Chris,
I've been following your work for some time. I have a great deal of respect for your efforts, and have been silently cheering you on since I found the Erasmatazz site years ago. I thought the Shattertown Sky example was very promising, and with a few bug fixes and a user UI facelift could prove to be quite successful.
I have no problem with you protecting your years of hard work. In fact, I hope you become successful in licensing your engine to others.
My disappointment comes, however, from seeing what exactly you were trying to patent. If I understand the patent, it covers the expression of interactive stories using specific techniques, namely:
Characters that:
* Have personality variables that can influence behavior
* Can move from location to location
* Can act upon other characters or objects
* Can plan / schedule future actions
* Can share information they have evaluated to be relevant
* Can store / "remember" past events / actions
This, in turn, creates "Substories" that:
* Are an accumulation of character interactions / events
* Are derived from the decisions made by characters (from the factors above)
* Are related to the player / user once executed
I may not understand patent law, but it seems that if I create a game where characters gossip; decide to perform actions on one another and the player; have "personality" variables and stats that direct their behavior; and this is all related to the player as "story;" I would be violating your patent.
Now I can't prove what technology was used, but I've played many RPGs and open ended story games that appear to create "substories" from the elements you listed as unique to your invention. I may be considering just the parts, rather than the whole, but this does not seem to be a unique invention.
In the Fallout, or Ultima games, story appeared to be created by my interaction with characters. They could perform actions upon me (as user), or each other, or game objects. They could make future plans based on internal variables. They could "remember" what I'd done in the past. Admittedly, a great deal of this "story" was combat related (but not always).
Again, I respect your work and your desire to protect years of effort. But I strongly disagree with what is covered by the patent. Given that the US Patent Office has been particularly inept and moronic in dealing with advanced technology (computer and biotech, in particular), I'm also suspicious that they don't understand what is being covered.
--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
Edited by - Wavinator on September 23, 2000 8:31:48 PM
🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Oh great, thanks a lot Chris...
I think you''re unnecessarily including supporting technologies in the patent claims. For example, my patent claims cover software that runs on a computer. That doesn''t mean that I''m patenting software nor does it mean that I''m patenting computers. The fact that the patent refers to characters that have personalities doesn''t mean that I have patented the idea of assigning personality traits to characters. If I had tried that, the patent would surely have been annulled a long time ago!
The problem here is that patent language is about as tricky (and as precise) as a programming language. Somebody reading through my code might wonder about all the "switches" it uses -- but programmers know that the word is used differently. In patent English (which I don''t understand; I just understand "pidgin patent English") Every sentence has a precise meaning. That''s why, if you read the claims, they are each a single monster sentence. The patent covers only what is declared inclusively in the claims. I realize that it can be terribly confusing digging through those Mississipi-long sentences, but don''t jump to simple conclusions. This patent is not as greedily broad as some of you seem to think.
Oh, and for the fellow who asked: I spent $12K getting this patent. I went to a very good patent attorney at one of the top firms in Silicon Valley. We both realized that this patent will probably have to stand up to attacks from The Big Guys, and so we agreed that he would write it conservatively.
Chris
The problem here is that patent language is about as tricky (and as precise) as a programming language. Somebody reading through my code might wonder about all the "switches" it uses -- but programmers know that the word is used differently. In patent English (which I don''t understand; I just understand "pidgin patent English") Every sentence has a precise meaning. That''s why, if you read the claims, they are each a single monster sentence. The patent covers only what is declared inclusively in the claims. I realize that it can be terribly confusing digging through those Mississipi-long sentences, but don''t jump to simple conclusions. This patent is not as greedily broad as some of you seem to think.
Oh, and for the fellow who asked: I spent $12K getting this patent. I went to a very good patent attorney at one of the top firms in Silicon Valley. We both realized that this patent will probably have to stand up to attacks from The Big Guys, and so we agreed that he would write it conservatively.
Chris
Alright, I humbly retract my death threat... 
I still think it''s a shady thing to do, but hey, at least you''re being fair. My real fear is that in instances like certain patents or the Hasbro case, the officials making decisions are PAINFULLY ignorant about games and their signifigance. They aren''t familiar with the medium in the least, and hence treat it with even less respect than other entertainmnet media.
