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."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Patenting games

[cizoozic]

Couldn't the cases be made that:

• Guitar Hero has been out for years, what were they just waiting to see if there was some money to be made from a suit?
• The game is crammed full of Gibson everything, I mean the guitar store looks more like a Gibson Factory Store than a Guitar Center. I mean who knew what a Firebird VII even was before Guitar Hero? There can't be that many Johnny Winter fans out there.

Sorry, I know these are common sense arguments, so they probably have no place in a patent discussion.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean who knew what a Firebird VII even was before Guitar Hero?

People who actually knew how to play guitar?

Re:

[cizoozic]

Damn right. I happen to have one in Cherry Red with gold hardware. The fact that Guitar Hero had it too is one of the only reasons I played the game as long as I did. Anything difficult in GH and I would think to myself, "Why am I spending time improving Crossroads on Expert when I've been able to genuinely play it for years?" It's time better spent (for me) on my real technique. When they made fun of people who play real guitar and put down GH on South Park, I felt a bit sheepish as it hit so close to ome.

Re:

[onemorechip]

Shouldn't the patent protect a specific method of solving to a problem, rather than just the idea that the problem needs a solution? That's the whole problem with the doctrine of equivalence: Far too often, it is used to bar the implementation of alternate (in many cases, better) solutions because someone else came up with a solution first. That seems at odds with the whole advancing-the-useful-arts purpose of the patent system.

I don't know whether Guitar Hero solves the given problem in the same way that G

Too bad Gibson didn't do anything with it

[hcdejong]

If they had published a game and associated hardware, we could have been hacking the Gibson by now...

Re:Too bad Gibson didn't do anything with it

[Anonymous Coward]

More or Less Paul?

(-1, Funny)

[halivar]

That rating is a badge of honor. It says to the world, "I may not know comedy, but damnit: I know what I like!" A valiant jest, sir; a valiant jest.

Re:

[airuck]

I was in a hurry getting out the door and wrote that without logging in. People do hack guitars [flickr.com]. The Flying V is mine.

Re:Too bad Gibson didn't do anything with it

[muellerr1]

Would that make this guy [toolmonger.com] a Fender bender?

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.

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:

[linuxpng]

I was looking to make this point too..and anyone who plays a non korean (or even the korean) PRS knows that it might look similar to a gibson, but it's MILES above anything gibson is putting out now.

This is another case of a company who can't compete suing for income.

Re:

[halivar]

The SE line is absolutely amazing for the money IMHO. Still holding out for a full-blown 10-top McCarty, but I gotta respect the SE's: they're the best-sounding $400 guitars I've ever heard.

Re:

[linuxpng]

I haven't played a SE, but I have heard the same thing you are saying. Great quality beyond what they are charging. I had a 94 CE 22 that I sold due to hard times, but recently got a custom 24 10-top in black :)

I'd put it above anything gibson has put out in years.

Re:

[halivar]

How do the Dragon pickups in the Custom 24 compare to the McCarty pickups, IYO? Never played one.

Re:

[Dysfnctnl85]

PRS is not the first or last time Gibson went after another guitar manufacturer. They killed off ESP's Explorer line in the late 90s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESP_EX [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Chris Burke]

I blame the company being bought and moving from Kalamazoo MI to Nashville TN. I have no idea if this actually correlates with any change in the company's legal strategies, nevertheless I maintain that it is true.

Re:

[doomicon]

They've sued other guitar companies as well. I believe ESP over their popular Explorer Body Style (i.e. The one Hetfield used in the mid to late 80's).

Funny thing about the PRS suit, was their singlecut didn't even come close to fitting in a Les Paul case, despite Gibson's claim that it was a practical duplicate knockoff.

Whatever, I stopped looking at Gibson Guitars when the price when from "an arm and a leg".. to kidney's and sexual organs.

Re:

[good soldier svejk]

Its no surprise that Gibson is patent trolling. They haven't done anything innovative since the Patent Applied For [google.com] humbucker in 1956.

