12 Publishers sued. 3D VG Patent Infringement

[JJNova]

Advanced Video Graphics has recently filed a suit in Texas that names 12 publishers as utilizing their patented "Method and Apparatus for Spherical Panning".




Defendants are Electronic Arts, Take-Two, Ubisoft, Activision, Atari, THQ, Vivendi Universal, Sega of America, Square Enix, Tecmo, LucasArts, and Namco Hometek. Several of these defendants have joined together to mount a common (and very costly) defense.

Apparently this will affect all and is used by all 3D Games. You can read about it here http://www.igda.org/columns/lastwords/lastwords_Mar05.php

More money in Somebodies pocket.

[Uzi 9mm]

Wow, first the Dual Shock, now this.

This is nuts. x_x

[SoulBlazer]

Was'nt this announced here a couple months ago?

It will never hold up.

[JJNova]

Was'nt this announced here a couple months ago?

It will never hold up.

Why would you say it wouldn't hold up? We're in a country where infringement laws are all the rage and winning these type of suits is almost mandatory?

[James]

Such a fucked up world we live in. How are patents like that even legal let alone ethical or moral. Just another shining example of one pathetic company living off another like some parasite. I'm appalled. :roll:

[Mr.FoodMonster]

For some reason, I'm starting to believe that a crash is coming more and more every fucking day. This kinda shit REALLY pisses me off....

[crazyjackcsa]

An end to 3d graphics? Hmm, could you creat a 2d representation of a 3d world? Using sprites and the like?

[Crush Crawfish]

So what the hell does this mean? All companies have to stop making 3D games? I'm confused...

[JJNova]

So what the hell does this mean? All companies have to stop making 3D games? I'm confused...

No, just that they have to pay the licensing fee.

The biggest problem in the standard contract between Publishers and Developers it's stated that the developer doesnt owe the publisher anything if the game is shit, and that the publisher isn't responsible for any of the coding. Which in general means this effects Developers also. The trickle down effect, Domino Effect, Ripple Effect....

[Zadoc]

So what the hell does this mean? All companies have to stop making 3D games? I'm confused...

No, just that they have to pay the licensing fee.

The biggest problem in the standard contract between Publishers and Developers it's stated that the developer doesnt owe the publisher anything if the game is shit, and that the publisher isn't responsible for any of the coding. Which in general means this effects Developers also. The trickle down effect, Domino Effect, Ripple Effect....

Kind of like how Atari had to pay a fee to Magnavox.

[bargora]

Wow. So much vitriol. It's like reading about a chocolate patent infringement suit on a PMS forum.

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment. Do you guys believe that advancements arising out of research and development shouldn't be patenable? Or maybe anything relating to software? Video game software?

I can understand that people are upset. OMIGOD! NO MORE 3D VIDOEGAEEMS!!1! But it's possible that the suit will fail or that the games don't really infringe the patent. In any event, even if whatstheirname gets the upper hand, it's not going to stop the production of video games. Fear not. There will be a settlement or a licensing scheme and we can get on with playing more exciting 3D games like The Matrix.

[GarrettCRW]

I can understand that people are upset. OMIGOD! NO MORE 3D VIDOEGAEEMS!!1! But it's possible that the suit will fail or that the games don't really infringe the patent. In any event, even if whatstheirname gets the upper hand, it's not going to stop the production of video games. Fear not. There will be a settlement or a licensing scheme and we can get on with playing more exciting 3D games like The Matrix.

It's only Sunday, but I believe we have the Quote of the Week. You mean games were once in 2D? ;)

[calthaer]

As far as I know, you can't really patent functions on a computing device. That is, you generally can't patent "word processing," or "HTML editing," or "3D model creating," and things like that. Some guy patented something like "the ability to store and retreive data via magnetic media" one time, and I believe the patent was so vague and non-specific that judges threw it out.

Now, you may patent your particular code that allows a device to perform this function, and that is perfectly legit. If all these companies are ripping code from someplace and using it, then the suit is probably valid.

But as far as I know you can't control a broad-ranging scope of functions like this. If so, Windows would never have gotten off the ground, GIMP couldn't co-exist with Photoshop and the others, and so on and so forth.

[swlovinist]

Lawsuits are nothing new to video games, and this does not suprise me at all. With video games generating so much money, there are money hungry people out there to try to get their piece of the pie. We live at a time in which people can sue somebody for farting in thier direction and "reducing their quality of life". I would be very suprised if this holds up in court.

