Visit BannerWitcoff.com


U.S. Patent No. 6,488,505: System and method of vehicle competition with enhanced ghosting features
Issued December 3, 2002, to Midway Games West Inc.
Priority Date July 15, 1999

 

Summary:

U.S. Patent No. 6,488,505 (the '505 Patent) concerns “ghosting” in auto-racing games, a process where a player races against a previously recorded best-effort of a previous player. The '505 Patent is a one of a number of ghosting patents which originated from a mode in the Atari arcade game Hard Drivin’Hard Drivin' was the first car racing game that allowed players to race against a translucent “ghost” recording of a previous race. In this particular patent, if a player finishes a race time fast enough, they are rewarded with free game time. If a player beats the sufficient time to qualify for a free game, this data would be stored in the game along with the finish time and the name of the player. The patent allows the storage of past routes of the cars over which the ghost car travels. By accumulating a plurality of competition scores from multiple past competitions, the game selects one of the scores as the threshold for free game time. The score is calculated according to the ability of the players in the system. Once a player surpasses that threshold, they receive the award.


Abstract:

A system and method for computerized competition useful for rewarding a player. The system and method may be utilized in arcade games, personal computer games, dedicated video games, networked games, and simulators. The method may include selecting a target reward level or threshold such as by selecting a score from a list of past scores, and dynamically adjusting the reward level according to the ability of the players of the system. The method may further include adjusting the playback of a previous competition sequence according to the adjusted reward level. In one embodiment, a previous vehicle race sequence is stored and played back as a ghost or phantom vehicle simultaneously with a present vehicle of a player.


Illustrative Claim:

A simulated vehicle system, comprising: a simulated vehicle configured to traverse a simulated course; a data structure holding a plurality of course finish times; a present course buffer configured to store a present course path of the simulated vehicle and a course finish time of the simulated vehicle as it traverses the simulated course; a recorded course storage configured to store a recorded course path; and a playback adjuster configured to adjust the speed of playback of the recorded course path when a course finish time in the data structure which corresponds to the recorded course path is different than a selected one of the course finish times which is based on an adjusting ratio.



Research By: Rachel Johns
Edited By: Andrew F. Thomas


U.S. Patent No. 5,718,632: Recording medium, method of loading games program code means, and games machine

Issued February 17, 1998, to Namco Ltd.

 


Summary:

In 1995, Yoichi Hayashi of Namco Ltd. invented a variant of a technique called “Invade-a-Load” which was used in software for the Commodore 64 computer. Namco’s invention was for use with optical disc-based platforms such as the Sony PlayStation. The patent expired on November 27, 2015.

Namco’s patent covered “auxiliary games” that a user can play while the main game is loading. Sony released the PlayStation in 1994. The console had advanced graphics for the time, which it could do by replacing the previous generation’s gaming cartridges with CD-ROMS. However, the PlayStation needed to initialize a game by loading the game data from the disc into the console's memory. The loading process could take several minutes depending on the size of the game, and players would be forced to watch a load screen. Any gamer can tell you that load screens are very dull, especially compared to the instant gratification of cartridge games. The '632 Patent solves this problem by creating a technique for a player to play a smaller game during the load screen. Namco utilized the '632 Patent by allowing Ridge Racer players to play the classic game Galaxian during the load screens. It took no time for the console to load Galaxian, therefore, playing the game would not inhibit the console's ability to load Ridge Racer. Namco made playing Galaxian more than just a distraction since Ridge Race would reward the player with in-game bonuses if he/she could beat Galaxian before the load finished.

  
Abstract: 

A recording medium, a method of loading games program code, and a games machine is provided. The recording medium has a program code relating to an auxiliary game and a program code relating to a main game. The size of the auxiliary game program code is small compared to the size of the main-game program code, and the relationship between the auxiliary game program code and the main-game program code is such that the auxiliary game program code is loaded first, before the main game program code. Unnecessary wastage of time can be prevented by first loading the smaller, auxiliary game program code into the games machine, before the main-game program code is loaded, then loading the main-game program code while the auxiliary game is running.


Illustrative Claim:

1. A recording medium, comprising:

computer readable auxiliary program code means for processing an auxiliary game; and

computer readable main-game program code means for processing a main game, wherein a size of said auxiliary program code means is smaller compared to a size of said main-game program code means and wherein a relationship between said auxiliary program code means and said main-game program code means is such that said auxiliary program code means is always loaded first, before said main-game program code means.


Research By: Rachel Johns
Edited By: Andrew F. Thomas
Infernal Technology, LLC et al v. Crytek GmbH
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Docket No. 2-18-cv-00284, filed July 10, 2018

On July 10, 2018, Infernal Technology and Terminal Reality (Infernal) filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Crytek GmbH (Crytek) infringed upon U.S. Patent Nos. 6,362,822 (the '822 Patent) and 7,061,488 (the '488 Patent). The two patents relate to lighting and shadowing methods in computer graphic simulations.

