Analysis Suggests More Than Half Of Google & Microsoft's Patents Likely Invalid Thanks To The Supreme Court

from the good-news dept

Over the last few months, since the Supreme Court's ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, we've been noting the good news that the courts seem to be interpreting the ruling to invalidate a ton of software patents. Even some trolls have decided to just give up after seeing how the Alice ruling is being interpreted.

A new analytical study of patents held by big tech companies, done by ktMINE, suggests that more than half of Google and Microsoft's patents are invalid under Alice. The biggest loser of all, however, may be Oracle, with an astounding 76% of all of its patents vulnerable to the ruling. Twenty five companies are listed -- and there are some interesting ones. Rockstar -- which is a patent troll "privateer" set up by Microsoft and Apple has 31% of patents at risk. Intellectual Ventures has 24% of its patents at risk (I would have expected more). IBM -- which has a tremendous patent portfolio -- has 49% at risk.

The article suggests that this may have a major impact as these companies lose "vitally important strategic assets," but that's generally almost entirely bogus. Other than for the trolls, where these patents are their only "asset" (if you can call them that), for operating companies, patents have always been much more of a hindrance than a benefit. Many of the companies in the list have a huge patent portfolio mainly for defensive, rather than offensive reasons, and the patents have little to do with day to day operations. They have almost no impact on how the company is actually innovating or growing. In fact, as we've seen, patents are generally only useful for companies that are on the downswing, as they lash out at innovators who are on the upswing. If there were a real concern here, it's likely that we would have seen it in the stock prices of these tech companies -- but most of the companies on the list shrugged off the decision (or are even happy about it) because they can just focus on innovating, rather than bogus, wasteful lawsuits.

In fact, it might make for an interesting study to look at the impact of the Alice decision on the stock prices of these companies, and note how little the patent portfolios they hold are really worth, given the likelihood that so many are invalid.

Filed Under: business methods, patents, software, subject matter, supreme court, tech, validity
Companies: alice, cls bank, google, ibm, intellgectual ventures, microsoft, oracle, rockstar

Mob Wife Suing Rockstar Over Supposed Likeness In GTA5

from the fishing-for-cash dept

I suppose it's because Rockstar Games' opus, Grand Theft Auto 5, is equal parts sandbox game and Rorschach test that makes it such a likely target for people who incorrectly think that the game's makers appropriated their likenesses. We already saw one such publicized story in which Lindsay Lohan was reportedly looking into suing Rockstar over the game's cover art and a character so completely and insanely lascivious that one would wonder why someone like Lohan would want to actively attempt to associate herself with it. In any case, she was wrong on both charges. Even if she were right, the portrayal was clear parody (though, again, not of her specifically).

Well, meet Karen Gravano, wife of the man who brought down John Gotti, and instigator of a $40 million dollar lawsuit against Rockstar for GTA5's portayal of a minor character in a side mission, utilizing the relatively new and insane concept of publicity rights.

The ripped-off character is Antonia Bottino, said Gravano’s lawyer Thomas Farinella. The animated hottie is rescued by the game's main character after getting buried alive off a dirt road. She then recounts how a murder charge was pinned on her father and how the family was forced to be “moving around safe houses in rat-hole hick towns where no one comes looking,” according to an online synopsis of GTA V. Her fictional dad, former Gambetti family underboss Sammy (Sonny) Bottino, eventually became a snitch, acquiring many enemies. He would not allow her to participate in a show called “Wise Bitches,” an obvious takedown of the VH1 reality show.

Here, again, we see the problem posed both by GTA5's depictions of pop culture and the Rorschach nature of the characters. Are there aspects of the character that have a vague and likely parodied similarity to Gravano? Sure, you could convince me of that. But, as with the Lohan "character", the character has many other characteristics and story backgrounds that do not jive with Gravano's. Such as what happens to her in the game. She never claims in her filing to have any further commonality with the character in the games' actions. In fact, one of the similarities she cites, her mobster father not allowing her to appear on a reality show, would be directly refuted by the fact that Gravano appeared on a reality show until its fourth season. What this appears to be, again, is a parody character consisting of a composite of real life people featured in pop culture. You know, like every character in the Grand Theft Auto series is. That's the whole point. To somehow look at a parody that features a vague nod in the direction of a public figure and think that should result in $40 million? That's just crazy.