I have no doubt that that (and hasbro''s money) is why hasbro''s case has come this far! To a 75 year old judge, any game with a topdown ship and rocks on the screen damn well is a rip off! It''s scary that these people are making decisions that will affect and industry that makes more money than Hollywood AND the recording industry COMBINED.
So, that''s why I flipped out on you, Chris. I saw history repeating itself, and I''ll be damned if I''m gonna let that happen to the games I''m working on.
======
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
"Question everything. Especially Landfish."
-Matt
I still think it''s a shady thing to do, but hey, at least you''re being fair. My real fear is that in instances like certain patents or the Hasbro case, the officials making decisions are PAINFULLY ignorant about games and their signifigance. They aren''t familiar with the medium in the least, and hence treat it with even less respect than other entertainmnet media.
I have no doubt that that (and hasbro''s money) is why hasbro''s case has come this far! To a 75 year old judge, any game with a topdown ship and rocks on the screen damn well is a rip off! It''s scary that these people are making decisions that will affect and industry that makes more money than Hollywood AND the recording industry COMBINED.
So, that''s why I flipped out on you, Chris. I saw history repeating itself, and I''ll be damned if I''m gonna let that happen to the games I''m working on.
======
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
"Question everything. Especially Landfish."
-Matt
All I have to say is this: If I ever think I''ll infringe upon this pattent, I''m going to go ahead an do it . I really don''t think anything is going to be brought up against me if I really did or did not use the "substories" system that it describes.
Just my opinion, I''m sure that the patent really had good intent but I can''t see how it would bring you any money unless it had bad intent? You see my point I assume.
Null and Void
. I really don''t think anything is going to be brought up against me if I really did or did not use the "substories" system that it describes.Just my opinion, I''m sure that the patent really had good intent but I can''t see how it would bring you any money unless it had bad intent? You see my point I assume.
Null and Void
I hope to make money on the patent by selling licenses to real companies that make real money selling games. So far, the Big Boys aren''t interested in interactive storytelling -- it doesn''t make money. So, I have to create an industry and a marketplace for interactive storytelling. If somebody else comes out with another interactive storytelling technology, then that''s good for me (so long as they''re not violating my patent). That permits me to point to them and say to the Big Boys, "See, there really is money in this." In other words, it''s in my best interests to get an industry started, so I want to help other people get off the ground, not hurt them. That''s why I have been so generous with my stuff. With the Erasmatron system, anybody can create a storyworld with the Erasmatron and sell it with the Erasmaganza with no license fees whatever. Sad to say, I no longer support that technology, because I had so few takers. But if things start heating up, I''ll rev that approach up again.
I also have been hosting a conference on interactive storytelling, Phrontisterion. I''ve done it for the last two years, and I''ll do it again next June. If you''re interested in coming, drop me an email and I''ll put you on the mailing list. Oh, and my fee for this conference is all of $35, to pay for the lunches, breakfast yinnies, sodas, and cookies.
Chris
chriscrawford@wave.net
I also have been hosting a conference on interactive storytelling, Phrontisterion. I''ve done it for the last two years, and I''ll do it again next June. If you''re interested in coming, drop me an email and I''ll put you on the mailing list. Oh, and my fee for this conference is all of $35, to pay for the lunches, breakfast yinnies, sodas, and cookies.
Chris
chriscrawford@wave.net
To Chris (assuming he''s still following this):
ok, so let me get this straight. if i were to design an rpg in which the characters acted upon internal variables representing their personality types, and these actions formed subplots, and these subplots formed the bulk of the game''s plot, but these variables & systems had been designed by yours truly (perhaps inspired by your site, perhaps not) would i or would i not (in your opinion) be in violation of this patent?
this is of great personal interest, as i _have_ been inspired by your approach to game design, and plan on making a game in which the personality models are based on some of the erasmatron''s founding principles. however, i wouldn''t be using your precise algorithms, since:
verdict?