[bargora]

Here ya go--the broad claims from U.S. 4,734,690:


1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:

storing applied graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coordinate modeling space;

defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be viewed, the viewing space being movable at a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space;

inputting and storing further information including panning information specifying a position from which to view the object;

moving the viewing space to the specified position in response to the panning information, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and

displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to-position.


7. Apparatus for performing a three-dimensional panning operation, comprising:

memory means for storing entered information including applied graphic and panning information and a control program, the graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coodinate modeling space;

input means for entering information including panning information for panning to a selected position from which to view the object;

processing means coupled to the input and memory means, and responsive to the panning information and execution of the program, for defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be observed, and for moving the viewing space, a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space, to the selected position, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and

means for displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to position.
And that is what was patented.

[Berty]

So this company waits for how long? 15 years then decides that they need a little bit more cash flow. Wankers.

I hope that the judge throws this out simply because it is only a money making exercise. If they were so upset about this then why didn't they sue early 3d games like I, Robot etc 20 years ago?

When atari patented (hardware) horizontal scrolling, they enforced it immediatly with other publishers. What about the statute of limitations?

[chrisbid]

when was this patent applied for and granted?

i seem to remember polygon based computer graphics in the mid 80's, remember that nonsense "hacking" scene in weird science?

[killersquirel]

The first polygon arcade game that I'm aware of was I, Robot by atari in 1983. Polygons are swell, but nothing is better than vectors!

-mike

[James]

Here ya go--the broad claims from U.S. 4,734,690:


1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:

storing applied graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coordinate modeling space;

defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be viewed, the viewing space being movable at a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space;

inputting and storing further information including panning information specifying a position from which to view the object;

moving the viewing space to the specified position in response to the panning information, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and

displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to-position.


7. Apparatus for performing a three-dimensional panning operation, comprising:

memory means for storing entered information including applied graphic and panning information and a control program, the graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coodinate modeling space;

input means for entering information including panning information for panning to a selected position from which to view the object;

processing means coupled to the input and memory means, and responsive to the panning information and execution of the program, for defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be observed, and for moving the viewing space, a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space, to the selected position, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and

means for displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to position.
And that is what was patented.

Still shouldn't hold up. What bullshit.

[Iron Draggon]

Why do I get the feeling that this lawsuit would only hold up if one of these other companies had released a "game" that was essentially a 3D modeling program that performed this function? And even more importantly, why the hell were Sony & Nintendo NOT named as defendants in this lawsuit as well?

:hmm:

[bargora]

And even more importantly, why the hell were Sony & Nintendo NOT named as defendants in this lawsuit as well?
:hmm:
There's no rule saying you have to sue everybody at once (unless leaving a party out will somehow prejudice the rights of one of the defendants). So it's probably a strategic reason. Maybe the case against Sony and/or Nintendo is weak. Maybe there is no case.

[JJNova]

There's no rule saying you have to sue everybody at once (unless leaving a party out will somehow prejudice the rights of one of the defendants). So it's probably a strategic reason. Maybe the case against Sony and/or Nintendo is weak. Maybe there is no case.

Especially in Nintendo's realm. They tend to do more "in-house" design to avoid having to give credit anywhere. or perhaps Sony and Nintendo licensed the coding? WHo knows, but if you dig through most video game lawsuits, Nintendo has managed to cut a side deal, developed their own (yet very similar) procedure, or changed hardware specs just enough to slip by.

I'm not as read up on Sony's past lawsuits (as I'm sure most deal with Electronic Hardware infringements) but from my understanding, they just pay whatever fines come down the pipe. Once again though, they are an old enough company to have throught about it, or they used stuff they had rights to from Nintendo (that they acquired during the N64 CD-Addon project).

[Nz17]

There is a clear and distinct difference between trademarks, patents, and copyright. In my opinion there shouldn't be any patents on computer code of any sort. Why? Because then mathematics is being patented. So even if you came across how to do something on your own, you'd still be sued for infringing on the patent.

Now copyright, that's a good thing (of which a trademark is a subcategory). That's protecting someone's actual work that they've made. But a patent is like saying, "You've worked really hard working on this game/program/code/whatever. Now that you've made money from it, I'm going to assert my patent from five years ago on some obscure mathematical technique to force you to pay me money. Now I know it's not exactly the same, but it's close enough that the government will make sure you give me WHAT YOU OWE ME."

[James]

There's no rule saying you have to sue everybody at once (unless leaving a party out will somehow prejudice the rights of one of the defendants). So it's probably a strategic reason. Maybe the case against Sony and/or Nintendo is weak. Maybe there is no case.

