LA Times tackles Sony's "used games" patent
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jul 13th 2006 at 3:55PM }
The LA Times, a couple months late to the story, has reopened the festering wound we like to call "the Sony used games patent." Rumors that the PS3 would incorporate technology that would prohibit the later sale of used games -- technology that was patented (#6,816,972) by Sony in 2000 -- have been making the rounds (and being denied) for some time. So what's left to talk about?LA Times reporter Dawn C. Chmielewski gathers some exciting quotes from familiar names like Michael Pachter, P.J. McNealy, and even an anonymous cryptographer!
- "I actually think they're toying with this idea ... Maybe they'll copy protect movies or music downloads." --Michael Pachter
- "While we believe it is unlikely that [Sony] will ban PS3 pre-owned games from being sold by the same chains that sell new PS3 games, we believe this issue remains under consideration." --P.J. McNealy
- "In the video game business, it would be suicide for someone to do this. It's actually possible Sony filed this because they wanted to keep people from doing that." --anonymous cryptographer
[Via /.]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JimmyHACK @ Jul 13th 2006 4:06PM
just some drm protection, prolyl never has to use it for games... would hurt consumers of used games yes, but then again maybe its a way to save us from ebgames screwing us over and giving people $20 for their $60 dollar game that they will resell for $55 used......
So if Sony were to ever use it, sure would suck... but lets not overlook the current raping of gamers by the stores with used games
Probot @ Jul 13th 2006 4:10PM
"...but lets not overlook the current raping of gamers by the stores with used games"
Only if you sell games. If you buy, you're getting a pretty good deal most of the time. Though you probably could get a better deal online.
epobirs @ Jul 13th 2006 4:12PM
It would be nice to belive that theory that Sony filed this solely to prevent its use by others but it's far too Pollyanna-ish for me to swallow.
OTOH, it may have already worked. Considering their history, Nintendo would have been thrilled to implement such a scheme if they'd thought of it first or had it offered to them. They managed to have retail sale of used games made illegal in Japan for few years and spent millions lobbying against the same and game rentals in the US. They eventually relented but more from futility than a change of heart.
Purchase by download open new possibilities in this area. Will Virtual Console games be transportable or locked to the Wii used to make the purchase? On the Xbox 360, if you download a XBLA game to a Memory Unit, can it be used on another 360 easily without importing the whole XBL account? I'm suddenly curious but lack the means to test this for myself.
KawF @ Jul 13th 2006 4:16PM
Here's the simple thing with patents:
If your company does not own it, some other company sure as hell will pop out and "invent" the same technology. So of course you want to make sure you have every possible base covered, just in case in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, or even never, you still own that idea and noone else will be able to claim they were the originators of it.
That's a simple result of how the patent system works today. And it is the reason why so many retarded patents that are even most often "obvious" and "trivial" are patented and sorted out with litigation many years if at all, down the line.
Fix the patent system, and less patents like this may surface.
epobirs @ Jul 13th 2006 4:30PM
#1 How is EB/GS screwing anyone? Nobody is obligated to sell their used games to them. If a $60 has been played out, getting $20 (although the prices offered frequently run much high for recent popular titles) is considerably more than $0 and a game you no longer care about sitting on your shelf. Another way to look at it was that the game was a longterm rental with a final fee of $40.
If what the big retail chains offer for used games isn't sufficient, there are two simple solutions. Sell it to another person directly and hope that the value of the time, effort, gasoline, eBay/PayPal fees, etc. invested aren't greater than the additional money realized from doing it yourself. Or, don't buy full priced new releases. It will still be the same game six months later, and unless it's a monster hit or hard to find, it should have seen at least a 20% price drop. I generally get my games for such low prices I have almost no concern for their resale value unless I'm faced with an emergency that would require me to raise some cash.
The game retailer who gives cash or credit for used games is providing a valuable service for your mutual benefit. That means the retailer gets a piece of the action on the next sale of the game which naturally comes out of what price you might have gotten selling directly to another consumer. Don't like the price offered? Fine, vote with your feet and take your game elsewhere. Just don't whine.
GSI @ Jul 13th 2006 4:33PM
Just like the LA Times to be late on the story and then spin it as if they were the first to break the news.
...and they wonder why their circulation has been dropping.
Matt @ Jul 13th 2006 4:36PM
Does anyone actually belive that crap about Sony just setting it up so that they would protect us? This is the company famous for the DRM debacle. Yeah, they're really out to protect OUR rights.
I want Sony to release this beast with the PS3. It will be a quick death for them if they try it.
Brock @ Jul 13th 2006 4:47PM
Yup that's it! Sony is going to make it illegal to buy used games. EB and Gamestop are going to go out of business (they make most of their money off used PS2 games) and you are going to have to buy your games directly from Sony Corp for $100!!! Riiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt.
bv @ Jul 13th 2006 4:51PM
Pretty sure this is a debunked rumor:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=65127
From the article:
"
"We have definitely not been communicating that," UK spokesperson Jennie Kong confirmed. "It's false speculation. We don't have any further knowledge about this topic - either officially or unofficially, to be frank."