Re:

[Lead Butthead]

Would this not kill Guitar Rising (http://www.guitarrising.com) outright?

Why did they wait this long?

[jfbilodeau]

You gotta wonder. Why did Dibson wait this long to act on their patent? I mean, how long has Guitar Hero been around for anyways? ...I think I know the answer, and it pisses me off.

Re:

[jfbilodeau]

(oups! s/Dibson/Gibson/)

Maybe I was mixing Dilbert and Gibson. :P

Re:Why did they wait this long?

[iknownuttin]

I mean, how long has Guitar Hero been around for anyways? ...I think I know the answer, and it pisses me off.

Gibson is run by really old guys. One day, one of them was being visited at their retirement home, where they run Gibson guitars from, by one of their college age great-grandchildren. He said great grandpa! I've been playing this awesome game called Guitar Hero! Grandpa put two and two together. He's seen the ads with that top hatted guy during TV night and was glad that he was playing a Gibson guitar. He realized it was one of the new fangled computer juke box thingys and immediately called his lawyer in the next room.

That's how it happened!

Marketing Exercise

[@madeus]

The summary says this motion was filed by Activision, Gibson have not comment publicly.

That makes it sound like a marketing exercise to me.

Took their time

[Smidge204]

So I guess they just completely ignored Konami, who's had "Guitar Freaks" machines in arcades for nearly ten years at this point?

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

[ohtani]

IANAL, but from my understanding, no it doesn't. Konami can continue to make drummania as is, for example, but apparently they cannot bring it to the US like they were hoping to do because MTV was awarded a patent for drumming games. MTV did have one in the arcade prior to Rock Band. But it just had no "game" feel to it from my understanding.

Re:

[Chrisq]

Does prior art still count if it's in another country?

In the USA it counts only if it is printed: [iusmentis.com]>

The USA regards oral disclosures as prior art only if they were made in the USA (35 US Code section 102(a): "known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or another country"). A therapeutic technique orally handed down from one generation to another by a tribe in South America can thus still be patented in the USA, despite it being publicly known (b

Re:

[belmolis]

I'm surprised that such a discriminatory policy has survived the various free trade and IP harmonization agreements. Has it been an issue?

Re:

[Bloke down the pub]

Does prior art still count if it's in another country?

Other countries' laws don't even count in other countries. See here [blogspot.com], here [iht.com] and here [crn.com.au].

Re:

[Smidge204]

Thanks for the input.

Regardless fo how the patent is worded, if they are applying it Guitar Hero hen I fail to see why it wouldn't also apply to Guitar Freaks ot Rock Band. Guitar Hero is virtually a direct ripoff of Guitar Freaks in every way except with fancier graphics and inferior controllers.

It's hard to imagine a wording that both applies to Guitar Hero and is not, at the same time, negated by Guitar Freaks' prior art.
=Smidge=

WHa?

[mpathetiq]

You'd think that Gibson would have realized that Guitar Hero violates their patent back in 2004 or 2005 when they signed the endorsement deal for the original game.

Re:

[h0ss]

There's probably something bigger going on here. What do you want to bet that Activision has been making noise behind-the-scenes of either dumping Gibson or making Guitar Hero 4 non-Gibson exclusive?

This is interesting...

[maxair_mike]

I seem to remember Gibson being a sponsor/partner for at least Guitar Hero 3...I find it hard to believe that they just "forgot" about this particular patent until now, especially since Guitar Hero has been out for so long and the controller has been a Gibson guitar mockup for the past two games.

Re:

[xSauronx]

jesus h...how can you endorse something you claim infringes upon your own patent? will any sane judge do anything other than throw the case out once they hear about that?

Re:

[MorePower]

Yeah that seems like bad faith negotiating to sign an agreement to license the name and appearance of your guitars to a video game company, for the purpose of creating a guitar video game, and accept a bunch of money in return, yet fail to mention "Oh by the way, you won't be allowed to actually make this video game (which we're accepting a bunch of money from you for), cause we own the patent."

Re:

[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:

[V for Vendetta]

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.

