this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
136 points (99.3% liked)

Greentext

8236 readers
415 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 20 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Generally speaking, most game mechanics are not copyright-able, not patentable. Game mechanics themselves tend to be treated as base components, as in, like a drum beat or a bass line. It’s rare cases where those are distinct, usually in context (see Vanilla Ice & Under Pressure). Because a beat or bass line can be so basic as a component, it’s considered part of the arrangement and not the composition itself. Video game mechanics can likewise be in this configuration.

For instance, summoning heroes (Nintendo loss) is a mechanic / part of the composition of that game, but the larger video game is a particular arrangement. Specific characters (pikachu) can very much be copyrighted individually, but games themselves are typically less liable for patents / copyright, and so on.

Also, for good measure, since it’s a massive benefit to the freedom of expression. Video games would be a depressing medium if people could capitalize on mechanics like patent trolls.

To be clear, some technologies used in association with video games can be patented, but that’s when a patentable technology is combined with a game, which is much less common in the medium.

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 minutes ago

What about that arrow in Simpsons driving game? Didn't they get in trouble for using what Sega patented in Crazy Taxi?

[–] Hegar@fedia.io -1 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

Yeah you can tell this is not real because a) it's greentext and b) you can't copyright game mechanics.

If you could we wouldn't have video game genres, or like 99% of board games.

[–] Tore@piefed.world 4 points 22 minutes ago (1 children)

There is one major exception where Warner Bros. holds a highly restrictive patent on the Shadow of Mordor Nemesis system. The mechanic allows non-player characters to remember past encounters with the player, dynamically changes their personalities, and rise (or fall) through enemy ranks. If you never played it, it was a unique mechanic that I've never seen in other games since. The patent prevents other studios from utilizing this system and is set to expire on August 11, 2036.

TL, DR: Fuck Warner Bros for patenting this.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 4 points 18 minutes ago

the patent wasnt even granted until last yesr or 2 iirc, because it kept on getting found too general...long as you don't exactly copy their code your good.

the reason noones done something similar since is because you have to build your whole game around it

[–] Dsklnsadog@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 2 hours ago (2 children)
[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

The original idea behind them had some merit: in exchange for showing everyone else exactly how to do a cool new thing, you got to temporarily be the only one to profit from it. They've devolved into parenting general ideas (see the shopping cart patent) and fucking over anyone who finds a way to make the idea work, though.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

I disagree, if I spend time and money to figure out how to solve a problem efficiently, why shouldn't I get to profit from that idea?

The above only applies to hardware patents, software patents however should not extist.

Regardless, if a company are not actively using a patent, as in a product themselves or through licensing, for X years, then the patent should be void.

[–] Telemachus93@slrpnk.net 10 points 52 minutes ago (1 children)

Of course it's work finding solutions to problems and you should be able to live off your work. And in capitalism, a patent sometimes is the only option to do so.

However, patents and other forms of "intellectual property" are absolutely illogical and amoral. Nobody ever made a completely new thing. Every innovation builds on so much knowledge accumulated by so many people that came before. It's absolutely nonsensical that an advancement that's 99 % an achievement of humanity and 1 % of a single person should belong to that single person.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 46 minutes ago (1 children)

I disagree, patents makes sense for normal citizens, it gives them a legal framework to fight against a company just taking the invention from them without compensation.

As for the 99% vs 1% contribution, remember that it is usually the last 1% of a project that consumes the most time.

[–] Telemachus93@slrpnk.net 3 points 6 minutes ago

That's a weak argument because everything used by normal citizens is, in practice, always used by the big corpos against the normal citizens in much greater quantity and with much more force.

Now that I think of it, it's no argument at all because I already admitted, that under capitalism, you might not have another choice to get paid for your work. That still doesn't make it morally good or logically sound.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 points 9 minutes ago

Software patents don't exist in the real world. It's just those dumb Americans living in their fantasy world who do it. Dumb fucks

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

why shouldn't I get to profit from that idea?

Why should you exclusively get to profit from that idea? In any case all innovation stands on the shoulders of giants supported by society at large. The idea of owning an idea in the first place is absurd, but setting that aside if someone will assert exclusive rights to an idea they should first repay society for all its indirect contributions to that idea, from past innovators to the workers whose labor makes it all possible. Or course this is impossible, meaning owning an idea automatically becomes absurd. And this is before we get to how pretty much all parents are based on publicly funded research. Government-granted monopolies should stay in the 19th century.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 44 minutes ago

Because it is not really the idea specifically that you patent, you patent a method of making an idea work.