AGS and the European Patents

edmundito · Sat 19/02/2005 03:56:09

Read these:
http://news.com.com/Software-patent+battle+set+to+flare+up/2100-1014_3-5432364.html?tag=nl
http://news.com.com/Europes+patent+proposal+pending/2100-1014_3-5582138.html?tag=nl

Now, how would this affect our beloved Adventure Get Studio? Is Chris Jones going to run to get patents if this is aproved? or is Chris already out on the streets protesting like the people in the pictures?

Discuss.

RickJ · Sat 19/02/2005 09:40:22

I've been following this for a while. It's kind of bizzare how the EU works. Apparently there is a way to pass things like software patents into law without the approval of the EU palimentary body or any member country's parliment. My understanding is that the "Software Patent Directive" was put on the Agriculture Council's agenda so that they could approve it without parlimentary approval. Poland opposed it, about a month ago.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041221102644104

It was somehow resurected recently and again it was not accepted, thanks to the Dutch, and will now be debated in the parliment.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050211133435297

Apparently Bill Gates gave Denmark an ultimateum, vote for patents or else. MS now say that it wasn't blackmail but don't deny talking about not employing anyone there if they voted against the patent thing. You can read about it here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050215071109231

So what's the big deal with software patents? Well the problem is that mathematical algorithms, numbers, etc are not patentable or copyrightable. Ever wonder why Intel now name their chips things like Pentium instead of 80586? Software is in a sennse just a mathematical expression, a sequence of mathematical and loical operations so it's questionable if it should be patentable for this reason. Also, in the US, software patents are given too freely and many are invalid because they are not unique inventions or they have been in use for a long time. Here is a more indepth article
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005010406110017
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005011407083826

This is part of a much bigger battle between companies and people who support open source software and those who don't. Microsoft intends to threaten Linux users with patent infringement law suits.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041118073308709

IBM and to a lesser extent SUN are on the other side of the equation. Both have recently made something like 1000 patents available for use by open source developers. It appears that IBM is prepared to take on Microsoft in court and to use their patent portfolios to counter sue MS. I guess the patent sword cuts both ways.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050126023359386

IBM is current defending a law suit brought by the SCO Group. SCO claimed that IBM had violated their copyright by their contributions to Linux It's been going on for almost two years now and SCO has yet to present any evidence of their allegations. So they keep asking for more and more discovery materials. Their most recent request has been approved but the judge made it clear that it this is the last. IBM has filed a counter suit and asked for summary judgement (i.e asked the judge to find in their favor based on the evidence presented and the law, without going to trial). In the judge's most recent ruling he denied the request because discovery is still in progress but ruled that IBM can renew their request or submit a new one when discovery is complete. In this ruling the judge scolded SCO for it's antics and made it clear that so far SCO has not presented any evidence to backup their claim. IMHO, IMB is creaming SCO and will eventually win big time.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050210075456474

So what's the tie-in with Microsoft? Microsoft gave SCO 80+ million dollars to help fund the lawsuit. They also got another company Baystar (or Bay something) to heavily invest in SCO. Also Microsoft paid additional sums of money to license SCO's copyrights; except those are supposedly UNIX copyrights and MS is not a UNIX house. Further SCO is involved in a lawsuit with NOVEL who claims that SCO does not even own the copyrights they are claiming and for which they have licensed to Microsoft. Btw, Novel recently bought out SuSE Linux, so they apparently are on the other side of the equation along with IBM, SUN and other.

I have been following this over at GROKLAW. They have regular comentary from lawyers and other knowlegable people. And.... the name of the founder is Pamela Jones

Home Page - http://www.groklaw.net/index.php
Archive Page - http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20030831173953678

So, to answer the question, I don't think CJ has to worry yet as there are bigger fish to fry. However, I would sleep much better if there were a native Linux version of the AGS editor.

jetxl · Sat 19/02/2005 17:54:11

Quote from: RickJ on Sat 19/02/2005 09:40:22
...
It was somehow resurected recently and again it was not accepted, thanks to the Dutch, and will now be debated in the parliment.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050211133435297
...

Bloody Dutch! I hate those pot smoking A-holes.

RickJ · Sat 19/02/2005 18:52:26

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. The Ductch were not responsible for brining it up again, they were the ones to stand up and say "No! to software patents", for which they shold be commended IMHO.

HillBilly · Sat 19/02/2005 18:54:36

Yay to the dutch! I love those pot-smoking A-holes!

scotch · Sat 19/02/2005 19:29:56

I think AGS is safe, if they are approved or not. Ã,Â GIF wasn't added in until the gif patent expired in the US, we have a seperate engine for commercial games, without the MP3 support, so CJ is taking care as it is.
CJ could already apply for patents in the US, he of course has not, and won't in the EU. Ã,Â So it won't change anything for AGS.

Pumaman · Sat 19/02/2005 19:53:51

As I understand it, you can still patent algorithms (the GIF patent applied in the EU too because it was the actual compression algorithm rather than the computer implementation of it that was patented).

But yeah, allowing software patents would be barmy. It invites all sorts of silliness like people patenting "a method for displaying graphics on a screen" or "a method for linking from one document to another" and everyone is screwed.

If I remember correctly, Amazon has some sort of patent on internet shopping in the US, which means all other companies have to implement their online shopping in a certain way to make sure they don't breach the patent. It's stupid.

