Gibson Guitar, Inc. Claims Guitar Hero Infringes Patent
This appears to be just hitting the wires... Reuters is reporting that Gibson Guitar, Inc. has informed Activision that their massively popular Guitar Hero series of games infringes one of Gibson's patents:
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO/LOS ANGELES, March 12 (Reuters) - Gibson Guitar Inc has told Activision Inc (ATVI.O: Quote, Profile, Research) that its wildly popular "Guitar Hero" video games infringe one of Gibson's patents, and Activision has asked a U.S. court to find the claim invalid.
Gibson said the games, in which players press buttons on a guitar-shaped controller in time with notes on a TV screen, violates a 1999 patent for technology to simulate a musical performance.
On Tuesday, Activision filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court for Central California to declare Gibson's patent invalid and to bar it from seeking damages.
Gibson made its claims in a letter sent to Activision in January, a copy of which was included in Activision's lawsuit.
George Rose, Activision's general counsel, had this to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Rose
Gibson is a good partner, and we have a great deal of respect for them. We disagree with the applicability of their patent and would like a legal determination on this.
Money grabbing or legitimate claim on Gibson's part? I guess the courts will decide.
Yeah, money grabbing most assuredly. Funny, they didn't bring this up when Guitar Hero was new and people were unsure if it would be a hit. Now it (and Rock Band) make truck loads of money and suddenly there's patent infringement. Laughable.
This looks like more of a case of patent squatting (or whatever the official term is) than anything.
__________________ I still think that my great grandma thought I was working at a porn shop until I told her it was security. - re: to working at Wackenhut Security cppcrusader
The controller is a Gibson Les Paul... one wonders how it came to pass that the Gibson license was granted on the actual technology used to simulate the musical performances in the game if this patent is so precious to them.
System and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience
Abstract
A musician can simulate participation in a concert by playing a musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3D display that includes stereo speakers. Audio and video portions of a musical concert are pre-recorded, along with a separate sound track corresponding to the musical instrument played by the musician. Playback of the instrument sound track is controlled by signals generated in the musical instrument and transmitted to a system interface box connected to the audio-video play back device, an audio mixer, and the head-mounted display. An external bypass switch allows the musician to suppress the instrument sound track so that the sounds created by actual playing of the musical instrument are heard along with the pre-recorded audio and video portions.
I have the patent on operating a computing like device that is NOT a banana.
You will all soon be my bitches.
<== Wins. LMAO
On topic:... give me a fucking break. Like Bingley alluded to... they get into bed with Activision on the peripheral to begin with... and, ah... it didn't fucking occur to them to mention this fucking shit at that time when it was all right in front of their fucking faces!? Get the fuck out of here, Gibson. EPIC ASSHOLE FAIL.
Yeah, money grabbing most assuredly. Funny, they didn't bring this up when Guitar Hero was new and people were unsure if it would be a hit. Now it (and Rock Band) make truck loads of money and suddenly there's patent infringement. Laughable.
This looks like more of a case of patent squatting (or whatever the official term is) than anything.
That's what I was thinking.
You didn't hear peep out of them for GH1, GH2, GH 80's, and now that GH3 has been out long enough to print money, suddenly they remember that it's infringement.
The "we invented the system they use...no really, we did...we just never used it because of how awesome it is...but you can't see it." doesn't help either.
I could be WAY off on this, but in cases of patent infringement, doesn't the offending item have to vary by a certain percentage of features or points? For example, I have patent for banana computer.
Patent descriptions aren't short, and my patent does A B C and D.
Microsoft decides to release the Plantain Computer which does A C D and new feature X, but because it varies from my original patent design by 25% it is admissable and I lose millions.
The controller is a Gibson Les Paul... one wonders how it came to pass that the Gibson license was granted on the actual technology used to simulate the musical performances in the game if this patent is so precious to them.
I think that fact alone, that they participated as a partner in the project itself, invalidates their claims entirely.
Of course, the idea of patents is fucking horrible, but that's another argument.
Weird, Gibson has been with Guitar Hero since the beginning. I think this is just God's way of telling Activision they shouldn't have blocked guitar compatiblity for Rock Band on the PS3 just for the sake of being spiteful little douchebags because despite their big sales w/ GHIII they still felt small and inadequate when compared to a much superior product. Way to sacrifice extra sales of your product just to screw over Rock Band fans, I hope it was worth cutting off your nose just to spite you selfish, piggy little faces.
