rec.autos.simulators

>> From what I've read of the patent, it seems as if the patent covered any
>> live or lifelike material used in a video game on any media.  The
>> problem with the patent, is it seems to cover games and types of games
>> which were already made before the patent existed.  The early to mid
>> eighties had a large number of laserdisk games, many of which resembled
>> the rail shooters of today (like Rebel ***), and others were
>> interactive moovies (Dragon's Lair, and Space Ace).  There were likely
>> some live action laserdisk games also.  Also, on the Atari ST/Amiga
>> platforms, there were games which used well rendered characters, like
>> Barbarian, Dungeon Master/Chaos strikes Back, Oliterator, etc, most of
>> which came out before the patent.  I think if the patent is upheld, I'll
>> try to patent the paper clip, or toilet paper.

>What this proves is that these companies can't make money
>just off games anymore, so they have to stoop to supplementing
>their income by suing other companes.

>Remember when Apogee was the 'big company on the net'
>producing game after game after game?  Those days seem now
>to be just a distant memory.

stuff removed
> > : Sheesh, should be counter-sued for initiating "frivolous and vexatious"
> > : lawsuit.

> > Jeez. We definitely need looze pays to eliminate
> > this settlement/sue at the drop of a hat mentality.

> Actually in Canada, the loser does pay the "winner's" legal costs --
> it's a good rule, in my opinion, as it prevents cases which don't have
> much prospect of success from being initiated.

>Hopefully the court limits the amount, though.  Otherwise if I think I
>am going to win when you sue me and I am feeling vidicative I could hire
>1000 lawyers and bankrupt you when you lose.

>stuff removed
>> > : Sheesh, should be counter-sued for initiating "frivolous and vexatious"
>> > : lawsuit.

>> > Jeez. We definitely need looze pays to eliminate
>> > this settlement/sue at the drop of a hat mentality.

>> Actually in Canada, the loser does pay the "winner's" legal costs --
>> it's a good rule, in my opinion, as it prevents cases which don't have
>> much prospect of success from being initiated.

>Of course this also tends to discourage legitimate suits against wealthier
>individuals/organizations.  For instance:  Why would a private environmental
>group risk a suit against a large petrochemical firm?  Assuming the suit were
>justified, the potential risk of having to pay many millions of dollars in
>legal fees if they lose (and that can happen when you go head to head with a
>large corporation) would be sufficient to disuade most suits.

>> "contingency fees" are also prohibited (or more regulated) in Canada --
>> prevents, uh, dishonorable lawyers from taking on cases which will
>> likely lose but which are potentially so lucrative that the lawyer
>> "gives it a shot"

>So only those people who can afford representation up front are to have access
>to legal redress?
>I think most of us would agree that predatory legal practices should be
>discouraged, but in this case the law would also prohibit (or regulate) more
>magnanimous ones as well.

>regards,
>Christopher Wilson

> stuff removed
> > > : Sheesh, should be counter-sued for initiating "frivolous and vexatious"
> > > : lawsuit.

> > > Jeez. We definitely need looze pays to eliminate
> > > this settlement/sue at the drop of a hat mentality.

> > Actually in Canada, the loser does pay the "winner's" legal costs --
> > it's a good rule, in my opinion, as it prevents cases which don't have
> > much prospect of success from being initiated.

> Of course this also tends to discourage legitimate suits against wealthier
> individuals/organizations.  For instance:  Why would a private environmental
> group risk a suit against a large petrochemical firm?  Assuming the suit were
> justified, the potential risk of having to pay many millions of dollars in
> legal fees if they lose (and that can happen when you go head to head with a
> large corporation) would be sufficient to disuade most suits.

> >> > Jeez. We definitely need looze pays to eliminate
> >> > this settlement/sue at the drop of a hat mentality.

> >> Actually in Canada, the loser does pay the "winner's" legal costs --
> >> it's a good rule, in my opinion, as it prevents cases which don't have
> >> much prospect of success from being initiated.

> >Of course this also tends to discourage legitimate suits against wealthier
> >individuals/organizations.  For instance:  Why would a private environmental
> >group risk a suit against a large petrochemical firm?  Assuming the suit were
> >justified, the potential risk of having to pay many millions of dollars in
> >legal fees if they lose (and that can happen when you go head to head with a
> >large corporation) would be sufficient to disuade most suits.

> >This patent covers things like "playing video sequences of people
> >or animals by selection made by the player of the video game" (not
> >the correct words, but something like that).

> >That means that Encarta and Cinemania, for example, are illegal
> >in the USA. You could find A LOT of other games that could be
> >looked at as illegal. They seem to have begun with Apogee asking
> >them to stop doing everything they do. I guess they didn't have
> >the guts to send a letter to Bill Gates and asking him to stop
> >all multimedia/video/FMV production.

> Here's the meat of the primary patent claim:

> "A video game, comprising video recording means for visual reproduction
and
> eventual play-back of a plurality of separable action events performed by
> living beings which remain as originally recorded when played back..."

> This would seem to apply to games like WIng Commander III & IV, where
> different videos are played based on what the player chooses to do.
> However, I don't see how it could apply to things like Quake or Duke
Nukem,
> because it doesn't involve "events performed by living beings".

> This sounds a little like a typical patent vulture scheme. There are law
> firms, primarily centered in New York, who buy up patents like this one,
> usually from inventors or small companies that have run into financial
> troubles. Then they send out letters to every company they can dig up
that
> might have a product remotely resembling the patent claim, threatening
> legal action if they don't agree to pay a license. They price the license
> so that it's cheaper to settle it than fight it in court. Given that a
> simple patent infringement case can cost well over $100,000, more if it
> goes to appeal, you can see how a law firm might rack up over a million
> dollars off a patent that they paid a few thousand dollars for.

> Dave Sparks
> IWCCCARS Project: http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Late Night Series: http://www.racesimcentral.net/