Furthermore, this all revolves around the theory of publicity rights, something we've covered before. This is a legal concept ill-defined at best, where the limitations on bringing a suit are only those of money-seeking attorneys. You can imagine what a problem that continues to be, particularly in light of the clash such a concept has with rights towards expression. Think of it this way: if a public figure can sue over the use of their image and/or story simply by claiming the use is commercial, an accusation that can be stretched unbelievably thinly, any expression dealing with that figure will resulting be sanitized. Documentaries on controversial figures would be out the window. Artistic interpretations of importnat people gone. No measure of intellectual property was designed with that kind of censorship in mind.

So, to conclude, we have a bad theory of law being practiced upon a target that is likely not guilty of it in the first place. That's the kind of legal hijinks that you get when you allow people to believe they can own their own history. Congratulations, IP!

Filed Under: grant theft auto, john gotti, karen gravano, parody, publicity rights
Companies: rockstar

Two Bad Launches: Why Rockstar Is Succeeding Where EA Failed

from the post-mortem dept

Since recollections of the SimCity debacle have been re-conjured thanks to EA giving the finger to the modding community (read: mega-enormo fanbase), perhaps it's useful to examine how a painful launch doesn't have to turn your entire fan-base against a company. Unless you've been living under a rock that doesn't get a TV signal lately, you're probably aware that the latest iteration of Grand Theft Auto was recently released. One of the big draws of the game, the online component, wasn't available immediately, instead reserved to a tantalizing "coming soon" tab in the game's pause menu. Simply as disclosure, I know this because I'm a paying GTA customer.

Well, the GTA Online launch kicked off this week and it went about as smooth as Hugh Jackman's face after he hasn't shaved for twenty-six days. The vast majority of gamers couldn't even get the online portion of the game to launch due to crowded server issues, and those that did faced problems with getting the game to behave correctly. So, you imagine Rockstar got the same response as EA, right? Wrong. Because Rockstar told everyone that things were going to be rocky and have since proved that it's at least as interested in fixing the issues as it is in making money. See the following warning:

There will be the typical growing pains for an online game, including but not limited to crashes, glitches, crazy bugs, gameplay modes and mechanics that need re-balancing and other surprises! Even in GTAV Story Mode, some of you may have seen a few odd and even amusing little glitches out there last week. This sort of thing is inevitable in a massive open-world game and there’ll surely be lots more unexpected oddities like this in the Online world next week – rest assured we’ll be monitoring and actively doing all we can to smooth such things out as they happen, but we need your help to find them, as well as your feedback to help fine tune all of the game's systems so everything is perfectly balanced.

This stands in stark contrast to EA's launch of SimCity, which resulted in most of the same feedback they received when it announced the game and in beta: stop it with the always-online crap. EA wasn't willing to listen to its users, where Rockstar is actively recruiting the feedback. This makes a world of difference, including creating a sense of unity between the game makers and their fans. It's important and it's something EA got horribly wrong.

As for how it's handling things post-not-awesome-launch? Well, in addition to going the normal route of actively informing fans what is currently going wrong, what it's doing to make fixes, and how it's going to do so, Rockstar told people it doesn't want their money until it gets things right for everyone.

For the time being and until we have been able to get everybody access to GTA Online and things are running smoothly, we have disabled the option of purchasable GTA$ cash packs. Players can however keep on earning GTA$ by pulling off Jobs and other profitable gameplay activities rather than purchasing cash packs.

Can you even imagine a fantasy world where EA refuses to sell you things until it gets the core game stable? It certainly didn't happen with SimCity. Once again, connecting with your fans and being awesome will get you everything in the gaming world. Sure, people are frustrated with how GTA Online has performed thus far, but nobody is calling for heads to roll. Rockstar can take full credit for that.

Filed Under: growing pains, gta 5, launches, simcity, video games
Companies: ea, rockstar

UK Tabloid Pays 'Substantial Sum' To Take2 After Totally Made Up Story About Grand Theft Auto

from the but-is-that-a-good-thing? dept

One thing I've never quite understood about the UK: it has some of the most ridiculous libel laws around, that are notoriously plaintiff-friendly... and yet, its tabloids are well known for simply making stories up completely. I'm a bit confused about how those two things co-exist, but it appears to be the case. Perhaps, the answer is just that the tabloids famous for making stuff up have a decent budget set aside to pay the famed "substantial sum," any time anyone complains about a story (we once were threatened with a UK libel suit, and the solicitors mentioned "substantial sum" so many times in the letter that it felt like a code word that meant something else).

