| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (33)

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:04PM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
we are all a bunch of nerds...but this is most interesting...

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:05PM The Monarch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
KOJIMA COUNTDOWN SITE IS......

Hanging at 00:00:00..............

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:06PM The Monarch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MOTHERFUCKER!
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:06PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Exactly!!!
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:08PM Da Largest said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
OH SHIT, ITS BIG BOSS
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:06PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://www.konami.jp/kojima_pro/next/index.html

THE WAITING IS KILLING ME!

As for this, funny how things pan out

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:08PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm gunna take a lucky guess here, this is the best game in history
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:16PM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BOSS!!!
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 9:47AM Alex R said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Am I the only one who clipped that and put it on the Dashboard... Even though I don't have a PS3?
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why is the 28 year point so important? I don't recall a post last year celebrating 27 years.

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:14PM Chris DPSN AggieCEO XBLThe Aggi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
slow news day?? I mean they do get their news from other sites somtimes....maybe the other site just acknowledged it today
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 10:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Would 30 years really be any more significant?
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
http://img37.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kojima.jpg

that and the letter "R" was all that was added from what i can see in the new countdown :)

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:13PM Da Largest said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Naked Snake yeeeeeeeeah

I named my Honchkrow 'Big Boss' because he's just that cool
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:17PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its a Raiden game :D, with naked snake featuring!


......I think
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:26PM s ls said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's gonna be legendary
Reply

Posted: May 26th 2009 9:44PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Odd, I'm currently reading a piece about the copyrightability of software. Software really is an intellectual property enigma. Programmers know that there is a lot of art and skill that goes into writing source code, which lends itself to copyright protection. Users care only about how the software functions, which lends itself to patent protection. Copyright protects against competitors heisting source code to input the same functions into their own programs. Patent protects against competitors creating the same functionality in a program, regardless of how that function is coded.

Also of note: December 12 marks the 29th anniversary of the date the Copyright Act was amended to recognize the copyrightability of source code.

Posted: May 26th 2009 10:11PM MystileArmor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I enjoyed the read, Ben. Very informative. Excellent article.

Posted: May 26th 2009 10:50PM Genaldar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Does the stiq not have a proof reader? Reading the article makes it seem like 6 years after the patent was approved it was filed. Then 7 years later (13 after it was approved) the court decided he can patent a computer program. I know everybody hates the grammer police, but this is different. It really does make the narrative of the story hard to follow.

Posted: May 27th 2009 12:23AM JoshMilewski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's unfortunate that software patents exist.

I don't support what this guy did/does.

Posted: May 27th 2009 12:40AM MystileArmor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why not?
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 1:47AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Take a book. It's already protected by copyright, but if 'book patents' existed, you'd be able to patent "System and method of unlikely hero accepting his fate and saving the day", then suing anyone who used that archetype. That's whats been happening to software, and even our own genes.

Software Patents ruined the industry, and you could not go out, start a company, and develop good software right now. Why? Because thousands of people have patented these obvious methods, and they're patenting ideas, not inventions that actually function. They will find you and sue you if your product is successful. You could fight it, but it would take so long and cost so much that you might as well pay the patent troll.

This guy is a dick.
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 9:58AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am in total agreement. Software patents choke the life from innovation.
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 10:04AM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with the "stifles innovation" sentiment, although one of the chief requirements to obtain a patent is that the device, invention, or software is non-obvious.
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 1:50AM JoshMilewski said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
First, I have to preface this by saying that I am not a patent expert. So, that said, here are some reasons:



Virtually any algorithm is currently patentable, as the Patent Office doesn't know enough to tell if an algorithm filed for patenting is non-obvious or not, and so they grant patents when they should not. This problem cannot be rectified, either, as government moves far slower than technology.

And besides, I'd wager that virtually none of the software patent applications they receive are actually for new and non-obvious algorithms. One of the requirements of a patent is that the idea is non-obvious to others in that field. The types of algorithms that get patents today are absolutely not non-obvious to any decent programmer.


Furthermore, if only specially privileged people can use any particular algorithm, this severely holds back the overall state of software development. As software has gotten bigger and more complex, it has, for all intents and purposes, become impossible to design a piece of software without infringing on others' patents, as new software, by its nature, is often composed of various bits and pieces of pre-existing software. Finding equivalent or better algorithms to replace those already patented is unintuitive, overly costly, and in some cases impossible.

It is no exaggeration that new software development as a whole could stagnate into oblivion if we continue to give every single idea out there its own patent.


