The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How very interesting. Sony have been slapped with a $90.7million fine, and have been told to "Withdraw PS2 consoles from the US market". This will not take place until an appeal is heard, but it could be bad news for a certain company...
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4387045.stm[/URL]
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4387045.stm[/URL]
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> In america it's different, if you create something you have to be
> shown to copyright it before someone else.
>
> The american definition of copyright is different.
Bah, we're talking American law now?
I don't have a degree in that :^(
:^P
> In america it's different, if you create something you have to be
> shown to copyright it before someone else.
>
> The american definition of copyright is different.
Bah, we're talking American law now?
I don't have a degree in that :^(
:^P
Cooky and I were talking about retarded patents a couple of weeks ago, before he died*.
Apparantly someone tried to sue the makers of King Kong for breach of some patent.
It turned out the people bringing the case didn't even hold the patent for the idea themselves.
* Or moved house. I forget.
Apparantly someone tried to sue the makers of King Kong for breach of some patent.
It turned out the people bringing the case didn't even hold the patent for the idea themselves.
* Or moved house. I forget.
Nope.
Copyright over here is with a work from creation.
In america it's different, if you create something you have to be shown to copyright it before someone else.
The american definition of copyright is different.
I've researched the definitions for music purposes and own two books stating the very same.
Copyright over here is with a work from creation.
In america it's different, if you create something you have to be shown to copyright it before someone else.
The american definition of copyright is different.
I've researched the definitions for music purposes and own two books stating the very same.
Hedfix wrote:
> If you go ahead with your idea without checking if it's
> already been copyrighted then that's your fault.
Patent and Copyright are different.
Patents apply to inventions and ideas, and for the duration of the patent (I believe max. 20 years here) you have exclusive rights of ownership.
Copyright applies to creative things - writing, art, music, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' (a bit of a catch-all for other appropriate creative things), and if you can show you created your idea independently of another similar one, you're fine to use it.
(Not certain where the burden of proof technically lies for showing independent creation, but tactically (and realistically), you need to be able to show it yourself).
In the UK, the rights are valid until 70 years after the creator's death (ownership can be transferred between people). Except Peter Pan, for whom (in the UK) a special statute protects the copyright so that it never expires, which is owned by Gt Ormond St Children's Hospital, and used to help fund themselves, sort of making him, in a legal sense, the boy who'll never grow old.
All other ideas enter the public domain after the 70 years.
Also, patents need to be registered, and there's a global agreement to enforce (virtually all) nationally registered patents at international level.
Copyright doesn't need to be registered, it arrises on creation. However, under the International Copyright Convention (if memory serves), in a small number of unimportant (except to the people who live there) countries you also need the (c) symbol, copyright owner and year of creation, for the copyright to be valid.
Consequently, this post was copyrighted upon me typing it, which no doubt promptly transferred to SR's ownership via a clause in their site sign-up terms and conditions.
Bit of a side thing, but I was always interested, and now you know.
> If you go ahead with your idea without checking if it's
> already been copyrighted then that's your fault.
Patent and Copyright are different.
Patents apply to inventions and ideas, and for the duration of the patent (I believe max. 20 years here) you have exclusive rights of ownership.
Copyright applies to creative things - writing, art, music, 'works of artistic craftsmanship' (a bit of a catch-all for other appropriate creative things), and if you can show you created your idea independently of another similar one, you're fine to use it.
(Not certain where the burden of proof technically lies for showing independent creation, but tactically (and realistically), you need to be able to show it yourself).
In the UK, the rights are valid until 70 years after the creator's death (ownership can be transferred between people). Except Peter Pan, for whom (in the UK) a special statute protects the copyright so that it never expires, which is owned by Gt Ormond St Children's Hospital, and used to help fund themselves, sort of making him, in a legal sense, the boy who'll never grow old.
All other ideas enter the public domain after the 70 years.
Also, patents need to be registered, and there's a global agreement to enforce (virtually all) nationally registered patents at international level.
Copyright doesn't need to be registered, it arrises on creation. However, under the International Copyright Convention (if memory serves), in a small number of unimportant (except to the people who live there) countries you also need the (c) symbol, copyright owner and year of creation, for the copyright to be valid.
Consequently, this post was copyrighted upon me typing it, which no doubt promptly transferred to SR's ownership via a clause in their site sign-up terms and conditions.
Bit of a side thing, but I was always interested, and now you know.
How bizarre, I wonder what the patent holders intended to do with the idea anyway?? - Michael Moore documentary to follow?? :P
gerrid wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
> If you're a big company you have people to check that everything
> doesn't
> infringe things created already.
>
> Then
>
> Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts
> of things.
>
> So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being
> sneaky?
Sony being carelessly sneaky.
> Hedfix wrote:
> If you're a big company you have people to check that everything
> doesn't
> infringe things created already.
>
> Then
>
> Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts
> of things.
>
> So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being
> sneaky?
Sony being carelessly sneaky.
gerrid wrote:
> So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being
> sneaky?
I think it's far more likely that they were careless. If they were intentionally ripping ideas off then they must have known that they would get caught sooner or later, especially with a product that is so widely used.
> So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being
> sneaky?
I think it's far more likely that they were careless. If they were intentionally ripping ideas off then they must have known that they would get caught sooner or later, especially with a product that is so widely used.
Hedfix wrote:
> If you're a big company you have people to check that everything doesn't
> infringe things created already.
Then
> Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts
> of things.
So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being sneaky?
> If you're a big company you have people to check that everything doesn't
> infringe things created already.
Then
> Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts
> of things.
So which do you think it is? Sony being careless or Sony being sneaky?
You can get away with certain things in Russia and various places. But generally if your a world wide company based in countries that respect US and European law then you have to play by the rules.
Sometimes if you break the rules elesewhere and then come to america you get arrested (like the hacker who broke Adobe Acrobat's program).
Sometimes if you break the rules elesewhere and then come to america you get arrested (like the hacker who broke Adobe Acrobat's program).
gerrid wrote:
> If Sony knew they were copying the patent then surely they wouldn't
> have done it - for the very reason that it would cause them problems
> later down the line, like it is.
>
> That is unless, of course, they were sure that they could win their
> appeal.
Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts of things.
Sticking a rumble feature onto a PS pad was obviously a bit of a rush-job.
In the 80 a company manged to backward engineer Nintendos anti-piracy cart system so that their carts would play on the NES without them having to pay Nintendo for the royalty. They mangedto get hold of the designs by getting a lawyer to go in an illegally remove the desings from the parent office so they could backward engineer Nintendo's work.
Like I said, corporations are sneaky.
> If Sony knew they were copying the patent then surely they wouldn't
> have done it - for the very reason that it would cause them problems
> later down the line, like it is.
>
> That is unless, of course, they were sure that they could win their
> appeal.
Companies are sneaky and they will try and get away with these sorts of things.
Sticking a rumble feature onto a PS pad was obviously a bit of a rush-job.
In the 80 a company manged to backward engineer Nintendos anti-piracy cart system so that their carts would play on the NES without them having to pay Nintendo for the royalty. They mangedto get hold of the designs by getting a lawyer to go in an illegally remove the desings from the parent office so they could backward engineer Nintendo's work.
Like I said, corporations are sneaky.
Page: