If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Escapist Magazine)   Makers of Candy Crush Saga has trademarked the word Candy   (escapistmagazine.com) divider line 68
    More: Stupid, Candy Crush Saga, Saga Studios, trademarks, candy  
•       •       •

3222 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Jan 2014 at 12:46 PM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-20 12:27:06 PM
I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.
 
2014-01-20 12:43:44 PM
I don't know how to feel about this.  On the face if it, sure it's damn stupid.  On the other hand, There're so many Candy Smash Legends out there, that I can see why the developers (or whoever, I don't know) want to defend their use of the word, "candy."  Where's that patent attorney that no one seems to like when you need him/her?
 
2014-01-20 12:46:49 PM

BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.


Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.
 
2014-01-20 12:54:49 PM
Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved
 
2014-01-20 01:01:34 PM
ITT: people who still, after 50,000 threads, don't understand the differences between Copyright, Trademark, and Patent.
 
2014-01-20 01:01:50 PM

vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved


This is trademark, not patent. And "prior art" doesn't exist in trademarks, or at least not in the same way... The mark doesn't have to be new, it just has to be distinctive and cause consumers to think of the mark owner rather than a competitor. So, for example, "Apple" is a valid mark for computers, even though the term is not new. And you couldn't get a mark now for "Apple" in the computer industry, because there's not just a prior user, but a  current user who is much more well known.

/most people who rage about the farking patent system have no idea what they're talking about or why they're raging, and it ends up drowning out the fewer people with legitimate complaints and realistic solutions, so you're actually making the problem  worse
 
2014-01-20 01:02:42 PM
Pop-Cap had a fun little game called Candy Train. Since they're now a part of EA, they can afford some pushback.

This is trademark, not patent, which, though managed by the same office in the United States, are different things. Copyright is also a different thing. All protect aspects of intellectual property, but have important distinctions.
 
2014-01-20 01:07:43 PM

zimbach: Pop-Cap had a fun little game called Candy Train. Since they're now a part of EA, they can afford some pushback.


According to the status page, it's under opposition by the owners of "Candy Pang!", although it looks like they settled and are dropping the opposition proceedings. I'm sure there will be others.
 
2014-01-20 01:08:19 PM

Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.


How does this work with apps and games that had the word prior to the grant of Trademark?
 
2014-01-20 01:09:42 PM
"Benny Hsu, the maker of  All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"

This guy should get slapped just for that title alone. It's clearly meant to catch the widest range of searches possible, which means that it's probably a piss-poor game just meant to catch people in a bunch of abusive IAP.
 
2014-01-20 01:12:16 PM

vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved


Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?
 
2014-01-20 01:13:32 PM

FoxKelfonne: "Benny Hsu, the maker of  All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"

This guy should get slapped just for that title alone. It's clearly meant to catch the widest range of searches possible, which means that it's probably a piss-poor game just meant to catch people in a bunch of abusive IAP.


I'm impressed
 
2014-01-20 01:15:00 PM

Theaetetus: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

This is trademark, not patent. And "prior art" doesn't exist in trademarks, or at least not in the same way... The mark doesn't have to be new, it just has to be distinctive and cause consumers to think of the mark owner rather than a competitor. So, for example, "Apple" is a valid mark for computers, even though the term is not new. And you couldn't get a mark now for "Apple" in the computer industry, because there's not just a prior user, but a  current user who is much more well known.

/most people who rage about the farking patent system have no idea what they're talking about or why they're raging, and it ends up drowning out the fewer people with legitimate complaints and realistic solutions, so you're actually making the problem  worse


So all we need here then is an app maker that used the term "Saga" or "Crush" to file a Trademark and sue Candy Crush Saga?
 
2014-01-20 01:16:30 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.

How does this work with apps and games that had the word prior to the grant of Trademark?


If they were using it prior to registration and keep using it consistently, they can have a defense to infringement within the territory that they were using it, but King will get rights against all other newcomers.

Alternately, if the prior use was really well known, such that consumers were associating "candy" with them, rather than with King, then that can be grounds to invalidate King's registration. That's tough, though - Candy Crush  is the game everyone thinks of when you say "an app named candy", so trying to show that really, people are thinking of your Candy Farker erotic game is going to be an uphill battle.
 
2014-01-20 01:17:39 PM

walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?


galeri3.uludagsozluk.com
 
2014-01-20 01:21:04 PM

Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]


OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies
 
2014-01-20 01:23:01 PM

Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.


Theaetetus - serious question

Can you protect a game mechanic?
 
