When will we see the first RPG patent?

[S'mon]

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?

But what "honest stuff" is there that earns the company money? The ca $60-80,000 dollars or so the (young, cheap) in-house lawyer costs the firm per annum is already a 'sunk cost'; thus the frivilous litigation has almost zero marginal cost to the firm. It costs very little to sue with in-house lawyers in the US sysyem and it makes those lawyers look busy, like they're earning their salary. That's the only explanation I can think of for the insanity of T$R and many other companies with over-active litigation teams.

In the UK frivilous litigation is traditionally rare because in-house lawyers were rare, you had to hire (v expensive) barristers to appear in-court, and defendants' reasonable costs were routinely awarded against the unsuccessful plaintiff (a very good idea IMO). This seems to be changing though.

 

[Storm Raven]

A patent is only as useful as its owners willingness to defend it. That means big money in terms of litigation.
As Umbran said, a patent can be challenged, particularly if the "real" owner wants to.

Of interest however is the great Australian Icon: the Ugg Boot (A boot of sheep's skin with the fluffy bits on the inside). Ugg boots have been around Australia for a very long time and are known explicitly by that name. Imagine the Australian Industry's surprise when a couple of years ago, an American company tells them they cannot name them Ugg Boots anymore because that company now "owns" the name.
Unfortunately, the American company was willing to litigate to enforce its "property" and so now, most shops selling ugg boots simply label them ug boots instead.

That story sounds like it involves trademarks, rather than patents. Trademarks operate under a completely different set of rules.

 

[Storm Raven]

But what "honest stuff" is there that earns the company money? The ca $60-80,000 dollars or so the (young, cheap) in-house lawyer costs the firm per annum is already a 'sunk cost'; thus the frivilous litigation has almost zero marginal cost to the firm. It costs very little to sue with in-house lawyers in the US sysyem and it makes those lawyers look busy, like they're earning their salary. That's the only explanation I can think of for the insanity of T$R and many other companies with over-active litigation teams.

Using in-house counsel for litigation is fairly rare. That's just not what most in-house attorneys do, or what they are good at either. Most firms contract out their litigation to firms that specialize in that, and in-house counsel serves as a liaison between the firm's brass and the outside counsel on those things. It just makes more sense that if you want to sue someone for patent infringement you hire a firm that specilizes in that, rather than having your jack-of-all trades do it as an inside job. But the day to day work of an in-house counsel is much more concerned with the inner workings of a corporation than anything else.

As far as the "honest stuff" that they could be doing, they could be doing what the company needs an inside guy for: making sure the corporate books and records are up to date and legal, making sure the company complies with labor and anti-discrimination laws on a day-to-day basis, dealing with outside counsel on a variety of topics, advising the company on contracting issues and so on.

 

[ElvishBard]

As far as the "honest stuff" that they could be doing, they are laywers remember?

There, I fixed it for you .

 

[Scribble]

Hrmm... From the US Patent office Web site:

A patent cannot be obtained on a mere idea or suggestion. Patent applications are examined for both technical and legal merit. Prior to filing a patent application, a search of existing patents can be conducted at the USPTO Patent Search Room or at a Patent and Trademark Depository Library in your area. For additional information on patents, you may visit the USPTO Web site at www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm.

I'm not a patent lawyer, however, so I could be way off base here.

 

[Psionicist]

Hrmm... From the US Patent office Web site:

I'm not a patent lawyer, however, so I could be way off base here.

Did you even read the first post? So you are saying all these computer patents are not ideas at all?

 

[hexgrid]

When will we see the first RPG patent?

It's getting closer! Nintendo has a patent on a "sanity" mechanic for video games:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6,935,954

 

[Henry]

That's when you need to start throwing some lawyers on the barby....

I think if it were possible to patent any aspect of RPG's, Lorraine Wiseman would have found a way to do it.

Let's not accidentally defame Loren Wiseman while we're in the process of defaming Lorraine Williams.

 

[mythusmage]

Role and war game playing system (method for simultaneous combat resolution)

That can be challenged. Avalon Hill's Kriegspiel used just such a method, and that was published in the 70s.

 

[mythusmage]

Did you even read the first post? So you are saying all these computer patents are not ideas at all?

You don't patent the idea, you patent the application.