When will we see the first RPG patent?

[D_Sinclair]

Bah, why deal with the hassles?

Just call it "patent pending" and forget to file the paperwork.

 

[Ranger REG]

It could also be said that any license is really a patent by another means. WotC effectively patented the d20 system by granting free use of the mechanics under certain guildelines. This neatly pre-empts any attempt by another developer in the future to create a system that is simply 'd20 by any other name'; there is nothing to be gained by doing so when you can simply use the SRD as the basis for your game. I had several thoughts along this line during the whole 'WHFRP is derivative of D&D' debate that raged on this board last week.

???

Perhaps I'm limited to one definition of patent. But I am skeptical that a royalty-free trademark use license is truly original and coined first by WotC.

 

[Ranger REG]

Apply this to the RPG industry. Hasbro/WotC are probably wealthy enough to file lots of patents despite prior art.

Perhaps, but that's a big gamble, particularly for a corporation.

 

[Umbran]

What if I code something for Linux, something blatantly obvious. And then Microsoft patents the idea a couple of years later, despite my prior art (this happens all the time). Then they use their patents in anti-Linux campaigns, claiming that Linux "possibly infringe on thousands of our patents and we can't guarantee your small companys safety if you use their un-american product". What can I do about it? Even If I get a lawyer, Microsoft's Army Of Undead will just out-lawyer me.

Interestingly, the most famous attempts to do pretty much what you describe (SCO v Redhat, SCO v IBM, etc are mostly copyright issues rather than patents, but the logic is mostly the same - see www.groklaw.net for the gorey details) have proved to be lengthy, but legally speaking abysmal failures.

Well documented code (or RPG material with a publishing date) make it kind of difficult for such a patent to hold up. WotC/Hasbro might try, but when you can bring out the publishing date of a product prior to their patent claim, their argument basically disintegrates, no matter how many lawyers they have.

Apply this to the RPG industry. Hasbro/WotC are probably wealthy enough to file lots of patents despite prior art. Even if they don't actually enforce the patents you have the fear, uncertainty and doubt as a smaller publisher.

It's a niche industry. Hasbro/WotC understand this. They understand that cheesing off the small market with mediapathic business practices like that is a really good way to lose money. Microsoft can get away with it because their market is every single person with a computer on the planet.

Relatedly, you cannot get blood from a stone. What profit would WotC gain from such a thing? Money? Surely, the other publishers don't make enough profit to make extortion profitable. Market share? I don't recall anyone, even White Wolf, ever being a real threat in that regard. What would be the point?

 

[Michael Morris]

Note that patents can be challenged. The fact that the patent office sometimes has it's head screwed on crooked and hands out things willy-nilly does not mean that the patent will actually stand up under scrutiny. All the wacky patents really mean is that the patent owner has teh right to attempt to get the patent enforced.

Or the right to keep an individual or small corp in court until they go bankrupt.

 

[tarchon]

If you want to keep it from happening, patent the process for patenting an RPG and don't license it to anybody.

 

[KenM]

If you want to keep it from happening, patent the process for patenting an RPG and don't license it to anybody.

But then you don't make any money. The whole idea of patents is to make sure you get money and no one steals "your idea".

 

[Umbran]

Or the right to keep an individual or small corp in court until they go bankrupt.

Don't forget that this costs the patent holder as well - they need to pay three or four digit per hour lawyers to keep the little guy in court. Unless driving the small corp out of business ends up earning more money than it cost, this is a lose for the patent-holder. And the larger the company, the larger the profit from the action needs to be in order to be worth it.

 

[Michael Morris]

Don't forget that this costs the patent holder as well - they need to pay three or four digit per hour lawyers to keep the little guy in court. Unless driving the small corp out of business ends up earning more money than it cost, this is a lose for the patent-holder. And the larger the company, the larger the profit from the action needs to be in order to be worth it.

That's where you're wrong. Only independent lawyers get to make the "3 & 4 digit / hour" salaries. Most large corps have lawyers on the payroll making salaries comparable to the rest of the grunts. While most of these are young, wet-behind-the-ears types without much experience, but they are more than sufficient to keep things tied up in court for long periods of time.

And don't underestimate the power of sheer stupidity or spite (i.e. SCO v. Linux)

 

[Umbran]

That's where you're wrong. Only independent lawyers get to make the "3 & 4 digit / hour" salaries. Most large corps have lawyers on the payroll making salaries comparable to the rest of the grunts.

Fine, so now you're tying up a portion of his 5-digit salary on this stuff. Does that earn the company more money than having that lawyer do "honest work", or not even be on staff at all?

And don't underestimate the power of sheer stupidity or spite (i.e. SCO v. Linux)

Don't overestimate it either. Whether it be due to stupidity, spite, desperation, or outside influence, SCO has attempted this sort of thing. But it has been ineffectual. Red Hat and IBM are still doing fine business, and SCO hasn't gotten one thin dime from them. There's a decent argument that SCO may actually be helping those businesses, rather than harming them.