.......I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
p.s. Fuck Activision
__________________
There's a whole galaxy out there to colonize....
Yeah, money grabbing most assuredly. Funny, they didn't bring this up when Guitar Hero was new and people were unsure if it would be a hit. Now it (and Rock Band) make truck loads of money and suddenly there's patent infringement. Laughable.
Damages in case of patent infringement are either a reasonable royalty or lost profits. If a product is entirely unsuccessful then there's little argument for either to be more than a nominal amount, so the money received from the lawsuit is unlikely to cover the cost of a lawsuit. This reality is extremely common in civil suits.
Think of, for example, a lawsuit resulting from a car accident. If I'm walking down the street and you hit me with your car and I go flying for a block but miraculously land on a pile of pillows, completely unharmed, I'm not going to sue you because there's been no damage so I can't get any real money. If, instead, you break every bone in my body and cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, obviously I'm going to sue you. Your actions were the same in either case, but my decision whether or not I'll sue depends on whether I'll get enough money to make a lawsuit worthwhile.
So this example, instead of being something insidious, is a natural result of lawsuits being about money. You don't sue someone unless the financial returns are worth it, even if you'd have a valid lawsuit otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcydian
I could be WAY off on this, but in cases of patent infringement, doesn't the offending item have to vary by a certain percentage of features or points? For example, I have patent for banana computer.
Patent descriptions aren't short, and my patent does A B C and D.
A patent is typically composed of a number of claims. Each claim defines the borders of an invention in the same way points on a map can define the borders of a piece of real estate. Percentages don't matter. However, something with fewer elements, as in your example, won't be within the borders of a claim. Something with more elements will be within the borders of a claim. If I patent a banana computer you can still make a computer but you can't make a banana+apple computer.
Determining if something infringes a claim in a patent involves three steps: what does a claim really cover; given what what the claim covers, should it have been allowed / is it valid; given what the claim covers, does the product fit within the borders of the claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrackZero
I think that fact alone, that they participated as a partner in the project itself, invalidates their claims entirely.
Licensing the appearance of their guitars doesn't mean they had any knowledge of the technical details of Guitar Hero. Also, corporations like Gibson are made up of lots of people, none of whom are fully aware of everything the corporation is doing, and it's entirely possible that the people dealing with trademark licensing were completely unaware of that particular patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrackZero
Of course, the idea of patents is fucking horrible, but that's another argument.
Intellectual property dates back to before the founding of the United States and is firmly embedded in the global economy. You might as well walk into a discussion of game prices and make a comment that the ownership of physical items is an illusion and GameStop has no right to stop you from taking things off their shelves without paying. IP isn't going anywhere.
Note: I'm not saying this patent is any good. Doing a real analysis of patent validity is a lot of work. I'm just addressing how patent infringement works.
I think that fact alone, that they participated as a partner in the project itself, invalidates their claims entirely.
Of course, the idea of patents is fucking horrible, but that's another argument.
I like patents on things people have created. If I create a new computer chip that's superfast, I should benefit from that - not someone who creates an exact copy and sells it on their own.
I don't like patents on random ideas people had, that they never did anything with. Patenting something that you never created and can't create...but someone, some day, might create...that seems fairly weak.
I don't like patents on random ideas people had, that they never did anything with. Patenting something that you never created and can't create...but someone, some day, might create...that seems fairly weak.
You can't patent something you never created or couldn't create. Now, it might not be a market success, you might not have even offered it for sale, but you have to have made the thing to get a patent, or at least to get a valid patent.
Yeah, money grabbing most assuredly. Funny, they didn't bring this up when Guitar Hero was new and people were unsure if it would be a hit. Now it (and Rock Band) make truck loads of money and suddenly there's patent infringement. Laughable.
This looks like more of a case of patent squatting (or whatever the official term is) than anything.
Yeah. Also, it seems kind of crazy that they're going after Guitar Hero, which is a Gibson licensee, instead of going after Rock Band.
Yeah. Also, it seems kind of crazy that they're going after Guitar Hero, which is a Gibson licensee, instead of going after Rock Band.
The one which has sold more copies and made more money will be on the hook for more damages, but the lawsuit against Activision will cost no more than a lawsuit against EA or MTV. It's a simple and natural financial decision.
