This being a patent suit is very bizarre. Everyone was expecting a copyright lawsuit, if anything. I'm not a big fan of software patents, and it seems like they're only exercised as a convenient bludgeon against a rival, not based on something a company feels it legitimately invented.
Software patents are much worse for something fast evolving like video game mechanics were over the past 30 years or so. Imagine, for example, if id software had patented the first person shooter mechanics from Doom. It would have 20 years after that (2013) before anyone could offer a similar FPS and id would have been able to tack on incremental patents to extend their lock on the FPS market for decades longer.
Monolith patented their nemesis system, so it went nowhere. The thought that we were one personal stance away from the whole FPS genre not existing is pretty chilling.
Japanese laws pertaining to copyright/corporate rights in general can make the US look like a paradise of freedom.
Another game company, Konami, is suing Cygames for--in short--having a system where characters compete and can be leveled up.
Plus the concept of "fair use" technically kind of exists legally but not in practice. You sample something and the owner doesn't approve, you're screwed. You don't sample something but simply say something that lowers their reputation, you're screwed (the bar for "libel" is incredibly low--even facts can be successfully tried so long as it can be proven that the intention was to in some way lower a person or particularly a company's reputation). The last one is particularly funny since you'll see the media giving endless praise to a CEO/businessperson and treating them as Jesus 2.0, but the very day they die, the floodgates open and you find out they've committed every crime known to mankind and everyone around them knew it.
Basically, Pocketpair is quite likely heavily screwed. Nintendo can attack them on several fronts and likely will. People saying they made a better Pokemon than Nintendo themselves probably angered a few people within the company and it's easier to take them out legally than to actually compete.
Given Nintendo's last lawsuit related to patents took several years and ended not with a court win or the game ever shut down during that time but with them getting a settlement, Pocketpair is likely fine.
Pocketpair might have difficulties partnering with many businesses even outside of gaming in the future, since I've been led to believe the non-legal effects tend to matter quite a bit in Japan as well, but they have global appeal and can find foreign partners if they need to.
What makes software patents different than any other patent if it is a genuinely unique piece of software? Not a baited question, by the way. I don't understand why it would be different unless it's something like zooming in or copy and paste.
I would argue the speed at which innovation occurs in software world means "original" work is happening in multiple places simultaneously. It's not fair to simply grant the first claim, especially considering how slow the patent system is.
That, and that software is so easy to copy you could argue that not copying it greatly impedes technological advancement of your society. Especially in comparison with adversaries who will violate the patents freely.
I don't see how the speed of development impacts the rights to the first person patenting it. It seems like if I was to make a novel system, seeking a patent should be at the top of my list.
I agree with your second point entirely. I can see how closed doors can impede progress. But I thought that's what licensing was for.
Also, the argument I'm questioning is that software patents are inherently wrong as a concept. I still don't get that.
>It seems like if I was to make a novel system, seeking a patent should be at the top of my list.
Unless you've got a good chunk of cash or the backing of a decent sized corporation, filing a patent is pretty difficult and burdonsome for an individual. And even then actually enforcing it against infringers takes even more money.
The patent process is slow but not a fixed time. It's variable.
If the variability in time-to-patent exceeds the delta between independent inventions you no longer have a fair system.
At best you're randomly rewarding the patent to one lucky inventor. At worst you're rewarding it to the one who is best able to game the patent system, encouraging corruption throughout.
Patents are there to protect people who develop concrete solutions and products. Patents are not there to protect scientific discoveries or intellectual works.
It's much easier to compare two screw heads and work out who copied who from the dates they were put on the market than it is to work out who invented the flashing icon first. What's more, it's an endless debate as to whether the flashing icon can be traced back to an ATARI 2600 game from 1988 is a prior art.
Furthermore, patent protection must not have a disproportionate effect on the market. A patent and the licensing conditions for a technology such as the seat belt or ABS brakes should not completely prevent other car manufacturers from implementing them.
Software patents are often at the limit of mathematical demonstration, the absence of prior art is difficult to prove and they have disproportionate effects which are exploited by patent trolls. The market is made up of thousands of small studios and independent developers who don't have the means to search for patents. This is not the same as the aerospace market, with 5-6 major manufacturers all backed by law firms specialising in intellectual property and patents.
This has been tested and even the most fervent capitalist thinks it was a bad idea. The only people who really defend software patents are patent trolls.
not a lawyer but i write software so this is not 100% accurate information i have found on the internet and repeated back to me. further corrections are appreciated
software patents usually don't contain source code. just the general idea of how to achieve the outcome, they can be very broad or very subjective depending on who is in court
Patents Vs. Copyright:
you can create software that does the same thing differently.
kinda like torrenting vs direct download, they both deliver bytes too you but the bytes are delivered/received in very different ways.
taking someones software/machine instructions (the bytes that are the code) and calling it your own is copyright infringment.
if someone creates a new patented algorithm and you copy that algorithm into a different language then it is patent infrigement.
also patents have too be filed and approved while copyright is generally a given if the copyright is not already existing (depending on your jurisdiction i guess)
