In the long run I hope both companies settle out of court peaceably. I'd hate to see Star-Wars, D&D or ShadowRun Damaged in any way shape or form...

more than they already are?

:haw:

sorry, couldn't resist.  jes' pokin' fun. . . .

Quote from: RPGPunditYou could argue its unfair, but its still the law.  And really, it doesn't seem all that unfair to me.

Let's say you're a freelance writer. You get paid to do a sourcebook for a Sci-fi setting based in South America. For various reasons, your book never sees print.  You get paid for it though, and later move on to another company.
Now, you could not just hand over the same manuscript to the other company; you were working for Company A, you can't get your book published by Company B when you were already paid for the material you handed in to Company A.
You were under contract, you provided material to Company A, you were paid for your intellectual efforts. What you wrote now belongs to Company A, end of story.

RPGPundit

This is a different scenario. From what I understand, it is not a case of plagiarism (which is what you're describing), but similar to when WotC patented 'Collectible Card Games' in '97.

Quote from: Ancient HistoryThis is a different scenario. From what I understand, it is not a case of plagiarism (which is what you're describing), but similar to when WotC patented 'Collectible Card Games' in '97.

Except that, to my knowledge, the chief designer of M:tG didn't go off and created a nearly-identical game for some other company.

RPGPundit

Normally, if a game is very similiar to another game and the two games have the same designer, the similiarities are considered the result of the game designer's personal style. Nothing wrong with that, its the same way with musicians, etc. The only difference here being that WotC filed for a patent, and a year later Pirates comes out with a very similiar mechanic.

Its interesting primarily because all that WotC's patent really claims is for using these card-models in a game-it doesn't appear they could file an injunction for making just the card-models themselves.

It's notable that the patent repeatedly refers to robots. I think it obvious that WotC had a very specific game in mind when they filed this patent, and it wasn't Pirates.

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that, to my knowledge, the chief designer of M:tG didn't go off and created a nearly-identical game for some other company.

RPGPundit

you need violate ALL of the provision of a Claim.

If if you read the WoTC patent at

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=7201374.PN.&OS=PN/7201374&RS=PN/7201374

You will note claim 1, 2, and 11 don't make reference to any other claims. Those two are the broadest and are at the heart of what WoTC is patenting. While the english here is dense what you do is break those two claims down into a list. Then look at the Pirates game and see what they violate.

Now Claim 1 describes a game where you punch out pieces assemble the models, and remove said pieces when you get damage. This claim appears to me to cover a boxed set like you buy at Toy R Us

Claim 2 describes the same game but in a collectible format similar to Mage Knight or Heroclix or Axis and Allies minatures.

Claim 11 describes the same game but in a card form. Note the stuff about ratio.

Now reading this I say that Pirates pretty much meets all the points of Claim 11 as well 1 and 2. They are going to have a tough fight as they will have to attack the validity of the patent. They will have two angles of attack. The first being prior art. The second obviousness.

The obviousness part is  a little hard to explain. In order for something to be patented it can't be obvious to those in the art.

For example suppose you had a pizza delivery system where people were sending you order via fax and you delivered the ordered pizza. You change the fax to a website system. It used to be that this probably could have been patented. However a recent supreme court ruling said that doing this is definitely falls into the realm of an obvious invention. Anybody would have thought of substitute  new method of communicating orders. It should have only been allowed if in combining the website, internet and pizza delivery something new had to be created to allow it.

I predict that WizKids will try to the Wizards patent on this basis. That there were patents and games that allowed model for a piece to be constructed out of parts. That there were patents and games that allowed removal of said pieces from the model when it was damaged. And that it is obvious under the new standards to make a similar game out of flat pieces.

Also they will try to pull any wargame and perhaps RPGs that used cardboard cutouts that you had to assemble and use it for both obviousness and prior art.

Rob Conley

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept that, to my knowledge, the chief designer of M:tG didn't go off and created a nearly-identical game for some other company.

RPGPundit

Patents are not like copyrights. They give a near-monopoly on an idea for 20 years but they are generally narrow in focus and have to meet various standards (i.e. you can't patent discovering a natural law only its applications).

Likely the guy who jump ship provided a technical description for the specific game he was working. Hasbro's patent lawyers, being smart guys, broke it down into claims with the broadest claims first. And the designer probably never saw the patent application.

So he jumps ships makes a different game, Pirates, than the robots game that Wizards was working (Note all the references to robots in the patents). Thought he and wizkids was in the clear. When the patent came out I am sure there was a O Shit moment at WizKids offices.

It is not like the manuscript situation that was earlier described. That manuscript was a finished product that only the first company had a right to make copies of. The designer took his idea and make what he thought was a game unlike the one wizards was making. And got burned (not that Wizards did anything wrong mind you) when Wizards lawyers had a good day with the USPTO.

