i did mention games. "see games like rouge, hacker, zork most muds, etc. them seem very similar to what you are describing as the result of interactions."

also, you seem to continue not to understand that the outcome (ie what you expect us to critique) has NOTHING to do with what you are patenting. the actual process and implementation is what is being patented. it stops no one else from creating a game that has similar outcomes but uses a different technique to achieve them.

for instance, currently most speakers are designed using powerful magnets. their outcome is to produce sound when connected to a device (ie stereo) which produces electrical implules (ie the sound wave energy). a new company is using a new method of producing sound. instead of using traditional techniques (ie the speaker bein self contained and using paper), the new "speaker" is attached to hard surface (wall, window, floor, etc) and applies pressure to the surface. this cause it to vibrate and create the sound. it has the exact same outcome (vibrate the air to produce sound), but they use different methods to achieve this.

their are also DSP chips that simulate a surround sound effect. the algorithm it uses (ie the engine) is patented, but it does not stop another company from producing the same effect using another algorithm.

what i am getting at is that it dont matter if other games have the same outcome as yours does. it only matter if they are using the same techniques, which unfortunatly will be qiote difficult to say unless you reveal specifics of your engine instead of requiring assumptions to be made in dealing with whether the games we suggest are even remotly similar in execution style. i mean if its purly the emerginat behavior that makes the system special, then any one of those "code the ai to a robot" fighting games could qualify (all produce some emerginat behavior).

schiggl, ztn clearly stated he has no pending project (well at least not one he is making public). he also implies states that it wont be free since he is getting a patent for it.

"... attract responses from developers who are also working on similar designs." again, no one knows if their design is similar unless you explain yoru actual design and not just the outcome of it.

you asked for help not only about whether other games produce the same behavior, but help with the patent. this is why i am so insistent that you understand patents REQUIRE implementation and dont care about the outcome as much as the process to get the outcome.

being a text based game, you can only really compare it to text based games. thus any games that are not text based have no bearing (since after all the input and display is very differnt).

i perfer to keep the discussion here since i want all designers (and posters for that matter) to note how diffiuclt it is for ppl to help if very little information is given.

you idea is impractical not infeasible. the difference being that you can create such a system, it just requires so much computing time and man power that it would not be worth creating. you need place some restrictions on it (ie let us know what they are). you have not mentioned anything as of yet expcept for it being only for a medievil world. this hardly limits the scope of things by much as you seem to think. how about this, specify some of your basic components, and specify some limitations of the system your are proposing. if you cant come up with any limitations, then my examples are perfectly valid whch makes your system. especially the example with the spoon, since being a medevil world, i am sure some alchemist will want to mix things like herbs, water, and other chemicals.

quote:

---

Original post by a person
it stops no one else from creating a game that has similar outcomes but uses a different technique to achieve them.

---

It would still be pissing off if someone patented, say, the A* algorithm...

Superpig
- saving pigs from untimely fates
- sleeps in a ham-mock at www.thebinaryrefinery.cjb.net

quote:

---

Original post by a person
i perfer to keep the discussion here since i want all designers (and posters for that matter) to note how diffiuclt it is for ppl to help if very little information is given.

---

Oh please. As if anyone believes you’re really concerned for the “little guy who works so hard to critique a vague idea”. Give us a break. You misunderstood my thread from the start, saw it was a broad and difficult idea, and blasted it with accusations and bad logic. But you were wrong, and you don’t have the character to admit it.

quote:

---

you seem to continue not to understand that the outcome (ie what you expect us to critique) has NOTHING to do with what you are patenting.

…unless you reveal specifics of your engine instead of requiring assumptions to be made in dealing with whether the games we suggest are even remotly similar in execution style.

---

lol. Well, I don’t know how, but you failed to realize that such critiquing was never asked for in the first place. Just can’t seem to swallow that fact that I don’t want to discuss the way my code works. That of course, includes execution style.

quote:

---

the actual process and implementation is what is being patented. it stops no one else from creating a game that has similar outcomes but uses a different technique to achieve them.

---

We all know what you’re getting at, we did a long time ago. Spare us your analogies.

But I was going to make this point myeself, becuase what you have written here, is another reason why my patent is not such a big deal! I was going to make this point to soften the blow earlier, but I didn’t want to drag it out, and make it sound like I was defending my actions.

Regardless, I think SuperPig was partly right, and it was not an easy decision to persue a patent. But when an investor is paying for it, its hard to turn it down. I take the stance that since part of this will be used for my senior project, the learning experience can''t be turned down.

I feel a little bad about mentioning the patent at all, because Superpig has a good point.

quote:

---

you asked for help not only about whether other games produce the same behavior, but help with the patent.

---

If somehow, that is true, I didn’t intend it. Of course I’m not going to ask for the public’s help with my patent.

quote:

---

this is why i am so insistent that you understand patents REQUIRE implementation and dont care about the outcome as much as the process to get the outcome.

---

And yet you expect me to just post the details. I’m sick of this contradiction, and of you thinking we don’t understand this.

quote:

---

being a text based game, you can only really compare it to text based games. thus any games that are not text based have no bearing (since after all the input and display is very differnt).