If software patents were allowed in the EU, all I'd have to do is patent "a system for allowing people to create 2D adventure games" and you can say goodbye to AGAST, SLUDGE and Wintermute

Radiant · Sat 19/02/2005 19:59:48

Don't patents expire in 20 years? Or would that Europe thingy allow people to, say, submit the expired GIF patent all over again and wait another 20 years?

(btw I'm Dutch)

HillBilly · Sat 19/02/2005 20:01:01

I heard Microsoft copyrighted the double-click. Or atleast tried.

Pumaman · Sat 19/02/2005 20:10:01

As an example of the silliness that can ensue, remember that BT claimed that they had a patent on web hyperlinks.

QuoteDon't patents expire in 20 years? Or would that Europe thingy allow people to, say, submit the expired GIF patent all over again and wait another 20 years?

You can't re-patent something that has expired, so it wouldn't affect any existing technology. But, there are all sorts of things in future that could be drastically harmed if software patents were allowed.

For example, someone might already have a software patent on web forum systems. Tomorrow they might suddenly decide to enforce it, and start sueing anyone with a message board on their website.

m0ds · Sun 20/02/2005 15:24:59

QuoteIf software patents were allowed in the EU, all I'd have to do is patent "a system for allowing people to create 2D adventure games"

QuoteFor example, someone might already have a software patent on web forum systems. Tomorrow they might suddenly decide to enforce it, and start sueing anyone with a message board on their website.

Bagsy patenting porn & spam!

SSH · Sun 20/02/2005 21:50:22

Umm, guys, if there is ANY published example of "prior art" (i.e. someone did it already) then a patent is invalid. Any it can be proven invalid by making a representation to the appropriate patent office showing the prior art, without even needing a lawyer, so I think AGS is safe in all its existing versions. However, someone could patent something after SW patents were allowable and then if CJ added that feature to AGS then it would be a problem. Of course, you could still use older versions.

In case anyoen is interested in my 3 patents, check them out
here

Radiant · Sun 20/02/2005 22:08:05

I believe that in case of doubt, a court case will have to be drawn to make sure the alleged prior art qualifies. There are some companies that exist solely by making patents like this, asking license fees off small companies because the average small company doesn't have the resources for a court case even if they would probably win.
Of course microsoft can out-court-case even the government so giving them patents is asking for trouble.

SSH · Mon 21/02/2005 07:47:57

The Patent office can invalidate a patent without any courrt required: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/eolas_web_patent_nullified/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/30/microsoft_fat_patent_rejected/

Radiant · Mon 21/02/2005 08:12:30

Glad to hear that.

Why do you have patents, btw? And what are they, in non-bureaucratese terms?

SSH · Mon 21/02/2005 09:06:32

Why do I have patents? Because my employer at that time offered a nice bonus for every patent filed, and every one accepted. Unfortunatley, since the acceptance process takes a number of years, I had left that company beforethey were accepted, so I never got the second part of the bonus. Also, it looks good on your CV to have 4 patents on which you are (co-)inventor!

They are a DMA engine, which could copy data from 4 different areas of memory to/from a special Digital Video decoder; an XOR gate used to improve testability of logic around RAMs; the Digital Video decoder as a whole; and programmble arbitration method

Is that any clearer?

If you mean why in general, they are there to protect the Intellectual Property of a company, but also to share knowledge. In return for publishing their method or details of an invention such that anyone can read it (all patents are downloadable on the web) the inventor is allowed exclusive rights to manugfacture or licence as they see fit, for 20 years after filing. Of course, publishing means that its not secret, but it also means that if anyone copies it, you can sue their pants off, even if they invented it independently, but later...

Radiant · Mon 21/02/2005 16:01:29

Yep, that helps. I was just wondering if they were serious patents or if you were like the guy that patented the wheel. I'm impressed.

Federikazzo · Tue 22/02/2005 01:55:15

one dumb question: wasn't SCUMM patented in 1987? $:-\$
should it mean that if you make a game with a scumm-like gui, lucasarts may claim you're using a patented gui without paying royalties?

RickJ · Tue 22/02/2005 02:52:43

SSH, cool! I also have a patent, it's listing is here. You can click on "IMAGES" to see the actual patent and drawings but you need a TIFF Plugin to see the images.

Quote
The Patent office can invalidate a patent without any court required ...

In both cases you cite, I believe substancial legal expenses were incurred. In the eolas case there was a lenghtly court case prior to the patent office decision. The problem is that if large companies like Microsoft are allowed to file and be awarded silly patents, prior art or not, who among open source or freeware developers could afford to defend against a patent infringement claim?

IMHO, the whole patent system is outdated in that it is not equiped to handle current and future volume of innovatin and it is not likely to catch up either. When I worked at GE they had a full time legal staff that attempted to patent everything we did. If they got a patent awarded fine, if not they had mountains of documentation and an official document from the goverment stating why it was denied. This would enable them to defend against patent infringement lawsuits rather than bring them, IMHO. I think many large compaines engage in this practice.

edmundito · Tue 22/02/2005 07:26:02

I'd like to make sure that we are not confusing trademarks with patents, because I don't think SCUMM was patented in any way. After all, sierra came up with their own interface, too... those damn copycats!

Edit: But IMUSE is... clicky!

AGS and the European Patents

m0ds