I have a slight suspision what might have happened here:

Gibson: "Now, folks, we hear that you're about to make GH4. What Gibson guitar will you use this time to model t

We don't want it

[millwall]

Activision says it doesn't want or need a license under the patent.

I like that phrase. You would have thought that whether they want one or not is fairly irrelevant. Have you ever seen a case where a company wanted a license under a patent, but didn't need one? :-)

Re:We don't want it

[Corporate Drone]

Have you ever seen a case where a company wanted a license under a patent, but didn't need one?

Yes... ask any of the companies who bought licenses from SCO...

Re:

[10101001 10101001]

Companies wanted to buy licenses from SCO in the same way gansters want to run laundromats.

Re:

[nguy]

You would have thought that whether they want one or not is fairly irrelevant.

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

Re:

[reebmmm]

where a company wanted a license under a patent

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 get

Re:

[reebmmm]

I'll reply to myself and add one thing.

Many companies see great value in some patents.

A lot of people feel that patents are like the lottery, but with slightly better odds. Most patents never see the light of day. Or if they do, not for very long. There's a lot of reasons for this: i) lack of sophistication of the inventor/owner; ii) shear cost of enforcement/negotiation; iii) duration of the patent prosecution; and iv) valuelessness of the resulting patent claims after prosecution.

However, on occasion, som

I've patented a ... stick ... with ... buttons.

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

If I've got a patent on something so general as to say "Umm... making music with an instrument is MY PROPERTY", no one is going to listen.

I guess Gibson is jumping on the patent troll bandwagon - maybe they believe that all the kids that would have previously bought a guitar to 'be cool' are now buying guitar hero kits?

jealous much?

[molex333]

Gibson is just pissed because now kids don't have to waste money on a real guitar that they will never learn how to play. Instead they can become Guitar Hero superstars in a few weeks. I'm surprised that RIAA hasn't tried to sue Activision for loss of future profits because they are reducing the music industries talent pool!

Re:

[morari]

The RIAA has a talent pool? Surprised me.

Re:

[rk]

Yes. The A&R people find talented musicians and then the record companies drown them in it. It's all part of their business model preservation strategy.

Re:

[es330td]

As long as High School chics dig guitar players there will ALWAYS be a demand for guitars. GH3 isn't an instrument, its a guitar shaped gamepad, and a very limited one at that. Gibson has about as much to fear from GHx as The French Laundry does from Swanson TV Dinners.

Re:

[C0rinthian]

They are two completely unrelated skillsets. About the only thing you can carry from one to the other is basic rhythmic skills.

Patent Holders are like Trolls...

[Manip]

Patent holders are like the real world equivalent of Internet trolls. As soon as you get any kind of notoriety they randomly appear spouting their trash and trying to get attention.

In this case they're a little less interested in attention and a little more interested in money but the concept is the same. The entire patent system, software or otherwise, is somewhat flawed since it lasts too long and holds back the marketplace which it was original created to help.

They should change the system so you only get five-ish years of protection on research with an automatic extension by a further ten years if you release a product using that patent into the marketplace. This will stop these silly troll companies like IBM hoarding tons of patents with very few actual products.

Re:

[gumpish]

This will stop these silly troll companies like IBM hoarding tons of patents with very few actual products.

I don't think that's a very reasonable characterization of IBM. Yes, they do have their well known "bag o' patents" which are so general as to make every piece of software with a GUI an infringer, but I don't recall them using their patent portfolio in an evil manner. (And litigation isn't part of their business model.) I'd be genuinely interested to hear about some instances where this happened.

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

new patent flood?

[nguy]

So, after patenting, for any value of X, "doing X with a computer", "doing X with a client/server system", and "doing X over the web", we are now going to get a flood of patents on "doing X in virtual reality"?

Re:

[Culture20]

and "augmented reality", "cyber space", "sub-space", "hyper-space". "quasi-space", "pretty-space", "*below*"

Playing both sides

[192939495969798999]

Aren't the guitar hero "Les Paul" designs licensed by Gibson to Guitar Hero? If so, then I don't see how they can make a claim for infringement while also participating in the product's current material profit.