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
ok, so let me get this straight. if i were to design an rpg in which the characters acted upon internal variables representing their personality types, and these actions formed subplots, and these subplots formed the bulk of the game''s plot, but these variables & systems had been designed by yours truly (perhaps inspired by your site, perhaps not) would i or would i not (in your opinion) be in violation of this patent?
this is of great personal interest, as i _have_ been inspired by your approach to game design, and plan on making a game in which the personality models are based on some of the erasmatron''s founding principles. however, i wouldn''t be using your precise algorithms, since:
- they would be wildly unsuitable for the game i''m designing.
- i don''t know them anyway.
- that would be STEALING.
verdict?
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
I can''t answer your question; it''s entirely too complicated to decide this way. If you''re really worried about the patent, then go through it carefully and make sure you understand exactly what it does and does not cover. Good luck trying. Although I understand the overall concepts of what''s in the patent, the precise legal meaning of it all is quite beyond me. I can tell you this: the core concept that we were aiming for is "network of reusable substories", where a substory is a data structure rather like an event: a subject, a verb, and direct object, and some other stuff. If your design can be described this way, then you need to be careful. If it can''t be described this way, then it''s probably safe. But let me offer a third way: if you''re really worried about it, then we can talk about a license. So long as this is a Little Guy kind of project, that will be an easy negotiation. If it has the potential to become a Big Guy kind of project, then it gets trickier.
Chris
Chris
Cool, thanks for the input. I don''t think we have anything to worry about. I was just making sure because I initially read the patent the same way most people in this forum did. Youur substory structure wasn''t the part of the design I was looking at, anyway, but to be sure, and if you don''t mind, I''ll e-mail you the pertinent details if (and when?) this project gets off the ground. (definately a "little guy" type project 
)
If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
) If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal
"it sounds as though he''s patenting the very concept of creating stories from componetnts."
Here is a previous work (before this patent) I found in 5 minutes on google.com. It seems this man did not actually invent "interactive storytelling" yet somehow he was able to obtain a patent for it.
http://websearch.cs.com/redir.adp?appname=MS&query=interactive%20story&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enuc%2eberkeley%2eedu%2f%7egav%2fwayfarence%2fwelcome%2ehtml&datasource=Google&partner=Google&clickedItemRank=1&requestId=cns39140&component=websearch.google.http.tcl&searchType=MS&clickedItemType=MS&brand=CSI&query=interactive%20story&view=cs_portal&channel=cs_portal&source=CSroll&invocationType=-
Gav and Peloso''s Interactive Story
"This site was started on August 21, 1995."
This patent is ridiculous. I curse anyone who applies for patents like this. Just because they approved it does not mean it is right or fair to other artists. Shame on you chris.
Lucky for everyone here I know patent law well. This is very specific and there are many loopholes in this one. Anyone who has said it will not hold up is probably correct.
And chris, "I had to do it because the big boys would have" I don''t think so. Even the "Big Boys" are not this bad of business people (except for hasbro). Congratulations, now the entire industry, big and small players, frown upon you and your silly patent.
Here is a previous work (before this patent) I found in 5 minutes on google.com. It seems this man did not actually invent "interactive storytelling" yet somehow he was able to obtain a patent for it.
http://websearch.cs.com/redir.adp?appname=MS&query=interactive%20story&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2enuc%2eberkeley%2eedu%2f%7egav%2fwayfarence%2fwelcome%2ehtml&datasource=Google&partner=Google&clickedItemRank=1&requestId=cns39140&component=websearch.google.http.tcl&searchType=MS&clickedItemType=MS&brand=CSI&query=interactive%20story&view=cs_portal&channel=cs_portal&source=CSroll&invocationType=-
Gav and Peloso''s Interactive Story
"This site was started on August 21, 1995."
This patent is ridiculous. I curse anyone who applies for patents like this. Just because they approved it does not mean it is right or fair to other artists. Shame on you chris.
Lucky for everyone here I know patent law well. This is very specific and there are many loopholes in this one. Anyone who has said it will not hold up is probably correct.
And chris, "I had to do it because the big boys would have" I don''t think so. Even the "Big Boys" are not this bad of business people (except for hasbro). Congratulations, now the entire industry, big and small players, frown upon you and your silly patent.
A NECROMANCEEEEeeeer !
Bloody hell, I thought the LAndfish was back for a moment... arrrh !
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
Bloody hell, I thought the LAndfish was back for a moment... arrrh !
Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
