Possible Rules Patent?

[JohnRTroy]

This sort of affects 4e.

Considering all the changes to the background, and the limitations of the OGL this time around, and considering there are several mechanics changes...

Does anybody get the sense that to prevent reverse-engineering, Wizards might try (or even already applied) for a Patent for any new mechanics?

Having a patent would prevent people from even reverse engineering the game--or at least the patented elements. If you critically patent a new mechanic, it would prevent copying of the game for probably the lifetime of 4e.

Note the secrecy--we don't get to see the mechanics yet, the OGL and game is covered by an NDA. I suspect there will be a critical part of 4e that might be patented. Wizards was successful in patenting collectable trading card games.

Considering how different this game is from all prior incarnations, I'd think it's a possibility.

[SteveC]

I would say no. There is absolutely nothing that I have seen in 4E that hasn't been done in some fashion in other RPGs.

The sheer number of RPGs out there can boggle the mind, and whenever I see someone talk about a revolutionary new game mechanic there is always a chorus of "that was done in Game X years ago." Typically a lot of these games come out of the 80's, so the decade has at least one thing going for it.

--Steve

[herald]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

This sort of affects 4e.

Considering all the changes to the background, and the limitations of the OGL this time around, and considering there are several mechanics changes...

Does anybody get the sense that to prevent reverse-engineering, Wizards might try (or even already applied) for a Patent for any new mechanics?

Having a patent would prevent people from even reverse engineering the game--or at least the patented elements. If you critically patent a new mechanic, it would prevent copying of the game for probably the lifetime of 4e.

Note the secrecy--we don't get to see the mechanics yet, the OGL and game is covered by an NDA. I suspect there will be a critical part of 4e that might be patented. Wizards was successful in patenting collectable trading card games.

Considering how different this game is from all prior incarnations, I'd think it's a possibility.

I don't think that you can patent game rules. You can copyright, but no patent. And while they have applied for patents for things replating to games, I don't know that they have recieved them yet.

[JohnRTroy]

Originally Posted by herald

I don't think that you can patent game rules. You can copyright, but no patent. And while they have applied for patents for things replating to games, I don't know that they have recieved them yet.

Actually you are wrong, there are hundreds of patents that have been given to games. Here's a site showing some of them.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/20416

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by herald

I don't think that you can patent game rules. You can copyright, but no patent. And while they have applied for patents for things replating to games, I don't know that they have recieved them yet.

Other way around. You can't copyright rules mechanics (although you can copyright your expression of them and force others to rephrase them in their own words).

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by SteveC

I would say no. There is absolutely nothing that I have seen in 4E that hasn't been done in some fashion in other RPGs.

Some may comment that the US Patent Office is not always particularly thorough in their research on prior art. In theory, one should not be able to get a patent on a thing that has been in use by others before you, but in practice the Patent Office would have to actually know about and find said prior uses.

So, they might be able to get a patent. That patent would likely fall to challenge - but challenging it would require someone with the funds to wage a legal battle over the thing.

I am not of the opinion that WotC would play this kind of dirty pool these days, but it is in theory possible to do so.

[Dragonblade]

You can patent the rules, but since the OGL already exists, is unrevokable and effectively opens up d20, it could easily be argued that a 3rd party's game was derivative of the OGL and not 4e specifically. It could even be argued that even if what they derive from the OGL looks like 4e, it should be treated as a separate and distinct property.

Heck if Joanne Siegel can successfully win lawsuits against DC claiming that Superboy is technically an entirely different property than Superman and thus the Siegels own it, then you can challenge anything. (The real case is a bit more complex, but the example works).

Of course thats copyright law and not patent law, but it just depends on what kind of lawyers you have. Besides patents only last a few years (I believe 7?) unlike copyrights which last for the lifetime of the copyright filer +75 years. When that time is up, then 4e would be fair game for all. (The rules anyway, their IP would still fall under copyright law.)

I suspect that WotC won't patent because doing so would set a date not too far off when those rules would be fair game for all regardless of any OGL. They'd be better off keeping to the OGL and everything in the realm of copyright law which allows them much more control.

[JohnRTroy]

Actually I don't think it's "dirty" to get a patent.

I specifically think there might be something in the new 4e rules that could potentially be patentable. Note that we have yet to see a single example of combat or statistical blocks, other than that Spined Devil card. It's probably difficult to do, but not out of the realms of possibility. Wizards alone applied for patents, and Hasbro has several patented games.

Actually, they are protected by both Patent and Copyright law. Getting a patent wouldn't mean they wouldn't support the OGL, but it would mean you'd be forced to adopt this new OGL (or whatever it will be called) to use the new 4e rules. Attempting to reverse-engineer the game under the old OGL would likely bring the patent protection into play. If they chose to get a patent, and it was applied, then you'd have the protection you need.

Patents last either 17 or 20 years. How many editions have lasted 20 years--it's mostly been 10-15. That would be enough time for them to have 4e and then update to 5e with new patents...

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

Actually I don't think it's "dirty" to get a patent.

To be clear - I don't at all think that getting a patent is "dirty", and wasn't attempting to say so. I think getting a patent on something you already know has prior art that would void it, in an attempt to force competition to go through legal battles before they can use said prior art themselves is dirty pool.

If they have something in there that isn't covered by prior art, that really is new and innovative enough to call for it, then more power to them!

[JohnRTroy]

Oh, I agree, too. I would dislike patents on obvious things. But I think there is room for patentable games. I just wonder if all these radical changes to D&D might have something that could be patentable.

There are precious few examples I can think of. Maybe the first Diceless RPG? The d10x mechanic from Cyborg Commando? (Multiply the dice instead of adding or using them for base 10). It would have to be something like that, IMO.

[Simon Marks]

One of the things I have researched is Patents relating to games.

The US and European Union have different laws in this regard. US patents can be applied to games, in the EU they can't.

http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal...00/e/ar52.html

Article 52, 2C of the EU Patent convention explicitly excludes 'methods for...playing games'

[Gryffyn]

Didn't Wizards get a patent on collectible card games a while back, since they published the first one?

[herald]

Originally Posted by Morrus

Other way around. You can't copyright rules mechanics (although you can copyright your expression of them and force others to rephrase them in their own words).

I see that I am corrected on the copyright issue. But it looks like I am part right on patent issue. The whole game cannot be handled under one patent, but you can patent parts of it.
The Monopoly game has patented the game board for example, but not the rules.

The examples from http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/20416 show that the games have patents involved in them, but not a patent for the over all game.

However, if people feel that this is splitting hairs then I will conceed the point. It just seems that it's the devices in the games that are patented, not the actual rules. Have any of the games put out for TSR and WOTC had a patent for the whole game before? (It would seem to me that Magic would come closest to that concept.)

I would also like to say that getting a patent isn't a bad thing. Many people patent things to prevent others from doing so and charging for it.

[Frostmarrow]

Originally Posted by Gryffyn

Didn't Wizards get a patent on collectible card games a while back, since they published the first one?

I heard tapping cards (turn them to three o'clock) is a patent owned by WoTC. I hear lots of weird stuff, though.

[helium3]

Originally Posted by Frostmarrow

I heard tapping cards (turn them to three o'clock) is a patent owned by WoTC. I hear lots of weird stuff, though.

It's true, for the most part.

I've got some experience with patents so I was able to parse out what the WotC patent for tapping actually was.

To be covered under their patent (and I'm not a lawyer, mind you) it seemed like you needed two things.

(1) A game that utilizes a deck built from collectable cards.
(2) A game where the players "activate" cards by turning them ninety degrees.

Seriously, that's the patent. And, as I understand it, the real innovation is in the tapping mechanic.