Re:

[Speare]

Say you're an electronics company and you sell components. These components are used in the displays, keyboards, mice, storage and power areas of a single product, say, a laptop. If a laptop maker uses your displays, keyboards and power units, but decides they can make the storage and mice themselves, that's their right. You still want to sell those displays, keyboards and power units. If they use your patented methods to make those storage and mice, though, does that sound legitimate under patent law?

Re:

[Gonarat]

This is different. They didn't go out and buy real Gibson guitars and hook them into the game. They went to Gibson and licensed the right to create plastic guitar that looks like a Gibson. There was an agreement signed and Gibson gets some kind of cut. Guitar Hero could of created a generic guitar and not had to do this, but they wanted the Gibson look.

The same thing applies to computers. If I put together my own computers and sell them, I am free to go and buy whatever mouse and keyboard I want and i

From the patent..."audio" signal.

[ILuvSP]

From the patent...

1. A system for electronically simulating participation by a user in a pre-recorded musical performance comprising:

a. a musical instrument, the musical instrument generating an instrument audio signal at an instrument audio output, the instrument audio signal varying in response to operation of the instrument by the user of the system;

The guitars from Guitar Hero do not produce "audio" signal at an "instrument audio output". They are not musical instruments. I think Gibson is reaching here!

Re:

[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:

[MorePower]

In a game like DDR, the player is not in control of the playback at all and must simply react, but in GH the player can play notes at any time whether the game prompts him for it or not.

That isn't true at all. You can:
1)Hit the correct button and strum at the correct time and hear the prerecorded note.
2)Fail to strum at all when a note passes and hear nothing in the guitar track of the song.
3)Strum when there is no prompt, or strum at the prompt while holding the wrong buttons, and hear a prerecorded

Re:

[BadAnalogyGuy]

A series of relatively simple buttons and switches does not constitute an instrument.

The makers of jugs [wikipedia.org] and washboards [wikipedia.org] would like to ask how you define a musical instrument.

We're in real trouble

[SpaghettiPattern]

Before we know the next corporation patents "An imaginary environment for simulated participating in the act of making love".

Guys we're in real trouble here. We're all guilty. The young ones are particularly vounrable to offending the patent multiple times a day. (We older guys envy the young ones for the favorable frequency. But I digress.)

I don't get it

[DrXym]

Guitar Hero is a ripoff of the GuitarFreaks arcade game which according to Wikipedia first appeared in February 1999. So quite possibly the game concept predates the patent.

Isn't it IRONIC

[Rooked_One]

dontcha think? So, in GH3, Gibson gets their name on the 'guitar controllers' and now they are pulling this. You'd think charging 1000 dollars for a real guitar would keep you in business without having to go on this particular rampage that they've chosen.

Making claims on the moon

[rcastro0]

I think to myself whether there's not a "cover the ground with patents" strategy out there, when people start to cover abstract concepts and ideas like that. I mean, suppose you think about something that could be done, not the how, really, but the product, the result. You just go ahead and patent it. One day, someone creative, resourceful will be able to implement it and -- there -- you pull your patent out of the drawer!

It looks like the race to register domains names. People were registering scores of sh

Re:

[russotto]

I mean, suppose you think about something that could be done, not the how, really, but the product, the result. You just go ahead and patent it. One day, someone creative, resourceful will be able to implement it and -- there -- you pull your patent out of the drawer!

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 mono

Air Guitar ...

[gstoddart]

So, essentially they've patented the idea of building hardware to facilitate the playing of Air Guitar, right?

I mean, if in the 80's Wayne's World was showing everyone air guitar, and karaoke existed ... how big of a stretch is it (really) to arrive at the Air Guitar Facilitation Doohickie of whatever the heck they've called this.

This really does sound more like a concept than an actual patentable item to me.

Cheers

Wrong Gibson...

