Possible Rules Patent?

[Gundark]

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

True. They did patent ccgs though. However they were the first company to argueably put out a CCG. It might be argued that TSR could patent RPGs as they were the "first" company to put out a RPG. Since WotC bought TSR..... You might be able to argue that WotC could be in a position to Patent 4e.

 

[Gundark]

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.

They did patent CCGs. There really isn't a HUGE leap between some CCGs and RPGs

 

[helium3]

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.

Right.

And when the overseers of EN World pony up the money to pay for an IP attorney to drop by and answer all our questions in a special hosted thread or scan and post the entire body of the standard issue entry level IP-Law textbook, I'll refrain from chiming in with my interpretation of that matter as I understand it.

I am neither charging for my opinion nor offering it as bona fide legal advice and I think I made that pretty clear earlier, what with all the caveats and faux-chagrin at being reduced to citing something on wikipedia.

If you have some sort of opinion other than " I think you should shut your trap because you're not a licensed expert on the matter" I'd love to hear it.

That little matter out of the way, I am absolutely sure that my prior statement about the mystical "rule of three innovations" is correct, at least as far as US Patents are concerned.

Have a nice day!!

 

[helium3]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

 

[Najo]

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.

That is correct. Copyright protects Intellectual Property (IP). My statement was things like Product Identity was intended to keep it simplfied for the context of the example.

 

[Najo]

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.

I did some research today and found the same information you did, but when were we're preparing our NDAs and legal materials for the game system we are working on, we touched on the patent of Magic and how it affected the hobby game industry. Since our project was originally intended for the 3.5 OGL (and now for 4.0) most of the discussion was on protecting IP (intellectual property). But the use and purpose of patents was discussed as was glossing over the Magic patent. I was going off memory when I listed everything, and I remember the lawyer saying the more innovation you have the more solid the patent is to challenge. That is likely where I made my mistake, though I specifically remember the deck built from random cards/ tapping/ mana pool as the innovations. It does seem to be just the deck built from random cards/ tapping though.

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.

Suing is not always worth it. It can be very costly and return little. I think you mean it is always worth enforcing your patent. This can be done with simple cease and desist letters and threats of law suits. It all depends on whether or not the violator is stealing revenue from you.

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.

I was off a bit here. Seems you are correct.

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?

I didn't know that hasbro did that. How much did they spend on it?

Are you referring to something specific about Enworld posters? My experience is it depends on the length of the thread and whether or not that thread stays on subject.

 

[Najo]

They did patent CCGs. There really isn't a HUGE leap between some CCGs and RPGs

As far as being an invention their worlds apart. CCGs and RPGs have nothing in common with each other except that they are hobby games. Some share IP (the setting and themes), but game play and product lines are entirely different.

 

[Najo]

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.

Most of us did state "we are not lawyers". Between slaughterj, helium and myself all of the primary advice on patents is there. We all just tweaked each others mistakes, but essentially are confirming each other's correct points as well.

Legal advice costs 250-500$ per hour. Be prepared to spend 2k-5k learning all of this from a lawyer. Giving people mostly right legal advice actually sends them to a lawyer more educated on the matter. That saves them time with the lawyer and in turn 1000's of dollars. If you plan on publishing or manufacturing, yes you should confirm and approval all legal documentation and laws to protect you, your company, your IP, and your employees and associates connected to your work. Period.

 

[Mistwell]

Just to be clear, this attorney does not charge that much (to D&D companies, at least)

 

[breschau]

I just finished a grad class on copyright and patent.

To patent something it has to be non-obvious to an "average person" in the particular field. The rules would have to be non-obvious to an "average game designer." Basically, you can't patent them, ever.