Guitar Heroes? Not Anymore
|
As of today, the winner of the title for biggest party-pooper in the world goes to Gibson Guitar Corp, who is trying to shut down sales of Guitar Hero, the hugely popular video game for wannabe and real-life rockers that is essentially lip-synching for guitars. Gibson's ticked off that Activision, the creators of the coveted Guitar Hero, is making money hand over first on the popular game, but hasn't acquired a license under a patent, controlled by Gibson. "Gibson's 1999 patent covers a virtual-reality device that included a headset with speakers and that simulated participating in a concert, according to a complaint filed on Tuesday by Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles," says the Associated Press. Not surprisingly, Activision argues that a license under the patent isn't required. This is what I say. I think Gibson is jealous that more people are shelling out money to play Guitar Hero than to play Gibson guitars and to take guitar lessons. I also think it sucks that companies get to muck up the court systems with their precious debates over what essentially amounts to a whole lotta whining over the money they aren't making but someone else is. Envy is such a despicable character flaw. Not to say that there aren't totally legitimate patent infringements that warrant court action and attorneys and justice doled out. But don't you feel like the original intention underscoring the laws governing patent infringements were for the little guys. You know, those enterprising inventors who orchestrated brilliant ideas out of basement-level laboratories or on the kitchen table. Instead, these kinds of intellectual property lawsuits have become the domain of billion-dollar companies, and despite their often high price tags, they are usually a dime a dozen. I just wonder what the ideal world would be for these companies, when it comes to patents. Would it please if every piece of information, every idea, was safely locked up? And then I wonder how they must feel about such outlandish systems like the public library, where information sharing is cherished and encouraged. Would that make them blanch? I especially think about this when considering the whole file-sharing debate, and whether it's fair to share music, or if it's true that artists are being wronged as a result. But then I'm reminded of the hundreds of thousands of books that sit in libraries and how authors aren't coming forward to scream about people reading novels, poetry and science books for free. Or what about galleries and museums, where artists' works are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people, who in most cases, have no intention of buying anything off the walls. Shouldn't Gibson just be pleased that a lot of the buzz surrounding Guitar Hero, and for that matter Rock Band, is the potential to inspire people to pick up an instrument, and at the very least, develop respect for musicianship. As someone who absolutely sucks at Guitar Hero and has been booed off the stage nearly every time I've played it, I've definitely developed an admiration for guitar heroes that I formerly hadn't. Instead, they come away sounding like the biggest whiners in the book, not to mention, so way uncool. |
Comments (5)
I don't own a Gibson guitar or Guitar Hero; won't likely buy either. I love my Martin Guitar and prefer it to both....
Using Gibson's logic, I should sue over the Moped (I thought of it first as a kid riding a bicycle up/down steep hills) and the IPOD (I thought of that when Star Trek was in original broadcast). I deserve compensation for having thought of these things before anyone else. Nevermind that I didn't develop a useful version of either; I want my money.
And oddly enough, the people involved in creating both the Moped and the Ipod weren't even BORN when I was dreaming of these things. Doesn't that mean I deserve additional compensation?
Posted by MartinGuitarsRule | March 21, 2008 1:39 PM
You said:
"But don't you feel like the original intention underscoring the laws governing patent infringements were for the little guys. You know, those enterprising inventors who orchestrated brilliant ideas out of basement-level laboratories or on the kitchen table."
What kind of nonsense is that? Patent and copyright laws protect everyone, no matter how big or small.
Saying the patent system is broken is one thing, saying it should only apply to the "little guys" is just silly.
Posted by Charles | March 21, 2008 1:41 PM
After looking at Gibson's patent and at an actual Guitar Hero setup, I find them without a credible complaint.
The Guitar Hero equipment only superficially resembles a guitar. The buttons on the device do not correspond to any realistic production of chords or notes. Nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that the use of Guitar Hero equipment and games would teach anyone how to play a guitar.
The 1999 Gibson patent covers a virtual-reality device that included a headset with speakers and that simulated participating in a concert. Such a description would render the use of a stick of wood used as an "air guitar" as a violation of the patent. As the "air guitar" concept was in prior, world-universal usaged prior to the Gibson patent application; I have to rule that their patent is null and void.
If they wish to redo their application for the use of an actual electric guitar hooked to a virtual reality environment for the purpose of entertainment and instruction, then that patent should be specific enough to be granted. However, they'd better hurry before someone else beats them to it.
Posted by Michael D. Houst | March 21, 2008 2:57 PM
I agree. I own Guitar Hero and regular 4 guitars, none of them Gibson. They have always considered themselves as the elite of guitar manufacturers, so I've always bought others. Now it just proves the point. I consider them over priced and definitely wouldn't buy one of their guitars now.
Make your money by innovation, not taking someone elses because they made more.
Good job with the article.
Posted by Kevin | March 21, 2008 5:14 PM
As a musician, this lawsuit doesn't surprise me. While I respect the owners of Gibson for saving the company about 20 years ago, in recent years they have become notorious in the business for bringing lawsuits. I thought they would have learned their lesson when Paul Reed Smith soundly defeated them in court. I mean, come on people! The success of this game is the best free advertising they could ask for. If only a small percentage of the people who play this game go on to actually pick up the guitar, it means a lot more Les Pauls will get sold. Gibson's marketing people clearly aren't being consulted by senior management.
At times like this I think Shakespeare was right.
Posted by Joe Kabke | March 21, 2008 11:06 PM