[Junior J. Junior III]

<braveheart>You may take our intellectual property, but you'll never take...our FREEDOM!!!</braveheart>

Great work

[mattpointblank]

Dammit, Gibson. When I saw the headline I thought it would be because the Guitar Hero controllers look like Gibsons (SGs and Les Pauls, specifically). What damage is GH doing to Gibson besides increasing interest in learning to play a real guitar?

To bite the hand that feeds.

[Devir]

Guitar Hero games feature Gibson Guitars. GH2 and GH3 feature gibson guitars both in the game as purchasable upgrades and outside the game as controlers. The Gibson branding is all over the place in and out of the games as well.

Maybe there are just not enough people running out and buying Gibson guitars because they are too busy playing "Dragon Force" On expert.

Whatever the case it is Gibson trying to whore money from an excessively popular game. Perhaps GH4 will drop the Gibson branding and go to their com

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.

Claims Examination by Patent examiner

[mudbunny]

Note: I am doing this quick and dirty, and electronics is not my field (I am a chemical examiner). The following is my opinion only, and should not be considered binding. Claims 1-12 do not apply as there is no musical instrument, the guitar in Guitar heroes does not produce music on its own. It is a game controller that mimics a musical instrument. Claim 1 is the only claim that mentions the guitar, however the remainder of claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, so they are assumed to incorporate all of th

Re:

[pipatron]

What patent? I can't see any link or patent number.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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

Re:Crucify me, baby

[Gr8Apes]

This looks like a classic poster boy for bad patents: the abstract indicates that Guitar Hero doesn't violate anything. First off, they explictly state musician. Guitar Hero players? Not hardly. Second, they state musical instrument. I don't think 4 buttons counts as an instrument. There are also no 3-D head gear, nor headphones involved.

If you start reading the claims, the entire thing falls apart at every level. First off - there's no instrument, and certainly no audio signal generated by the Guitar Hero "guitar", which appears to be the crux of their patent. Then again, IANAIP/PL (IP/Patent Lawyer).

I'm not even sure what exactly they're patenting here. There's no "System" that I can see, other than a very high level concept drawing and what looks like a basic high level distortion processor schematic. I was under the impression that "methods" like the abstract idea being described could not be patented.

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:

[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:

[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

Re:

[Sandbags]

Except for the fact it's still 3rd person, and therefor doesn't violate the 3D or "virtual environment" aspects of the patent in question, there is a game in development, which will also act as an instrument training system, which allows users to plug a REAL guitar into the game and play. It's not from the guys behind Guitar Hero, and I coundn't find a link to it quickly, but i read the article wither here, on Ars, or on Toms...

On the other hand, being a member of a virtual band in a game is an idea, and t

Re:

[kallisti]

You are thinking of Guitar Rising.

http://www.guitarrising.com/ [guitarrising.com]

An early version of this game was playable at GDC. It uses real tablature notation instead of a pseudo fretboard and didn't support whammy or chords yet. You simple plug a real guitar into a USB connected controller and start playing.

It is also very hard compared to Guitar Hero, as you would expect.

Re:

[Sandbags]

Thanks for the link... Yes, this product "may" violate "some" parts of the discussed patent, but even from the basic description, I think a judge would have to be smoking something to rule in favor of Gibson.

Re:

[LordVader717]

The four buttons don't respond differently to input, and don't generate any sound apart from the clicking (reminds me of the South Park episode "Guitar Queer-o" - hilarious)
You need at least the games console to make it an instrument, which then actually generates the sound. I haven't played the game, but I'm guessing that each of the four buttons doesn't correspond to one musical note, so it probably associates the input to a sequenced track.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:

[reebmmm]

Well, just from a cursory review of the patent claims, I imagine infringement is going to turn on the construction of "the instrument audio signal."

Guitar Hero doesn't use a real instrument and the guitar doesn't produce sounds. The game system is responsive to button pushing not to the sounds produced by the guitar. Gibson's patent would be a very REALISTIC version of guitar hero.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[nguy]

Overly broad? Possibly, but sounds like it is applicable.

