Setting the shittiness aside, once again a horseshit patent award. This is not a novel or innovative idea. It's a stupid fucking limitation on others if entertained.
Patents are cancer. I say this as the creator of several of them.
Software patents are weird but normal patents are reasonable in my opinion.
Seriously. Patent length was chosen before the industrial revolution. It only coincidentally made sense through that period of mechanization. But in computing, twenty-odd years is an eternity.
In 2000 there were no shaders.
In 1980 there were no IBM PCs.
In 1960 there were no microchips.
Why the fuck would any idea from when Pong was fresh and new deserve absolute control until after the Super Nintendo? There could be Dreamcast games with features that that nobody was allowed to do again until last year.
Exactly. I'm completely fine with patents over something like a prosthetic or manufacturing equipment. I'm not okay with patents over software or business methods.
As a kid, I liked law and computers, so I thought I wanted to be a software patent attorney. Midway through my CS program, I decided software patents are completely awful and decided to work on FOSS instead of go to law school. Software patents should all be invalidated.
That said, I think patents should have a much shorter duration. I'm thinking something like 2-3 years, with an extension to 5-7 years if the patent holder can prove they need the extra protection to bring the product to market (i.e. they can demonstrate active work on it). Maybe certain types of patents can have another extension if it's a long lead-time product, but definitely not longer than 15 years. Most patents should expire within 7 years.
Software patents need to be shorter.
Hardware ones I think can be as long as they are, but need loopholes and tricks closed that allow for extending patents on the same thing artificially.
Best would be to have many different categories with vastly different duration and the durations need to be reviewed periodically.
Like the fact large parts of x86 is still patent protected is an obscenity.
I agree with different durations based on the type of product, but I really need to see some evidence that the current patent length is needed by anyone. First mover advantage is a real thing, so they only need enough protection to get a head start. Patents are just a license to be lazy, so they should only exist as long as necessary to get to the market first.
After that AI generated image was denied copyright, not sure how this can be enforced
An AI image is a result of a technology, which falls under copyright.
A method to generate AI audio is the technology itself, which falls under patent law.
These are two entirely different things that should never be conflated.
Exactly. You can patent the way you integrate this tech into a game, as well as the process for how the audio is generated, but you cannot patent the audio itself or the implementation since those fall under copyright. Use of an implementation would need a patent grant, but use of the audio does not.
Patents and copyright are two sides of the same coin, and as such are related but are completely separate entities. Patents cover ideas and processes, copyright covers implementations and products.
Agreed on the general principle, but I'm kind of glad a company that everyone already thinks of as shit will hold the patent on this. It's absolutely not an idea that I'd want to spread throughout the industry and at least now it's limited to use in games I'll never play.
Setting the shittiness aside, once again a horseshit patent award. This is not a novel or innovative idea. It's a stupid fucking limitation on others if entertained.
Patents are cancer. I say this as the creator of several of them.
Software patents are weird but normal patents are reasonable in my opinion.
Seriously. Patent length was chosen before the industrial revolution. It only coincidentally made sense through that period of mechanization. But in computing, twenty-odd years is an eternity.
In 2000 there were no shaders.
In 1980 there were no IBM PCs.
In 1960 there were no microchips.
Why the fuck would any idea from when Pong was fresh and new deserve absolute control until after the Super Nintendo? There could be Dreamcast games with features that that nobody was allowed to do again until last year.
Exactly. I'm completely fine with patents over something like a prosthetic or manufacturing equipment. I'm not okay with patents over software or business methods.
As a kid, I liked law and computers, so I thought I wanted to be a software patent attorney. Midway through my CS program, I decided software patents are completely awful and decided to work on FOSS instead of go to law school. Software patents should all be invalidated.
That said, I think patents should have a much shorter duration. I'm thinking something like 2-3 years, with an extension to 5-7 years if the patent holder can prove they need the extra protection to bring the product to market (i.e. they can demonstrate active work on it). Maybe certain types of patents can have another extension if it's a long lead-time product, but definitely not longer than 15 years. Most patents should expire within 7 years.
Software patents need to be shorter.
Hardware ones I think can be as long as they are, but need loopholes and tricks closed that allow for extending patents on the same thing artificially.
Best would be to have many different categories with vastly different duration and the durations need to be reviewed periodically.
Like the fact large parts of x86 is still patent protected is an obscenity.
I agree with different durations based on the type of product, but I really need to see some evidence that the current patent length is needed by anyone. First mover advantage is a real thing, so they only need enough protection to get a head start. Patents are just a license to be lazy, so they should only exist as long as necessary to get to the market first.
After that AI generated image was denied copyright, not sure how this can be enforced
An AI image is a result of a technology, which falls under copyright.
A method to generate AI audio is the technology itself, which falls under patent law.
These are two entirely different things that should never be conflated.
Exactly. You can patent the way you integrate this tech into a game, as well as the process for how the audio is generated, but you cannot patent the audio itself or the implementation since those fall under copyright. Use of an implementation would need a patent grant, but use of the audio does not.
Patents and copyright are two sides of the same coin, and as such are related but are completely separate entities. Patents cover ideas and processes, copyright covers implementations and products.
Agreed on the general principle, but I'm kind of glad a company that everyone already thinks of as shit will hold the patent on this. It's absolutely not an idea that I'd want to spread throughout the industry and at least now it's limited to use in games I'll never play.