2014-01-20 01:23:12 PM

lennavan: So all we need here then is an app maker that used the term "Saga" or "Crush" to file a Trademark and sue Candy Crush Saga?


Yes. And as noted above, "Candy Pang!" is already doing it, but there's plenty of room for others.

/"Crush" might be tough, since they're not claiming exclusivity over that yet... Specifically, they've got applications for "Candy Crush", "Candy Crush Saga", and now "Candy"
//they do have an application for "Saga" - no. 85482736 - but it looks like that's currently suspended
 
2014-01-20 01:23:14 PM
Oh, wow, and your profile says you're a patent attorney. lol

:Life's funny. Wish me luck, dude.

/the "prior art" thing should have clued me in it was about patents
//cool how prior art in patents is OK sometimes
 
2014-01-20 01:25:11 PM
So to be clear, in patenting, your invention can show "prior art" and be perfectly legal and able to be granted a patent.

At least in some cases.  Or is it all cases? See, this is why I am not a lawyer.
 
2014-01-20 01:26:47 PM

walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies


Buh?
 
2014-01-20 01:28:21 PM

GRCooper: Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.

Theaetetus - serious question

Can you protect a game mechanic?


Totally, provided it's new and nonobvious. And mind you, that's the legal definition of nonobvious, not the "zomg, that's so stupid obvious, I could've done that!" definition. There are also ways to indirectly protect the mechanic, by protecting other elements that have to be done to execute the mechanic efficiently.
 
2014-01-20 01:28:52 PM

miniflea: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies

Buh?


I'm an inventor.  The actual granting of a patent takes many years, so they grant patent pending status if your idea is completely legitimate and legal.
 
2014-01-20 01:32:05 PM

zimbach: Pop-Cap had a fun little game called Candy Train. Since they're now a part of EA, they can afford some pushback.

This is trademark, not patent, which, though managed by the same office in the United States, are different things. Copyright is also a different thing. All protect aspects of intellectual property, but have important distinctions.


Yeah, there are even separate plant patents ( for asexually reproduced plants excluding tuber propagated plants) and plant breeding rights as well (for new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties).

The more I learn about intellectual property law, the more confused I get.
 
2014-01-20 01:33:04 PM

walktoanarcade: So to be clear, in patenting, your invention can show "prior art" and be perfectly legal and able to be granted a patent.

At least in some cases.  Or is it all cases? See, this is why I am not a lawyer.


"Prior art" is really just anything in the "art", that is "prior". Like the Model T is "prior art" for the Tesla Roadster, and DaVinci's flying machine is "prior art" for the Space Shuttle. What people generally mean is that there's "anticipatory prior art" - a piece of prior art that describes each and every element of the claimed invention.

So, if there's prior art, sure, the patent can be valid. There's always prior art. But if there's  anticipatory prior art, it's dead, because the invention is not "new".

But what if the art is close, but doesn't show everything? That's okay, it can be combined with other art. Peanut butter and jelly sammiches exist. Tuna fish sammiches exist. Maybe no one's ever made a peanut butter, jelly, and tuna fish sammich, so if I filed a patent application on one, it would be  new... but it would be  obvious, since all of the components are known and they would be trivial to combine.
 
2014-01-20 01:34:31 PM

FoxKelfonne: "Benny Hsu, the maker of  All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"

This guy should get slapped just for that title alone. It's clearly meant to catch the widest range of searches possible, which means that it's probably a piss-poor game just meant to catch people in a bunch of abusive IAP.


Came in here to make this exact point. Keyword stuffing should be a separate crime.
 
2014-01-20 01:36:16 PM
i1.ytimg.com

Of course they did.
 
2014-01-20 01:37:15 PM

Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.

Theaetetus - serious question

Can you protect a game mechanic?

Totally, provided it's new and nonobvious. And mind you, that's the legal definition of nonobvious, not the "zomg, that's so stupid obvious, I could've done that!" definition. There are also ways to indirectly protect the mechanic, by protecting other elements that have to be done to execute the mechanic efficiently.


Thanks

I designed a mechanic for a company that has yet to use the design (on a contract basis).

I was curious as to whether I could still use that mechanic for other designs (they specifically requested a, for example, 'jump rope' game, but the mechanic could easily be 'reskinned' and use other metaphors).

So the answer to that would be "it depends on my contract, and what they specifically requested", which means I need to run it by a lawyer

Thanks again
 
2014-01-20 01:38:52 PM

GRCooper: Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.

Theaetetus - serious question

Can you protect a game mechanic?


Conversely, can we ban QTEs?
 
