Possible Rules Patent?

[apoptosis]

I don't know. While I practice some intellectual property, I don't handle patents. I know just enough to know who the good patent attorneys are in my region, and how complex the issues are, and when to refer someone out.

Which is why I was saying earlier that, while this can be fun to debate, nobody will really be able to answer the questions involved unless they are experienced patent attorneys. I've sat at a conference room table with multiple experienced patent attorneys discussing whether or not something can be patented, and how enforceable the patent would be, with none of the attorneys agreeing with each other. And that was over a patent issue less complex than the one raised in this thread.

I am familiar with that situation. Helped write a provisional patent and had to be at the meetings with the patent attorneys in biotech and pharma and I swear they would have debated the ability to patent the ability to produce H2O by melting snow.

Honestly I have a dickens of a time figuring out why different drug patents are extended and for how long. Sometimes I think it is just voodoo.

 

[slaughterj]

The problem is (in my mind, and I'm not a lawyer) that is that we know that Gary Gygax basicly took wargame rules and modified them for fantasy use.

Pretty much everything invented in this world is based on matters already known, and this would be no different.

And since they own d20 really right now, and all other games that want to be like d20 have to follow thier rules (OGL) why would that want to subject themselves to having the patent expire after so many years?

It is highly unlikely that they will stick with 4e rules as-is for 20 years, so any patent protection sought for it would certainly last as long as they would need it for. Then they could seek a patent on 5e, 6e, etc. etc. Any ownership of "d20" (presuming you mean trademark) would continue regardless and would be independent of any patented invention's term.

 

[breschau]

Meh. He only took the concept. AFAIC, if there is a wargame patent, it is probably expired by now.

As I said before, Patent is the only IP that is short-lived.

Copyright comes second, last long as 40-60 years after the original author passed away.

Trademark is forever, so long you vigilantly protect it as your own.

Not exactly, according to the Berne Convention copyright lasts 50 years after the death of the author if it's published in their lifetime. If it's published posthumously, it's longer.

In the States, it's a bit longer, life + 70 years.

The duration of trademark it not tied to defense, but use. As stated, unless a trademark is used, it lapses after 5 years.

I assume the re-registering refers to USPTO, but not all trademarks -- as long it is still being used by their respective owners -- are registered with USPTO.

True. That is the difference between a TM and a circle-R. The TM is trademark of course, but the circle-R is a registered trademark. Similar to copyright and registered copyright the difference is in what you can do when someone violates for IP rights. If either is registered, then you can sue for damages. If they are not registered, then you can only sue for a cease and desist.

 

[slaughterj]

As I said before, Patent is the only IP that is short-lived.

Copyright comes second, last long as 40-60 years after the original author passed away.

This and other prior posts have been off on the term for copyright protection. See
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc for the term, which varies based on when created (as the law has changed over time), nature of authorship, etc.

Trademark is forever, so long you vigilantly protect it as your own.

Basically correct. Mere use and enforcing others from using the mark will protect it indefinitely. (Note, this is for U.S. marks, foreign law on marks may and often does vary.)

Many of the subsequent posts to this one diverge into a discussion of REGISTRATIONS for trademarks, and end up with various errors. Sure, REGISTRATIONS have to be renewed from time to time to maintain them, but that is separate from maintaining trademark rights themselves. One can even let their U.S. REGISTRATION die (for instance, don't want to pay the money), but as long as they continue to use their mark and prevent others from using it wrongfully, their trademark rights will continue indefinitely.

 

[slaughterj]

There are of course common law trademark rights, but given they are much weaker than registration, I wouldn't suggest folks go that route.

Whether registration is or is not appropriate really depends on the specific circumstances of the given (potential) trademark owner, and there are plenty of situations in which common law rights are sufficient.

 

[slaughterj]

Can you extend general patents like you can with drug patents (what I am more familiar with)?

Those are a special animal, with extensions for matters which are not applicable to regular patents. However, some patents do get extensions, e.g., due to certain delays on the part of the patent office, but generally these are for a few days up to maybe a year on the outside in most cases.

 

[slaughterj]

Similar to copyright and registered copyright the difference is in what you can do when someone violates for IP rights. If either is registered, then you can sue for damages. If they are not registered, then you can only sue for a cease and desist.

That is not accurate for either copyrights or trademarks. Copyrights which are not registered before being infringed can still get money damages in certain circumstances, though not nearly as frequently as those registered before the infringement (see http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#412 ). While an innocent infringement defense can be asserted against unregistered copyrights (which is successful, limits relief to injunctive and not monetary), it can be overcome as well.

Trademarks which are not registered frequently can and do result in the award of monetary damages for infringement; registration just provides certain legal benefits in a suit.

 

[Mistwell]

Whether registration is or is not appropriate really depends on the specific circumstances of the given (potential) trademark owner, and there are plenty of situations in which common law rights are sufficient.

Registration is a better option in most situations. If you ever end up in a situation where someone can threaten your trademark, it's best to be registered. If there isn't going to be a situation where it could be threatened, it's a fairly moot point. Any competent IP lawyer will advice registration if you care enough about the mark to even ask.

You later said:

Trademarks which are not registered frequently can and do result in the award of monetary damages for infringement

I disagree. It's rare actually. Most TM cases involve registered marks (at least state registrations, if not federal). Simply proving intent (which is usually required without registration, since you don't have registration as presumed notice) is pretty difficult. Why do you feel it is "frequent"?

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I'm pretty sure Wizards is only doing the OGL the way it is RIGHT NOW to cover its own ass and still allow companies to produce 4e compatable product at arround the same time as their release date.
Otherwise you'd see a PHB with "Better" fighter, "Good" Warlock and so on. So instead of giving out the rules to everyone for free right now their going to wait until they have "their" classes and such cemented in copyright-patent whatever and then release it for free.

Those that want to have a head start have to pay just for the head start.

Beyond that I'm sure as soon as 4e gets rolling the OGL will be available to everyone.

 

[Ranger REG]

Registration is a better option in most situations.

I don't object to that. But having a circle "R" over a superscript "TM" next to your trademarks is about an extra couple hundred dollars or more in punitive damage if the court found that there is an infringement and rules in your favor.