A few months ago, we wrote about how a journalist at the Daily Star apparently totally made up a story claiming that Take2 Interactive was going to create a new version of the videogame Grand Theft Auto, based on the headline-hogging story in the UK of Raoul Moat, the guy who shot three people and himself, including his ex-girlfriend, her new boyfriend and a policeman (the new boyfriend and Moat himself died). The journalist seemed to base the story on Photoshopped images that some random person had made online of such a game, which was obviously a joke. He never checked with anyone involved at Take2 or Rockstar... but did check with the grandmother of Moat's ex-girlfriend, telling her (falsely) that such a game was being created and getting her reaction. What was even more ridiculous, was that when called on it, the reporter, Jerry Lawton, went on Facebook, and started insulting everyone who pointed out that the story was clearly bogus. It took a while, but The Daily Star finally pulled the story down, and admitted "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication..."

Apparently, after all this happened, Take2 sued for libel, and so The Daily Star has now coughed up "a substantial sum" to the company to make amends (thanks to cc for the heads up). As ridiculous as the original story was, I'm not sure Take2 really deserves "a substantial sum" for it. Most people who would actually buy a version of GTA knew that the story was false, but that's what you get with UK libel laws, I guess. As another report on this story points out: "It should be noted that the Star, owned by Richard Desmond, has a history of publishing false stories and carrying apologies afterwards." So perhaps my original inclination was correct.

Filed Under: daily star, defamation, grand theft auto, raoul moat
Companies: rockstar, take 2

Rockstar Using 'Pirated' Copy Of Max Payne 2 On Steam To Remove DRM?

from the nicely-done dept

A couple years ago, we wrote about Ubisoft apparently using an internet crack to get around its own DRM after an Ubisoft patch screwed up the system and tried to require gamers, who had bought the downloaded version, to place the (non-existent) CD in the tray to prove that they had bought the game. It looks like Rockstar Games has now been caught doing something similar. BigKeithO points us to a forum discussion that suggests Rockstar is using a cracked version of its game Max Payne 2 on Steam, for the same reason (to get around the CD check). Apparently, in examining the code with a hex editor, someone discovered that the official Steam release is ascii tagged by the Scene release group Myth (which hasn't been around for many, many years). No one's quite sure what happened exactly, but the obvious suggestion is that Rockstar chose the easy way out in trying to remove the CD check DRM in the game to put it on Steam, and just found a cracked version online.

Filed Under: drm, max payne, steam, video games
Companies: rockstar

GTA IV Actor Complains About His Salary After Game's Success; So Why Did He Take The Job?

from the jealousy-isn't-a-business-model dept

We've already written about the rather ridiculous campaign by actors to make sure they get a cut of every time their work is used. As we pointed out, the various entertainment companies have no one to blame but themselves for this state of affairs -- as they're the ones who have made the same claim in pushing to get paid for every use of their content. However, the more people all demanding their slice of the pie, the more difficult it gets for these companies to really embrace new business models. Now, we have the NY Times playing along with the actors claims, presenting an absolutely ridiculous and extreme "example." It takes on the cause of the voice talent performing as the lead character in Grand Theft Auto IV, Niko. The actor in question made $100,000 for his voice work and motion capture work, which took parts of 15 months. That seems like a rather reasonable fee -- and, clearly, it was reasonable to Michael Hollick, or else he wouldn't have taken the job. And, of course, if he demanded more, it's likely that Rockstar would have moved on and found another perfectly capable and willing actor to do the work for $100,000.

Yet, thanks to news reports that note that the game has raked in $600 million, Hollick is being put forth as an example of those poor actors not getting "their cut" of work they do in video games. This is after-the-fact arguing. Hollick had a deal that was worthwhile. It's only after the fact, based on the lofty sales numbers being bandied about that it makes for a good "story" to suggest that he was somehow underpaid. It's surprising that the NY Times would even play up that side of the story when even Hollick himself admits that the $1,050 per day fee he received was 50% higher than the union's negotiated rate. In other words, he was paid a premium for the work, making over $1,000/day (hardly a pauper's salary), got a ton of publicity for his work in the role... and only after the fact complains about the salary based on the overall revenue the game brought in, and the NY Times puts out an article with a headline suggesting he was underpaid.

Filed Under: grand theft auto, jealousy, royalties, video games, voice talent
Companies: rockstar, take two interactive