Take-Two has patented new locomotive technology in order to ensure Grand Theft Auto 6 has "highly dynamic and realistic…
    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      8 months ago

      When I was a kid, I thought computers and law were both cool, so I wanted to be a patent lawyer. Then I went to school for CS and realized how awful software patents are, so I poured my soul into FOSS.

      I still think patents have a place, just not in software. Screw that.

  • Slacking@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    71·
    8 months ago

    “They’ve built a library of small building blocks for character movements. These blocks can be combined in various ways to create a wide range of animations.”

    That’s what they patented. Their animations a tiny bit more modular. The patent and copyright system is literally only their to fuck us.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      Sounds like AI driven animation which is not something that they have a copyright over.

    • Mchugho@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      8 months ago

      I love how you quoted an invention summary as though that was all there is to the technology.

      If it wasn’t novel or inventive, they wouldn’t have received a patent for it. They’re not just giving them away for a laugh, there is an entire independent process to determine whether something is worth patenting.

  • korazail@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
    51·
    8 months ago

    Is there no example of prior art anywhere? Someone doing this, but not explicitly calling it out because it’s obvious?

    I think the FromSoftware games have had a modular animation scheme that allowed contextual selection of sub-animations with priorities so that things looked fluid during combat. If the animations change based on context, what’s the difference if that context is incoming weapon angle vs “tiredness”? Hundreds of games have characters react to low health with a different movement animation. Other games have characters react to weather like rain or wind by bracing against it. How is this different from that, other than simply having more factors taken into account?

    Software patents in general are just scummy. No one is going to buy your game specifically because your characters limp. No one bought the Mordor games JUST for the patented nemesis system. No one is going to buy a Nintendo game JUST for the loading animation that shows where you were and where you just teleported to. All patenting these things do is limit future potential and piss off vocal parts of your fan base.

    I know I’m preaching to the choir here…

    • Mchugho@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      If you knew anything about US patents you will know there will have been an extensive analysis of potential prior art. To grant a US patent you need to provide an extensive information disclosure statement and examiners can combine bits of prior art to try and argue against novelty and inventiveness.

      Clearly the claim scope that has been protected with this patent has been deemed to be novel by the USPTO.