March 12, 2008
Guitar Hero hits a wrong note with Gibson
You’ve probably heard of Guitar Hero, the best selling game from Activision that puts a guitar-shaped peripheral in gamers’ hands and lets them play along to well known rock songs.
Guitar Hero has surpassed $1bn in retail sales in North America, sold 16m units worldwide, enlivened countless parties and prompted Guitar Hero nights comparable to karaoke ones in clubs and bars across America.
However, you’ve probably never heard of Patent Number 5,990,405 filed by the Gibson Guitar Corporation in 1999 for a “system and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience.”
The patent document describes it as a virtual-reality device where a guitar player could wear a head-mounted 3D display equipped with speakers and be given the simulated experience of playing a real concert with other musicians. It envisages the invention as a source of entertainment for professional and amateur musicians or as an aid for guitar makers in selling their products by allowing prospective buyers to recreate a concert atmosphere.
The system does not seem to have made much progress. I could find no mention of it among the current product listings on Gibson’s website and the company’s spokeswoman was travelling and unavailable for comment today.
But Gibson wrote to Activision in January alleging that Guitar Hero simulates a musical concert experience in a similar way to the device in the patent. It said it should obtain a licence for the patent or stop selling all versions of Guitar Hero and its peripherals.
In response, Activision filed a complaint in a Los Angeles court this week seeking a judgement that it has not infringed the patent.
The background is that Activision’s RedOctane subsidiary, publisher of Guitar Hero, signed an agreement with Gibson in 2005 to feature several of its famous models, such as its SG and Les Paul guitars, in the game and as peripherals.
They have featured in Guitar Hero I, II and III, but no agreement has been reached for any further titles.
Activision’s senior litigation counsel, Mary Tuck, wrote to Gibson this week saying it “knew about the Guitar Hero games for nearly three years, but did not raise its patent until it became clear that Activision was not interesting [sic] in renewing the License and Marketing Support Agreement.”
She said this suggested Gibson was not acting in good faith.
Gibson has yet to respond but, with millions in future licence fees at stake, a heavy legal riff of its own seems likely.
What do we have here i wonder?
Posted by: Martin Atherton | March 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm | Report this commentA ‘you scratch my back i’ll scratch yours’ relationship gone wrong?
A new lawyer having a lightbulb moment and seeking to make a name for themselves?
A cynical ploy to step in and take ownership now that someone has done the business bulding?
An example of why patenting ideas and doing nothing with them should be outlawed because it stifles innovation?
Only one side of a story much messier than even this suggests?
Either way, the judge which ends up making a ruling is unlikely to be able to do so with a firm grasp of the truth, so we’ll end up with a ruling based on presentation skills, which i know is how it works, but is not ideal nontheless.
At least one thing is clear, air guitar is a serious business, but all rock loving beer drinkers knew that already.
I think it’s cool, Now we can let our smartBrains on the lose!
Very good!
Posted by: Ayerthon | March 15th, 2008 at 3:08 am | Report this comment