Maybe. Or maybe we’d have less selection but more approaches to solve the same problem. That’s not great because it means games would be less approachable since they can’t borrow what works well.
I think software patents in general are stupid. The implementation is often obvious when looking at the end product, so the whole point of a patent (socialize information) isn’t relevant. The work to build it initially also isn’t particularly large for most things, certainly not to the level of pharmaceuticals. So the only purpose of a software patent is to block competition, there’s little if any social benefit to granting the patent.
Maybe. Or maybe we’d have less selection but more approaches to solve the same problem. That’s not great because it means games would be less approachable since they can’t borrow what works well.
I think software patents in general are stupid. The implementation is often obvious when looking at the end product, so the whole point of a patent (socialize information) isn’t relevant. The work to build it initially also isn’t particularly large for most things, certainly not to the level of pharmaceuticals. So the only purpose of a software patent is to block competition, there’s little if any social benefit to granting the patent.
Other approaches would be similarly clamped-down. We’d quickly run out of ways to make things happen on a screen in response to pushing buttons.
The very concept of a video game console might still be owned by Fairchild.