No Man's Sky could be in serious legal trouble

Surely they would have thought about this during the last few years of development ? You can't just sweep something like this under the rug, seeing as its basically the backbone of the game.
 
Crableg said:
Surely they would have thought about this during the last few years of development ? You can't just sweep something like this under the rug, seeing as its basically the backbone of the game.
Click to expand...

No one was sweeping anything under the rug... The devs repeatedly told anyone who would listen that they are using the algorithm. Thing is, there is massive debate in the software world about the patentability of an algorithm. In general, it's a description of a method of doing something, which might fall under patent law. Here, though, it's a mathematical description (from what I could tell), which is as patentable as me telling you that the sky is blue - it's merely a description of something.

Either way, the original author has indicated that they have no intention of holding up the game; if anything, a license fee will be applicable.
 
Well it's led to some interesting discussion in office.

Sean Murray has used part of the algorithm, and equation to be exact, by which he has then created his own algorithm upon said equation presumably? Now you don't code in algorithms and applications or computers read in binary, so how would this be proved if he now just says that the equation wasn't used. Also at the end of the day, it's just maths, who owns maths? I understand this bloke has trademarked his equation/algorithm, but is that trademark only applicable in Denmark (or the country he is in)?

If I was Sean I would let this go to court if he so wanted, and see how it plays out. This is going to be very hard to prove in a court of law.
 
BeoTeK said:
Well it's led to some interesting discussion in office.

Sean Murray has used part of the algorithm, and equation to be exact, by which he has then created his own algorithm upon said equation presumably? Now you don't code in algorithms and applications or computers read in binary, so how would this be proved if he now just says that the equation wasn't used. Also at the end of the day, it's just maths, who owns maths? I understand this bloke has trademarked his equation/algorithm, but is that trademark only applicable in Denmark (or the country he is in)?

If I was Sean I would let this go to court if he so wanted, and see how it plays out. This is going to be very hard to prove in a court of law.
Click to expand...

Not trademarked, patented. Trademark is when you call your thing WonderUberThing, then no one else may use the name. A patent is a description of the method by which something works, such as the Coca Cola recipe - I couldn't (while the patent was active) recreate the recipe in my garage and then bottle it and sell it under WonderUberThing (tm), as the recipe is patented by the Coca Cola Corp.

EDIT: Also, I don't know the particulars of this, but IIRC correctly the EU and US patent offices recognize each other's authority, i.e. filed in Denmark == filed in the US, but typically patents are filed in the US office and then you're done with it.
 
Last edited:
Avatar said:
Not trademarked, patented. Trademark is when you call your thing WonderUberThing, then no one else may use the name. A patent is a description of the method by which something works, such as the Coca Cola recipe - I couldn't (while the patent was active) recreate the recipe in my garage and then bottle it and sell it under WonderUberThing (tm), as the recipe is patented by the Coca Cola Corp.

EDIT: Also, I don't know the particulars of this, but IIRC correctly the EU and US patent offices recognize each other's authority, i.e. filed in Denmark == filed in the US, but typically patents are filed in the US office and then you're done with it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my bad for getting confused with terminology, I hope you understood my intent there.

Either way, it fundamentally mathematics isn't it, how do you patent that? You don't.
 
BeoTeK said:
Sorry, my bad for getting confused with terminology, I hope you understood my intent there.

Either way, it fundamentally mathematics isn't it, how do you patent that? You don't.
Click to expand...

Oh, dude, you were clear, I was just being pedantic :D

I think the validity will really come down to exactly what was patented. If the method being used in the algorithm was patented, they might have a leg to stand on. But, like you said, if it's just the algorithm/formula itself, then no luck, IMO.
 
Avatar said:
Oh, dude, you were clear, I was just being pedantic :D

I think the validity will really come down to exactly what was patented. If the method being used in the algorithm was patented, they might have a leg to stand on. But, like you said, if it's just the algorithm/formula itself, then no luck, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm in agreement there. If I were Sean I would actually let it play out and see what the courts say. Though that being said, sounds kinda like this GeniCap company doesn't want to get things ugly or delay anything. They're being somewhat civil about it, at least at this point.


On the most positive note, an out-of-court settlement (quoting the words "normal discussion" uttered by Gielis himself through the TechRaptor article) may square off the issue once and for all...
Click to expand...
 
BeoTeK said:
Yeah, I'm in agreement there. If I were Sean I would actually let it play out and see what the courts say. Though that being said, sounds kinda like this GeniCap company doesn't want to get things ugly or delay anything. They're being somewhat civil about it, at least at this point.
Click to expand...

That's the impression I'm getting as well. Maybe the guy's a gamer? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top