Reply With QuoteNo, not possible.
Patenting gameplay?
Hi,
is it possible to patent gameplay? I have an idea for a new puzzle game and I'm worried that someone with more legal resources than me will claim that they invented it first and then stop me from developing it further.
/mr n00b
No, not possible.
How can you patent gameplay for a game you haven't made yet?Originally Posted by mr n00b
I'm not interested in patenting the game, I was wondering if someone else can patent the gameplay after I release the game and force me to withdraw it.
According to ERoberts this is not possible, but what about historic lawsuits like the nintendo tengen tetris lawsuit:
http://www.classicgaming.com/rotw/ttetris.shtml
Apparently it's not possible to create a tetris game and sell it, or is that only if you call it tetris? Is it the actual name that's protected or the gameplay?
/mr n00b
There are exactly 4,253,092,562,234,765 games that mimic Tetris' gameplay, and that's not counting the 402 that were started up in the time I've been writing this post. They cannot legally use the NAME Tetris (or a similar game, such as ''Blocktris''). Tengen's version of the game was pulled because, at the time, the rights to the game were owned by the Soviet government, and any other licensing deals were illegal.
So go ahead and make your game. The best protection you can get is beating the competition to market. After that, yes, a patent is possible, but please don't be THAT guy
Don't know if you can actually patent gameplay.
But i am sure it's possible to get sued for your gameplay.
Like it happened with the german company which made "The Great Giana Sisters", a Super Mario-like game. They had to take it off the market because of Nintendo's legal actions.
Pretty sure it was because giana sisters also copied the levels too...But i am sure it's possible to get sued for your gameplay.
Like it happened with the german company which made "The Great Giana Sisters", a Super Mario-like game. They had to take it off the market because of Nintendo's legal actions.
So they went too far there. If you go too far then obviously you're doing something wrong.
It *is* possible to patent gameplay, however it's not *supposed* to be possible.
If some big company wants to sue you, they will. Doesn't matter if they have a valid case or not because they know they can just drown you in legal fees and force you to settle on their terms before the case ever gets to an official ruling.
Nick Sabalausky
No level copying, but the gameplay was very similar to Super Mario.
What about Hasbro and their efforts against developers making Pac Man - like games?
You can patent elements of gameplay, but not the entire game itself. Take for example Wizards of the Coast patenting tapping a card in Magic. Or whoever it was recently who patented a system of displaying insanity in a game. So, if you have a particularly unusual mechanic or process, you could apply for a patent on it.
Defending it in court is another matter, and is likely beyond the resources of any indie or small time developer.
I hope nobody plans on making a game that uses a mouse as an input device, because I've got a patent pending on that.
Nintendo again.
I was reading Edge the other month with a strong interest in the indi games stuff I read an article about PomPom
Link to Edge's PoMPoM article
They are working on a game at the moment and the article mentions that they are trying to patent a game mechanic.
I've extracted the interesting part
and the mechanic they are trying to patent isCook was so deeply impressed with the novelty of this mechanic that he saw it as priceless intellectual property, and in need of protection. He wondered if it could be patentable, found that it was, and PomPom has applied. But how on earth do you go about patenting a game mechanic? You give it verbal expression, but, says Visman, "you have to use slightly different language. Whereas you can see an explosion, in the patent application we've called it an expanding boundary, to make it more generalised. So that rather than just games, it could apply to any kind of application."
Thats as close to a patent for game play thet I've heared of.This concept is currently realised as a showcase PC demo (indeed, a nearly complete game) called Bliss that is being demonstrated to publishers and getting "a lot of interest". The idea was that Missile Command's expanding, circular explosions would push objects away rather than destroy them, giving them a vector. When gravity was added to the equation, it created something rather like juggling.
JC
(edit to correct spellings)
Last edited by HeadlessJB; 09-12-2005 at 10:25 AM.
So if I create a missle command type game with juggling, then Pompom can sue me now? Seems like something someone could come up with accidentally just fooling around...This concept is currently realised as a showcase PC demo (indeed, a nearly complete game) called Bliss that is being demonstrated to publishers and getting "a lot of interest". The idea was that Missile Command's expanding, circular explosions would push objects away rather than destroy them, giving them a vector. When gravity was added to the equation, it created something rather like juggling.
