By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft patents drop-in split-screen

Words Of Wisdom on 21 July 2009
Mendicate Bias said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

For someone giving a lesson on patents, you're fairly ignorant of the matter.

Please research "first-to-file" versus "first-to-invent" before your next post in this thread or any other on this topic.

lol your so arrogant you really don't even bother reading do you? First of all almost every country besides the U.S. uses a first to file system. Secondly you clearly have no idea what the first to invent system is, you probably just read a little excerpt on wikipedia and think your an expert. The first to invent system only applies if the inventor works to make a patent statement directly after making the invention. The inventor can not create the invention make no effort to patent it and then decide he is going to declare his right to a patent after somone else patents his method. The only real application for the first to invent system is to protect the inventor from having a larger corporation push through a patent for his invention faster than he could due to having far more resources and lawyers.

Now please go do some research before you ever bother responding to my posts again, I don't like talking to ignorant people.

Microsoft is based in the U.S. and is likely filing the majority of its patents in the U.S.  The patent system of the U.S. is the most relevant one to any discussion regarding the company as it is and has been the grounds in which many (Microsoft) patents are challenged.

Next, the highlighted portion of your statement is wrong.  The inventor does not have to patent it upon invention otherwise it's still first-to-file.  The essential difference between first-to-file and first-to-invent is that the inventor can use the invention thereby establashing what is known as "prior art" and laying defacto claim to it.  If I begin selling frizbees in 2000 and you file a patent on frizbees in 2001, then your patent is void because I established "prior art" by practicing my invention (selling it).



Around the Network
PullusPardus on 21 July 2009
Aion said:
Wasn't that promised in Fable II?


one small tip

never ever trust Lionhead studios or Peter Molyneux , if they ever announce something , you should know that the final product is exactly the opposite of what they want you to believe.



Mendicate Bias on 21 July 2009
said:
Mendicate Bias said:
Words Of Wisdom said:

For someone giving a lesson on , you're fairly ignorant of the matter.

Please research "first-to-file" versus "first-to-invent" before your next post in this thread or any other on this topic.

lol your so arrogant you really don't even bother reading do you? First of all almost every country besides the U.S. uses a first to file system. Secondly you clearly have no idea what the first to invent system is, you probably just read a little excerpt on wikipedia and think your an expert. The first to invent system only applies if the inventor works to make a statement directly after making the invention. The inventor can not create the invention make no effort to patent it and then decide he is going to declare his right to a patent after somone else patents his method. The only real application for the first to invent system is to protect the inventor from having a larger corporation push through a patent for his invention faster than he could due to having far more resources and lawyers.

Now please go do some research before you ever bother responding to my posts again, I don't like talking to ignorant people.

Microsoft is based in the U.S. and is likely filing the majority of its patents in the U.S. The patent system of the U.S. is the most relevant one to any discussion regarding the company as it is and has been the grounds in which many (Microsoft) patents are challenged.

Next, the highlighted portion of your statement is wrong. The inventor does not have to patent it upon invention otherwise it's still first-to-file. The essential difference between first-to-file and first-to-invent is that the inventor can use the invention thereby establashing what is known as "prior art" and laying defacto claim to it. If I begin selling frizbees in 2000 and you file a patent on frizbees in 2001, then your patent is void because I established "prior art" by practicing my invention (selling it).

I did not say the inventor has to file a patent but that they have to work to make a statement directly or soon after the invention. They can not make the invention, make money off the invention for years and then file a patent after their competitor figures out how to make their product. There is a law against that, I'll look it up and post it when I find it. So basicaly the inventor has to show proof of a statement towards a patent application soon after invention but do not neccesarily require the patent its self.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

Mendicate Bias on 21 July 2009

So since were talking about software that existed years before it is safe to assume that neither Nintendo nor Sony were in the process of filing for a patent and that Microsoft would win the patent case even if they were not the first to invent the software.



                                           

                      The definitive evidence that video games turn people into mass murderers

akuseru on 21 July 2009

Just another reason why I don't want MS in the gaming business...



Around the Network
PullusPardus on 21 July 2009
akuseru said:
Just another reason why I don't want MS in the gaming business...


-blinks- how is this in anyway a bad thing?

Split screen is awesome.



Xoj on 21 July 2009
slowmo said:
FilaBrasileiro said:
So warhawk (a 2007 game) is violating this patent?


If they had the same system already then they should have attempted to get their patent through too, there is plenty of evidence through history of people patenting products others have done a lot of work on.  Sitting on your hands doing nothing is no excuse for letting a patent opportunity slip.

they don't win the patent though when games that exist way before the patent.

creative try to use apple and yet you see apple still uses the touch wheel.. and so does microsoft (abit).



Words Of Wisdom on 21 July 2009
Mendicate Bias said:
said:

Microsoft is based in the U.S. and is likely filing the majority of its patents in the U.S. The patent system of the U.S. is the most relevant one to any discussion regarding the company as it is and has been the grounds in which many (Microsoft) patents are challenged.

Next, the highlighted portion of your statement is wrong. The inventor does not have to patent it upon invention otherwise it's still first-to-file. The essential difference between first-to-file and first-to-invent is that the inventor can use the invention thereby establashing what is known as "prior art" and laying defacto claim to it. If I begin selling frizbees in 2000 and you file a patent on frizbees in 2001, then your patent is void because I established "prior art" by practicing my invention (selling it).

I did not say the inventor has to file a patent but that they have to work to make a statement directly or soon after the invention. They can not make the invention, make money off the invention for years and then file a patent after their competitor figures out how to make their product. There is a law against that, I'll look it up and post it when I find it. So basicaly the inventor has to show proof of a statement towards a patent application soon after invention but do not neccesarily require the patent its self.

But they can!

They can do exactly that.  That's exactly what first-to-invent protects.  They don't demonstrate "prior art" by patenting, they demonstrate it by producing the invention. 

For an actual reduction to practice, the invention must have been sufficiently tested to demonstrate that it will work for its intended purpose, but it need not be in a commercially satisfactory stage of development.

First-to-invent protects individuals from the patent system.  Consider that example I made above.  Say you made the first Frizbee in 2000.  Say you became the Frizbee King and made your fortune selling Frizbees.  You have a multi-billion dollar Frizbee empire by 2005.  Now imagine someone little patent troll files a patent on Frizbees and sues you trying to take all your hard-earned Frizbee wealth away.  First-to-invent says "Knock it off you little patent troll, he was here first."  That's why it's so great.



Chrizum on 21 July 2009

I think I'll patent jumping in games. That would make all publishers go out of business and I will reign supreme!



SpartanFX on 21 July 2009

so HAZE violated this patent .let's sue them