At the time, Sony completely debunked the rumour - telling UK newspaper The Guardian in no uncertain terms that: "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."
Speaking to us this afternoon, Kong confirmed that "there has been no official comment on this since the story that came up a few months ago - it hasn't changed since then, and we're quite surprised by why this has popped up again, to be honest."
"
epobirs @ Jul 13th 2006 4:54PM
#4 Kawf, there are problems with the patent system but this isn't is not an example. There is no abuse here. This merely defines a specific methodology for achieving a desired effect. It addresses a widely recognized complaint among publishers of games and other product on optical disc media and offers a solution. While the patent could create an undesirable situation from a consumer perspective it is perfectly good example of how the patent system is intended to work. A patent for a new weapon technology can perfectly valid but that doesn't mean you want the resulting product pointed at you.
If another console maker wanted to implement this but lacked the in-house technical talent, the availability is this patent for license, along with whatever real-world implementation Sony has on hand to be adapted, would come as a very useful offer. Not every patent license is the result of patent abuse. Licenses are happily acquired every day by companies that need the expertise of other companies in their products.
Sony could benefit not just from the patent but also from selling equipment. If part of the scheme involves a design for a drive that can perform the erasure part of the lock-in process but at a lower cost than a fully functional burner for that disc format, anyone using the lock-in scheme is going to want those drives as well.
And as for this 50 years thing, that is nonsense. Don't confuse patents with copy rights. Patent holders have a limited span of time in which to derive profits from their idea. (It is no coincidence that the number of companies manufacturing CD drives multiplied after the patents first filed in the late 70s started expiring.) If a company has a strong R&D orientation and produces many technologies that are potentially useful but not to the companies own products, licensing is a perfectly reasonable way to get a return on investment for the work while allowing another party to make use of technology they may never have developed on their own but is very pertinent to their products.
Even if a company tries to market a product based on their own patent, licensing can still be a good idea. It can often take many years for a patentable idea to leave the lab and become a viable product. So many years that the product hits the market barely ahead of the patent's expiration. Licensing to other companies increases the chance of a viable product being created and net revenue for both companies resulting
Snap Count @ Jul 13th 2006 4:55PM
Patent Number 6816972
Courtesy of A comment made by Sonyguy on a similar thread at ps3fanboy.com
anonymous @ Jul 13th 2006 4:55PM
Sony filing for this patent to prevent other companies implementing such a scheme, is not the same as Sony just wanting to protect consumers. That's a leap made by the Joystiq writer. Anti-Sony bias anyone?
And, cue the idiot brigade to chime in and repeat it.
SonicRift @ Jul 13th 2006 5:08PM
If this were to happen, I'm sure video rental places wouldn't be happy at all.
The fact that this rumor has been floating around, has resurfaced multiple times over the course of the last year, and hasn't been firmly stamped down by Sony's PR team has me worried.
At this point, I can say I probably won't be getting a PS3 in the next 4 years, but this stands to hurt alot of little guys, and that's what I have a problem with.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Jul 13th 2006 6:37PM
#12, anonymous: If you read the "anonymous cryptographer's" quote, it's fairly obvious that he was seriously suggesting that Sony acquired the patent to protect the consumer. He admits that "it would be suicide for someone to do this." If it would be suicide, what would Sony have to gain from protecting another video game console maker from committing suicide? That's just less competition for them. The only motivation Sony could have possibly had for "[wanting] to keep people from doing that" would be to protect the consumer's ability to purchase used games for other consoles. And I'd have to agree with Joystiq, I don't think any corporation is so concerned with their customers that they would go as far as to make sure the other console makers don't do anything to make their consoles appear unattractive.
Killer Instinct @ Jul 13th 2006 9:34PM
They really want to kill their market dont they? Insane high priced console, and then limit people to where they can get used equipment. I guess if this keeps up, maybe in 15yrs their cash pile will run out.
Copperhead @ Jul 13th 2006 9:43PM
Good old Sony.
They're doing just what they did with the personal audio market: Be the leader then pee it all away trying to control everything and through general arrogance.
When was the last time you saw anyone with a Sony MP3 player? Gonna be the same way with the PS3 I'm sure. $600 is just too expensive and their attitude is going to turn off a lot of the people who -might- have been able to scratch together the cash.
jadenguy @ Jul 14th 2006 5:17AM
not being able to sell and buy used games will actually drastically lower new game value. not price neccessarily, though. but if you absolutely could not sell a game again, it's suddenly not a plausible net loss, but it goes back to arcade value, where you pay for the experience, not objects. and i guess you really don't have a lease on the license, unless they allow you to get additional copies of your resell-protected game. so it's rather questionable if that's in sony's best financial interest.
Mike @ Jul 14th 2006 2:35PM
If Sony did this no one would buy a PS3. 'Nuff said.