Actually I don''t have opinions - just questions. Patent is an area I just don''t know enough about to have an opinion. It is far more complex than either Trademarks or Copyright.

I do know that you can only patent a process or mechanism that has a real world application. I do wonder if "entertainment" is considered sufficient of an application to be patentable. If you look at that patent it does not list entertainment as the purpose. Instead it states that the game can be used for IQ improvement/testing and other rather dubious purposes. I would question if the applicant actually gathered scientific evidence to back up the claim that Tetris can aid in IQ improvement - or did the patent office just accept that claim.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

quote: Original post by Obscure

I do know that you can only patent a process or mechanism that has a real world application. I do wonder if "entertainment" is considered sufficient of an application to be patentable. If you look at that patent it does not list entertainment as the purpose. Instead it states that the game can be used for IQ improvement/testing and other rather dubious purposes. I would question if the applicant actually gathered scientific evidence to back up the claim that Tetris can aid in IQ improvement - or did the patent office just accept that claim.

Actually, the requirement for "utility" in the U.S. is pretty much nonexistent. It has generally been used to block patents for "unlawful" subject matter that has no legal utility. Since the patent is based on a PCT application, it was probably written to comply with patent requirements in other countries, some of which are stricter than the U.S. in ensuring that the patent has utility.

More food for thought:

Remember Gauntlet?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=RE35,314.WKU.&OS=PN/RE35,314&RS=PN/RE35,314

In the US patent database all VG-related patents are described as UTILITY-patents. But couldn''t this be regarded as a design-patent? Even though it does comprise a certain hardware configuration, I consider the objective is to protect the way the game is played.