• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tutorial Doctor

Patenting an Algorithm?

39 posts in this topic

So, I woke up the other day with a Eureka, and I tried to get it down as quickly as possible. I have most of it done, but I am stuck on the last part. Then I started to wonder if I can patent this algorithm that I had created.

But first, I did a google search and landed here

One comment said you cannot patent math, and another said that patenting an algorithm is evil.

Initially I didn't think any thing of the actual repercussions of such an idea (because people are good for taking things too far).

But now I have to take some time to consider what they might be:

Questions

1) So, if I were to patent an algorithm, do you think it would be unethical?
2) How much would an algorithm go for? I know it depends, but on what?
3) Do you think a machine that can use the algorithm to do something is more valuable than the algorithm itself?
4) If the source code of a game can be protected under copyright law, then doesn't it make sense that an algorithm can be protected under the same law( besides, what makes a game different from the next other than the way in which the game was coded, other than art assets)?
5) Do you think that perhaps the value a lot of games have are more so the processes used to make the games? Perhaps some algorithm used to solve a game problem could be used in the medical field to save someones life?

I believe that the root of the algorithm can be applied to a lot of fields, but right now, I am still working it out to see how valuable it can actually be. Edited by Tutorial Doctor
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) So, if I were to patent an algorithm, do you think it would be unethical?
2) How much would an algorithm go for? I know it depends, but on what?
3) Do you think a machine that can use the algorithm to do something is more valuable than the algorithm itself?
4) If the source code of a game can be protected under copyright law, then doesn't it make [sense] that an algorithm can be protected under the same law
4.b. ( besides, what makes a game different from the next other than the way in which the game was coded, other than art assets)?
5)a. Do you think that perhaps the value a lot of games have are more so the processes used to make the games?
5.b. Perhaps some algorithm used to solve a game problem could be used in the medical field to save someones life?


1. There will be people who think so (there are people who think patenting is unethical). What is your priority? Universal goodwill? Or to make profitable products?
2. No more than it's worth to the licensee.
3. If you think you can make more profit by incorporating the algorithm into hardware, then go for it. If you don't, then don't.
4.a. Only the exact precise string of source code can be copyrighted - if someone can produce the same effect using different source code that accomplishes the same thing, then copyright doesn't prevent that.
4.b. Can you name two games that play precisely the same and sound the same, and only the art assets are different?
5.a. Huh?
5.b. Perhaps.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, looks like a lot of research has gone into this, and I am sure that buried somewhere behind mountains of text, is something similar, if not more advanced than my small little Eureka.

I guess that's what happens when you try to patent ideas eh? Hehe.

But the subject matter is really intriguing though. Thanks for the responses.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I think that software patents are a bad thing for various reasons (e.g., that it is basically a patent on maths; that the current system is so broken with how many trivial patents that are granted), though everyone has their own opinion. Also consider, if it's an idea you thought up in a flash, why should that prevent anyone else doing the same thing when they might reasonably think of the same idea? We're not talking about something that took billions of dollars of investment (which is an argument put forward for drug patents - the same rarely applies to software patents). And how many existing ideas and algorithms do you use when you write software - just imagine if all of those were patented...

Though there is the problem that the current system (at least in the US) forces companies to patent as much as possible, otherwise they risk being sued by other companies, and have nothing to defend with. So I tend to judge people/companies by their legal actions.

Are you going into business with a product? Or if not, what do you hope to gain?

3. Writing the patent for "a machine which runs an algorithm" rather than the algorithm is a way of getting round countries that don't allow pure software patents. In that sense, it can be more valuable, though it seems rather a loophole to me, and not something that I would consider more valuable (the "machine" is a pre-existing invention, and running an algorithm on it is trivial).

4. Nope, because algorithms can't be copyrighted, just like rules and ideas, but a particular implementation (written rules, source code) can be. Indeed, the fact that source code is already covered by copyright (and there is no reason for a company to even release it) is an argument for why software patents seem unnecessary.

What makes a game different other than art? All sorts of things, such as level design, storyline, characters, all of which generally can be protected. And what's wrong with games being similar? If that wasn't allowed, you can kiss goodbye to a large number of games, just because someone else happened to get there first with a particular idea or game mechanic.

5. Indeed, but maybe not if it was patented :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole "get there first" thing Is the the new law on patents. I had an idea about 15 years after I was born, but a patent that claimed rights to not only the ideas they had, but to any potential creation someone could make baring similarity to their idea, was patented the year I was born.

And that patent was, and is sat on to this day. So, I figured that is how the patent system was set up (crooked), and the only way to protect yourself from patent trolls or innovation destroyers is to patent your idea so no one sues you for patenting "their" idea.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beware that (software) patent rules are different in every country, as an example in European Union there are a lot of restrictions compared to the (tragicomic) US laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention.
 
