[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/loading-screen-game-pa...
FIFA/EAFC, one of the highest grossing console games (possibly #1).
#EndSoftwarePatents
Actually Ridge Racer on the original PlayStation did similar but with Galaga and decidedly shorter load times!
you might decide that its not worth violating as the value you get from it isn't much (i.e. mini game while loading might be cute, but might not move the needle at all for sales), and the patent holder might decide not to sue you as they don't view their prospects of winning to be high.
and then you're left in the middle where the patent might prevent novel new ways of doing things because initial violations wont move the needle, but those initial experimentation could open explorations that could eventually move the needle, but since we don't see any moving the needle up front, never get to that point.
aka, patents no longer "promote the progress of science and useful arts".
I think it's high time patents are reformed in the digital world. Things like game mechanics patents, design patents etc, ought to all be abolished.
Look at the fashion industry - there are no patents in clothing design. And they haven't collapsed; in fact, i think fashion florished more because of the lack of patents!
Truly innovative things are often not patented at all anymore, and instead kept as closely guarded business secrets. Patents are mainly used for when the company doesn't have a way to keep it secret, and for random things to bolster IP value.
Ah that depends on your viewpoint. Shein and similar outlets are making bank on stealing stuff from designers and rapid-manufacturing absolute dog quality shit [1].
Had fashion something like design protections, designers would at least have some recourse against these exploiters.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/02/details-i-m...
To be clearer: Patents that are invalid can get issued because the reason for it being invalid is not known, and I'd argue that nowadays this is likely a vast majority of patents. Patents are filed in huge numbers, with many companies just bolstering the number of patents they own as it inflates the value of their intellectual property, rather than caring too much about the value or even validity of each of them.
Figuring out if a patent actually has any value is unfortunately up to those deciding to challenge it.
However, I agree that it is objectionable that it is a patent on a different medium. I doubt if they were able to get all of them for dvd and blu-ray!
In Japan, or in other countries?
Some patents of interest:
Method of conducting simultaneous gameplay using stackable game pieces https://patents.google.com/patent/US6352262B1/en https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/225/icehouse
Trading card game method of play https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/463/magic-the-gathering
Light-reflecting board game https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242B2/en https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-the-laser-gam... (and the patent win https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2012/11/26/271633... )
You will note that http://www.gamecabinet.com (of old) has a link to searching US Patents on board games - http://www.gamecabinet.com/info/PatentSearch.html
From A Gamut of Games by Sid Sackson:
THE FILES OF PATENTS that have been granted are a fruitful hunting ground for forgotten games, although going through these files, as anyone who has ever been involved in a patent search well knows, is a time consuming job. Often the patented games are downright silly, such as a set of dominos made of rubber so that they can double as ink erasers (No. 729,489) or a sliding block puzzle with edible pieces so that a player who despairs of a solution can find consolation in gratifying his stomach (No. 1,274,294). Often the patents are repetitious: There are over a hundred variations of the well-known checkerboard and over a thousand different baseball games.
...
Preceding THE LANDLORD'S GAME by just under a year, on April 21, 1903, Patent No. 726,023 was granted to Henry Busch and Arthur Jaeger, also for a game board. Their game, called BLUE AND GRAY, made no lasting impression in the world of games which, I suppose, is understandable since it didn't have the innovative qualities of THE LANDLORD's GAME. Yet it was, and is, a delightful pastime, which should particularly appeal to the ChEckers fan who is looking for something different.
The name Blue and Gray, of course, refers to the uniforms of the South and the North in the Civil War and in the original game the playing pieces of the contestants were of those colors.
Give https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242B2/en a read and see if that describes the computer game. If not, it's something different.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to board type games played on a game board or surface, preferably a substantially orthogonally gridded, planar surface, and more particularly to a game which selectively diverts a beam (e.g. laser beam) by user-placed mirrored game pieces that are moved laterally or rotated during play.
2. Description of the Related Art
Many board games have been provided which use paths across their surface as part of the game. An example of such a game is chess. In addition, games exist that depend on the deflection or reflection of objects off of other objects to “score” points.
The following US Patents are examples of board games, each hereby incorporated herein by reference: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,516,671; 5,145,182; and 6,702,286.
Is it different? Do they claim different things? Having something similar isn't necessarily legally similar.
Blue and Gray is a checkers game that is played on a checkers board with checkers pieces and is distinct enough to receive a patent.
Trademarks protect names. Copyrights protect that text or music or ... Patents protect that idea - the rules and mechanics of that game.
The game of the present invention generates a “beam” for each player, which can be a low-powered laser diodes to emit a beam of colored light. These beams are reflected and deflected around the playing field by mirrored surfaces of pieces, or stopped by non-mirrored surfaces of pieces.
The game is won by a player who strategically maneuvers pieces to reflect a laser beam so as to illuminate a key piece belonging to his opponent, e.g., a “Pharaoh” or “King” piece.
With each turn, a player may move one of his pieces to one of the potentially eight, unoccupied adjacent squares (front, back, left, right or diagonal) or may rotate (re-orient) one of his pieces.
After moving or rotating a piece, that player presses a fire button that triggers the emission of a beam above and parallel to the playing surface. If the beam hits a non-mirrored surface of a playing piece, that piece is removed from the board and eliminated from further play, unless it is the key piece, e.g., “King” or “Pharaoh” piece, in which case the game ends.
