76
EA opens up more patents for increasing Accessibility in gaming
(www.gamingonlinux.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
76 points (93.2% liked)
Games
32268 readers
981 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A yes, patents is what will help accessibility.
this is opening up patents, so yes, in a world like ours having something be patented, but royalty free and anyone can use is much better than the alternative. which is either one company owning it and licencing it. or a patent troll getting it and making it even worse.
the sarcasm in this case, is not warranted. this is a good thing.
The better alternative would be to not patent it in the first place.
Then a patent troll steals it and makes things worse for everyone.
Patenting something then immediately opening it up is by far the best option.
That’s literally not a thing. Once something is publicly disclosed it can’t be patented (unless it is by the discloser during the one year grace period). You can’t take someone else’s invention and patent it. If someone does you can invalidate their patent without even a lawyer. If you want something you invent to be free for everyone the best thing you can do is get it out into the world and not patent it.
You're not supposed to. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Nobody wants to spend the court costs to get a patent troll stripped of their bad patent. And for a patent troll you're going to need a lawyer, they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it since that's their source of income.
Once again, this is not true. They do what is called a prior art search as part of issuing a patent. They look worldwide for anything that could be considered your invention before your filing date before issuing a patent. Even after a patent is issued, if prior art is presented to the patent office they can rescind the patent. It’s a form and like $100. You don’t need a lawyer to bring prior art to the patent office’s attention. The legal battle will be between the patent office and the patent troll if they are trying to contest the prior art.
Oh boy are you wrong. Check out the patents to polio vaccines, or Volvos three point seatbelt.
What? There was no polio vaccine patent. The inventor literally did exactly what I suggested. He made his work freely available so that it could not be patented. Volvo made a business decision to make their patent freely usable and we are still talking about it. Their brand has been permanently associated with safety because of it.
Exactly! They tried to patent it, but it didn’t meet the requirements (https://www.ipeg.com/jonas-salk-inventor-of-the-polio-vaccine-could-you-patent-the-sun).
Notice how they tried to patent it “to prevent companies from making unlicensed, low-quality versions of the vaccine. There is no sign that the foundation intended to profit from a patent on the polio vaccine.”
EDIT: and on the other hand, you get things like insulin, where the patent was sold for $1 (https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expensive)