Gibson Accuses Guitar Hero of Patent Violation 192
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."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Took their time (Score:5, Interesting)
Since both "Guitar Freaks" and Gibson's patent have been around since 1999, I wonder which came first. Does prior art still count if it's in another country?
=Smidge=
Re:Took their time (Score:5, Interesting)
jealous much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We don't want it (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all. If they don't "want" a license, it means that either they think the patent is invalid and they intend to fight it, or it means that they are going to work around it.
There are good reasons to reject even a "free" license for a patent.
Have you ever seen a case where a company wanted a license under a patent, but didn't need one?
All the time. Companies want licenses for patents if it is in their business interest to help another company establish the validity of a patent. Apple, for example, wanted a patent for one-click from Amazon even though it is unlikely that they actually needed it.
I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Crucify me, baby (Score:5, Interesting)
Their patent shows that there is a VR headset attached to the player's head (though it does mention a VR 'environment'. I don't think that a TV counts). That would include the video aspect. I haven't read the whole patent, but the experience is quite the opposite of GH. Their patent covers wearing these goggles and playing from a First Person View, as explained in the second paragraph of the patent.
Another problem is that the words "prerecorded video" are thrown around a LOT. All the game play video in GH is generated on the spot.
I think the last problem is that the patent states that you would be playing a particular instrument (as opposed to an input device) so the GH guitar probably won't be covered as it doesn't produce any signals that can be representative of music.
What's the problem?? (Score:-1, Interesting)
A) the controller used in "Guitar Hero" can hardly be called a "musical instrument". If it is, so is a computer keyboard, a joystick, or a mouse.
B) last I checked, "Guitar Hero" doesn't require wearing a "head-mounted 3D display that includes stereo speakers".
So, what exactly is infringing?
Re:Crucify me, baby (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We don't want it (Score:3, Interesting)
Most definitely. Most of what I do is technology licensing.
For many companies, getting a license to a patent is just as good as owning the patent (and usually without the unknown risks/costs associated with patent prosecution). In particular, an exclusive patent license basically gives the same right to exploit an invention as a patent owner would have had, and stops others from doing the same.
The problem the slashdot crowd has is a statistical one. It only gets reported when the claims are so outrageous or so painfully obvious. But, this makes up an increasingly small portion of the patents currently in force. Many companies see great value in some patents.
Re:Making claims on the moon (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. The Supreme Court noticed this tendency in Atlantic Works v. Brady in 1882.
"It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts."
Re:Patenting games (Score:2, Interesting)