Riot patents spectator mode, trying to patent matchmaking.

Well, here's another development in the spate of copyrighting and patenting that's been going on recently. Riot apparently filed a patent for spectator modes back in 2012 and are currently attempting to patent matchmaking:

http://www.google.com/patents/US8636589

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014014840A1

Edit: Riot's response to the discovery of the patents - http://www.riotgames.com/articles/20140206/1165/no-interest-using-patents-offensively

What the FUCK.

Wow. This stuff seriously has to stop.

Sent in my patent.

"Systems and methods that enable a guy on an electronic screen to move around when you press buttons or move a stick"

I'd like to think that trying to put a patent on something that's already a heavily established thing would be immediately shot down, but I don't even know anymore. This whole system is fucked beyond belief.

Yep, definitely time for a much closer look at the systems in place for this. It seems like WAY too much abuse is happening these days. I wonder how old the term matchmaking is in the realm of video games. I know Halo 2 used it a lot, but was it used before then?

What a fantastic idea!

How forward thinking of them. Wouldn't want those fresh ideas stolen now would we?

I feel that there is prior art here.

Not sure how much leverage the second one has, but the first one actually seems somewhat novel. The first one looks like a replay server attached to the game host server, and I can't think of any game that has that sort of setup. That said, it seems super-easy to get around by simply not having two separate sets of servers.

I'm just going to go ahead and patent the words 'cake' and 'cheese'.

Also, I might want to patent 'zombie mode' while I'm at it, since you can apparently patent anything you fucking want nowadays.

If this gets rid of matchmaking, I'm all for it. I fucking hate that shit, I NEED a list servers and be able to actually choose what level to play instead of "Yeah well vote for it and maybe it could possibly play sometime"

Patenting spectator is fucking stupid though

Why can't we have both?

@ubersmake said:

Valve's "Source TV" feature was developed in either late 2004 or early 2005.

Yeah good luck with that. I don't think patents that vague usually fly.

Like a while back when Games Workshop claimed it had a copyright on "space marine" and was going after small fry science fiction authors for having the words "space marine" in their works.

Anyone currently using the concept of "jumping" will now have to lawyer up because I'm going to sue your asses.

Patenting speaking protagonists. Hohoho

it's a patent not a copyright..... this is a lot more serious then Candy Crush, plus Riot clearly has the money..... I'm reminded a lot about Nintendo's Patents, and my personal favorite patent...... Namco, patenting "playing a game while the game is loading"

In that case, the only novel thing now would the replay stuff...which isn't exactly new. Seeing as the diagrams in https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/index.php?title=SourceTV&oldid=1730 are damn similar to the ones in the first link, all that's necessary now is for someone like Valve to actually challenge the patent, should the patent go through. Which I imagine Valve would, because of that little thing called DOTA 2.

videogames are stupid

If you cause it to be a double copyright infringement to make a cheesecake, I'll hunt you down.

We should start a Riot

;)

As much as I enjoy League of Legends, it's really hard for me to like the way Riot Games operates.

I'm sure this might be a defensive patent, but it neither helps their image or is likely to be very applicable because they failed to supply relevant prior art.

CHINA DON'T CARE

Don't worry guys: The guys at ESEX have scooped Riot Games Granted Patent For Time Machine. The replay feature does exist but not in this spatial modality!

ps. For those not in the know ESEX (http://esportsexpress.com/)is an esports parody site. Don't take anything they write seriously!

Well it's only for their algorithm, so I see no problem here. It's mostly to do with the code for their directed camera.

It's not like they're gna go to valve and say "hey take spectator mode and matchmaking out of DOTA2, we invented it!"

It's just protecting their system, not trying to stop other people using similar systems.

Edit: This was also filed in 2012, when they were the only ones with any kind of meaningful directed camera anyway.

Isn't their matchmaking system based on (for normal games, I don't know about ranked) the ELO system?

Even so, this is completely disgusting. They're trying to patent a replay system that's leagues behind Dota? Even then, I'm pretty sure Dota replays were a thing before LoL. I'd be completely shocked if this manages to hold water.

@codeacious: ELO is no longer a factor in league of legends. Hasn't been for two seasons now.

The patent office doesn't give a fuck. If you're a big enough entity you can get anything patented. They'll put the stamp on the right document and let the lawyers figure it out/ make millions.

The worst thing is, you can't expect a reform since the laws are approved and crafted by lawyers and people who used to be lawyers. Those people benefit immensely from the obtuse, convoluted as fuck legal system.

@pyrodactyl: Patenting an IP is common practice. They aren't patenting a concept, but simply their implementation of said concept. Valve and Blizzard both have similar patents, just for their versions.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Edit: http://www.google.com/patents/US20070117617

I have patented patenting. YOU ALL OWE ME MONEY.

Did they or anyone else patent Summoner Rifts yet? Need to get on that....

It also now occurs to me why Icefrog hides his identity. They could send back a killing machine and find him by looking up his name in a phone book.

