I was reading something in GamaSutra today, that was talking about patents. It was written by a couple of patent lawyers, so I guess I should have seen which way the feature would go.

Okay, obviously, I’m going to be against patents, because I’m one little guy, and in my experience, patents protect people like Microsoft, from people like me. Patents cost lots of money, they are even more expensive to defend, and even with a patent, I couldn’t stand up to a Microsoft, Apple, or IBM, if they use my technology. So really, patents are only good for protecting big companies from little individuals with innovative ideas.

So, I knew from the start that I wasn’t going to like this article.

But I swear, they deliberately wrote the article to piss me off. I really think they canvassed my friends, co-workers, school teachers, ex-girlfriends. Then they sat in their little cabal, watching me through their CCTV, reading my e-mails, speculating on which arguments would best upset me. And this is what they came up with.

Here’s a fun excerpt, “You don't have to sue someone to benefit from your patent. Being able to say “this game is protected by a U.S. patent” can do wonders for marketing, attracting investors and financing, and can give your company negotiating credibility, leverage and strength in the marketplace.”

Awesome! So, I don’t have to be cruel to others, I can just keep that cruelty in reserve as a way to show how cool I am!

Here’s another great one:

“Myth 5. The “spirit of innovation” works best when there is a free market of ideas, and consumers are better off if video games are not patented.

A classic argument among those who feel that the entire patent system should be abolished. You might want to make that argument to your representative in Congress, because unless the Constitution is amended to do away with patents, they're here to stay. In drafting the Constitution, our founding fathers recognized that the best way to promote progress in the “useful arts” was to reward inventors who come forward and share their inventions with the public by granting them a limited period of exclusivity in which they can exploit the fruits of their labor. In other words, discouraging slavish copying encourages innovation.

This debate is largely academic - the patent system is here now, and it's here to stay. Most important to the game developer, however, is the fact that there are others in the industry who will inevitably seek more and more patent protection on their own game ideas. The annals of patent history are full of examples of individuals who lost out, in some cases losing out big, to others in the business who took advantage of patent protection. “

So, let me see if I've got this right. If I think that it’s morally wrong to stifle creativity by patenting aspects of my games, I’m just some wide-eyed Pollyanna who’s going to be fleeced by the evil corporations who are not afraid of the patent system. Well, isn’t that happening anyway? I mean, if any large company wants my invention, they’re going to take it whether I patent it or not. I’m not going to be protected because of a patent. And to argue that if I don’t patent these ideas, other people will, is about the same attitude we used to become the largest military force in the world.

“We have to have the Nuke, because if we don’t Hitler will”

“We have to have more Nukes than the Russians, because you know they’re building them”

“We have to have more Nukes than everybody else combined, because you never know when they’ll all attack”

That kind of thinking leads to a charming little theory called Mutual Assured Destruction.

This is the “good fences make good neighbors” thinking that games have been blissfully free of for the last 30 years. Sure, we jealously guard our secrets until our games come out, but after that, they’re fair game. By playing it that way, we have managed to assure that each company is required to innovate with each new game, or suffer the market response of a sequel. After all, Video games make more money than Film, more money than Books, more money than Radio. We are the dominant medium. Do you think that happened because we jealously guarded our ideas through patents? Or do you think that happened because we freely allowed ideas to be re-used, thus raising the bar for all games, and thus, requiring great things from every new game.

The alternative stifles innovation, and only makes money for the lawyers, which may have been the real point of the article after all.