"Overly broad" would not a problem, and this patent isn't "overly broad".

The problem with the patent is obviousness.

If this is allowed to stand, then for any human activity, people could patent doing that activity in virtual reality, and that's simply absurd.

The whole point of virtual reality is that it lets you do real human activities, but permits you to get into situations that you couldn't get into in real life. That includes performing with a band as much as dating a super model.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

Also, playing guitar hero is nothing like playing actual guitar.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[steveo777]

The problem with this is that Guitar Hero hasn't even come close to their patent [google.com]. The patent doesn't seem to be overly broad to me.

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.

Re:

[dbIII]

It's the situation of patenting a problem instead of a specific solution to a problem. It is an indication of a broken system when this can be done.

Re:Crucify me, baby

[addie]

From TFA:

"'simulate participation in a concert by playing musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3-D display that includes stereo speakers.' The device described in the patent also includes playback of audio and video of a prerecorded concert and a separate track of audio from the user's instrument, according to the patent form."

- Real musical instrument
- Head mounted 3-D display
- Prerecorded concert

VS.

- Plastic guitar
- TV display
- Animated characters

Saying this patent applies to Guitar Hero is like saying that milk is the same as beer. You can drink them both, but the experience is completely different.

Re:

[NCG_Mike]

"Saying this patent applies to Guitar Hero is like saying that milk is the same as beer. You can drink them both, but the experience is completely different." Not if you're a "Newcomer" in Alien Nation ;-)

Re:

[rifter]

"Saying this patent applies to Guitar Hero is like saying that milk is the same as beer. You can drink them both, but the experience is completely different." Not if you're a "Newcomer" in Alien Nation ;-)

Only if the milk is *spoiled* [wikipedia.org], remember?

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...

Re:Crucify me, baby

[skrolle2]

It still fails to cover Guitar Hero, because claim 1a says:

a musical instrument, the musical instrument generating an instrument audio signal at an instrument audio output,

That, and all the variants of it, consistently mention that the device you use for participation is something which itself produces audio, and that the entire system somehow intercepts this audio to change the experience. The Guitar Hero controller does not create audio output (other than irritating clicking noises :) ) and I think that that might be enough to claim that they are not violating the patent.

Re:

[StarvingSE]

I admit, I haven't RTFA or the patent, but I thought in order to file for a patent you had to have some concrete evidence, such as prototypes, detailed schematics, etc. I'm not a patent expert, but I didn't think you could patent "playing plastic instruments to simulate rocking out."

Also, aren't patents kind of a use it or lose it thing? Again, I'm a patent n00b so forgive me if I'm ignorant on these points.

Re:

[reebmmm]

aren't patents kind of a use it or lose it thing? Again, I'm a patent n00b so forgive me if I'm ignorant on these points.

No. That's a trademark.

in order to file for a patent you had to have some concrete evidence, such as prototypes, detailed schematics, etc

Reduction to practice per se is not required. If a patent application tries to claim something non-functional (like perpetual motion) the application will be rejected without some evidence of the success of an invention.

Also, it's very possible for a pat

Re:

[somersault]

You don't need 3D glasses and a headset for guitar hero though? Plus, after seeing some kids play it in a store, it's basically nothing like a real guitar.. looks more like playing DDR except with your fingers instead of your legs. If they had 6 rows of buttons instead of one, then it would start getting into simulating a guitar.

Re:

[bcat24]

Exactly. The patent appears to cover a "real" guitar, complete with its own audio output. On the other hand, a Guitar Hero "guitar" is really just a fancy (PC|Playstation 2|Playstation 3|Wii|Xbox 360) controller.

Re:

[DDLKermit007]

Except that Guitar Hero doesn't use a headset. That alone should be enough to bypass this if t even has legitimacy to it.

Re:

[morari]

As if it matters what your fake guitar looks like...

Re:

[Darby]

I think they would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the junky plastic toy used in GH is comparable to a Les Paul...

Although I would find it totally amusing to watch *Gibson's* lawyers try and convince a court that they are comparable.