AI/LLMs Plagiarism vs. Inspiration

[Lanefan]

If your mechanics, processes, or systems are so unique and valuable as to require legal protection, it might be a thing you can protect via a patent. But you don't get a patent just by putting a thing into print - there's a separate application process that most RPGs do not bother to go through. I, personally, cannot think of a single ttrpg that has tried to patent its mechanics.

Not a TTRPG but still too close to home from D&D's viewpoint: for Magic, WotC* once tried to [patent, trademark, copyright - not sure which one applies here] the "tap a card" mechanic, i.e. the act of turning a card sideways in a card game to indicate that card's status had changed or its ability had been used.

A year or two and several courtrooms later, this got shot down. But they did try.

* - I forget whether Hasbro had yet bought them out at the time or not.

 

[soviet]

Not a TTRPG but still too close to home from D&D's viewpoint: for Magic, WotC* once tried to [patent, trademark, copyright - not sure which one applies here] the "tap a card" mechanic, i.e. the act of turning a card sideways in a card game to indicate that card's status had changed or its ability had been used.

A year or two and several courtrooms later, this got shot down. But they did try.

* - I forget whether Hasbro had yet bought them out at the time or not.

No, they were successful. They let it expire after 10 or so years.

 

[Umbran]

Not a TTRPG but still too close to home from D&D's viewpoint: for Magic, WotC* once tried to [patent, trademark, copyright - not sure which one applies here] the "tap a card" mechanic, i.e. the act of turning a card sideways in a card game to indicate that card's status had changed or its ability had been used.

Um, there's a lot of myth there.

Richard Garfield and WotC applied for a patent on "Trading Card Method of Play", with first paperwork filed in 1994 (years before the Hasbro purchase), full description in October of 1995. The patent was granted in 1997.

The patent did include tapping, but covered the full process of play, including construction of a deck, playing cards, tapping to show use, etc.

It wasn't shot down - on the contrary, it never made it into a courtroom at all! Challenges to it were either dropped, or settled out of court.

A basic patent runs for 20 years. The patent on MtG expired in 2014, twenty years after the first paperwork was filed..

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s what I meant to type. Inference is an operational cost. I was so focused on pointing out that you have to include development costs in calculating profitability that I didn’t catch the error.

Thanks for the correction!

No one is claiming a GAAP based P&L shouldn't include investment costs - that's absolutely correct for measuring total profitability. It's just not all P&L (profit and loss) statements are GAAP accounting views, and in tech there are good reasons to use additional profitability lenses.

In tech, people often say “P&L” when they mean:

• Contribution margin P&L
• Gross margin P&L
• Unit economics P&L

Big Tech cares heavily about contribution margin. If revenue per user exceeds inference cost per user, the product is potentially scalable even if the GAAP P&L is negative due to ongoing investment. That’s the lens the original statement was using.

Insisting that the only valid P&L view is GAAP total profitability, which rightfully includes development costs, hides the arguably more important question of whether the underlying economics scale. Tech investors absolutely care about contribution margin, regardless of what accounting label you put on it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No one is claiming a GAAP based P&L shouldn't include investment costs - that's absolutely correct for measuring total profitability. It's just not all P&L (profit and loss) statements are GAAP accounting views, and in tech there are good reasons to use additional profitability lenses.

In tech, people often say “P&L” when they mean:

• Contribution margin P&L
• Gross margin P&L
• Unit economics P&L

Big Tech cares heavily about contribution margin. If revenue per user exceeds inference cost per user, the product is potentially scalable even if the GAAP P&L is negative due to ongoing investment. That’s the lens the original statement was using.

Insisting that the only valid P&L view is GAAP total profitability, which rightfully includes development costs, hides the arguably more important question of whether the underlying economics scale. Tech investors absolutely care about contribution margin, regardless of what accounting label you put on it.

1) Wossisname is claiming his company’s AI products are profitable.

2) under GAAP for his company’s own general business sector (SaaS), you must include development costs to determine if a product is profitable.

3) Wossisname is ignoring development costs when he claims his company’s products are profitable in PR releases & interviews.

This is misleading the public.

You don’t need to do that if your business is on a good trajectory. That’s shady. I would absolutely NOT invest in a company that behaves like this.

And in fact, I’ve been talking with my family’s investment managers on this (and other) market sector for months- we’re removing problematic companies from our portfolio.

 

[FrogReaver]

1) Wossisname is claiming his company’s AI products are profitable.

2) under GAAP for his company’s own general business sector (SaaS), you must include development costs to determine if a product is profitable.

3) Wossisname is ignoring development costs when he claims his company’s products are profitable in PR releases & interviews.

This is misleading the public.

You don’t need to do that if your business is on a good trajectory. That’s shady. I would absolutely NOT invest in a company that behaves like this.

And in fact, I’ve been talking with my family’s investment managers on this (and other) market sector for months- we’re removing problematic companies from our portfolio.

No, he is claiming their Contribution Margin P&L is profitable. This is not misleading in the least. It’s a different financial view and consideration. He never claimed that under GAAP that he was profitable, in fact just the opposite.

 

[FrogReaver]

Anyways, I’ve stated the important bits pretty clearly, unless some new content (not just repetition of position) comes up I’m going to bow out.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

man honestly, he uncomfortable truth is most ideas aren't that valuable.

I did copyright a few terms of my own and wrote my vision (that can best be described as Monty pythons raising of swamp castle), but I personally made a conscious decision to release it to the world on my blog, so that at least somebody would use it for ...something.

I will return by asking a simple question.

what is your objective for your ideas?

do you want to make money?
do you want a legacy?

don't tell me your idea.
tell me why?

 

[Umbran]

In tech, people often say “P&L” when they mean:

• Contribution margin P&L
• Gross margin P&L
• Unit economics P&L

In tech, of all places, they should understand that clarity matters.

 

[FrogReaver]

In tech, of all places, they should understand that clarity matters.

Sure, what part feels unclear to you?