DeepEnigma
Gold Member
OK, I fixed my quick and dirty translation
Thanks, adding to OP.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dutch Company Claims it Owns No Man's Sky World Generation Formula [they don't]
- Thread starter DeepEnigma
- Start date
Thanks, adding to OP.
as I understood from one of the informatic law courses I had in college, a program can be patented, a mathematical algorithm can't, BUT you can patent an idea, and that's exactly what they did, they patented the idea of using the algorithm in a program.
This is intriguing
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
From what I understand in the US... if someone beats you to a patent and you never disputed before it was 'granted', you are assed out. Unless you have deep pockets and a good lawyer.
If you both file around the same time, or dispute the patent during it's file period (meaning before it is granted), and prove you have been working on it first, then you can have opportunity to seize it.
So they aren't patenting the formula they are patenting the idea of using the formula in an entertainment program. That is basically the exact same thing how could that be approved?
SkylineRKR
Member
Ruzie, lol. Fighting.
Last 2 paragraphs:
Ah, they have been done already. Anyway, this sounds like another patent troll that tries to act as if they don't want to cause any problems but still.
Last 2 paragraphs:
Ah, they have been done already. Anyway, this sounds like another patent troll that tries to act as if they don't want to cause any problems but still.
Wind's Howling
Member
It's an over exaggeration that resembles Telegraaf to the core.
They blow things way out of proportion.
Militaratus
Member
I wonder if this will lead to another delay due to litigation...
Why are they complaining about this now, like 3 weeks away from release, while they could have easily filed a lawsuit when the game was revealed. Isn't there something like a statute of limitations on these kind of claims?
Why are they complaining about this now, like 3 weeks away from release, while they could have easily filed a lawsuit when the game was revealed. Isn't there something like a statute of limitations on these kind of claims?
SkylineRKR
Member
Yeah they're usually shit and off the mark a lot.
Sean Murray didn't confirm they were using the formula until late 2015. The company claims the have been attempting to talk to them. So it's not all of a sudden.
but that's exactly what patents are used for, to protect ideas, that is why Nintendo is always patenting new crazy controller ideas, not because they are making it, but just to protect their idea for the future usage.
This applies to programs as well, you can use that algorithm in.. I don't know... machine generated toys in a factory? but you can't in a program, because they patented that idea already.
these are the technicalities of the patents, doesn't mean this will get anywhere, but it can work like that
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
The Superformula is based on the superellipse, a formula from the early 19th century. Gielis shouldn't have been able to patent it in the first place, especially since it describes a natural phenomenon and isn't an invention.
Militaratus
Member
Ah, that makes sense. But still, why is this story public now and not ages ago?
JetSetRadio
Banned
Ignoring their claims in the past would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do, I hope they at least consulted a lawyer.
SkylineRKR
Member
This close to launch is probably the best moment to strike. I guess they'll have lawyers giving advice to do so.
Probably bigger chance of getting compensated because the release is around the corner. Less time to build a case.
Patent holding companies tend to go to the press before the courts in an attempt to just get licensing since courts can occasionally go in completely random directions. If this goes to court they could just as likely end up with their application invalidated then they could having it upheld.
Wind's Howling
Member
I doubt Genicap's Science Department are making these claims just to catch a quick buck.
It sounds like they are genuinely interested in how Hello Games created their game. They also mention that they do not want to harm the release of the game, or the company creating it.
They just want to know which formula they used, how they used it and what they accomplished.
mordecaii83
Member
I detest the thought of mathematical formulas being patented, so hopefully if it goes to court this is exactly what happens. (emphasis is mine)
You'll have to sell your soul to Satan, stop sleeping and grow a beard, judging by Sean Murray's end-of-crunch looks.
I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted access to the source code instead of licensing funds.
SkylineRKR
Member
It could be typical Telegraaf clickbait and the paper might've asked a lawyer afterwards themselves about infringements and he answers accordingly. Thus you get an article with guys saying they are working on the same shit, and a guy who says this might fuck up the release of NMS. Article done.
Wind's Howling
Member
Win-Win basically.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Indeed!
I haven't seen your patent, but I'm pretty sure I invented it.