Especially in Nintendo's realm. They tend to do more "in-house" design to avoid having to give credit anywhere. or perhaps Sony and Nintendo licensed the coding? WHo knows, but if you dig through most video game lawsuits, Nintendo has managed to cut a side deal, developed their own (yet very similar) procedure, or changed hardware specs just enough to slip by.

I'm not as read up on Sony's past lawsuits (as I'm sure most deal with Electronic Hardware infringements) but from my understanding, they just pay whatever fines come down the pipe. Once again though, they are an old enough company to have throught about it, or they used stuff they had rights to from Nintendo (that they acquired during the N64 CD-Addon project).

I think you meant the SNES/SF CD-ROM add-on project.

I also totally agree with everything nz17 just said. There should be no patents issued on software code because often they're too broad in their scope meaning they would cover every possible way of computing a particular process therefore the patent has too much unfounded power. US patents are much easier to get than most other patents from other countries because the issuing board that approves them is run much the way the FDA is which allows drugs into the market so quickly and without appropriately testing them therefore we end up in messy lawsuits such as this one.

[JJNova]

I think you meant the SNES/SF CD-ROM add-on project.
.

You're Absolutely correct. :embarrassed:



"You've worked really hard working on this game/program/code/whatever. Now that you've made money from it, I'm going to assert my patent from five years ago on some obscure mathematical technique to force you to pay me money.

I hate to quote two people in one response, but it all follows together.
I disagree in that if I worked really hard on a game/program/code/whatever I feel that since I was the one to figure it out, it belongs to me. Otherwise you wouldn't need to figure it out. Some lazy ass would decompile and then copy paste. I'm not blaming them for that. Shit, most of us were told that if we wanted to learn how to code/design/create anything, that the best option to take is to see what other people used and then use it yourself. Especially in Web Design.

But I spent that 4 years figuringhow to make a third dimensional character. You find another way to do it, or I'll rent out my intellect to you.

[Dimitri]

"You've worked really hard working on this game/program/code/whatever. Now that you've made money from it, I'm going to assert my patent from five years ago on some obscure mathematical technique to force you to pay me money.
I hate to quote two people in one response, but it all follows together.
I disagree in that if I worked really hard on a game/program/code/whatever I feel that since I was the one to figure it out, it belongs to me. Otherwise you wouldn't need to figure it out. Some lazy ass would decompile and then copy paste.
Excpet the difference here is that if the code is copyrighted, it's infringement if he copies it directly, but not if he comes up with the same method on his own. If it was patented, anyone who comes up with a similar way of doing the same thing, even if they neither copied code directly nor looked up how it works in the patent itself, could be sued.

[calthaer]

Excpet the difference here is that if the code is copyrighted, it's infringement if he copies it directly, but not if he comes up with the same method on his own. If it was patented, anyone who comes up with a similar way of doing the same thing, even if they neither copied code directly nor looked up how it works in the patent itself, could be sued.

Which is why it probably wouldn't hold up in court. When Atari made stole Nintendo's lock-out chip design, they would have been OK when Nintendo sued them if they had "happened" to make a chip that did the same thing. Problem was that they stole the code from the U.S. copyright office.

I can't see how this will hold up.

[it290]

I also totally agree with everything nz17 just said. There should be no patents issued on software code because often they're too broad in their scope meaning they would cover every possible way of computing a particular process therefore the patent has too much unfounded power. US patents are much easier to get than most other patents from other countries because the issuing board that approves them is run much the way the FDA is which allows drugs into the market so quickly and without appropriately testing them therefore we end up in messy lawsuits such as this one.



I think your FDA analogy is a little off. AFAIK, the FDA requires more testing for new drugs than most European goverments do. But yeah, you're right about the patent office.

[Nz17]

I disagree in that if I worked really hard on a game/program/code/whatever I feel that since I was the one to figure it out, it belongs to me. Otherwise you wouldn't need to figure it out. Some lazy ass would decompile and then copy paste. I'm not blaming them for that. Shit, most of us were told that if we wanted to learn how to code/design/create anything, that the best option to take is to see what other people used and then use it yourself. But I spent that 4 years figuringhow to make a third dimensional character. You find another way to do it, or I'll rent out my intellect to you.

Here's some points:

1) When I said "game/program/code/whatever" I was talking as though I was the patent-holder addressing to the game developer who had independently found the solutions to the game matters on his own.

