Gibson Accuses Guitar Hero of Patent Violation

robipilot writes "Video game publisher Activision Inc. has asked a federal court to declare that its popular "Guitar Hero" game does not violate a patent held by real-guitar maker Gibson Guitar Corp. Gibson's 1999 patent covers a virtual-reality device that included a headset with speakers that simulated participating in a concert, according to a complaint filed on Tuesday by Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles."

Real Instrument?

[j.sanchez1]

Engadget is reporting that Gibson's system is designed to be used with a real musical instrument. [engadget.com] Hope this gets tossed out.

Link to the Patent

[Barbobot]

http://www.google.com/patents?id=YAUZAAAAEBAJ [google.com]

Note that Gibson was clearly not thinking about video games, as it's using a real guitar--kind of like an immersive Jamey Abersold experience :-P

Re:Crucify me, baby

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Here's a link: the patent [google.com]

Re:Crucify me, baby

[addie]

From the patent itself:

12. The system of either claim 10 or claim 11 wherein the video display and the audio playback transducer are combined in a stereoscopic head set wearable by the user.

14. The system of claim 13 wherein the audio portion of the pre-recorded musical performance comprises a separate instrument sound track and whereby the characteristic of the audio portion controlled by the source audio control circuit is a volume level of the instrument sound track played by the system.

19. The system of claim 13 further comprising a headset wearable by the user, the headset having left and right audio speakers and a stereoscopic video display, the left and right speakers operably connected to left and right channels on the source audio output and to the controlled audio output, and the video display operably connected to the source video output.

21. A system for allowing a player using a guitar to control simulated participation in a musical concert during synchronous playback of a pre-recorded concert video track, pre-recorded left and right concert sound tracks, and a separate pre-recorded guitar track, the system comprising:

27. The method of claim 26 wherein the musical instrument is a guitar.

I'm not sure which patent you were reading...

Hopefully. Wouldn't be the first time.

[halivar]

They pulled this same crap with Paul Reed Smith guitars, claiming that PRS's singlecut guitar infringed their trademark. PRS was forced to stop making singlecuts for a number of years, until the injunction, and Gibson's lawsuit, was thrown out. Gibson is a bunch of litigious bastards, and that is why I will never purchase a Gibson guitar.

Re:From the patent..."audio" signal.

[ILuvSP]

I suppose MIDI synthesizers don't product audio signal either.

The Guitar Hero guitar is nothing but a guitar shaped controller. It sends button presses that is on no way different than a regular hand-held controller. Only its shape is different.

Now if the guitar did output MIDI, then I guess the patent would be marginally closer to applying, but it doesn't.

Re:This is interesting...

[Lyrael]

Guitar Hero 1: Gibson SG controller.
Guitar Hero 2: Gibson Explorer controller.
Guitar Hero 3: Gibson Les Paul controller.

Plus the fact that every single guitar modelled in every single game is a Gibson, I'm pretty sure they endorsed these games and I have no idea what the hell they think they're doing throwing this patent around now. IANAL, but I don't think they've got a leg to stand on here.

Re:Patenting games

[Anonymous Coward]

Any argument can be made; but is it a good argument? This is a patent issue not a copyright issue. The protection is on the idea / invention; not the particular expression of the idea.

Hm...

[morari]

Gibson should just release their own third-party guitar controller. I'm sure as fuck not paying $70 for Red Ocatane's, when it is essentially just a shell piggybacking on all of the Wii remote's functionality. Besides, I don't intend to give anymore money to a company that doesn't even try to appease its customers within reason. It took months for them just to get those overpriced guitars out, if nothing else. Nyko really screwed up by planning to release theirs in May instead of a few months ago. They would have made a killing.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[MadAhab]

If I can't start with the patent and figure out how to build the "infringing" technology from it, it's a worthless patent.

If reading the patent doesn't give me some insight that makes building the "infringing" device easier, it's a worthless patent.

This is a worthless patent. They might as well have written "Play the guitar... on a computer!!! And see pictures!!! ZOMG!"

Re:Crucify me, baby

[kaosum]

If you are getting legal about it, the Guitar Hero guitar is not a guitar, its a [insert selected console here] controller, in a plastic shell that resembles a guitar. You dont need their guitar controller to play the game, although it does make it easier to play the game, and it makes you look manly infront of your male gaming friends when you mastered Through the Fire and Flames by DragonForce on expert....have fun finding a girlfriend, you losers.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[Bobb Sledd]

Totally agree with you.

I am an IP paralegal and have training and real experience with patents specifically (relating to computer tech). I read the claims, and frankly, I can't see how Guitar Hero possibly infringes. There are so many claims, you would have to have that exact embodiment to infringe.

Patents are counter-intuitive: you would think that the more you claim, the better your patent; but that really isn't the case. The more ambiguous your claims, the better off you are.

For example, if I claimed that my patent is "a computer in a vehicle", it is not better to say "a computer having a at least 512MB of RAM and standard keyboard interface and display permanently affixed to a mobile system with 4 wheels." The 2nd just narrowed my claims. All a potential infringer has to do is have the same computer but with 511MB of RAM, or put it in a motorcycle, or an 18-wheeler.

If I claim A, B, C, and D, but you infringed on only A, B, and C, then too-bad-so-sad you did not infringe my patent.

It's not if I claim A, B, C, and D and you infringe on B that you infringe my patent (like this suit seems to suggest).