The implementation that has been in place for 10 years in games? Fuck Riot, they don't have exclusive rights to:

Systems and methods that enable player matching for multi-player online games

WO 2014014840 A1

The field of the invention relates to multi-user online gaming systems, and more particularly to systems and methods that enable a spectator's experience for online active games. In a preferred embodiment, an online multiuser game system includes a user matching system configured to match users for a game session, wherein the user matching system is enabled to match a first user with another user based at least in part on behavior data in the first user's profile.

And they can keep matchmaking.

@pyrodactyl: You're right, they don't, but they certainly have rights to their matchmaking, that they made for their game.

Don't be so naive. Everyone ever has their own patents for all of this shit. Not just Riot.

I guess you just don't know how to read patents properly. Theirs is actually very, very detailed.

Why are you defending Riot? They are "big boys" and can handle it themselves. On the other hand, I am completely amused by the idea Riot is more interested in filing patents for the feature than implementing the feature.

@extomar: Because people have no idea how this shit works apparently. It happens literally all the time. This is nothing new, and these people seem to need educating.

Implement what feature? Their directed camera? Their spectator mode that they have in place? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't have time to read 50 pages of lawyer talk. Reading the abstract (the thing that should contain ALL the essential information if it's the same kind of abstract as a science paper) it really sounds like they're patenting all matchmaking systems like they think they came up with that stuff or something.

I've never heard of that kind of patent outside of the stupid konami patents on loading screen minigames and fighting game tutorials. Both damaging patents that are real dumb. Maybe you could point me towards a company doing similar stuff or maybe you're a patent lawyer and can tell me those Riot patents are useless but that's not what I'm seeing here.

Because competitive games clearly don't exist any more duhhhh.

Keep on raging dude since it literally happens all of the time.

If you need a hint: Patenting "spectator mode" is a silly as patenting "summoner rifts" or "time machines" or "pendragon riding a dinosaur" or whatever because they don't seem to exist. It just goes to show and reinforce how silly the patent system has become where I like to laugh at the ideas bantered about instead of raging about it.

I don't see any reason to get upset about this? It wouldn't hold up in any court...at least not in the context people are thinking.

Posting something like this without knowledge of what it actually means in any real legal context is just silly.

This is ridiculous.

I look forward to working in the games industry, and the many ridiculous lawsuits that are filed towards me.

@extomar: Obviously you're just trying to troll me. I'm not raging, whatever you mean by that.

As I've said, since you're being willfully ignorant, they're not patenting spectator mode. They're patenting their system that they have created for their games spectator mode, more accurately it is the algorithm that directs their automated camera that they are patenting. You know, an invention of theirs.

Valve has their own, but it doesn't use the same code, nor is it based upon the same system.

These patents mean nothing more than people can't steal stuff from Riot and pass it off as their own work.

Once again, for the idiots. They are not patenting "spectator mode" or "matchmaking". They are patenting THEIR OWN algorithm for their spectator mode, and the structure and code of THEIR OWN matchmaking.

Hold your horses!

These must be very specific methods/code for Spectating and Match Making, not just a blanket over both concepts you guys - come on, that's obvious.

... right? That's what it is right? They aren't that crazy are they??

@geraltitude: After taking a brief look at them, I would say that they have enough specificity about the implementation that there's probably no harm in these patents being granted. In the wrong hands, I'm sure that it's more than sufficient leverage to file lawsuits against other developers and force some of them into settlements, but I doubt Riot is planning on doing that.

@canteu: For clarification, software patents almost never consider the specific implementation (i.e. the code itself), but instead focus on the concepts and algorithms as you previously stated. There's typically no value in digging down to a lower level than that. You want your patent to be language and implementation agnostic in order to be as broad as possible. That will prevent someone from taking your same concepts/algorithms and implementing them in different language in a slightly different way and claiming that it isn't covered by your patent.

@chaser324: Hmm alright. Good to know. Any statement that starts with "In the wrong hands" is super exciting to me for some reason.

Giant Bomb is just a videogame website... but In the wrong hands...

If they're trying to patent their matchmaking tech - sure go ahead I don't give 2 fucks

But if they try to patent Matchmaking itself, Bill Gates would use his figurative gun to shoot that down. All consoles games have matchmaking, lol.

@canteu: If there is one thing I have learned, is that no one reads patents properly. People are mind-numbingly dense when it comes to this stuff. It's hilarious.

Same with things like a Terms of Service. No one reads them properly and no one has an understanding of how they work and how every other company does the same thing. It's quite good. Remember when people thought Instagram was going to sell your photos? Because people don't know how to read properly and their comprehension skills are awful.

Same with that thing from Sony's updates ToS. How you can't "resell" something without their, or the publishers, "authorization". Something every company has in their ToS and something Sony had previous with the PS3. No one reads this shit, though. If they do, they don't read it properly.

I had to patent an algorithm for a company I used to work for, for the sole purpose of covering our asses. We had recognized that getting from point A to point B to point C in this particular fashion could be figured out and developed by anyone with sound software engineering skills but a competitor had a patent that was similar enough. So we patented the software not to enforce it, but to protect ourselves from competitors who might possibly say that we stole their methods. Patenting software is an abomination though. Guess what patenting the code did to the delivery date?