Ranger REG
Explorer
And yet I see no evidence of any rules patent.Lord Xtheth said:
Possible Rules Patent?
- Thread starter JohnRTroy
- Start date
slaughterj said:
Considering how patents work, what in a rpg can be patented? There is plenty of materials that can be protected by copyrights and trademarks, but what about the game system or how it is delivered to the public can they innovate and own, keeping competitor's from following them. Anything I can think of involves software and even then its questionable and not ironclad, nor anything that would be adopted by this generation of D&D players nor any gained by 4e in the immediate future. As long as the gather around the table/ living room method of play is preferred, D&D is going to be in books.
To my understanding the very reason there even is an OGL/ d20 liscense is because WOTC can't patent the system. The best way to keep people from stealing their work is to let them come play in their sandbox. Ultimately, those companies doing so encourage a player's handbook sale. WOTC's professionalism and production values does the rest.
In fact, you can see how they are pushing on the IP. Making monsters, named content and other ownable material. Focusing on campaign settings with characters and storyline they can own. That is where D&D holds value. Not its game system. We saw the first of these moves when the ogl went from 3.0 to 3.5 and they locked down certain monsters (beholder, githyanki, illathid and displacer beast I am looking at you) and the greyhawk spell names.
slaughterj said:
Sigh
You can't patent game mechanics. A new method for playing an old game using the old instruments of the game is not patentable according to Canadian Patent laws. To repeat what I previously posted:
A method for playing a game with a gaming apparatus or article is only patentable when the apparatus or article is new and inventive, or the apparatus or article is being used for a new and non-analogous use.
A new arrangement of printed or design matter may form the subject matter of a patent if it performs a mechanical function or purpose in consequence of use 58. [...] If the novelty lies solely in the meaning of the printed words or the aesthetic appeal of the printed or design
matter, it is not considered patentable subject matter. Such matter is also referred to as nonfunctional descriptive matter.
A method of playing a board game or a game involving cards is considered to be patentable subject matter if the game board or cards are themselves novel and inventive. This can occur if the board or cards bear a new arrangement or design that provides some inventive functional use.
A new arrangement of printed or design matter may form the subject matter of a patent if it performs a mechanical function or purpose in consequence of use 58. [...] If the novelty lies solely in the meaning of the printed words or the aesthetic appeal of the printed or design
matter, it is not considered patentable subject matter. Such matter is also referred to as nonfunctional descriptive matter.
A method of playing a board game or a game involving cards is considered to be patentable subject matter if the game board or cards are themselves novel and inventive. This can occur if the board or cards bear a new arrangement or design that provides some inventive functional use.
So to examine D&D within the above rules.
What do you use to play D&D: writing tool, paper, dice, miniatures, graph paper, character sheet. None of them are patentable, except for possibly the character sheet. And even then, there would have to be a *very* impressive improvement in the character sheet for it to qualify as a patent. The character sheet would have to show an improvement over previous character record sheets.
slaughterj
Explorer
Mistwell said:
As I said, it really depends on each set of circumstances. There are plenty of small businesses for which the cost is an issue. There are also plenty of businesses which create a large number of products, and only the most significant warrant the cost and effort of registration. There are plenty of businesses which change names of products, add and drop products, etc. from time to time, for which registration of name would not be of much value. So, to the contrary, registration is not a better option in most situations. Rather, it is simply an option to be weighed for each set of circumstances.
Further, look at the voluminous products at major retailers, and you will see many marked with "TM" rather than (R). They will continue to be so marked years later, indicating that the manufacturers and the retailers (for their own house brands) do not feel registration is warranted, and I'd bet many of them have competent IP lawyers.
For yet another example, look at the perfume business. It is a multi-billion dollar industry, in which product names are very important. However, many perfumes (and their respective names) have a short life cycle (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...9CDF7BEC9DD7}&dist=&print=true&dist=printTop), which does not warrant the expense and effort of obtaining registered trademarks for many of them, just the ones that are expected to be long-term major products.
Mistwell said:
From cases I have worked on, marks have not been registered and damages have occurred, as well as numerous cases I have researched and read.
Last edited:
slaughterj
Explorer
Najo said:
Whatever is invented that is new, useful, and not obvious. If something for an RPG meets those criteria, then it will be patentable. I can't say in advance what that "it" will be - that's the point, it will be new and not obvious.
slaughterj
Explorer
mudbunny said:
Sigh. We're not talking about Canadian patent law exclusively. In the U.S., the most significant IP market, games can be patented. End of story.
A slight tangent to the conversation:
Even if WotC were pursuing a patent for aspects of 4E, and even if they had solid legal grounds for obtaining such a patent, they still might not get one.
I was having a conversation last week with my father-in-law, who works in medical technology. He told me (and, I acknowledge that this is second-hand word, at best) that the U.S. Patent Office has prioritized handling patent applications that are related to homeland security, and de-prioritized handling all other patents. In his words, "if you're not working on homeland security, you just don't get a patent these days."
If this is true, a game patent would likely find its way to the bottom of the priority list.
Even if WotC were pursuing a patent for aspects of 4E, and even if they had solid legal grounds for obtaining such a patent, they still might not get one.
I was having a conversation last week with my father-in-law, who works in medical technology. He told me (and, I acknowledge that this is second-hand word, at best) that the U.S. Patent Office has prioritized handling patent applications that are related to homeland security, and de-prioritized handling all other patents. In his words, "if you're not working on homeland security, you just don't get a patent these days."
If this is true, a game patent would likely find its way to the bottom of the priority list.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
slaughterj said:
Those are examples of folks who do not care enough to bother asking an attorney about it. Which is why I said, if you care enough to treat the issue as a serious one for a particular product or service, then you should register it. If you don't care much, then don't worry about it and just put a TM next to it. But don't expect it to be well protected. For under $500 you can get a trademark through a company like LegalZoom, so you would really have to care very little to decide against it.
You would be surprised I think to realize just how many "major retailers" and manufacturers do not in fact employ an IP lawyer for most things. As a lawyer who has done work for some of those companies, and had to clean up their messes sometimes, I assure you that your assumption that if they are "major" they must be doing the right thing does not often hold true.
Just another example of a situation where it doesn't matter. Like I said when I responded to you, if you care enough about it to take it seriously, then you should register it. That is a situation where they don't care. But those companies won't be suing anyone over trademark infringement for those unregistered names either.
And you've been an attorney in that field for how long?
It is the advice of this attorney, who has worked on IP matters as an attorney in Los Angeles for about 13 years, that if you care about a product or service name enough to bring the issue up in a serious way, and have a concern that someone could infringe your trademark such that you might want to sue over it some day, you should register the mark.
It is also the experience of this attorney that if you do not register the mark, you should not expect to get damages beyond actual damages, and you should expect to have to prove more to make your case, and you should expect that some attorneys you will go to for representation will reject representation outright because you failed to register it.
You are free, of course, to choose to do otherwise.
Last edited:
slaughterj
Explorer
mudbunny said:
Check out the Magic-game related patent mentioned earlier for a example.
This site mentions numerous game patents issued every year by the U.S. PTO: http://boardgames.about.com/library/blpatent.htm
This article (http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/15/patent-movies-scripts-cz-df_0812script.html) states: "The Patent Office lists scores of game patents, including one issued in 2002 to a Texas woman for a children's role-playing game that looks a little like the old favorite Clue. "You can get patents on games, and what's the end result of a game?" asks James Hall, a partner and patent expert at Thelen, Reid & Priest in New York. "Laughter, tears, emotions--the same thing as a movie.""
Shall I go on?
Last edited:
