this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
128 points (95.1% liked)
Games
16828 readers
988 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's worse with this particular case because the patent is for cross-gaming. You suck at competitive Street Fighter? The next turn-based JRPG difficulty goes down.
WTF they can´t be serious?! How do people even come up with bs like this?
Trying to find ways to make something patentable that otherwise wouldn't be.
They don't actually have to implement the cross-game side of things because they got a patent that covers "same or different game", and they can now carefully patent-bully over an unpatentable feature because nobody can afford to fight Sony in a lawsuit.
Edit: And I say carefully, because I cannot imagine a lawsuit about that patent being successful if properly defended unless the app in question builds the exact same behavior, which nobody is going to do because it's stupid.
Gotta love patent law. I work at a company who got a (defensibly valid IMO) patent recently. There was so much silly red tape and complication that our final patent looked unpatentable to an outside observer like myself, but was approved by the Patent Office. Unlike the original feature that was far more straightforward and innovative, but that the Patent Reviewer didn't really like because he thought some random unrelated product was "prior art".
What a headache
And if I recall, that "prior art" was something very much like "list of student names in a database with various metadata like phone number or email address, rendered on a webpage". My first reaction to their objection was "wait, that is absolutely unpatentable...right?"