1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned (remark: software patents != copyrighted source code.... and just to note: I'm not a FOSS's fan).
2) Nothing in practice and in most of cases.
3) A technical implementation of a problem is different from trying to shield a mathematical proof, however it depends of what are you trying to shield and where.
4) Nope, a source code is a concrete implementation of an idea, or more ideas, created by people's abilities, an algorithm is an abstract and a mathematical representation of something that exists per se by "nature" (or by God/s for some drunk people).
5a) What? Are you asking about software engineering? I think a value of a game resides in the final product and not in development methods used to publish it.
5b) Most of algorithms used in games are well known by public. I honestly I don't see a strong relationship between game programming/engineering with medicine, but since my "medical" knowledges are at high-school level, I cannot have a strong opinion about that. Of course everything could be possible..
 
 

I have a close friend who spent some time in patent law. Regardless of the issues you're asking about, there's something very important to understand: patents have no value if you can't defend/prosecute them. Let's say you have a patent on your algorithm and somebody is using it without your permission. What are you going to do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because you don't have the quarter million dollars to start the case.

 

That's a good point to start : D

 

Anyway in most countries should be suffice adding a "nil" command to the guilty algorithm to fix the issue.

Edited by Alessio1989
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned

 

I disagree.  However, I do believe that there are too many frivolous patents.

 

But consider the whole idea of why patents exist in the first place, which is to allow you to be compensated for time and money that you spend developing a process, and stop others from making money off your R & D.  Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work.  This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else.  If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people say here that idea/algorithm cannot be copyrighted, only exact line of code, however isn't H264 copyrighted? It probably isn't too hard to find information how it works then write own implementation, but I think I remember VLC having problems with that patent. Am I mistaken?

Edited by Zaoshi Kaba
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silly example, but entertain it a little:

Two kids are running their own lemonade stand, one kid on the opposite side of the street as the other.

Would one kid ever have a legal case against the other either for the similarities of the way the lemonade is made, or for the perhaps exact design of the lemonade stand, or for the perhaps strangely identical taste of the lemonade?

If one kid researched everything there is to know about lemons and sugar to produce the best lemonade, and the other kid mimicked him, does he then have a right to sue?

On the playground I remember the words "that's not fair!"

The way Apple and Samsung, and these big companies are, it's like children on a playground. You almost have to protect yourself. If your idea gets big enough, here come the trolls.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would one kid ever have a legal case against the other either for the similarities of the way the lemonade is made, or for the perhaps exact design of the lemonade stand, or for the perhaps strangely identical taste of the lemonade?

If one kid researched everything there is to know about lemons and sugar to produce the best lemonade, and the other kid mimicked him, does he then have a right to sue?


Commercial food recipes fall under the realm of "trade secrets." The recipe for KFC - the formula for Coca-Cola.

Design of the lemonade stand falls under trademark (assuming you're talking about logo colors, like McDonald's golden arches).

I recommend you read Patent, Copyright & Trademark; An Intellectual Property Desk Reference
by Stephen Elias & Richard Stim. Nolo.com (Nolo Press), ISBN 0-87337-601-3
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you should say that Tom. I always likened source-code to secret recipes. Not much of a difference really. Imagine if food restaurants gave away their secret recipe, then others could copy it and go into business selling the same thing. 

 

Yes, this is a perfect analogy (don't know why I didn't think of it earlier). 

 

It is advantageous for a company to keep their recipe secret (for competitive reasons). 

 

Keywords, "recipe" and "formula."I wonder if source-code could fall under "trade secrets" then. It makes more sense that way. 

 

I used the term "Patent" because an algorithm is a process. Even a formula is a process. A recipe is  a process as well (albeit, ingredients are the key parts of the recipe). 

 

So this makes my question about whether the algorithms (processes) are the most valuable parts of a game, rather than the game itself (in terms of patent/copyright law).

 

Chicken is chicken, but KFC chicken is a matter of process. 

 

Thanks for the link. I actually needed something like that a while ago when I was researching design patents. 

Edited by Tutorial Doctor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work. This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else. If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.

Thats the argument trotted out by corporate software houses (who have huge sunken costs in maintaining this harmful status quo), but it's demonstrably false.
Patents in the video game industry [... snip]


I think this isn't universally applicable. The video games industry has the benefit, that every game is self contained, and that with every game you can tweak/improve your stuff further. This results in a situation, where an "algorithm" is never truly finished. So if you were to patent it, others would either improve it and use the improved version, if the improvement results in a change such that the new algorithm won't infringe the patent anymore or they wouldn't use it because it is falling behind technologically as no one cares to improve it.

In other domains, things are different. Take for example, video coding standards like H264. These are not self contained. You can't release a new standard, or a small update to the standard, every couple of months and declare all blueray players sold up to that date deprecated. When you create the standard it must be top notch, state of the art. Also, you can't just show a couple of power point slides to show the general idea, because you actually want every implementation of that standard ever build to behave exactly the same. You have to provide a reference implementation, which shows exactly every single operation.

I don't know how free codecs like Vorbis and Dirac get developed, but as much as I dislike software patents, I can understand that there are cases, where patents are the only way to cover your development costs.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned

 

I disagree.  However, I do believe that there are too many frivolous patents.