The pieces can vary in design and setup, with mirrors being located on multiple (e.g. one, two or more) sides or no sides.
39. A method of playing a game by opposed players; said game comprising two sets of distinguishable playing pieces, each set having movable pieces with no mirrored surfaces, of which one is a key piece, and pieces with at least one mirrored surface, a game board consisting of a first end, a second end, and a plurality of rows and columns, intersecting to form a plurality of spaces, the method comprising the steps of:
placing each player's set of playing pieces on the game in a pre-determined starting configuration; and
alternating turns, each turn comprising moving, either a translation or a rotation, a piece followed by activation of a laser, said alternating moves continuing until one player illuminates the opposing player's key piece;
wherein moving a piece consists of a movement one space in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal direction to an unoccupied adjacent space.
Yes. Very much it does. It's been 35 years since I played Laser Chess, so perhaps there are some minor differences in the rules. But it describes a game so close to Laser Chess that it immediately brought the game to mind.
You can move a piece 1 or 2 spaces in a single direction (1 east, or 2 east, but not 1 north east unless that was used as two moves). You could also rotate on your turn. Firing a laser was optional.
In Khet, you can move one piece 1 adjacent spot (any of the 8) or rotate (not both) and you always fired the laser.
The rules are different - and the rules are patented.
If you had different rules that weren't covered by the claims, it would be a different game.
Laser strategy game board - https://patents.google.com/patent/US20080054563A1/en - that's a different game that was patented after Khet.
https://youtu.be/4nQaWJEBFNk (and if you want to play a digital version https://store.steampowered.com/app/312720/Khet_20/ ) vs https://archive.org/details/laserch or https://archive.org/details/msdos_Laser_Chess_1994
They are different games with different rules.
Strategic board game https://patents.google.com/patent/US6981700B2/en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa
While that plays with animal pieces, there's a 1:1 mapping from traditional chess pieces to Arimaa pieces and it's played on the same board.
Of course, accusations of public value to society are not libel in Japan. Everything is judged on a case by case basis.
But for companies? The closest thing would be protection under trade secrets if you're an employee or business partner.
However, in recent years, it has become routine in Japan to identify and punish employees who have leaked wrongdoings. In the evening news this evening, a government employee leaked information about a fraud, and the elected governor identified and pressured the employee, and the employee committed suicide. Public opinion is overwhelmingly blaming the governor, but the police and other authorities show no signs of acting. Despite this current situation, anyway, it is legally true that “even the truth can be sued,” and is this different in the US or in the West?
But you're talking about extralegal harassment and intimidation committed my authorities, which happens everywhere unfortunately.
I've always been under assumption that one can avoid patent infringing if the underlying implementation is different enough.
For example, one of more famous patents is Sega's yellow arrow on top of the screen, showing player where is the next objective. In your game you can still use that feature of "showing player in which direction the objective is", you just have to be more creative about it, here are some immediate ideas I got:
- small red hand pops up from side of screen when you're stuck for a minute and points to objective
- player character himself points with hand to your goal
- make sun, moon or other celestial body appear on the sky in the direction where the objective is.
And many of the non-Hasbro -opoly games (that use that as part of their name) actually are licensed. Hasbro's been known to go after unauthorized users of the name for trademark infringement.
It is very common in Japan for large companies like Nintendo to file and hold patents for smaller companies, this is especially prominent in the video game industry. This is a tradition borne out of, ironically, refusal to use the patent system at first.
For those that don't know, a lot of Japanese society operates on the honor system. You are expected to be truthful and honorable in your business dealings and in general. Patents were initially shunned because Japanese people didn't see a need, you don't need a rights protection system if everyone already respects them. That notion went straight out the window once Japan had to compete on the world stage: Suddenly, westerners saw Japanese ideas that weren't protected by patents and patented them and Japanese companies subsequently got sued and lost.
This led to a critical reassessment of how Japanese values are applied, and the result was that larger companies with sufficient financial strength would register and hold patents for smaller companies (not necessarily affiliated, by the way) who don't have the money to pay for all that, and in exchange those patents would be shared as a Japanese industry-wide good.
Nintendo is one such custodian of patents for the wider Japanese video game industry at large.
I am going to presume that Nintendo is suing Palworld for reasons beyond just its own interests in Pokemon. I haven't played Palworld nor have I looked at the details of this lawsuit, so I can't make an in-depth comment; but this probably isn't Nintendo acting like a copyright draconian as they are commonly seen in the west, rather they are likely doing this for the sake of the entire Japanese video game industry at large.
A few years ago, Nintendo sued (and won) a fellow Japanese video game developer, COLOPL, for infringing on mechanics patents that Nintendo was holding as custodian for the industry. Why? Because COLOPL broke the gentlemen's agreement and filed their own patent for the mechanic.
I saw a video about this on YouTube the other day.
About 17 minutes long.
Titled “The Nintendo lawsuit you’ve never heard about”.
It was an interesting video. I recommend watching it. (To people here on HN in general, I mean.)
They are. But it’s rarely done. And even more rarely enforced.
The original game was covered by two patents. Parker Brothers bought them from the creator after finding out that Charles Darrow had lied when he claimed that Monopoly was his own invention.
It'll be interesting to see which patents Nintendo is trying to assert. Given that Palworld is purely a game, it seems likely to be Nintendo's patents related to game mechanics (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37062820), which I think most people here are justifiably against.