Image from the '822 Patent, Fig. 2.

Claim 1 of the '822 Patent reads:
A shadow rendering method for use in a computer system, the method comprising the steps of:

providing observer data of a simulated multi-dimensional scene;

providing lighting data associated with a plurality of simulated light sources arranged to illuminate said scene, said lighting data including light image data;

for each of said plurality of light sources, comparing at least a portion of said observer data with at least a portion of said light data to determine if a modeled point within storing at least a portion of said light image data associated with said point and said light source in a light accumulation buffer; and then

combining at least a portion of said light accumulation buffer with said observer data; and

displaying resulting image data to a computer screen. ('822 patent, col 12, lines 4-21).

Infernal claims that Crytek's utilization of video game engine "CryEngine" allegedly infringes the asserted patents. According to the Complaint, Crytek used the allegedly infringing game engine to develop the Crysis series, Warface, Ryse: Son of Rome, The Climb, and Robinson: The Journey.

Typically, the next step for a defendant in this situation is to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an Inter Partes Review (IPR), but the '822 and '488 Patents have already survived an IPR because of earlier litigation. In 2015, Infernal sued Electronic Arts for patent infringement. EA responded by petitioning the PTAB for an IPR; however, the PTAB found the '822 and '488 Patents to be "Not Unpatentable." EA settled the lawsuit after the PTAB's decision. Crytek can still petition for an IPR of the asserted patents, but will likely have to use different prior art that the art used by EA or provide a good reason why the Board got it wrong the first time around.

If this seems like deja vu that is because Infernal filed complaints similar to the Crytek Complaint against Microsoft in April and against Activision Blizzard in May. To read our blog post on the Microsoft case click here.  We will continue to monitor all three of these cases and provide updates when possible.

Bethesda Softworks LLC v. Behaviour Interactive, Inc., et al
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Docket No. 8:18-cv-01846-RWT, filed June 21, 2018
 
On June 21, 2018, Bethesda Softworks filed a complaint in the District of Maryland against Behaviour Interactive and Warner Bros. alleging their Westworld mobile game infringes Bethesda's copyrights in Fallout Shelter. According to the Complaint, Behaviour used Bethesda's copyrighted source code from Fallout Shelter to develop a Westworld mobile game for Warner Bros., which, they allege, not so coincidentally ended up being suspiciously similar to Fallout Shelter. The Complaint also alleges that Behaviour breached a non-disclosure agreement and misappropriated trade secrets in doing so.
 
According to the Complaint, in 2014 Bethesda hired Behaviour to help develop Fallout Shelter. The Complaint states that Behviour assigned all rights in Fallout Shelter to Bethesda. Then in 2018, Warner Bros. hired Behaviour to develop a game similar to Fallout Shelter but based on Westworld. Warner Bros. released the Westworld game on June 20, 2018. Bethesda notice some similarities, and subsequently filed this lawsuit.
 
To prove copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show the defendant had access to the copyrighted work, and that there is a substantial similarity between the two works. Behaviour likely had access to Fallout Shelter's source code from when it developed the game for Bethesda. However, even access can be inferred if the similarities between two works are so similar that there is no reasonable explanation for the similarities except that one is a copy of the other. Proving substantial similarity for source code can be tricky because separating the non-protectable ideas from protectable expression is difficult. Most courts use the "Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison" test to filter out non-protectable ideas from both works, which can leave a plaintiff with thin copyright protection. Here, Bethesda bases its claim that Behaviour copied the source code on the fact that the Westworld game has the same "bugs" or "glitches" that Fallout Shelter had at release. The presence of the same bugs in alleged infringing software has been used in the past to prove infringement. It will be interesting to see if the Court agrees with Bethesda's point of view.
 
While the primary focus of Bethesda's Complaint is the source code, Bethesda is also claiming that Behaviour copied the artistic style and gameplay elements of Fallout Shelter. The biggest obstacle for Bethesda with these claims will likely be showing that Behaviour copied protectable expression and not just ideas or a scènes à faire of a game or genre. Even when the Complaint compares the artistic or gameplay features of the two games it does so to establish that those features were a result of the copied source code.

Not unexpectedly, Warner Bros. responded by saying that Bethesda's accusations are baseless and "as surprising as they are unsubstantiated." This case is still developing so we will provide updates as soon as possible.
 
< Previous     Home     Next >

Get the Patent Arcade App

Get the Patent Arcade App
Available now for iOS

Search This Blog


Recognition

Buy your copy today!

Buy your copy today!
ABA Legal Guide, 2d Ed.

Ross Dannenberg

Scott Kelly

Scott Kelly

Labels

Archives

Blogroll

Data Analytics

Copyright ©2005–present Ross Dannenberg. All rights reserved.
Visit BannerWitcoff.com