Game Patent for Boot Screens Gone
The past year was notable for various patent-related events, but with regard to video games, the patent 5,718,632 deserves special attention, or rather, the fact of its expiration. This event was given enough attention in the gaming community, and an article dedicated to this was published on the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the translation of which is presented below.
In 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark Office registered a patent of 5,718,632 for a method that avoids "wasting time" in video games. What happened in 17 years can best be described as a waste of time.
Namco's patent covers "auxiliary games" in which the player can play while the main game is loading. The patent expired on November 27, which caused a storm of emotions in the gaming world , and even Loading Screen Jam was held, where developers created their own games for the loading screens.
')
Among all these emotions, it is worth taking a moment to wonder whether the patent 5,718,632 really should have been issued initially. This is a significant problem for many patents, in particular with regard to software.
In 1994, the first Sony PlayStation was introduced. Its graphic capabilities left far behind predecessors such as the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo, but there was one big drawback. Game cartridges of the previous generation were replaced by CD-ROMs. When the game was loading onto the PlayStation, you had to wait until the game data was loaded from the disc into its own console memory. I. It is necessary. Wait. Everytime. Viewing the loading screen was a boring affair, especially when you are used to instantly loading games on cartridges.
Namco's Ridge Racer game was designed to solve the problem by incorporating the second game, the 80's classic Galaxian. PlayStation took almost no time to download Galaxian. And suddenly, the player no longer needs to think about how boring it is to wait until the game loads; he could enjoy playing Galaxian while the console loads Ridge Racer. If you have time to get through Galaxian before loading Ridge Racer, the player will be awarded some in-game bonuses at Ridge Racer.
What is the trick? Namco first came up with games for the boot screens, so they applied for a patent, right? Well, let's take a look at how the US law defines a patentable invention .
In accordance with the law, a person cannot receive a patent if the claimed invention already exists when the application has been filed, or is obvious to anyone with qualifications in the relevant technological field. The idea of playing a mini-game while the main one is loading has been common for a long time . In 1987, many years before Namco filed its patent application, Richard Aplin created Invade-a-Load , a utility for developers who created games for the Commodore 64 computer. As a game developer, you could Invade a-load embed into your game; while the players were waiting for the game to load, they could play a mini-game similar to Space Invaders. Given the breadth of the Namco application, this is a very serious argument that her application should have been rejected as previously foreseen or obvious in light of the presence of Invade-a-Load.
The goal of all patents, as enshrined in the US Constitution, is to promote innovation. Inventors receive as a reward a temporary monopoly on their inventions in exchange for disclosing information about the principles of the inventions.
The Supreme Court ruled that patents should be granted only in relation to "those inventions that would not have been disclosed or invented, but which were stimulated by the patent." In other words, if the inventor does not provide really valuable information in exchange for a patent, this is a bad patent. Unfortunately, many software patents are just like that. They do not offer any real information on how to implement a feature; they instead vaguely describe the feature itself. In court, vagueness often prevails over specificity, when plaintiffs stretch the boundaries of their inventions so that they cover the respondents' products.
As for the patent on auxiliary games, it simply describes the idea of downloading a single game while the player is waiting for the download of the main game. Namco did not provide meaningful information in exchange for its monopoly on support games.
Last year, the Supreme Court revoked the patent for the fact that there was nothing in its description, with the exception of an abstract idea being carried out on a computer. If Namco filed a lawsuit against anyone for its patent, it could well lead to the loss of its patent. But this is not the main thing: even the existence of similar, low-quality from the point of view of law, abstract patents on software is enough to hold many inventors .
Currently, two bills on patent reform are under consideration in the Congress: PATENT Act and Innovation Act . The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports both bills, and we hope that you will find time to assist your congressmen in their support of the same bills.
Although these bills are more about litigation in patent disputes. If we really want to make the patent system a means of innovation, as prescribed by the Constitution, we must solve the problem of the quality of patents.
Right now, software patents are the boot screen of the world of intellectual property. They add no value to the game. They only oblige everyone to sit and wait before they do anything.
