What baffles me is how the entire process seems to work.
If video games patents are to be allowed, I think that at the very least they should require the entire composition to be included, a comprehensive description of how the entire game works from top to bottom, otherwise we end up with scenarios like this, fucking patents about video game mechanics that serve no purpose when seem in isolation other than restrict what other people can do with their own games.
Although a far better option would be to just ban them entirely.
You're confusing copyright and patents here somewhat. "The entire composition" would be an "original work", which is protected by copyright.
Patents, instead, protect "novel solutions to problems". So for a patent to be granted, you need to describe a problem that exists, and a "novel" solution for that problem (one that has not been used before). In addition, the solution can't be obvious - it needs to have some level of "smartness" to it, or it won't be granted.
So, with video games, the only thing you
could patent to begin with, would be very specific mechanics.
The original idea behind patents was to encourage publishing solutions to problems for all to see, so that everyone benefits from them, with as "reward" for the inventor a time-limited exclusivity on selling products that include this invention.
Of course, this is not quite adequate anymore in today's day and age: specifically in the software world, new "inventions" are made and then become irrelevant again (because something better comes along) within just a few years.
For reference, Europe (and probably some other places, I'm by no means an expert on the subject) hasn't allowed software patents for some time. Technically no places should accept patents for anything that isn't physical. However, it has been commonplace to "make physical" software solutions by writing patents in the form of "suppose you have a machine that can run arbitrary instructions, and that you write instructions such as the following...". Now the patent is not about the instructions by themselves, but about a physical machine that just happens to have very specific instructions to run. Yeah, that sounds kinda stupid, and is exactly why Europe decided not to allow that nonsense. (Of course, the instructions themselves are still protected by copyright, but not the "idea" behind the instructions. If you write different instructions that have the same end result, you're not violating the copyright of the original instructions at all.)
In general, you're absolutely right it's been time for some serious IP rights reform. Copyright has protections that are way too strong for how long it lasts (over a hundred years, depending on jurisdiction!), and no longer really ensures artists are rewarded for their efforts but instead mostly serves big corporations. Patents no longer encourage inventions but instead slow them down. Trademarks are the only ones that are still somewhat sensible and up-to-date with what makes sense in the modern world, but way too cumbersome to be practically useful for small players that are not big corporations.
Hopefully that shed some light on how the entire process works!
Source