I have a suspicion that the reason behind PomPom's patent is because they are showing it around various publishers to get feedback. For one ,having a patent is a big plus for publishers, and also a lot of publishers have altely been ripping off good ideas (I think some people on this board may have experience of running betas and identical ideas popping up very shortly afterwards). That kind of dodgy practice is surely less likely if you have a patent.
Nintendo. And I'm still pissed at them about it.
That's what NDA's are for.
Nick Sabalausky
What you describe is called Independent invention. Copyright law respects it, but patent law does not. Let's say you are the author of a novel. Let's also say that I wrote a novel without knowing about yours BUT anyone who has read yours would say, "That's a copy of Impossible's novel!", copyright law says I have my own copyright to my work since it was not derived from yours but created independently.
On the other hand, patents on all sorts of things grant a monopoly to the person who invents it first. If someone else independently invents something after the fact, they don't get to claim the rights to the invention. See Carmack's Reverse for a recent high-profile game dev-related case.
Recently a number of companies have formed with the express purpose of owning software patents and suing people for violation of said patents. And given that a number of software patents are so basic that the only real complication is in the wording of the patent itself, you could find yourself stumbling over submarine patents left and right.
- Check out Stop That Hero!, a game in which you play the villain for once!
- GBGames' Blog
- Twitter: www.twitter/com/GBGames
I'm pretty sure every single game made must be infringing on at least 10 patents, it's a stupid stiauation.
Im not againts patents when they do what they're suppose to do. Ie.. foster invention by making research more worthwhile. What I am against is patents for things that require little or not research, or things that with a small amount of work can be achieved independently. Im also particularly against patents for things that are the logical solution to a problem that isn't easily solved otherwise. That is... in software its trivial to imagine 2 programmers looking for the best way to optimize the use of 3 elevators in a building and coming up with the same solution.
Steve Verreault - Twilight Games
http://www.twilightgames.com --- http://www.indiegamer.com
"Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to.” - Oscar Wilde
That practice may be dodgy, but when a company is already ripping off other games and then adding its own twists, it is kind of hard for me to take them seriously if they get all whiney about someone else ripping off their twists.
Note: I'm not against "ripping off" other games, and I think the best game design tends to be incremental and done by those who take into consideration what has come before -- I'm just using a strong phrase there to make a point.
IMO, what goes around comes around. If you're going to get up in arms about someone using one of your game mechanics, please make sure your game is completely original in the first place or you're a hypocrite.
I don't think any game is 100% original. However, a difference exists between taking elements from a game made years (if not decades) ago that has already cashed in on its design versus having your gameplay design ripped off pre-release by a publisher before you get a chance to cash in on it at all.
But still, like I mentioned earlier, a patent is not needed for that - only an NDA that includes a clause to prevent it.
Nick Sabalausky
christ.. it's called PINBALL ffs.The idea was that Missile Command's expanding, circular explosions would push objects away rather than destroy them, giving them a vector. When gravity was added to the equation, it created something rather like juggling.
Patent forumla = take any 2 games, combine them, patent as amazingly original. Pinball + missile command != original, sure it sounds fun, but I REALLY hope they aren't granted it. I've got a good mind to say 'patent pending' on everything I make just to put people off copying it
I find this interesting as I'm coming up with game ideas all the time. They end up on little note cards in the bottom of my computer desk draw then I get back to learning how to program by creating O'x and X's..
When reading though what people think, the 'is computer game creation an Art or a Science?' question pops into mind. If creation of game play is an art then the same approach to writing a story or Novel should be taken to game design. A book is copyrighted so you can't copy it outright but you are able to imitate and even develop the styles and techniques used to create your own unique story. So the same approach needs to be taken to game design.
Ok I know how unrealistic that is by thats what comes to mind when thinking of an ideal approach.
JC
ps fell free to copy, imitate or develop the above text into whatever you like.
Edit - spelling correction
Actually it is called modelling an explosion in realtime physics. I'm sure scientists have done this same thing many times before in non-game situations.
- Check out Stop That Hero!, a game in which you play the villain for once!
- GBGames' Blog
- Twitter: www.twitter/com/GBGames
Yes. Come to think about it, wouldn't the rocket-jump in Quake be considered prior art?
Came across this patent related story. Pretty interesting read, nice to see the leeches get put down. Never really know what will happen in court.
Article on patents
"The court found that 14 critical patent claims by Lemelson were unenforceable..."
...weeping openly while sitting in a swimming pool filled with money."He wasn't even around to defend himself," said his son, Rob
Good story.
Posting Permissions
