Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4622922" data-attributes="member: 40961">I'm not an IP specialist.  I am someone who's taken IP classes in law school. And all I'm saying is this- under current law, there's no protection for the mathematical model for the game.  But current law exists because of the current business environment, and the law in this area is, in my opinion, very responsive to an underlying concern of making sure that everyone gets along just well enough for business to flourish.   The current business environment doesn't involve many (any?) meaningful attempts by businesses at transparently crafting knockoff versions of games.  But if knockoffs took off, or just happened in a few situations where there was a lot of money to be made, I think the legal regime would change.   I think there are enough hooks on which to hang an argument about the processes of games being inherently creative because of the manner in which they artistically and aesthetically create a user experience.  I don't think that argument is correct under current law!  But I think the argument is plausible in terms of changed interpretations or small congressional revisions to current law.  And I think that the process by which computer programs ended up copyrightable, with all of its square pegs bashed repeatedly until they fit in round holes, provides a good example of how this could take place. Right now, no one is making knock off copies of Carcassonne or Ticket to Ride.  Lets say a company came into being that only sold games that were exact clones of existing board games, but with altered titles, artwork, and themes.  Does anyone seriously believe that the legal environment would not respond to this change?  There's really only three possible reponses.  1. Companies could accept lower bottom lines. 2. Companies could start patenting their games instead of leaving them in legal limbo, resulting in fewer games, particularly from smaller companies, due to increased up front investment, and 3. the law could adjust itself to provide greater protections to intellectual properties in games.</blockquote>

Verification