Personally, I am not sure it is that much of an innovation by Wizards. The fact is there are games that have models you build out of plastic pieces and fight with. There games where you removed pieces. There were games that had cardboard cutouts that you built and used. (Traveller had some over the years) The fact you now building it out of flat pieces and stuffing it into a cardboard box doesn't seem very innovated in the sense that is patentable.

Rob Conley

The equivalent example here would be if the guy who was in charge of designing Sorry! had then gone onto another company and made a totally different game which ALSO had a "popamatic bubble".  Its still a patent violation.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIts still a patent violation.

Only if it's a valid patent.

Do you honestly see this CCG idea as 'non-obvious'? Seriously? If you don't, then why would you consider it a patent violation, because it isn't a valid patent? And who actually decides if a patent is valid? It isn't the USPTO or equivalent, but a jury, usually in Texas, as it's the best state to try patent cases in currently.

Being granted a patent does not grant you the idea, it grants you the ability to defend it in court.

The ONLY reason we're seeing this now is because we have two card games based/associated on summer blockbusters featuring Pirates and Robots. This has nothing to do with the validity of the idea, and everything to do with the money.

My bet, they settle out of court for an undisclosed sum and neither admits wrongdoing. Not invalidating the patent in court is in both their interests, as it keeps other companies out.

The actual idea as I see it strikes me as rather non-obvious, yeah. I certainly wouldn't have come up with it, and can't think of older pre-extant games that use it.

RPGPundit

On the one hand, I believe the concept of Intellectual Property to be nonsense and that laws "protecting" it actually end up stiffling innovation because of greedy megacorporations.

On the other hand, here you have a case of a guy who is paid to design a new game for one company (and it's pretty much a given his employment agreement gave all rights for his works to them).  Then, the guy jumps ship and goes directly to a competitor and designs the exact same thing for them.

That's clearly theft.

It'd be no different than if I would have taken code for an unused project from my old company and taken to my new company and they released it as a product.  Of course, the computer industry insists on employees signing non-compete clauses, too, so I'd never be able to go from one competitor to another.  Maybe the gaming industry should use them more.

The point is - that guy did not own the concept for the game.  WotC did.  The fact that he worked on the project, or even did the design, is irrelevent to him being able to re-use the design.

If WizKids had come up with the idea on their own, and it just happened to loosley match what WotC had patented/developed, I'd be on their side.  But what you have here is a clear-cut case of industrial theft IMO.

Quote from: jgantsOn the one hand, I believe the concept of Intellectual Property to be nonsense and that laws "protecting" it actually end up stiffling innovation because of greedy megacorporations.

On the other hand, here you have a case of a guy who is paid to design a new game for one company (and it's pretty much a given his employment agreement gave all rights for his works to them).  Then, the guy jumps ship and goes directly to a competitor and designs the exact same thing for them.

That's clearly theft.

It'd be no different than if I would have taken code for an unused project from my old company and taken to my new company and they released it as a product.  Of course, the computer industry insists on employees signing non-compete clauses, too, so I'd never be able to go from one competitor to another.  Maybe the gaming industry should use them more.

The point is - that guy did not own the concept for the game.  WotC did.  The fact that he worked on the project, or even did the design, is irrelevent to him being able to re-use the design.

If WizKids had come up with the idea on their own, and it just happened to loosley match what WotC had patented/developed, I'd be on their side.  But what you have here is a clear-cut case of industrial theft IMO.

agreed.

well, if I understand what the hell a CSG is in the first place, it's basically cards with punch-out pieces to make a 3-D model out of them to use in a game. White Dwarf had been doing that for at least a decade. So I don't think the patent is valid because it's basically 3D paperboard models (which are as old as dirt. I used to have a set that were dinosaur skeletons) being used in a miniature game, which is older than dirt.Unless of course they plan to sue Steve Jackson Games for retroactively for Cardboard Heroes.

Quote from: jgantsThat's clearly theft.

Well...

It's not like a work for hire where you do the job once and can do the same job for another company again (the traditional foundation of our job based economy). It's more like something where you do the job once and can NEVER do the job for anyone else again.

This is why patent holders typically get royalties.

But corporations are starting to develop the nasty habit of claiming not just end product as their 'property', but your personal skills and techniques as well, and in a manner that alleviates any responsibility they have to paying you royalties. It's bad enough that you're not being fairly paid for your contribution, but if you need those skills and techniques to get another job, you're really fucked.

But SPEAKING of royalties, how much IS Tyler Bielman getting for the patent in question?

cripes, what kind of crazy industry are we in?  i'm thinking the small press guys have the right idea.  do it (write gaming stuff, that is) because you love it, have a small bit of distribution/sales (more than just your gaming group), make a little money, but keep your "IP" or whatever.  

this sort of stuff makes me all confused.  don't anyone go off and try to explain anything, just keep on keepin' on with the discussion.  :confused: