You can play with me anytime, Kash. (Rock Band, that is)

To infringe, the guitar-shaped controller would have to be considered a "musical instrument" with an audio signal output.

Gibson licensed trademarks at an early stage, sees how wildly successful the game is, and wants a bigger piece of pie. This case will settle.

All speculation and conjecture, of course.

about a month late on this news

The real news is that Rock Band was sued as well.

The Guitar Hero lawsuit is old.

It's very amusing to see all the goth/emo kids playing guitar hero at the mall. They get really into it...

11:17 - I geuss the NY Times and Marketwatch were about a month late too, huh?

yes
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVI9fVnxi-BBFYsT5sng1hnNlASQD8VC7K801

Will get tossed on SJ...

How are the retailers liable for the infringement?

Oh, and I 5-starred Won't get Fooled Again on hard this weekend. Kash, wanna make out?

Gibsons are for douchebags.

Buy a Fender.

Gibson sues everyone, they sued PRS (also played by douchebags) and lost, I believe.

According to Marketwatch, Activision DJ'ed first.

11:44-

It is infringement to sell a product covered by a patent.

Incidentally, it is also infringement to use a product covered by a patent, so you have just admitted liability by touting your 5-star glory.

anyone know if they're using outside counsel for this? if so, what firm?

Gibson should partner up with Bose (and optionally Metallica) and sue everything music-related no matter how tangentially. They're off to a good start individually.

Buy a Fender, NEVER buy Bose and listen to Steely Dan.

Hope you're not listening to SD in Alabama... those toys are still banned there, even if steam powered.

Seriously, Fenders are better. Rock band guitars are strats in the first place.

Gibson should have been smart enough cash in on the Guitar Hero craze in the first place. People buy all kinds of accessories, etc for the game and I'm sure a good number of people would pay for an official Gibson Guitar Hero guitar (of course not at the price of a real Gibson). Some kind of licensing agreement could have made Gibson a stack of cash and saved millions on a stupid lawsuit.

Greedy
Ignorant
Bastards
Suing
Over
Nothing

lotsalove for both Guitar Hero III and Rockband!

1:35 -

Gibson already licensed the guitar shapes and trademarks associated with that to the game. All the official guitar controllers are modeled after Gibson guitars.

This is a separate issue - patent infringement. Gibson happens to have a patent directed to simulating a concert performance with a virtual reality headset (where the player plays a real guitar) and claims that the Guitar Hero game itself infringes.

Patent Number: 5990405

http://www.google.com/patents?id=YAUZAAAAEBAJ&dq=5990405

I think the chief problems are "musical instrument" in the claim and the audio signal. But I'm not a lawyer.

There's a good chance this is all fallout from the death of the licensing deal for the Gibson Guitar Controller.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/03/21/guitar-hero-maker-claims-gibson-patent-complaints-inspired-by-end-of-licensing-agreement/

You can't play "The Final Countdown" on a Fender. COME ON!

11:19 - it's amusing to hear adults (I presume you are an attorney, and given the educational requirements for membership of the bar in most states, barring any Doogie Houser circumstances, you are an adult) talk about being "at the mall." What were you doing at the mall? Did you need a new pair of kicks or just have a craving for Ruby Tuesdays?

The fact that Gibson got a patent on their thing in the first place just shows that nonobviousness is a joke in patent law. Thanks a lot Federal Circuit!

4:23 How do you propose non-obviousness get determined? Maybe everyone should call you and ask?

The Final Countdown absolutely must be played on a Keytar.

I got news for you Mr. Brown, the guitar hero guitar IS a key-tar.

4:28, so you are telling me that you think that an instrument shaped controller is non-obvious? What about a gun for shooting games? Or a bat for baseball games? Or how about a golf club for golf games? I'm just saying use a little common sense, which seems to be seriously lacking on the Federal Circuit. And innovation is being stifled because of it.

11:18 -

"Common sense"...

It is clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Here's some advice. First, read the patent (or at least the claims). Then, go to law school. Then, study patent law. Next, prosecute a patent or two. Last, and only last, comment on the wisdom of the Federal Circuit in determining obviousness.

Even if you only complete step 1, you will quickly realize how moronic you sound.

Hint: the patent has nothing to do with the shape of the controller.

12:19, Hint: read the patent yourself. What is so novel about it? The whole thing can basically be summed up as a video game where one uses a guitar shaped controller to play tracks. I could go into elaborate detail about the schematics of a fishing control that has audio and video outputs that attach to audio and video inputs and blah, blah, blah. But in the end, it is a video game with a fishing controller that I am attempting to patent.

Hint #2: "A system for allowing a player using a guitar to control simulated participation in a musical concert during synchronous playback of a pre-recorded concert video track, pre-recorded left and right concert sound tracks, and a separate pre-recorded guitar track . . . ."

And hint #3: I'm not the only one that is fed up with the Federal Circuit and think they have completely dropped the ball on obviousness. Look for the Supreme Court to bench slap them with a few more of these rulings--http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/9c4e8072-873a-47d2-aa3a-fef5e4f250a1.cfm

Yes, I'll expect a few more of those... after all, the Supreme Court picks up an obviousness case once every 50 years.

In any case, the impact of KSR has been far less than the doomsdayers predicted, the Federal Circuit has only reversed about 4 lower court findings of nonobviousness since then and has significantly downplayed any effect.

So what do you propose as a better test?

And to clarify, Gibson's patent is not simply a controller. It is different from Guitar Hero in that it lets a player use an actual guitar to play music that is synched with a prerecorded concert. More like karaoke with a guitar. Is it obvious? I don't know. I don't know what the prior art is. But for you to conclusively say so, without knowing the prior art and without even appreciating the nuances, is off base.

It is true that the Rehnquist Court didn’t like to mess with the Federal Circuit. It let the Federal Circuit go unchecked. That is why the Federal Circuit was referred to as the “Supreme Court of Patents.” But guess what? This is the Roberts Court. They aren’t going to shy away from patent cases. They decided two major patent cases last term, and I believe they have already granted cert for at least one more.

And as far as “karaoke with a guitar” vs. “a video game,” I say it is half a dozen in one, six in the other. I think this whole back and forth has exemplified my point. I feel that the current nonobviousness analysis allows silly things to get patented. Clearly, you do not.

1:10 (I'm a different commenter from 12:57).

Your "feelings" are irrelevant. Unless you can propose a better test than "I know porn when I see it" analogy to obviousness, the only way you can provide any certainty in the field is by using prior art. If prior art shows that something was known, then it's obvious, otherwise it's novel. It doesn't matter if YOU think that a guitar karaoke is obvious, the question is whether anyone else has done it, or suggested that it gets done. In hindsight, almost everything is obvious (see starbucks cardboard cupholder).

Maybe we shouldn't allow a starbucks cardboard cupholder to be patented. How does that benefit the economy?

How is it detrimental, and who makes that determination?