent (Score:1)
Here's the patent [uspto.gov]. Go down to the middle of the document and you'll see some specific mathematical algorithms. What I'm getting at is that it doesn't seem so broad. Then again, I'm not a Patent Lawyer or one of the defendents.
Re:Patent (Score:1)
Re:Patent (Score:2)
Re:Patent (Score:1)
Mathematics (Score:1)
Re:Patent (Score:2)
Someday, I hope to see a patent argument that results in a criminal charge of extortion for the patent squatter.
Mike Burke
Expired? (Score:2)
Did they change the duration of patents?
Re:Expired? (Score:3, Interesting)
I found an interesting site about patents in the U.S. here:
http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/ [bitlaw.com]
Re:Expired? (Score:2)
Actually, it depends on when the patent was issued - older ones are 17 years from issue, newer ones are 20 years from application. See the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. The cutoff date was June 8, 1995. In 2015 we won't have to worry about that any more, unless there's a REALLY deeply-submarined patent still pending...not sure if the rules on that would allow a pending application at that time to still be pending and still get 17 years after issue.
Re:Expired? (Score:2)
http://www.spi.org/gatt.htm [spi.org]
Actually, it expires next year (Score:2)
For patents filed before and still in force by June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date, whichever is the longer of the two.
For patents filed after June 8, 1995, it's 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date.
So it looks like this patent is set to expire April 6, 2007.
It has already expired (Score:1)
Check out the bottom of this page:
http://www.igda.org/columns/lastwords/lastwords_M
Bill
why should this patent be nullified? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4734690.html [freepatentsonline.com]
And people are only now violating it, nearly 19 years later. Give it one more year and it will have expired!
Re:why should this patent be nullified? (Score:2)
How so? There were games that effectively had this even back then - the vector-display Star Wars arcade machine comes to mind, and it was released in 1983.
Re:why should this patent be nullified? (Score:2)
Re:why should this patent be nullified? I, Robot (Score:2)
Re:why should this patent be nullified? (Score:2)
This patent has absolutely NOTHING to do with rendering methods. It is strictly referring to doing 3-D transforms, whether it is rendered as vector-drawn line graphics or raster-based textured polygons.
The only thing I can see possibly being unique about this, comparing it to flight simulators and other 3-D programs from the '70s (one of the first programs I wrote was a 4-D transform (of which 3-D is a special case) - displayed a 4-D hypercube) is the phrase "the viewing space being movable at a selected
Re:why should this patent be nullified? (Score:1)
not really (Score:2)
Confused (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Paying off vs. nullifying the patent (Score:2)
Why would they nullify it when it could work against their competitors? I can't imagine that it would cost less to engage in the legal fight to nullify the patent, anyway.
Money grubbing mother... (Score:1)
Keeping a 'lock' on a particular camera movement forces developers to design away from certain gameplay elements/patterns which will limit the player in various degrees. One of the biggest complaints with platformers and 3rd person perspective games in general is poor use of the camera and/or lack of control. So thanks to money grubbing mother...'s this problem continue to be an issue for some games. Great for American Video Grap
Haven't you been following the RIM debacle? (Score:2)
said it before.. (Score:1)
patenting in game camera pov? thats the most absurd thing ive ever heard of..
And in other news... (Score:1)
I want to patent money (Score:1)
Re:I want to patent money (Score:2)
I can't beleive this was allowed (Score:1)
They should have taken this to court. They didn't need a high expense lawyer, just a judge that couldn't be bought, to show a clip of supposedly copyrighted material, and let the judge throw these criminal patent jumping asses in the slammer for fraud.
The spherical panning of a c
There oughtta be a law (Score:1)
1) unknown to the paying party or to both parties, someone else had rights that precluded your use of the licensed rights
or
2) unknown to the paying party or to both parties, it turns out another person could have given you the same rights, or you had them all along
it should be grounds to sue for the difference in value of what you thought you bought and what you actually bought.
Example:
You license a patent set t
Re:There oughtta be a law (Score:1)
Law of unintended consequences (Score:1)
This leads to the law of unintended consequences.
If I'm a big company and I want to annoy you, I can quietly fund 10,000 startups to each deliberately infringe on your patent "just a little bit" and quietly notify you of the fact, and hope you don't get back to one of those 10,000 with a cease-a