In 1998, the United States Patent and Trademark Office registered a patent of 5,718,632 for a method that avoids "wasting time" in video games. What happened in 17 years can best be described as a waste of time.
Namco's patent covers "auxiliary games" in which the player can play while the main game is loading. The patent expired on November 27, which caused a storm of emotions in the gaming world , and even Loading Screen Jam was held, where developers created their own games for the loading screens.
')
Among all these emotions, it is worth taking a moment to wonder whether the patent 5,718,632 really should have been issued initially. This is a significant problem for many patents, in particular with regard to software.
How games for loading screens were invented
In 1994, the first Sony PlayStation was introduced. Its graphic capabilities left far behind predecessors such as the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo, but there was one big drawback. Game cartridges of the previous generation were replaced by CD-ROMs. When the game was loading onto the PlayStation, you had to wait until the game data was loaded from the disc into its own console memory. I. It is necessary. Wait. Everytime. Viewing the loading screen was a boring affair, especially when you are used to instantly loading games on cartridges.
Namco's Ridge Racer game was designed to solve the problem by incorporating the second game, the 80's classic Galaxian. PlayStation took almost no time to download Galaxian. And suddenly, the player no longer needs to think about how boring it is to wait until the game loads; he could enjoy playing Galaxian while the console loads Ridge Racer. If you have time to get through Galaxian before loading Ridge Racer, the player will be awarded some in-game bonuses at Ridge Racer.
Should games be patentable for loading screens?
What is the trick? Namco first came up with games for the boot screens, so they applied for a patent, right? Well, let's take a look at how the US law defines a patentable invention .
In accordance with the law, a person cannot receive a patent if the claimed invention already exists when the application has been filed, or is obvious to anyone with qualifications in the relevant technological field. The idea of playing a mini-game while the main one is loading has been common for a long time . In 1987, many years before Namco filed its patent application, Richard Aplin created Invade-a-Load , a utility for developers who created games for the Commodore 64 computer. As a game developer, you could Invade a-load embed into your game; while the players were waiting for the game to load, they could play a mini-game similar to Space Invaders. Given the breadth of the Namco application, this is a very serious argument that her application should have been rejected as previously foreseen or obvious in light of the presence of Invade-a-Load.
Does the patent on games for boot screens contribute to innovation?
The goal of all patents, as enshrined in the US Constitution, is to promote innovation. Inventors receive as a reward a temporary monopoly on their inventions in exchange for disclosing information about the principles of the inventions.
The Supreme Court ruled that patents should be granted only in relation to "those inventions that would not have been disclosed or invented, but which were stimulated by the patent." In other words, if the inventor does not provide really valuable information in exchange for a patent, this is a bad patent. Unfortunately, many software patents are just like that. They do not offer any real information on how to implement a feature; they instead vaguely describe the feature itself. In court, vagueness often prevails over specificity, when plaintiffs stretch the boundaries of their inventions so that they cover the respondents' products.
As for the patent on auxiliary games, it simply describes the idea of downloading a single game while the player is waiting for the download of the main game. Namco did not provide meaningful information in exchange for its monopoly on support games.
Last year, the Supreme Court revoked the patent for the fact that there was nothing in its description, with the exception of an abstract idea being carried out on a computer. If Namco filed a lawsuit against anyone for its patent, it could well lead to the loss of its patent. But this is not the main thing: even the existence of similar, low-quality from the point of view of law, abstract patents on software is enough to hold many inventors .
Correcting the patent system means correcting patents.
Currently, two bills on patent reform are under consideration in the Congress: PATENT Act and Innovation Act . The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports both bills, and we hope that you will find time to assist your congressmen in their support of the same bills.
Although these bills are more about litigation in patent disputes. If we really want to make the patent system a means of innovation, as prescribed by the Constitution, we must solve the problem of the quality of patents.
Right now, software patents are the boot screen of the world of intellectual property. They add no value to the game. They only oblige everyone to sit and wait before they do anything.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/392811/
All Articles