 

But consider the whole idea of why patents exist in the first place, which is to allow you to be compensated for time and money that you spend developing a process, and stop others from making money off your R & D.  Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work.  This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else.  If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.

 

 

Out of interest, do you have examples of patented software algorithms that took years and millions of dollars to develop?

Disassembling source code is something that is going to be a big risk for companies in many cases, even without software patents (e.g., accusations of copyright infringement).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own opinion is that 'pure' software patents ought to go away. I would define a 'pure' software patent as one which encodes an algorithm that follows strictly from the intersection of math and of the computer it executes on, and also it would not allow for patents to be granted on the basis of application -- in other words a patent "using X for Y" would not be valid, either X is sufficiently pattentable on its own, or it is not -- whether or not X was applied to a novel problem wouldn't constitute uniqueness.

 

As an example, I don't personally believe that a compression algorithm that follows strictly from math should be patentable, even despite their exceeding cleverness. I see this simply as a side effect of the exploration of math, and I believe that math, once discovered, should not be owned by anyone. However, I believe that a theoretical video compression algorithm that achieved higher perceived visual quality because the algorithm specifically took into account the human visual system should be pattentable. For me, the difference is that integrating a further, specific constraint (rather than opportunity) into the algorithm itself elevates it beyond simple math. There's an additional. non-mechanical observation that's been studied, quantified, and integrated.

 

 

That sort of segues into an example of "using X for Y" that I would prefer to be disallowed. One of the dating websites has a patent on using standard data-mining techniques to find potential matches. Essentially, they claim a patent by labeling the rows and columns of their matrix with things like "likes dogs", instead of using an abstract variable. They would claim that their patent doesn't cover just their specific columns, their weights and their inter-relatedness, but indeed the very idea of labeling the rows and columns with personality traits for the purpose of determining compatibility.

 

Ironically, they have tons of secret sauce -- the additional, non-mechanical observation that's been studied, quantified, and integrated into their algorithm, and that's what I'd have them protect -- via patent, possibly, but perhaps copyright would be sufficient. That's the real value that they've discovered -- relationships like "straight women who like beer, dogs, and movies, statistically, find bearded men more attractive." or whatever. Its the ability to find and integrate those kinds of observations that from the pile of data that gives one dating site and edge over another, not the mechanical process of extracting it using well-known mathematics. To be clear, I don't mean to say that this dating site should instead claim ownership of particular, granular observations, but on the whole. I would probably prefer that this was more of a trade-secret, rather than a patent though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


so they could make our patents as broad, vague and watertight as possible...

 

Exactly. It just gets too political. That is exactly what kept me from even attempting my patent the way it was, that the description of a "very similar" patent was made so broad and vague and watertight, that it covered every idea anyone could possibly have concerning that type of product. Yet, it is not a product, they just sit on the patent. 

 


These are not being used to encourage innovation and protect inventor's rights. They're just weapons used by huge businesses to create unfair artificial monopolies and to hobble competitors in whatever underhanded manner possible.

 

And thus is the result. Of course, big companies don't really care to sue unless you get too big (but you want to get big don't you?), so what to do?

 

Where did it all go wrong? 

 

It is a really hard case, and one main reason that I just don't like the law side of business. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


1) IMO, software patent should be globally banned

 

I disagree.  However, I do believe that there are too many frivolous patents.

 

But consider the whole idea of why patents exist in the first place, which is to allow you to be compensated for time and money that you spend developing a process, and stop others from making money off your R & D.  Without patents, almost nobody would do R & D work.  This applies just as much to software as it does to anyone else.  If a software company spends two years and several million dollars developing new algorithms, they should be allowed to protect that investment, otherwise anyone who can disassemble code can duplicate it at almost no cost.

 

 

Out of interest, do you have examples of patented software algorithms that took years and millions of dollars to develop?

Disassembling source code is something that is going to be a big risk for companies in many cases, even without software patents (e.g., accusations of copyright infringement).

 

 

I've never worked for a software company so I actually have no idea how much time and money is required to develop anything.  The point I was making is that anyone, irregardless of what industry they are within, should be allowed the use of a system designed to protect their interests.

 

Patents are not the problem.  The problem is the bodies that issue them and how they are used.  This is not just in regard to software patents, but all patents.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't actually have a single example of what you claim...

Companies can spend large amounts of money developing software, but software is covered by copyright, and copying from disassembling would be copyright infringement.

"The problem is the bodies that issue them and how they are used."

It's all very well saying that the system would work great if only they were issued and used properly - when that never happens. Software patents as they exist in the world today are something I dislike - what about you? If things are actually fixed (not "could be"), great, then I'll think further.

"This is not just in regard to software patents, but all patents."

And I don't like those either - that other things are bad isn't an argument in favour. Though I note that some of the arguments in favour of other patents (billions of dollars of investment, no other means to protect) don't apply to software patents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0