2) With software patents, it doesn't matter whether someone "steals" someone else's code or independently develops their own code in a clean-room-like state. Either way, crook or saint, the game developer would owe the patent-holder money.

3) With math (and by extention, computer science) there are only x number of ways to do something. 2 + 2 = 4 could be patented under the U.S.A.'s current patent system, and royalties owed on it for every use. Absurd? Yes, but that is how things presently are. Even if one were to go with 2 x 2 = 4, that would still fall under the patent-holders patent, and be subject to enforcement and fee gathering.

4) Ridiculous, outlandish patents already exist for a number of things. Amazon.com has a patent on Internet shopping carts and 1-click checkout. Another company has patents on using multimedia plugins with a Web browser. And outside of software patents, a man out to prove how ludicrious things have gotten successful acquired a patent on the method for using a swing!

5) Further reading:
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/p.spronck/RidiculousPatents.htm

[lurpak]

whats worse is that the insanity that is US patent laws seems to be accepted by the rest of the world, how does that work ?

since most of these companies being sued are based in japan surely they should be able to say..

1. we do not have US law
2. your talking bollocks

obviously 1 applies to goods sold in the US, but the rest of the world should be able to say hey if they want stupid laws then its there loss.

[bargora]

Software patents are kinda controversial, with many European countries disallowing them. But for the time being, software patents are going to be upheld in the U.S. using the same standards as are applied to other patents. In other words, unless the defendant can show either invalidity (that the patent was improperly issued) or non-infringement (that the accused device, code, etc. actually falls outside of the scope of the patent), then the court will issue injunctions and assess damages.

Calthaer, you say that you can't see how it will be upheld. I assume that Sony had every opportunity (and plenty of motive) to do everything they could to show both invalidity and non-infringement at trial. I can't see any reason why they would have "held back" anything, especially since they will have no opportunity to submit additional evidence on appeal (unless there is some reason why the evidence could not have been submitted at trial). And it's not like Sony couldn't have paid for some heavy duty legal work.

So it seems to me that what you are saying is that you can't freaking believe that U.S. patent law is so benighted with respect to software patents.

And lurpak, for good or ill, I'd bet that the U.S. market is more than a minor part of Sony's business strategy. While it might be emotionally satisfying to imagine Sony saying "bollocks to the U.S.", well, I don't see it happening. But you are right about the inapplicability of U.S. law to sales made outside of the U.S. The damages only apply to goods imported into and/or sold in the U.S. As far as U.S. patent laws being "accepted by the rest of the world", well, they only really apply in U.S. jurisdiction. The rest of the world accepts the UK's nutty laws (I'm sure you have a few), so it's the same sort of thing there. If you are suggesting that the world should get together and forcibly change U.S. patent law, well, that sounds like just the sort of thing that right-wing paranoid anti-U.N. nutjobs are always shrieking about. Don't see that happening, either.

[Iron Draggon]

There is a clear and distinct difference between trademarks, patents, and copyright. In my opinion there shouldn't be any patents on computer code of any sort. Why? Because then mathematics is being patented. So even if you came across how to do something on your own, you'd still be sued for infringing on the patent.

This is exactly why DeCSS (the code for descrambling DVD's for viewing) was declared to be unpatentable, and not the big proprietary trade secret that it's inventors claimed it was. Coders and hackers from all over the world came out to show how many ways that code could be written and still work the same way, and very often in some very unusual and very creative ways too.

See here:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/

This is exactly what nz17 is talking about. Where should the lines be drawn?

[DiabloNeonX]

I don't think AVG has the money to maintain an offensive on this suit.

Patent litigation is one of the costliest lawsuits in the U.S.

The only thing that AVG has going for them is that most Patent defendants would rather settle than fight it out in court.

However, some of the wealthiest companies have been named in the suit, especially EA, Activision, and SquareEnix. All of the companies named in the suit have enough money to hire the best team of lawyers possible. It's just a damn shame Johnny Cochran died yesterday. If one of the defendants hired him, AVG would have no chance in Hell. Hey, he got OJ off and we all know he's guilty.

Point is, this is another frivilous bullshit lawsuit to waste taxpayer money in order for some pissant company to make a quick buck.

[bargora]

Point is, this is another frivilous bullshit lawsuit to waste taxpayer money in order for some pissant company to make a quick buck.
Wow. Since you've obviously had a chance to review all the evidence, why don't you just grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment? Better yet, declare a 12(b)(6) "pissant company / bullshit lawsuit" dismissal! LOL