We still think Gibson's attempt to claim that Guitar Hero
violates its patent on "simulating a musical performance with a musical instrument" is totally unfounded and ridiculous for a number of reasons (it involves a "3-D headset," for one), but we can sort of see why the company is now suing Harmonix as well -- they're a Fender outfit, after all. The third in a series of
petulant lawsuits filed by the notoriously litigious guitar maker over the patent claims Harmonix, Viacom, and Electronic Arts are all liable for
Rock Band, but it's not clear if Gibson is going after just the guitars or the drum kit as well, which is probably closer to actually counting as an
instrument. Of course, the patent itself hasn't changed since the last time we read it, and it's obvious that Gibson's going to have itself quite a challenge convincing the court that playing Guitar Hero or Rock Band involves musical instruments of any kind -- after all, it's just Simon, right?
Disclaimer: Nilay is a lawyer and a rock star, but he's not your lawyer (or your monkey, man) and this is not legal advice or analysis.
posted March 21st 2008 5:55PM
what a ridiculous law suit. If you can't make original music with it then it ain't an instrument unless you think the sound of flapping plastic is music
Have you played GH? You can make original music with it.
Hey, I'm not going to read through all the posts concerning this topic, but it seems as though Gibson has endorsed the guitar hero line, and by them the intellectual property of the design of the guitar hero controller, it would make perfect sense to me why they are suing rock band's fender controller. It is exactly the same with the exception of the lower fretted buttons. But it seems like, if that is the basis for this lawsuit, they have a case...
Now I will go back to never posting on engadget
They're suing about Guitar Hero as well...
Also, in my mind, Strat != Les Paul therefore Gibson can fuck off. I tune my own guitars.
Actually, reading Gibson's patent claims, their assertion seems to have a lot of merit. Looking at e.g. claim 1 it seems that all features are arguably present in Guitar Hero (remember that only the features of the independent claims are relevant i.e. there is no need for any "3D headset" etc to be present for infringement to be found). An argument that a Guitar shaped device allowing the user to control a musical output is a musical instrument also seems fairly reasonable. However it seems more questionable that the "instrument" can be shown to generate an "audio signal". My understanding is that the Guitar Hero controller provides mere "switched" binary control signals which may not be considered equivalent to an audio signal.
As always with infringement scenarios there are arguments either way, but I have certainly seen more frivolous cases than this.
Merit or not - I believe the timing of this lawsuit to be odd, until you think about it for a little while. I've thought since the first Guitar Hero that people would be spending more time on GH and RB than on real musical instruments. The impact is finally hitting home, so Gibson has resorted to cheap, patent based tactics... too bad the hit on their public image will probably hurt them worse...
Ummm did it occur to the instrument makers that Rock Band feeds into the fantasy of becoming a real musician which will lead to increased sales of real instruments? When you have a symbiotic relationship, why punch your host?