The bullet-time feature could possibly have been guarded with a patent. If the patent was written broadly enough ("a method that uses a computer to simulate slow motion blah blah"), then it would not matter if others used slightly different code.

[edited by - HenryAPe on July 7, 2003 1:37:18 PM]

I hate people who think like this. Why should they get a patent on that? How many games do you think that company wants to make that need to have "bullet time"? The only reason they would have done it is to create problems for other developers wanting similar effects (I believe it''s called "stifling innovation" and generally frowned upon by the free world)

Also, it would have to be more focused because it could be hard to prove that you "invented" blurring or slow motion effects when there is obviously proof of previous existances of these or very similar effects, and not to mention the obvious rip off of "The Matrix" which BTW they didn''t create.

I am not saying that they "should" get a patent on it, just that it is possible. There are problems with suing other companies for patent infringement, especially if they are big companies that also own a bunch of frivolous patents that they have managed to sneak by the clueless patent examiners and can use in a countersuit.

Anyway, if you want an example of a game-industry patent, take a look at Chris Crawford's interactive storytelling patent. He himself thinks that he has patented a set of ideas that permit interactive storytelling, but from reading the actual patent text it might even cover some turn-based games where the computer gets input from the user and generates a list of actions for all characters in a scene and then executes all those actions before getting more input from the user.

[edited by - HenryAPe on July 8, 2003 6:35:14 PM]

Well let me say he most definatly did not come up with the concept of an "interactive story". Maybe the process he describes. But I''m pretty sure that to infringe on this one you would have to do it exactly as the patent says otherwise it''s not covered. Someone should just go crazy and buy a lot of patents like this and then declare them as "free ideas" so we wouldn''t have to worry about stupid patents like this one.

I would donate to such a cause if I knew it would work. FreeTheIP.org sounds good to me.. Of course there would probably be some kind of problems with it.. But I think it would be a good idea for developers to retain their creative freedoms.
Oh well, now you know what I would do if I ever won the lottory..

I agree. I think a good way to prevent this problem would be, after about 10-20 years of a name being taken by one company, the name and names similar to it should be free to use. After such a long period of time consumers should know the company enough to not be "confused" about a new company with a similar title. Also, if you are in business for such a long time and nobody knows of you, why should you be allowed to hog up the name so that other, more productive people have to struggle to find a "free" name?

Who today would be dumb enough to confuse "coca cola" with "CocaSoft" or "Reebok" with "ReebaSoft" ? as it is the law would stop you from using names like that (or their lawyers can) even though the products are totally different. This is not good. Soon the government may need to start a "code system" and we will be issues numbers and have to refer to each other''s companies by those numbers.. Sorta like social security numbers, but it may be "DBA codes" Who knows where this is all going.. Just imagine when we start fighting over the number combinations!