(Minor note, I had Grok to help write this all down.)
Patents in Video Games: A Deep Dive into Protection, Problems, and Potential Fixes
Patents in video games are a fascinating yet frustrating topic. They’re supposed to be a tool to protect creativity, rewarding developers for coming up with something truly new by giving them exclusive rights to their inventions for a set period—usually 20 years. But in the fast-moving, ever-evolving world of gaming, this system often backfires. Instead of sparking innovation, patents can end up stifling it, locking down basic ideas, creating legal minefields, and giving big corporations an unfair edge over smaller studios. In this wall of text, I’m going to break it all down: what patents are, how they’re causing problems in gaming, real-world examples that show the mess in action, why this hints at deeper issues like hidden corruption, and some practical ways we could fix it. By the end, you’ll see why the current setup isn’t working and how rethinking it could make gaming more creative, competitive, and fair for everyone.
What Are Patents in Video Games?
Let’s start with the basics. A patent is a legal right granted to an inventor, giving them exclusive control over their invention for a certain time. In video games, this could mean anything from a unique game mechanic—like how characters move or fight—to a specific piece of technology, like a controller feature or a system for rendering graphics. The idea behind patents is simple: if you invent something original, you get to own it for a while, usually 20 years, so you can profit from it without others stealing your work. This makes sense in theory. If a developer spends years designing a groundbreaking mechanic, they deserve to benefit from it. But here’s where it gets tricky: gaming isn’t like other industries. It moves fast, trends change quickly, and what’s revolutionary today might be standard tomorrow. When patents lock down ideas for two decades, they can stop the industry from growing naturally, and that’s where the trouble begins.
The Problems: How Patents Can Hurt More Than They Help
The big issue with patents in video games is that they’re often too broad or used in ways that don’t really protect innovation—they protect power instead. Imagine a company patents something as simple as “jumping” in a platformer game. Suddenly, every other developer making a platformer has to either pay up, redesign their game, or risk a lawsuit. That’s not encouraging new ideas; it’s putting up roadblocks. And in gaming, where iteration—building on what came before—is how the industry thrives, these roadblocks can slow everything down. Worse, big companies with deep pockets can use patents as weapons, suing smaller studios that can’t afford to fight back. This creates a chilling effect: developers avoid experimenting with certain mechanics, not because they’re not creative, but because they’re scared of legal trouble. Let’s look at some examples to see how this plays out in real life.
Example 1: Pokémon vs. Palworld Lawsuit
Take the recent lawsuit between Nintendo, The Pokémon Company, and Pocketpair, the makers of Palworld. In 2024, Nintendo sued over the “ball throw mechanic”—you know, that thing where you toss a ball to catch a creature. If you’ve played Pokémon, it’s iconic: throw a Poké Ball, catch a Pokémon. Palworld has a similar idea, but with its own twist—capturing “Pals” in a survival game setting. The games aren’t identical, but Nintendo claims their patents cover this mechanic, and now Pocketpair is in court. Here’s the problem: throwing a ball to capture something isn’t exactly a stroke of genius. It’s a basic concept in monster-collecting games. If Nintendo can lock that down with a patent, what’s next? Patenting swinging a sword in RPGs? Shooting in a first-person shooter? This kind of overreach doesn’t protect innovation—it limits what other developers can do without living in fear of a lawsuit. For small studios like Pocketpair, fighting a giant like Nintendo could drain their resources, even if they win. That’s not a fair playing field.
