5punk

Fun Times: Patents ARE Interesting: Ghost Mode
Think patents are boring? Correct. They are. Very boring. For the most part. Sometimes, though, they're not boring, and can in fact be very, very interesting. This is one of those times. Did you know that Midway hold a series of patents that gives them practical ownership of the concept of recorded "ghosts" in racing games?

It's true! And for years now, companies wanting to include the feature in their own titles have been licensing the idea from Midway. Need for Speed Underground, Project Gotham Racing, Outrun 2006, Ridge Racer 6...all have employed patent #5,577,913, a "System and Method for Driver Training With Multiple Driver Competition".

It all stems from Midway's ownership of the rights to Atari's 1989 Hard Drivin', for which the patent was filed. And while many games pay Midway for the use of the feature, most don't because they don't even know the patent exists. So there you go. Patents can be fun! And interesting! Luke Plunkett

Hard Drivin', Hard Bargainin': Investigating Midway's 'Ghost Racer' Patent [Gamasutra]




Author: Luke Plunkett
Category: Atari fun times hard drivin Law Legal Midway Patent Law Patents
Publish Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:30:00 EDT
Read more...

Source: Kotaku

I spent so much money on this game.

I didn't play it in the arcades much, but I had it for the Mega Drive.
Aah, leaning in my chair to aid cornering... good times.

That "game" was a complete bastard. At least it lived up to it's name.

Is it Hard Driving? I remember the groovy looking 3D cars (could you design your own or something?).

Also, Eion, are patents really that interesting?

Dog Pants wrote:Also, Eion, are patents really that interesting?

Fuck no (I'm first and foremost a copyright specialist).

Some aspects of infringement stuff are potentially interesting, but... well, to give you an example, in one of my (many) patent classes, we spent more than ten minutes discussing the meaning of the word "contact".

eion wrote:we spent more than ten minutes discussing the meaning of the word "contact".

I reckon a simple demonstration would have probably made the point in a matter of seconds.

/chooses to assume you mean physical contact

Dog Pants wrote:
I reckon a simple demonstration would have probably made the point in a matter of seconds.

/chooses to assume you mean physical contact

Well that's the whole point - it clearly involves two things touching each other, but how much overlap between the two elements is required? What about electrical contact? What if two surfaces are glued together - are they in contact, even if there's a layer of adhesive between them?

And unfortunately, crap like that is very important, because you need to know what the patent means. Then in the US system, you hold a special hearing at some point during the proceedings (not necessarily at the beginning, because that would be too sensible), and the judge rules on the meaning of the disputed terms as a matter of law. Rulings made as a matter of law aren't given much deference on appeal, so if the case goes to verdict and someone loses and appeals, the Federal Circuit (who handle all patent appeals) can turn around and change the meaning of the term. Then you have a new trial, and if it goes to a verdict and gets appealed again, and you get a different panel of the Federal Circuit, the meaning of the term can change all over again. And so on.

On the other hand, the legal bills involved...

edit: more interestingly, I think I see a CHEVRON! in that picture.