---

You are wrong, and you have no vision. This isn’t a programming forum, but I don’t think you can fool these guys. I bet most people here know just how wrong you are. Any display or front end can be built around an engine if it is designed properly, as long as the interface is general and constant.

quote:

---

you idea is impractical not infeasible. the difference being that you can create such a system, it just requires so much computing time and man power that it would not be worth creating.

---

You are still wrong, and you still have no vision. I’ve already said that its my designs ability to deliver such detail without all the overhead that makes me want to patent it in the first place.

Once again you are bad mouthing things you don’t understand. Lets take this moment to review why you don’t know: Cause I haven’t told you, because I’m trying to patent it.

quote:

---

you need place some restrictions on it (ie let us know what they are). you have not mentioned anything as of yet expcept for it being only for a medievil world. this hardly limits the scope of things by much as you seem to think. how about this, specify some of your basic components, and specify some limitations of the system your are proposing. if you cant come up with any limitations, then my examples are perfectly valid whch makes your system.

---

I know you really want me to specify some limitations, but I’m not going to. Partly because they reveal how my code is written, and partly because that’s not what this thread is about. You can continue to claim it’s because I’m lying and really don’t know, and continue to think of yourself as a nice man who teaches us the dangers of non-specific posts, but we already know better.

quote:

---

especially the example with the spoon, since being a medevil world, i am sure some alchemist will want to mix things like herbs, water, and other chemicals.

---

And finally there is this bit of foolishness. Let me be clear: My game will never tell a player that he can’t mix things without a proper mixing object.

zTn

quote:

---

Original post by ztn
I have NOT asked for ANY feedback on my design! What I asked for was examples of games that show similar behavior, or developers who are working on similar projects.

---

But you did ask for feedback. You want to know if any games feature something similar to what you''re doing. A question like this is likely to encourage discussions about your design, but even if people didn''t contribute ideas, for them to help you with your "prior art" research is to help you submit a patent that might prevent them from adopting a particular approach in their own designs. Do your own research if a patent is what you''re aiming for!

quote:

---

Original post by a person
the actual process and implementation is what is being patented. it stops no one else from creating a game that has similar outcomes but uses a different technique to achieve them.
...
patents REQUIRE implementation and dont care about the outcome as much as the process to get the outcome

---

It''s true that the patent office doesn''t care about the outcome, but the notion that patents require implementation is simply not true. A software patent covers specific methods so that ANY implementation of a patented algorithm is covered by the patent. The best example of this is the compression algorithm used by GIF images. Until the patent expires, you can''t create compressed GIFs without violating the UNISYS patent.

Worse yet, the patent office is currently in a very sorry state. Vague, obvious and overbroad patents are rampant in today''s patent system. I wouldn''t be surprised if ztn mannaged to secure a patent for what he proposes, even if it doesn''t deserve one. It seems all you need to get a patent nowdays is a lawyer.

The one problem with this is the level of abstraction required. Basically, the more abstract the objects are, the less you can "mess" with them, and the less abstract they are, the more you can "mess" with them.

In order to make an idea like this truly and perfectly realistic, it would need to be modeled after real life. Basically, one would have to keep track of all the molecules in the game, and use their properties to determine interactions. For example to weld two things together, the molecules of the metals would get hot and turn to liquid, then the liquids of the two metals would mingle and when they cooled, become one. Now, if for example, you were welding a hilt to a sword, the object would not be considered a sword, just a lump of particles. To determine sharpness, the structure of the molecules of the sword (IE the thickness of the blade, the angle, etc.) would be compared to the properties of the wood in a similar manner, and physics would show if the blade would cut the wood, and if it did, if the wood would splinter and become "sharp", or would be cut cleanly, all based on the layout of the molecules.

Of course, this is all insanely advanced and probably unnecessary, but the more advanced properties, and less abstractions one uses for an object, the more real it will be.

Another thing, is that the only way this would work is if it was actual virtual reality, meaning that we could actually manipulate the things in the virtual world with our bodies. If it was not, how could we drill into a safe with accuracy. If we clicked the object that was the drill, it would give us a targeting cursor, which is a script, and the script would only allow us to do things that the program had scripted for the drill. So, an advanced engine like this is probably decades away from our current technology, perhaps a century.

However, like I said, the level of realism in inversely proportional to the level of abstraction. If you didn''t want absolute perfection, you could use some abstraction, based on the goals you wished to attain. It is a matter of choice and feasibility.

I think they should give patents only for really new and unique inventions. These days you can patent "drop down menu" and make money. Well, at least in USA. There is no end to the stupidity of american people


[edited by - Krice on June 20, 2002 4:16:36 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by Krice
I think they should give patents only for really new and unique inventions. These days you can patent "drop down menu" and make money. Well, at least in USA. There is no end to the stupidity of american people

---

The problem is where do you draw the line? Back when these things were new, compression algorithms like LZH were pretty advanced, but now any college graduate could come up with it in a weekend (if he didn''t know it already). What''s new and advanced today might be pretty basic tomorrow.

---

codeka.com - Just click it.