test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Champions Online Discussion

Will Cryptic now will sue WB Games back to stoneage? (Nemesis Patent)

theanothernametheanothername Posts: 35 Arc User
edited February 2021 in Champions Online Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UO5Ll3OAd0
(Yong Yeah on WB Games Patent Nemesis System)

I mean, they would totally deserve it. Major D move on WB IMO.
He who posts 2 years before he joins
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/comment/10732872
Post edited by theanothername on

Comments

  • flyingfinnflyingfinn Posts: 8,408 Arc User
    SourWeightyAmericankestrel-max-1mb.gif
    CHAMPIONS ONLINE:Join Date: Apr 2008
    And playing by myself since Aug 2009
    Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
    tumblr_n7qtltG3Dv1rv1ckao1_500.gif
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • squirrelloidsquirrelloid Posts: 869 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    Okay, that youtuber is an idiot who doesn't know a thing about IP law.

    It's not an 'unspoken rule' to not patent game mechanics, you literally CANNOT patent game mechanics. No court (in the US at least, and i doubt anywhere) will enforce such a patent. (Although you can probably get the US patent office to issue you a patent - they'll issue just about anyone a patent, e.g. https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227B1/en. Enforcing it, on the other hand, is a totally different matter).

    This is why lawsuits over code are copyright lawsuits, not patent infringement.

    Basically, game mechanics, like code, is just math. Math can't be patented.

    Edit: Relevant US SCOTUS precedent is Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, which applied the Mayo test from Mayo v. Prometheus. In particular, if the underlying concept is solely an algorithm or similar 'abstract' construct, and there's really nothing more to it, then it's not patentable. Game mechanics are algorithms (whether implemented by a computer or not), and therefore not patentable by definition.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Posts: 4,915 Arc User
    one point an uncle(who was a professional mechanic) once made to me about patents for car parts... is that they have to be super specific. Making something nearly the same meant they could ignore the patent. It can't be a superficial change though, it has to be something substantial.

    I can't think of a real example, but as a demonstration this is an example of the idea: the patent is for a mechanism that has as a critical component a sprocket 6 inches in diameter with 30 teeth. The revamped version has a sprocket 7 inches in diameter with 35 teeth. As a result the mechanism is arranged differently. It's not exactly the same design, so it's not a patent violation.

    i suspect patents for a computer code widget would get enforced much the same way. If it's not identical it's not covered by the patent.
    ChampsWiki
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My characters
Sign In or Register to comment.