Example 2: Warner Bros. and the Nemesis System
Another case is Warner Bros. and their patent on the Nemesis System from Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor. This system is pretty cool: it creates enemies that evolve based on how you fight them. If you lose to an orc, it might come back stronger, with a grudge. Warner Bros. patented it, and that patent lasts until 2035. At first glance, that seems fine—it’s a unique idea, and they deserve credit. But here’s the catch: Warner Bros. hasn’t really used it since. They canceled a Wonder Woman game that was supposed to feature it and even shut down the studio working on it. So, the Nemesis System is just sitting there, unused, but because of the patent, no one else can touch it either. That’s not protecting innovation; that’s hoarding it. If a mechanic is patented, it should be actively pushing the industry forward, not gathering dust while blocking others from building on it. Imagine if id Software had patented the entire concept of fast-paced shooting in Doom—we might never have gotten Quake or Half-Life. The Nemesis System could inspire amazing games, but right now, it’s locked away.
Example 3: Namco’s Loading Screen Mini-Games
Let’s go back in time for another example: Namco’s patent on mini-games during loading screens. From 1995 to 2015, Namco owned the rights to letting players do something interactive—like play a mini-game—while a game loaded. Think about that: for 20 years, no one else could use that idea without Namco’s permission. It finally expired in 2015, and now you see loading screen activities pop up more often. But here’s the kicker: the concept wasn’t even new when Namco patented it. Games like Invade-a-Load on the Commodore 64 in 1987 already had interactive loading screens. So, Namco didn’t invent something groundbreaking—they just locked it down legally. For two decades, a simple, useful idea was off-limits, slowing down progress for no good reason. This shows how patents can be granted for things that aren’t truly novel, clogging up the industry with unnecessary restrictions.
The Bigger Issue: Power, Money, and Hidden Corruption
These examples aren’t just random hiccups—they point to a deeper problem. Big companies can stockpile patents not to innovate, but to dominate. They can sue competitors, cancel projects to keep mechanics exclusive, or just sit on ideas while daring others to challenge them. This isn’t about rewarding creativity; it’s about controlling the market. For indie developers—the ones often driving real change in gaming—this is a nightmare. They don’t have the cash to fight lawsuits or license patented mechanics, so they either avoid certain ideas altogether or get crushed if they step on the wrong toes. It’s a form of hidden corruption: the system looks fair on paper, but in practice, it favors the powerful. Smaller studios face barriers to entry, competition shrinks, and players end up with fewer fresh games. That’s not what gaming should be about—it’s supposed to be a space for wild ideas and bold risks, not a corporate chessboard.
How Does This Compare to Other Industries?
To understand why this is such a mess, let’s compare gaming to something like pharmaceuticals. In the drug industry, patents make more sense: it takes years and billions of dollars to develop a new medicine, and companies need that 20-year window to recoup their investment. But gaming? A hit game can be made in a couple of years—sometimes less—and trends shift fast. Look at Fortnite: its building mechanic redefined battle royales in 2017, but by 2024, it’s old news, and others should be free to riff on it. A 20-year patent in gaming is like locking up a fashion trend from the 2000s—it’s outdated long before it expires. The pace of innovation in games is closer to tech or entertainment than heavy R&D fields, so the patent system feels like a square peg in a round hole. Different industries need different rules, and gaming’s current setup isn’t built for its speed or creativity.
Fixing the System: Some Practical Ideas
So, what can we do? The good news is, there are ways to tweak the patent system to make it work better for gaming. Here are a few ideas:
-
Shorter Patent Terms
Cut the 20-year term down to something like 5 or 10 years. That’s long enough for developers to profit from their ideas but short enough to let others build on them before they’re ancient history. Imagine if Doom had locked down fast-paced FPS combat for 20 years—we’d have missed out on a golden age of shooters. A shorter clock keeps the industry moving. -
Lean on Copyright and Trademarks Instead
Patents cover ideas, but copyright and trademarks protect how those ideas are expressed. Mechanics are tricky to patent anyway—they’re more about function than art. If Fortnite relied on copyright for its building system (the specific look and feel, not the concept), others could still experiment with building mechanics their own way. This keeps ideas open while still rewarding creativity. -
Better Patent Examination
Too many patents are granted for things that are obvious or already exist, like Namco’s loading screen idea. If the patent office had stricter standards—only approving truly unique, novel inventions—it’d cut down on frivolous claims and lawsuits. Less clutter, more clarity. -
Follow EA’s Lead
Some companies are already doing it right. EA made the Ping System from Apex Legends—a way to communicate without voice chat—freely available to everyone. It’s now a staple in team-based games, boosting accessibility and innovation. More companies could share certain patents like this, using them to lift the industry rather than gatekeep it.