2014-01-20 01:42:32 PM

Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: So to be clear, in patenting, your invention can show "prior art" and be perfectly legal and able to be granted a patent.

At least in some cases.  Or is it all cases? See, this is why I am not a lawyer.

"Prior art" is really just anything in the "art", that is "prior". Like the Model T is "prior art" for the Tesla Roadster, and DaVinci's flying machine is "prior art" for the Space Shuttle. What people generally mean is that there's "anticipatory prior art" - a piece of prior art that describes each and every element of the claimed invention.

So, if there's prior art, sure, the patent can be valid. There's always prior art. But if there's  anticipatory prior art, it's dead, because the invention is not "new".

But what if the art is close, but doesn't show everything? That's okay, it can be combined with other art. Peanut butter and jelly sammiches exist. Tuna fish sammiches exist. Maybe no one's ever made a peanut butter, jelly, and tuna fish sammich, so if I filed a patent application on one, it would be  new... but it would be  obvious, since all of the components are known and they would be trivial to combine.


I appreciate the refresher, and that's without snark because it's easy for me to forget that slight nuance.

I wish I could more explicitly speak to the one oddity having to do with this question: What does (x) have to do with (y)?     In my case, my head spun when my attorneys informed me that there was "prior art" relating to items previously invented and what I had invented, except they are nothing alike in any respect unless you get ridiculous.    Make no mistake, it's patentable, it's all good, but the prior art makes your head spin, but I relent that it IS logical.
 
2014-01-20 01:44:47 PM
Why the fark is it a saga? Why? I don't get this, it makes no sense. Can someone explain why it's a frigging saga?
 
2014-01-20 01:49:12 PM

GRCooper: Theaetetus: GRCooper: Theaetetus: BizarreMan: I'm sure the makers of Candy Land will be quite surprised.

Probably not, since Hasbro doesn't have an app version of Candyland, and the trademark filing doesn't include board games.

Theaetetus - serious question

Can you protect a game mechanic?

Totally, provided it's new and nonobvious. And mind you, that's the legal definition of nonobvious, not the "zomg, that's so stupid obvious, I could've done that!" definition. There are also ways to indirectly protect the mechanic, by protecting other elements that have to be done to execute the mechanic efficiently.

Thanks

I designed a mechanic for a company that has yet to use the design (on a contract basis).

I was curious as to whether I could still use that mechanic for other designs (they specifically requested a, for example, 'jump rope' game, but the mechanic could easily be 'reskinned' and use other metaphors).

So the answer to that would be "it depends on my contract, and what they specifically requested", which means I need to run it by a lawyer

Thanks again


(The above assumes the mechanic is even protectable)
 
2014-01-20 01:49:24 PM
I don't know how I feel about this broadly (I mean, does Hasbro have to contract with them to make a "Candy Land" app... they seem to have prior art there).

In the specific case in this article... "All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land" seems like an audacious name meant to just hit any popular game buzz word, so, I am fine with whacking this guy with a 2x4.
 
2014-01-20 01:50:13 PM
thumbs2.ebaystatic.com......thumbs1.ebaystatic.com


Are they going to go after Nintendo?
 
2014-01-20 01:50:39 PM
Bow-Wow-Wow can't be happy.
 
2014-01-20 01:50:50 PM

FoxKelfonne: "Benny Hsu, the maker of  All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"

This guy should get slapped just for that title alone. It's clearly meant to catch the widest range of searches possible, which means that it's probably a piss-poor game just meant to catch people in a bunch of abusive IAP.


Wonder if that's the same guy who named the cartoon "Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!"....
 
2014-01-20 01:53:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy#History

Ya, Well over 100 years of prior art here.
 
2014-01-20 01:56:49 PM

walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies

Buh?

I'm an inventor.  The actual granting of a patent takes many years, so they grant patent pending status if your idea is completely legitimate and legal.


If you say so.  What it sounded like to me was "I'm smart because one day people will recognize that I'm smart".
 
2014-01-20 02:01:25 PM

miniflea: walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies

Buh?

I'm an inventor.  The actual granting of a patent takes many years, so they grant patent pending status if your idea is completely legitimate and legal.

If you say so.  What it sounded like to me was "I'm smart because one day people will recognize that I'm smart".


Heh. In reality, it was: "Please don't totally dismiss me over a simple error."   Or "Yeah, I have my stupid moments, but I am definitely not an idiot."

Your version has its merits to some I concede. It wouldn't mean shiat on fark, though, but in life, yes a leg up would be nice. You could wish me good luck.
 