I can't imagine they'd really want this to reach the courts, I'd assume that they currently own an unchallenged patent but understand that there's a high chance of it just getting torn up as soon as the courts get hold of it.
It's not that unusual for companies like the one doing this to try and scare smaller companies with claims like this and hope that they get something, anything out of them. Hello Games are probably right to just not acknowledge these people, if they really want to spend money on dealing with this in the courts and risk losing their patent, let them do it.
It's not that unusual for companies like the one doing this to try and scare smaller companies with claims like this and hope that they get something, anything out of them. Hello Games are probably right to just not acknowledge these people, if they really want to spend money on dealing with this in the courts and risk losing their patent, let them do it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Dang, so it's a rag newspaper basically lol
It's lucky that I didn't suggest anything that contradicts that then, isn't it?
Handy Fake
Member
Quick Goggle, dunno if this is applicable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_Kingdom_patent_law
"Substantive law
Although it is an implicit requirement of Section 1(1) of the UK Patent Act (1977) that patents should only be granted for inventions, "invention" is not defined anywhere in the Act.
Instead, Section 1(2) Patents Act provides a non-exhaustive list of "things" that are not treated as inventions. Included in this list is "a program for a computer". However these things are only prevented from being treated as inventions "to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such".
Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC)[2] includes a slightly different list of non-inventions, although "programs for computers" are present. Article 52(3) EPC then states that patentability for the identified subject matter or activities is excluded "only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such".
The wording of the Patents Act is slightly different from Article 52 EPC, but the UK Courts have taken the view that since the purpose of Section 1 of the Patents Act was to transpose the requirements of Article 52 EPC into UK law, any differences between the EPC and the Patents Act should be ignored. The text of the EPC itself should therefore be regarded as definitive.
Other things that are not regarded as inventions include mathematical methods, and schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business. These additional excluded categories often overlap with the exclusion of computer programs since they may be put into practice using a computer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_Kingdom_patent_law
"Substantive law
Although it is an implicit requirement of Section 1(1) of the UK Patent Act (1977) that patents should only be granted for inventions, "invention" is not defined anywhere in the Act.
Instead, Section 1(2) Patents Act provides a non-exhaustive list of "things" that are not treated as inventions. Included in this list is "a program for a computer". However these things are only prevented from being treated as inventions "to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such".
Article 52(2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC)[2] includes a slightly different list of non-inventions, although "programs for computers" are present. Article 52(3) EPC then states that patentability for the identified subject matter or activities is excluded "only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such".
The wording of the Patents Act is slightly different from Article 52 EPC, but the UK Courts have taken the view that since the purpose of Section 1 of the Patents Act was to transpose the requirements of Article 52 EPC into UK law, any differences between the EPC and the Patents Act should be ignored. The text of the EPC itself should therefore be regarded as definitive.
Other things that are not regarded as inventions include mathematical methods, and schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business. These additional excluded categories often overlap with the exclusion of computer programs since they may be put into practice using a computer."
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
OK, but where is this backed? I don't see anything indicating that they don't own the [idea of using] the algorithm. Is this just about the technicality that you cannot patent the algorithm itself? Because that't quite picky and a bit unfair against the Dutch company.
@Handy Fake: I don't think it's applicable, we'd need Dutch law here, no?
Yes, I stated that it's not unusual for this to happen to smaller companies. Although it's not an absolute term, Hello Games is the definition of a "smaller company". They're not even close to being classed as an SME in relation of annual revenue or number of employees.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I have no clue. I would like an explanation for the reasoning as well. Mainly to shed light if said person is in the know of something we do not.
dragonbane
Member
Apparently they circumvented this by not patenting the algorithm itself, but the idea of using this algorithm in an application.
Handy Fake
Member
I don't think this is patent trolling. This is a guy whose discovery was an important part of the game. As acknowledged by the developer in an interview with New Yorker.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Why would Dutch law apply anywhere outside the Netherlands?
The algortihn generates shapes. Probably very distinct shapes.
It is possible they found a lot of the shapes they saw in NMS to be identical to what their formula generates.
That's not how stuff works in relation to what class of business they are.
Also, I'd love to know where you're getting the information that Sony would have any say in a third party's compliance law? Seriously, I'd love to know where you're getting that information.