Why This Matters—and What’s Next
Patents in video games should spark progress, not smother it. Right now, they’re often tools for big players to flex their muscle, leaving smaller developers scrambling and players with fewer bold new games. By shortening patent terms, tightening what can be patented, and encouraging sharing over hoarding, we could make gaming a freer, more dynamic space. This isn’t just about fixing a legal quirk—it’s about rooting out a quiet kind of corruption where laws meant to protect end up distorting the industry. Gaming’s the perfect place to start rethinking how we handle intellectual property, and if we get it right here, it could ripple out to other creative fields. The goal is simple: an industry where ideas can breathe, creators can thrive, and players get the wild, inventive games they deserve.
A BILL (As an example that I asked Grok provided.)
To amend the patent laws with respect to video game mechanics, to promote innovation, competition, and fairness in the video game industry.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Video Game Innovation and Fairness Act.”
SECTION 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to address the unique challenges posed by patents on video game mechanics, ensuring that the patent system fosters innovation, competition, and accessibility in the video game industry, while preventing the misuse of patents to stifle creativity or maintain unfair market dominance.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
- “Video game” means an interactive digital entertainment product, including but not limited to computer games, console games, mobile games, and virtual reality experiences.
- “Game mechanic” means a functional element or method within a video game that governs how players interact with the game, including but not limited to systems for movement, combat, resource management, or player progression.
SECTION 4. PATENT TERM LIMITATION FOR VIDEO GAME MECHANICS.
(a) Shorter Patent Terms. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of a patent granted for a game mechanic shall be 10 years from the date of filing the application for such patent.
(b) Extension Prohibition. No extension of the patent term shall be granted for patents on game mechanics beyond the 10-year period specified in subsection (a).
SECTION 5. ENHANCED EXAMINATION STANDARDS FOR GAME MECHANICS.
(a) Novelty and Non-Obviousness. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shall apply heightened scrutiny to patent applications for game mechanics to ensure that only truly novel and non-obvious inventions are granted patent protection.
(b) Prior Art Consideration. In examining patent applications for game mechanics, the USPTO shall consider prior art from within the video game industry, including but not limited to existing games, developer documentation, and academic research on game design.
SECTION 6. PROMOTION OF OPEN INNOVATION.
(a) Patent Pledges. The USPTO shall establish a program to encourage patent holders in the video game industry to pledge certain patents for free use by other developers, particularly for mechanics that enhance accessibility or promote innovation.
(b) Tax Incentives. The Internal Revenue Service shall provide tax incentives to companies that voluntarily license their patented game mechanics to independent developers at reduced or no cost.
SECTION 7. LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL DEVELOPERS.
(a) Litigation Cost Mitigation. In any patent infringement lawsuit involving a game mechanic, if the defendant is an independent developer or small studio (as defined by the Small Business Administration), the court may award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party if the court finds that the lawsuit was brought in bad faith or for anti-competitive purposes.
(b) Safe Harbor for Iterative Design. It shall not be considered patent infringement for a developer to create a game mechanic that iterates upon or improves an existing patented mechanic, provided that the new mechanic adds substantial creative or functional value.
SECTION 8. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
(a) Annual Report. The Director of the USPTO shall submit an annual report to Congress on the state of patents in the video game industry, including data on the number of patents granted for game mechanics, litigation trends, and the impact of this Act on innovation and competition.
(b) Recommendations. The report shall include recommendations for further legislative or regulatory actions to address any ongoing issues related to patents in the video game industry.