2014-01-20 02:04:24 PM

gnosis301: I don't know how to feel about this.  On the face if it, sure it's damn stupid.  On the other hand, There're so many Candy Smash Legends out there, that I can see why the developers (or whoever, I don't know) want to defend their use of the word, "candy."  Where's that patent attorney that no one seems to like when you need him/her?


It's not like Candy Crush Saga is anything original in game design. Bejeweled was doing the same thing 13 years ago.
 
2014-01-20 02:06:26 PM

ArcadianRefugee: FoxKelfonne: "Benny Hsu, the maker of  All Candy Casino Slots - Jewels Craze Connect: Big Blast Mania Land"

This guy should get slapped just for that title alone. It's clearly meant to catch the widest range of searches possible, which means that it's probably a piss-poor game just meant to catch people in a bunch of abusive IAP.

Wonder if that's the same guy who named the cartoon "Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!"....


No, he's the video game designer equivalent of guys who name their taxicab company, escort service, or insurance business "AAAA 1 Taxicab" or something similar (AAEscorts, A1 Insurance, etc.) because that makes it appear first in the Yellow Pages.

/Remember the Yellow Pages?
 
2014-01-20 02:11:01 PM

walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies

Buh?

I'm an inventor.  The actual granting of a patent takes many years, so they grant patent pending status if your idea is completely legitimate and legal.

If you say so.  What it sounded like to me was "I'm smart because one day people will recognize that I'm smart".

Heh. In reality, it was: "Please don't totally dismiss me over a simple error."   Or "Yeah, I have my stupid moments, but I am definitely not an idiot."

Your version has its merits to some I concede. It wouldn't mean shiat on fark, though, but in life, yes a leg up would be nice. You could wish me good luck.


In that case good luck.  What sort of stuff are you working on inventing, if you don't mind me asking?
 
2014-01-20 02:12:33 PM
Miss January, 1979 is going to be pissed
 
2014-01-20 02:16:14 PM

miniflea: walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: miniflea: walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?

[galeri3.uludagsozluk.com image 618x407]

OK you got me, but that's not a mark on my intellect because I will hold several patents before I'm dead, so...

So Candy Crush is infringing on the CandyFloss trademark. Maybe.

/and now fark knows what I does do in dis lifesies

Buh?

I'm an inventor.  The actual granting of a patent takes many years, so they grant patent pending status if your idea is completely legitimate and legal.

If you say so.  What it sounded like to me was "I'm smart because one day people will recognize that I'm smart".

Heh. In reality, it was: "Please don't totally dismiss me over a simple error."   Or "Yeah, I have my stupid moments, but I am definitely not an idiot."

Your version has its merits to some I concede. It wouldn't mean shiat on fark, though, but in life, yes a leg up would be nice. You could wish me good luck.

In that case good luck.  What sort of stuff are you working on inventing, if you don't mind me asking?


Thank you! :)
I don't mind, some of it is cat related, that I can say.
 
2014-01-20 02:16:20 PM
Since I am not involved in developing any candy related software applications I am uniquely qualified to provide an un-biased opinion: Nobody cares.
 
2014-01-20 02:48:20 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Why the fark is it a saga? Why? I don't get this, it makes no sense. Can someone explain why it's a frigging saga?


Well there actually are some very minor story cut-scenes in game at the beginning and end of each 15 level "chapter", but I believe they are only shown on the Facebook version and not on the phone version.
 
2014-01-20 02:50:51 PM
Cool, America! Now that we've turned education into a scam, and the professions of law and medicine into grubby, for-profit businesses, I think the next thing we should do is turn the English language into rich people's private property.
Don't we just f**king rock?
 
2014-01-20 02:51:14 PM
Candy Crush Saga

Nothing interesting to see here.  Carry on.
 
2014-01-20 02:56:44 PM
Step 1: Take a game that has already been done to death
Step 2: Add in some cute little birds or candy
Step 3: Profit

Maybe I can make a new Tetris game but instead of blocks I'll use kittens, or maybe slices of bacon.

/mmmm, Bacontris.
 
2014-01-20 03:20:06 PM

walktoanarcade: vermicious k'nid: Ok, there HAS to be prior art to using candy in videogames.

/farking patent system needs to be dissolved

Candyfloss (1983) (IJK Software) for the Oric-1

That wasn't too hard to find.  So,..does this mean this new patent ruling is voided?  I think it should prove there is prior art for a video game with "Candy" in the title, and at 1983, it is still in effect.

/went through all systems
//can you find another?


What patent ruling are you talking about? This is a trademark. Or are you being loudly opinionated despite not knowing that trademarks, patents and copyright are actually different things that work differently?
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report