Supreme Court rules sales in US and abroad extinguish seller's patent rights

[FAST6191]

While it is nice to know I can definitely buy a chip that encodes a video and use that in a further product (it got a bit hazy with some communications standards a couple of years back), and other such things where a country is silly enough to have software patents, and likewise I am happy to see what would be known as core charges in automotive circles have some clarification. I am not sure what relevance it has to some of the things mentioned in the OP though.

I read the source as well. Definitely a patent affair. Everything I have seen for let's plays and the like have been copyright and trademark related*, and terms of service that spring from each of those. I doubt a judge/court would rush to make an equivalent ruling or use it as a base without serious further consideration either -- with the ways patents are supposed to work, and work in practice, this sort of thing I can see being a good move to prevent stifling of innovation, for copyright and especially trademark I am not sold as is.
For games the best I can see is those that make third party modded controllers are clear from the patent angle, should be easy enough to dodge basic trademarks (don't use the name/imply authorisation), don't know what would go for colours if there is a design patent/industrial design right thing involved and I can't especially see a copyright angle. DMCA I don't know and any "cheating" is an end user problem.

*edit I tell a lie. I saw that world of tanks thing a few weeks back which might actually fall under some kind of contract law, or at least be heading there. Still not a patent thing though.

 

[RustInPeace]

Huh, does this explain a tweet by some guy who made a video of himself acting out the Eevee Z-move Extreme Evoboost? He said TCPi can't take it down, and now I guess it's in response to this. So fanmade games are protected under this Supreme Court ruling? I'm referring to this.

https://twitter.com/The_One_Gio/status/869875535995731968

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

Today is a great day for gaming.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

While it is nice to know I can definitely buy a chip that encodes a video and use that in a further product (it got a bit hazy with some communications standards a couple of years back), and other such things where a country is silly enough to have software patents, and likewise I am happy to see what would be known as core charges in automotive circles have some clarification. I am not sure what relevance it has to some of the things mentioned in the OP though.

I read the source as well. Definitely a patent affair. Everything I have seen for let's plays and the like have been copyright and trademark related, and terms of service that spring from each of those. I doubt a judge/court would rush to make an equivalent ruling or use it as a base without serious further consideration either -- with the ways patents are supposed to work, and work in practice, this sort of thing I can see being a good move to prevent stifling of innovation, for copyright and especially trademark I am not sold as is.
For games the best I can see is those that make third party modded controllers are clear from the patent angle, should be easy enough to dodge basic trademarks (don't use the name/imply authorisation), don't know what would go for colours if there is a design patent/industrial design right thing involved and I can't especially see a copyright angle. DMCA I don't know and any "cheating" is an end user problem.

The original lawsuit was cited as copyright and trademark infringement iirc. So it would be logical to suggest that those two come under this ruling.

 

[FAST6191]

That is not good logical leap to make; the big three types of intellectual property cover rather different concepts and aim to do rather different things, and as such are applied in quite different ways at times.
So I read the supreme court ruling as well, probably should have done that before the previous post but oh well, and still definitely a patent affair. It contrasts patent law with copyright law at a point (page 4 of the PDF and covered a bit more in other opinions, including a subtly different interpretation from Justice Ginsburg, which would also appear to allow resale of items) but makes no judgement on any copyright or trademark concerns. If the original lawsuit has something in it then it is nothing to do with this.

In any case I am still not seeing the relevance for the list of things mentioned.

 

[delete12345]

That is not good logical leap to make; the big three types of intellectual property cover rather different concepts and aim to do rather different things, and as such are applied in quite different ways at times.
So I read the supreme court ruling as well, probably should have done that before the previous post but oh well, and still definitely a patent affair. It contrasts patent law with copyright law at a point (page 4 of the PDF and covered a bit more in other opinions, including a subtly different interpretation from Justice Ginsburg, which would also appear to allow resale of items) but makes no judgement on any copyright or trademark concerns. If the original lawsuit has something in it then it is nothing to do with this.

In any case I am still not seeing the relevance for the list of things mentioned.

I see. I'll retract my statement, along with an update to reflect upon this.