Possible Rules Patent?

[glass]

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

Specifically, they patented the tap mechanic, I believe.


glass.

 

[helium3]

First off, a patent has to add three distinct and new improvements to an existing invention to be approved as a patent. Magic got its patent because it added value to card games. 1) It was collectible and players built their decks from a supply of cards that is different from other players. 2) It had tapping to show resource use. 3) It had a mana pool, giving the game an intangible resource each player generates and uses.

Okay. I have a hunch about where the above came from but I have to break it to you that you're research has led you to the wrong conclusions. There is a magic "Rule of Three" when it comes to whether or not an invention can be patented, but it has nothing to do with some statutory requirement that there must be three distinct innovations.

Rather, an invention simply needs to be (a) novel, (b) non-obvious and (c) useful. That's it. If you don't believe me, the best I can do is link to the wikipedia article on the subject. So, as long as an innovation satisfies all three requirements listed above, you can get a patent for it. In the US, at least. Believe me, back in my fuel cell days our start-up's IP attorney was CONSTANTLY harping on those three.

If a card game uses these features together, Wizards can technically sue them for the life of the patent. This is not always in wizard's best interest. Often games come along and violate the patent (Spoils being one of them). But it is not worth it to wizards to go after them because they do not threaten Magic's throne.

Suing someone that's infringing your patent is ALWAYS worth it. If you don't sue (or at least notify the infringer that you may sue) you pretty much lose the rights to the patent from that point on. I'm not familiar with "The Spoils", but I'm guessing it either doesn't infringe on WotC's IP or some sort of an agreement was worked out that you just aren't privy to.

Star Wars (from Decipher) is a good example of a game that purpose built its self with the patent in mind. It could use 2 but not all 3 of the features. So, a game can come non-random and have tapping and build your deck from a assortment of cards and a "mana" pool. It could have random cards and tapping but no "mana" pool etc. Star Wars choose to find another way to deal with tapping by just using activation of "mana" to power everything and have no tapping.

Actually, like I said in my earlier post, the WotC patent on the matter very narrowly defines what their invention covers and any other company's invention that does not use everything covered doesn't conflict. So, tapping is fine as long as you don't also have a deck that's custom built by the players from trading cards. I don't recall seeing anything in the independent claim about a mana pool, though.

To my understanding (and I believe Ryan Dancy said this in the open letter about the TSR acqusition) that role playing games are impossible to patent at this point in the industry.

It's a matter of prior art, as the IP attorneys like to say. You have to show that your innovation is non-obvious when looking at the prior art. What Dancy's saying is that if you look at how much "prior art" exists in the form of systems, it's hard to imagine that there's much left there to be "innovated" on. Again, no magical rule of three need apply.

The best way to OWN a game is with good gameplay, great artwork, quality pieces and a solid Brand and Trademark that people rememeber and are drawn to. The overall package can be owned, and it is there that you market your product and get people to play your game. Again, Cranium is a good example of a company doing this successfully then using their niche market in Starbucks and gaming stores to grow out into the mass market with off shoots and kid variant games. Nothing in the game is patent worthy, nearly all of it is copyrighted (artwork) and trademarks (character names, cranium clay, etc).

Absolutely. That being said, if you can introduce some patentable element into your product you can help to protect it from competitors or at the very least, force your competitors to divert some of their income stream to you in the form of royalties.

By the way, did you know that Hasbro just bought Cranium, Inc.?

Also, is it just me or do most of the posters at ENWorld rarely bother to read anyone else's posts before posting?

 

[Simon Marks]

Specifically, they patented the tap mechanic, I believe.

A US patent, it's not registered in the EU AFAIK.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Also, is it just me or do most of the posters at ENWorld rarely bother to read anyone else's posts before posting?

Large "ignore lists"? My guess anyway...

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh.

Non-attorney's should not declare that they know the law, particularly concerning a complex field of intellectual property that itself requires a separate bar exam (The U.S. Patent Bar Exam). Claiming you know when it is possible, practical, and profitable to pursue litigation over a patent is equally silly.

Citing "my lawyer told me long ago for my project" and "Wikipedia articles" is not a good substitute for actual law school, actual courses in patent law, two bar exams, and actual practice. The issues raised are complex, and can not be answered merely by looking to a few sentences of patent principals.

So, while I have no issue at all with folks offering their opinions and best educated guesses, I really hope people stop with the declarations that they know the law and have an absolute answer to the questions raised in this thread, unless they are patent attorneys.

 

[slaughterj]

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-texts/html/epc/2000/e/ar52.html

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

That doesn't mean that patents are not able to be obtained for a more general method, that happens to also cover game play.

It also explicitly excludes software... and still software patents get issued here.

Exactly. There are ways around these these "prohibitions", which are not merely failures on the part of the various patents offices to catch these while in the application stage.

 

[slaughterj]

Besides patents only last a few years (I believe 7?).

"In the United States, under current patent law, for [utility] patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. ... Other types of patents may have varying terms. For example, in the U.S., design patents (based on a decorative, non-functional design) typically have a 14-year term."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

 

[slaughterj]

Suing someone that's infringing your patent is ALWAYS worth it. If you don't sue (or at least notify the infringer that you may sue) you pretty much lose the rights to the patent from that point on. I'm not familiar with "The Spoils", but I'm guessing it either doesn't infringe on WotC's IP or some sort of an agreement was worked out that you just aren't privy to.

That is not accurate. Often it is not worth suing someone for infringement. The infringement can be minimal, and not worth the millions that a patent infringement suit often costs. The infringement can be questionable, so there can be a real risk as to whether you will recoup your costs in pursuing the matter.

Further, failure to sue on a patent does not result in the loss of patent rights. At most, it may limit your ability to pursue the patent against the infringing party if you are particularly dilatory and they do not meaningfully change the nature of their infringement. But for instance you could not sue party X because they made a homemade version of your invention for their own use and suing them isn't worth it, but a few years later, someone else could come along with a massive volume of infringement that may be worth your while to pursue.

 

[slaughterj]

Ok, I am not a lawyer, but i have done research on this subject. Patents apply to inventions and copyright to artistic expression the artwork and the product identity material (such as the named Greyhawk spells, gods, monsters etc in 3.5). Trademarks are logos, brand names and other owned names that are designated as a trademark or registered as a trademark. Dungeons and Dragons and WOTC's logos are trademarks.

Copyrights also apply to the particularly expressed text.

Product Identity is not necessarily in the realm of copyright. Product Identity appears to be a hodge podge of trademark, trade dress, copyright, and additional matters to which no IP law protects but would be protected under the OGL from those who enter into such contract.

First off, a patent has to add three distinct and new improvements to an existing invention to be approved as a patent. Magic got its patent because it added value to card games. 1) It was collectible and players built their decks from a supply of cards that is different from other players. 2) It had tapping to show resource use. 3) It had a mana pool, giving the game an intangible resource each player generates and uses.

This is incorrect, as noted in the post above.

 

[slaughterj]

Sigh.

Hopefully my posts will be useful then