Sega sues EA

**ChaoofNee** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:09 AM

Why isn't this happening more often, then? I see plenty of games that are blatant rip-offs of others and go on to succeed even more than the one that was copied from (*cough* Snood *hack*).

**Frogacuda** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by ChaoofNee

Why isn't this happening more often, then? I see plenty of games that are blatant rip-offs of others and go on to succeed even more than the one that was copied from (*cough* Snood *hack*).

I don't think anything as extensive and specific as this one has been tested yet. Honestly, if it's really specific like this one, I think it's a good thing. And I honestly would have loved to see the guy that made Snood get sued too.

**Tracer** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:24 AM

They have a case, if anyone has played Road Rage you'll see it really doesn't offer anything more than what Crazy Taxi did. It's pick up person, take them to destination as fast as possible pick up next. There's little deviation in Road Rage from Crazy Taxi. In some respects this is like selling a knock-off product and they're getting called on it. However, I think that the idea of patenting a vague design premise on a game is kinda shaddy (not entirely, but for the reasons NeoZ pointed out).

lithium · 06 Dec 2003, 02:26 AM

But who do you want to benefit from this, the developer or gamer? I can understand it sucks to get ripped off, but many ripoffs have been great games. Ripoffs have spawned entire genres in some cases (like 2D fighters).

**Jeremy** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:34 AM

GTA 3 didn't really get away with anyting, as that was just a part of the whole game, and the execution of it was much different than it was in Road Rage, which lifted not only the concept of it, but many of the characteristics of the gameplay as well. I'm kind of hoping that Sega wins this, although Road Rage was a damn good CT clone, and was much better than CT 3 turned out to be (going by just the Glitter Oasis area.)

**gamevet** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:36 AM

I think Sega learned a thing or 2 from Atari. When Bushnell and company made the Atari 2600 and arcade games, they patented a lot of technologies with it. Things like a character leaving the right side of the screen and coming out on the left. When Atari took Sega to court, Sega took the less traveled path and bought stock in Atari, instead of taking a risk of losing much more.

I have a feeling that Sega decided it would be in their best interest to do the same and patent game designs to protect what they had worked so hard to make.

If something like this can't be defended in court, then what does this make of the patent system?

**Compass** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by lithium

But who do you want to benefit from this, the developer or gamer? I can understand it sucks to get ripped off, but many ripoffs have been great games. Ripoffs have spawned entire genres in some cases (like 2D fighters).

I think the point that people are trying to make is that there are rip-offs and there are rip-offs. It's the latter that are problematic. (can't speak at all about road rage since i didn't play it and barely played my crazy taxi either 'cause it bored me).

**Tracer** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:49 AM

My position on this is: Road Rage did little to benefit me. It really was a Crazy Taxi knock off and didn't even knock it well. That's my opinion.

I would rather this not take place, however, from Sega's position I can see how this can be easily interperted as illegal use of one of their patents assumeing that the patent is general enough.

In a cut and dried world though, I don't think general game mechanics can be so easily patented in the first place without very stringent qualifiers that seperate it from the games that came before it. So stringent, indeed, that one would have to very very blatantly steal the patented mechanics of the game. Not just "picking up people and dropping them off as fast as possible." It would have to be more specific. Such as actually haveing to deal with Taxi's, fare and tips and that fare and tipping working the same way as it does in CT. Road Rage doesn't go that far but I'm not sure how far the patent itself goes. Barring the use of the Simpsons franchise and a diffrent "game engine" not much is diffrent between the two games.

In the case of 2D fighters, the simple act of making one, it would seem, would be in violation which is where I say there must be more stringent qualifiers. Moves must be executed in diffrent ways, with diffrent characters and diffrent rule systems as to what counters what and so on. KOF did do a fair deal many things diffrent but on the surface it's just like Street Fighter. Playing the two, however, will yeild diffrent experiences. The same argument can be said of First Person Shooters. The mechanics are indeed diffrent between Quake and Unreal (for instance) but on the surface they are by and large interchangeable. The question, as far as legality goes, is who has the patent and what does the patent specifically cover and is there more in the defendants game that is diffrent from the patented material than there are things simular/identical to the patented mechanics. Something like that. It's not the legal explaination (might be close) but it's my feelings on it. Patents must be stringent and specific and concepts must be indeed original beforehand - and to violate that patent you must copy that patent without changeing or adding a signifigant amount more too it.

**burgundy** · 06 Dec 2003, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

For anyone interested, this seems to be the relevant part of the patent, and I linked up the images referenced:

It's not exactly broad or far reaching. I think it could hold. Road Rage wasn't just a derivative, it really was a clone, and reading this, I think there's a pretty good case.

The court can and in my view should invalidate the whole thing.

But then again I think the patent system in this country is out of control.