Anyone familiar with me, or my work, knows that I spend far too much time looking at the patents that come out of videogame companies. Why? Because they’re interesting and they index what these companies really value as innovative. It is also often the only real information available about how their devices function, at least that aren’t covered by non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Since game industry ethnography often involves the researcher (me) being covered by NDA, I am constantly looking for public information that can triangulate and corroborate the observations made in the corporate setting. Thus, patents and SEC filings tend to be critically important resources.
But all of that is really beside the point. I was recently reading an interview between Iwata and Miyamoto where the topic of patenting “jumping” as a game mechanic was raised. I have of course discussed this with my students on numerous occasions, but this offhand comment brought that particular rant back to the foreground in my mind. What if Nintendo had patented jumping? Boxes that contained power-ups? Levels hid within levels (“pipes”)? Side-scrolling gameplay? So, certainly there is “prior art” in many cases here, but would the patent office have been smart enough to notice that? I don’t really want to enter into the software patent debate at the moment, what interests me here are the implications widespread game mechanic patenting could have on the game industry and the indie game development scene in particular.
Imagine a game industry where mechanic patenting was widespread. First person shooters? Third-person perspective exploration? 2D Puzzle? At what point would the pain stop? Certainly it might encourage innovation in game mechanics, but at what point is something so trivial or so fundamental that it is unacceptable for it to be patented? Would the patent office be familiar enough with game development to identify and deny applications for those mechanics?
One idea I’ve been considering is a Public Game Mechanic Patent non-profit organization, with the goal of funding new and innovative game mechanics. This organization could provide grants to developers that submit proposals for investigating new mechanics who then help patent them and assign ownership to the non-profit. This company licenses mechanics to major game studios to provide funds to continue the grant giving process. Perhaps not ideal, but placing the emphasis on enabling developers to protect a collective intellectual space is truly important. How best to do it while encouraging new development? That seems to be the key challenge.