Here's more:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fighting-software-patents.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate#Arguments_against_patentability

Posted: May 27th 2009 10:16AM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While your concern is well founded, there's something missing from your analysis. While the Patent and Trademark Office will grant a patent for an obvious algorithm, patents are only presumptively valid. In a subsequent lawsuit, a plaintiff may challenge a patent by showing that the patented invention is NOT non-obvious (i.e. obvious).

Granted, this shifts the burden to other parties to prove obviousness, whereas the burden is more rightly placed on the patent holder to prove non-obviousness. However, given the vast number of patents out there, this method is preferred because it is more cost-effective to investigate the obviousness of patents when they are challenged (showing that at least someone cares about the obviousness) rather than when the patent is granted.

Essentially, while your worry is correct, granting patents to obvious algorithms matters little in the long run.
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 10:28AM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For further reference:

"Obviousness is ultimately a determination of law based on underlying determinations of fact. These underlying factual determinations, the "Graham inquiries," include: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) the extent of any proffered objective indicia of non-obviousness."

B&G Plastics, Inc. v. E. Creative Industries, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Prior art means previous works in the field (here, software algorithms).
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 1:19PM JoshMilewski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've read in a few places that challenging a patent can sometimes be not worth the time or money (Ted said that above, too), so you just end up accepting the fines instead of eliminating the patent. Also:

"Granted, this shifts the burden to other parties to prove obviousness, whereas the burden is more rightly placed on the patent holder to prove non-obviousness. However, given the vast number of patents out there, this method is preferred because it is more cost-effective to investigate the obviousness of patents when they are challenged (showing that at least someone cares about the obviousness) rather than when the patent is granted."

But doesn't that just seem inherently 'wrong' to you? To make the innocent infringers pay for the Patent Offices mistakes?

I assume those costs add up and become significant (I don't know the real numbers, though). When costs add up and businesses can no longer operate well, that's going to stifle new software development.





(btw, the comment I'm replying to was supposed to be part of my above comment thread, but Joystiq didn't agree with me)
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 2:16PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"But doesn't that just seem inherently 'wrong' to you? To make the innocent infringers pay for the Patent Offices mistakes?"

Not necessarily. It's less costly to show obviousness than non-obviousness. Impressing on a court that an invention is truly unique and new is like trying to prove a negative, whereas showing obviousness requires only direct comparison between the claimed invention and previous works in the field.

In that respect, if the PTO had to be satisfied that a new invention was truly unique before granting a patent, the office may have to sift through hundreds upon thousands of documents, covering the entire history of the field, every time a new patent application was filed. Obviously, this could take years and would likely cannibalize the benefit of obtaining the patent in the first place. In contrast, a competitor could get the patent declared invalid with one document presented in discovery, with no need to even go to court.

It's a system of balance. While Company A may have to prove Company B's patent invalid, Company A will benefit by the ease with which it could obtain a patent on its own software.

The problem I have with the system is that patent law as it exists for engineered machines is not readily applied to software for myriad reasons. It's especially troublesome for small developers who cannot afford to challenge a patent that should, by all accounts, be declared invalid.
Reply

Posted: May 28th 2009 10:05PM kid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I Never new any of this. I'm going to have to actually have to study up on patent and copyright law.
Reply

Posted: May 27th 2009 6:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You could have mentioned the fact that its only the US that allows such ridiculous things to exist.
Sadly, this holds the rest of the world by its balls too, grinding all progress to an inevitable halt.

Also, Namco patented the minigame-on-loading-screen. Thanks a fucking bunch.

Posted: May 27th 2009 5:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think anyone else checked out his website:

http://www.ourpal.com/

Wow, that's some epically bad HTML.

Posted: Jun 27th 2009 12:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry, but you are mistaken here. The very first software to be patented was a peice of sheet metal nesting software used by the Trane Corp in their manufacturing process in 1968. It was written in fortran, and used do loops to ascertain the least wasteful way to cut the sheet metal components used in manufacturing air conditioners, etc. The creator of the software, who worked for Trane at that time was given the grand sum of $1 for his patent ( in addition to his salary of course). His name was Ronald S Williams and he was a mechanical engineer and inventor. Among his other inventions were his first, the machinery used by Ford to apply thier logo stamps on their seat belts in the early 60's( he did this while going to college), and his most recent patents include machinery to be used in the automotive industry. He is now retired and travels continuously, but was recognized by Trane in 2005 for his contributions to the American manufacturing industries. Too bad those industries are all but gone here.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW