The points you make are the exact reason why people are looking at this patent in a funny way.
What they are describing in the patent is basically a save game or checkpoints for subchapters in a game. This is not innovative or new and that is the problem. You can’t patent something that can already be considered public domain or common practice.
It’s very much a big deal if this has been done somewhere else. The patent is obscure enough to look unique but it common enough to start years long legal battles.
On reading the patent, it is specifically referencing streamed game checkpoints. That is, believe it or not, very different than save games stored locally. Still, I find it hard to believe that NVidia, Google or Nintendo wouldn’t have a patent for that already. If not, it may still be considered common use.
The devil is in the details for this issue. Is it really a new thing or is it “reverse” patent trolling?
The points you make are the exact reason why people are looking at this patent in a funny way.
What they are describing in the patent is basically a save game or checkpoints for subchapters in a game. This is not innovative or new and that is the problem. You can’t patent something that can already be considered public domain or common practice.
It’s very much a big deal if this has been done somewhere else. The patent is obscure enough to look unique but it common enough to start years long legal battles.
On reading the patent, it is specifically referencing streamed game checkpoints. That is, believe it or not, very different than save games stored locally. Still, I find it hard to believe that NVidia, Google or Nintendo wouldn’t have a patent for that already. If not, it may still be considered common use.
The devil is in the details for this issue. Is it really a new thing or is it “reverse” patent trolling?