3 ms·

Meh, launching objects at structures to collapse them is a pretty common concept. Catching fish, throwing them in the air and shooting them is a bit different I

by Terry_B 15y ago

Meh, launching objects at structures to collapse them is a pretty common concept. Catching fish, throwing them in the air and shooting them is a bit different I guess. I find it very strange that in this crazy age of software patent mutual destruction, cloning games is such an open field.

groby_b 15y ago
And vice versa, that the same crowd that is violently anti-patent (in the majority) is also perpetually upset (in the majority) when a game of lovable developer X,Y,Z gets copied.
- nknight 15y ago
  It's quite possible to be both anti-patent and anti-ripoff. The question is whether and to what degree the government and courts should be involved, and the inability to draw bright lines provides a strong argument against. The legal system is making "I know it when I see it" decisions. I think that should be avoided whenever possible.
  - groby_b 15y ago
    If you don't involve the legal system, there is _no_ provision against rip-offs. So yes, you can be anti-patent and anti-ripoff, but it's a rather incoherent world view. (Unless you assume humans are innately good and can be persuaded to do the right thing without external force. In that case, I wish you luck, but I'm in too cynical a mood to follow that argument)
    - nknight 15y ago
      It's not incoherent, it's making a judgment call: Hard protections against ripoffs are not worth the negative effects involved.
- Terry_B 15y ago
  Agreed. Although I have to admit, I also find the idea of someones creative concept being copied far more offensive than setting out to solve a common problem and adopting the same solution as someone else.
  - groby_b 15y ago
    How so? Game design is not inherently more creative than e.g. developing algorithms.
    - Terry_B 15y ago
      I'd agree with you if it were a case of literally taking the source code from someone else's creative algorithm and copying it. So in the same way people find it offensive to copy someone else's fish shooting concept it would be offensive to straight copy the RSA algorithm and claim it as your own. But it seems like 99% of software patent issues are about two people sitting down to solve the same common problem and independently writing their own algorithms that achieve a similar solution. A case of people simultaneously converging on the optimum solution to a problem and implementing that solution themselves seems like a complete non-issue and what progress looks like to me but that's what most the current fuss seems to be about.
- reitzensteinm 15y ago
  There is no conflict there. I am both the things you describe. I've had one of my games cloned so badly that, in their launch forum thread, about 80% of the posts were saying 'uh you just copied [my game]'. It pissed me off quite a lot, but I in no way believe I should have been able to respond legally. Protecting me from being ripped off wholesale would be preventing everyone from being able to cross pollinate ideas, which is what gaming - and software development in general - is founded on.

by Terry_B 15y ago

groby_b 15y ago

And vice versa, that the same crowd that is violently anti-patent (in the majority) is also perpetually upset (in the majority) when a game of lovable developer X,Y,Z gets copied.

nknight 15y ago
It's quite possible to be both anti-patent and anti-ripoff. The question is whether and to what degree the government and courts should be involved, and the inability to draw bright lines provides a strong argument against. The legal system is making "I know it when I see it" decisions. I think that should be avoided whenever possible.
- groby_b 15y ago
  If you don't involve the legal system, there is _no_ provision against rip-offs. So yes, you can be anti-patent and anti-ripoff, but it's a rather incoherent world view. (Unless you assume humans are innately good and can be persuaded to do the right thing without external force. In that case, I wish you luck, but I'm in too cynical a mood to follow that argument)
  - nknight 15y ago
    It's not incoherent, it's making a judgment call: Hard protections against ripoffs are not worth the negative effects involved.
Terry_B 15y ago
Agreed. Although I have to admit, I also find the idea of someones creative concept being copied far more offensive than setting out to solve a common problem and adopting the same solution as someone else.
- groby_b 15y ago
  How so? Game design is not inherently more creative than e.g. developing algorithms.
  - Terry_B 15y ago
    I'd agree with you if it were a case of literally taking the source code from someone else's creative algorithm and copying it. So in the same way people find it offensive to copy someone else's fish shooting concept it would be offensive to straight copy the RSA algorithm and claim it as your own. But it seems like 99% of software patent issues are about two people sitting down to solve the same common problem and independently writing their own algorithms that achieve a similar solution. A case of people simultaneously converging on the optimum solution to a problem and implementing that solution themselves seems like a complete non-issue and what progress looks like to me but that's what most the current fuss seems to be about.
reitzensteinm 15y ago
There is no conflict there. I am both the things you describe. I've had one of my games cloned so badly that, in their launch forum thread, about 80% of the posts were saying 'uh you just copied [my game]'. It pissed me off quite a lot, but I in no way believe I should have been able to respond legally. Protecting me from being ripped off wholesale would be preventing everyone from being able to cross pollinate ideas, which is what gaming - and software development in general - is founded on.