patents should not exist
The original idea behind them had some merit: in exchange for showing everyone else exactly how to do a cool new thing, you got to temporarily be the only one to profit from it. They’ve devolved into parenting general ideas (see the shopping cart patent) and fucking over anyone who finds a way to make the idea work, though.
The key is “temporarily” though. Even in the 18th century and prior when technology evolved at the pace of a snail on sedatives that meant 5, maybe 10, at most 15 years.
Then in the 90s the world’s international cartel of IP rights got together and decided they should make it 20 years everywhere, just so corporations can monopolize anything they make for the entire the duration of its usefulness. With the speed of progress today I’d be surprised if most aren’t obsolete before they become available to the general public. 3D printing is only a thing now because Stratasys was hoarding the FDM patent since the fucking 90s.
Shit needs to go back down to 5 years again.
I’d say patents should be limited to physical goods. Game mechanics should never have been allowed.
I disagree, if I spend time and money to figure out how to solve a problem efficiently, why shouldn’t I get to profit from that idea?
The above only applies to hardware patents, software patents however should not extist.
Regardless, if a company are not actively using a patent, as in a product themselves or through licensing, for X years, then the patent should be void.
Of course it’s work finding solutions to problems and you should be able to live off your work. And in capitalism, a patent sometimes is the only option to do so.
However, patents and other forms of “intellectual property” are absolutely illogical and amoral. Nobody ever made a completely new thing. Every innovation builds on so much knowledge accumulated by so many people that came before. It’s absolutely nonsensical that an advancement that’s 99 % an achievement of humanity and 1 % of a single person should belong to that single person.
The solution to this is supposed to be the time limit: if your invention builds on a very recent invention, you may have to get permission from that inventor, but older inventions become common property and can be freely built upon. If that time limit gets too long, which it absolutely has, then that can end up causing more harm than good.
I disagree, patents makes sense for normal citizens, it gives them a legal framework to fight against a company just taking the invention from them without compensation.
As for the 99% vs 1% contribution, remember that it is usually the last 1% of a project that consumes the most time.
That’s a weak argument because everything used by normal citizens is, in practice, always used by the big corpos against the normal citizens in much greater quantity and with much more force.
Now that I think of it, it’s no argument at all because I already admitted, that under capitalism, you might not have another choice to get paid for your work. That still doesn’t make it morally good or logically sound.
Except 99% of the time, the company bankrupts the person who invented it (or threatens to) and then buys it out from under them through financial coersion and then make millions or billions in profit while giving the person who spent years or decades of effort developing it less than 1% of its worth.
Normal citizens!? The cost of patent litigation can range from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 on average per side.
I am sorry, but I have yet to meet a normal citizen that can afford a cost like this.
I find it interesting that you draw the line at software, as if it doesn’t require time and money to create software solutions.
If it matters, I’m of the opinion that patents shouldn’t exist period. Capitalism loves to brag about encouraging competition and how much it benefits consumers, when in reality patents are super anticompetitive. An idea is one thing, executing the idea well is another. If I “take” your idea and execute it better than you, there shouldn’t be legislation stopping me
I “take” your idea and execute it better than you, there shouldn’t be legislation stopping me
THANK YOU. Exactly. Competition is supposed to decide who wins, not the state. If your invention is genuinely great, you should dominate because you innovate faster, manufacture better, support customers better, reduce costs better, and improve continuously, not because the government threatens competitors for 20 years.
Imagine you are an inventor and come up with a brilliant new thing, and start a business to sell it. You even bring in people to help manufacture and make them a co-op. Doing everything ethically right. Selling a quality product that people want.
Then a multinational conglomerate sees it is selling well and they use their immense resources to scale up production, produce and sell it for half the price you can.
You and your co-op go out of business and megacorps shareholders pocket even more dividends.
Thats why patents should exist in a capitalist hellscape.
That argument proves the problem is scale and market power, not lack of patents.
Giving everyone a legal weapon sounds fair in theory, but in practice the biggest companies have the best lawyers, the biggest patent portfolios, and the most money to litigate. Patents often become a moat for incumbents, not a shield for small inventors.
A pro-market answer would be: reduce barriers to entry, punish fraud, enforce contracts, maybe protect trade secrets narrowly, but don’t ban competitors from building better versions.
companyNintendoAnd Namco (minigames in loading screens, started in Ridge Racer), Warner Bros (Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor), SEGA (GPS arrows from Crazy Taxi)…
I know “Nintendo bad” is a popular narrative but they’re far from the only one.
Nothing mentioned in the post but I am 99% sure Anon is talking about Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor/Shadow of War.
When everything had long loading times (and we still have them from time to time) there was a genius idea : minigames on the loading screen to pass the time.
ONE company did this, patented the concept and till then no one is allowed to do that.
Which company?
It was Namco, and the patent expired in 2015.
So did long loading screens
Generally speaking, most game mechanics are not copyright-able, not patentable. Game mechanics themselves tend to be treated as base components, as in, like a drum beat or a bass line. It’s rare cases where those are distinct, usually in context (see Vanilla Ice & Under Pressure). Because a beat or bass line can be so basic as a component, it’s considered part of the arrangement and not the composition itself. Video game mechanics can likewise be in this configuration.
For instance, summoning heroes (Nintendo loss) is a mechanic / part of the composition of that game, but the larger video game is a particular arrangement. Specific characters (pikachu) can very much be copyrighted individually, but games themselves are typically less liable for patents / copyright, and so on.
Also, for good measure, since it’s a massive benefit to the freedom of expression. Video games would be a depressing medium if people could capitalize on mechanics like patent trolls.
To be clear, some technologies used in association with video games can be patented, but that’s when a patentable technology is combined with a game, which is much less common in the medium.
Yeah you can tell this is not real because a) it’s greentext and b) you can’t copyright game mechanics.
If you could we wouldn’t have video game genres, or like 99% of board games.
There is one major exception where Warner Bros. holds a highly restrictive patent on the Shadow of Mordor Nemesis system. The mechanic allows non-player characters to remember past encounters with the player, dynamically changes their personalities, and rise (or fall) through enemy ranks. If you never played it, it was a unique mechanic that I’ve never seen in other games since. The patent prevents other studios from utilizing this system and is set to expire on August 11, 2036.
TL, DR: Fuck Warner Bros for patenting this.
I keep hearing this one, the system was ok but I didn’t really care for it that much. It’s just an eternal list of respawning orks that I will kill.
Not sure that’s fair. It was the first pass at something that couple have been embraced, expanded and developed. Hell, it signposted the changed aspects and immunities of the orks as they grew.
But throw that into another harder game type where it’s on you to remember who has escaped and got wiser and it has real potential. Especially with the superhero meme of catching villains but never ending them. Some real organic potential to hit the pained hero arc where this one is such a pain maybe I should just kill this one…
