Father Of The Video Game Console Showed Off 'Set Top Box' Idea In 1973
from the no-new-ideas dept
It is often said that there are no new ideas any more. This adage is most often applied to fiction and other forms of entertainment. However, this story shows that the adage can apply to technology as well. Ralph Baer is the often ignored but historically recognized father of the home video game console. His invention went on the be licensed as the Magnavox Odessey which later inspired Pong. However, his efforts in the realm of television accessories were not confined to gaming. Via Gamasutra, we have the following video which surfaced thanks to the German Science Spiele Museum. In this video, Baer shows off what he calls Participatory CATV via an "all purpose box" in 1973.
While nothing in this presentation would seem all that new and innovative to modern audiences thanks to the proliferation of the internet, personal computers and smart phones, back in 1973, this was a massive leap for home electronics. For instance, the creative use of encoded audio signals when ordering a product from a commercial is very similar to such common place codes such as UPC and QR codes today. And while home education over the internet today seems old hat, using your cable television subscription to achieve the same end goal is actually quite remarkable.
Another interesting suggestion that was only touched on but not discussed to great length was the idea of ad supported gaming. Today we see this in many forms whether it is free games that include advertising to bring in revenue for the developer, or games sponsored by or acting as an advertisement for a brand. Once video games became a large part of the home, we saw Baer's prediction come true.
All in all, what this shows is that few ideas are completely new. Many times, someone else will have thought of it before you, or at least thought of something similar. A lesson that some companies should probably consider prior to using patent law as a way to kill competition.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: predictions, ralph baer, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
whoa
I will leave it with... " Prior art bitches"
Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
actually...
N.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: actually...
Here's a thought: A legally defined "saturation point" where a technology becomes so simply pervasive that for the good of society the patent is annulled and all people/companies can use it at whim for no cost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about his lawsuits?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killing Competition
The costs to the public of commercial competition being lessened is one of the hidden but inevitable costs of the patent system. Many companies have been killed by patent litigation. Nobody knows what benefits might have been enjoyed by the public, had those companies been allowed to survive. Opportunity costs are economically important, even though they are very difficult to estimate.
The choice between keeping or abolishing the patent system ultimately comes down to economic analysis. Attempts at reform have consistently failed for over a century, so attempting reform is likely to fail yet again. It is as it is. Keep or abolish?
The analysis needs to work out the net cost minus benefits of both courses of action. The cost of the patent system appears to substantially exceed its benefits at present, with costs rising and benefits illusory. So "keep" is going to be even more expensive. However, "abolish" might be more expensive than "keep", if somebody can come up with a plausible reason why.
The patent system is a net loser, so abolition looks good. We need to discuss whether it is or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Did he show off something called a "set top box idea"?
Or did he show an "off set" "top box idea"?
Or maybe he showed off a "set" "top box idea"?
Or a "set top" "box" "idea"???
What is this title trying to say?
I'll have no idea until I've read the whole article.
Please correct it to something readable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about his lawsuits?
Ralph Baer is a person.
Corporations are not people.
What is acceptable behavior in a person, is not acceptable in a golem created for the sole purpose of exploitation.
Claro?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about his lawsuits?
1) Ralph Baer is an actual inventor. He invents things and then patents them. He does not buy up patents for the sole purpose of suing over them.
2) Ralph Baer does not sue for the purpose killing competing products like Apple does. He invented some very important steps in making home video game consoles and then other companies stepped in and actually copied his ideas. They did not independently invent. They took products that used his patents, reverse engineered them and brought their own products to market without paying him a license.
I hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Awesome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]