Interesting WotC Announcement
Darin J Eblom
This is part of the public record, so here you go.
Wizards of the Coast News Release:
WIZARDS OF THE COAST INC. GRANTED PATENT ON TRADING CARD GAMES
October 15, 1997 (Renton, Wash.)--Wizards of the Coast Inc., developer
and
publisher of the world's bestselling trading card games, most notably
_Magic: The Gathering_(R), has been granted a patent on the Trading
Card
Game Method of Play by the U.S. Patent Office.
Since its creation in 1993 by Richard Garfield, the Magic: The
Gathering
game has established an entirely new genre of games--trading card
games--that today are played by millions worldwide. The Magic: The
Gathering game alone already outsells well-known games such as
_Monopoly_(R) and _Trivial Pursuit_(R).
Garfield commented, "Traditionally, it has been difficult for game
designers to receive patents on their inventions. Most game patents
have
been granted on the mechanical devices included with the games. This
trading card game patent, one of the few granted on the basis of the
method
of play, is a victory for game designers everywhere. It recognizes
the
tremendous research, abstract thinking and creativity of serious game
designers, and validates the originality of their inventions."
"We hope," Garfield continued, "that this results in renewed
enthusiasm to
create original games that will entertain and challenge the minds of
people
who enjoy playing games."
Wizards of the Coast has developed a licensing program to permit
others to
use the patent. _Wizards of the Coast_(R) President and Chief
Executive
Officer Peter Adkison remarked, "Certainly, the ability to be
compensated
by others who incorporate our patented method of play into their games
is
important. But at the same time, Wizards of the Coast fundamentally
believes in the free flow of ideas and the continued growth of the
game
business."
Adkison continued, "It is significant that an entire industry of
trading
card game publishers and manufacturers has grown out of the success of
the
Magic: The Gathering game, and we have no intention of stifling that.
Therefore, we are endeavoring to create a fair and reasonable royalty
structure."
For example, Adkison explained that companies who enter into a license
agreement prior to the end of the year will not be charged royalties
for
sales prior to January 1, 1998.
Wizards of the Coast is also offering a royalty discount for every
company
that comes forward to license its trading card game products prior to
January 1, 1998. Details of the license will be available at the
Wizards of
the Coast website at <www.wizards.com>, or by contacting Brian Lewis
in
Wizards' Legal department at (425) 204-7322.
The patent claims on U.S. Letters Patent 5,662,332 can be viewed on
the
Internet at
<patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5662332>. This
press release contains summary information of the patent, and this
summary
information should not be relied upon or interpreted in any fashion
other
than as a brief, general description of the subject matter covered in
the
patent. For a full understanding of the scope of the patent, a
thorough
review of the patent text is necessary.
Wizards of the Coast is a leading developer and publisher of
entertainment
products, including the world's bestselling Magic: The Gathering
trading
card game. Wizards of the Coast subsidiaries include TSR Inc.,
creators of
the popular _Dungeons & Dragons_(R) adventure games, and Five Rings
Publishing Group Inc., best known for the _Legend of the Five
Rings_(R)
trading card game. Headquartered just outside of Seattle, Wash.,
Wizards of
the Coast has international offices in Antwerp, Paris and London. For
more
information on Wizards of the Coast, visit the company's website at
<www.wizards.com> or its CompuServe forum at <GO WIZARDS>.
WIZARDS OF THE COAST and Magic: The Gathering are trademarks of
Wizards of
the Coast Inc. Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Inc. Legend of
the
Five Rings is a trademark of Five Rings Publishing Group Inc. TSR
Inc. and
Five Rings Publishing Group Inc. are subsidiaries of Wizards of the
Coast
Inc. (C) 1997 Wizards of the Coast Inc.
--
[O] Darin J. Eblom | pre...@io.com | THE Control Addict and Sommerite |
[O] SAVE THE GROGS! Play Ars Magica! | Deadbeat Club Codename: C. Robin |
[O] IF YOU HAVE TO ASK... YOU'VE EARNED IT --> [ O O O ] |
Larry D. Hols
Hallo,
Triad3204 wrote:
>
> Let me see if I've got this straight: They were granted a patent on a marketing
> method which wasn't even original.
Um, no. The patent seems to cover the actual mechanics of using
trading cards as they are described for Magic. The patent apparently
does not cover using trading cards with different mechanics. This
seems to be, at its heart, protection for the actual mechanics of
Magic, as copyright does not cover those.
Larry
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.
Guild of Blades
So, it seems Wizards is now trying to intice companies to give them
money on card games that have been in publication for years already.
Those that don't will likely be attacked in court. The question ow
becomes, what exactly does that patent cover? There may be many
collectable card games, but they don't use Mana or the T symbol, so this
could just be a Wizards attempt to scare people into giving them money
or to use their vast resouces to drive other companies out of business
via lawsuits, wether legally warranted or not.
Unless of couse someone can't pojt to another reason they have made this
announcement.
Ryan S Johnson
--
---------------------------------------------------
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
(Member of the GPA)
Contacts:
Ryan O. Johnson - President (sales & product inquires)
John L. Ross - Vice President (Web master)
Marisa K. Boese - Chief Editor
Web: http://www.guildofblades.com
e-mail: guildo...@guildofblades.com
Office: Guild of Blades
2002 E. Kalamazoo
Lansing, MI 48912
Phone: (517)267-1409
Triad3204
Let me see if I've got this straight: They were granted a patent on a marketing
for greedy businessmen.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
RICHARD KENAN
Shannon Appel (sap...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <344557...@pilot.msu.edu> Guild of Blades <ross...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
: >The question ow
: >becomes, what exactly does that patent cover? There may be many
: The patent doesn't cover mana or the T symbol (the latter is actually
: covered by a trademark, which is a whole different kettle of fish).
: If you read over WotC's patent, you'll see it includes six different
: points. More or less they break down into a description of two things:
: * The concept of customizing a deck by buying additional cards and
: picking and choosing.
: * The concept of rotating a card to show usage.
: Now it's my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer, nor have I looked at
: patent law that much) that you can be found in violation of a patent
: even if only break some of the patent's main points. Pretty much every
: single CCG in the universe (except, I believe, one that's only played
: by a small civilization of amoeboid lifeforms on a small planet
: circling Formahault) is going to do so because they're all built
: around the "innovative" concept of customizing decks for a game.
: Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
: players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
: business. In the end WotC may or may not keep their CCG patent;
: unfortunately the US patent system is a quagmire having little in
: common with the goals that its founders originally set forth.
The little players will just die. Read WotC's licensing agreement.
It lets WotC revoke the license if the licensee doesn't make enough
money off the game. Further, WotC then gets the rights to all of
the remaining stock of that game. Since the license fees are skimmed
off the top, with no allowances for non-production costs, this will
almost certainly drive smaller companies out of business. I used to
look for ways to interpret WotC's actions as something other than a
fat monopoly looking for ways to squash competition so that it didn't
have to actually bother responding to consumer wishes. I've given up
on that, now.
Just me.
--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eef...@prism.gatech.edu
Huw Morris
Shannon Appel wrote:
> Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
> players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
> business. In the end WotC may or may not keep their CCG patent;
> unfortunately the US patent system is a quagmire having little in
> common with the goals that its founders originally set forth.
Shannon, reading between the lines, does this mean that Chaosium will
definately not release New Aeon now?
Huw
-----BEGIN BRIT CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 1.1
Brit(E/W) H--:- a-- s-:-- hd++ b+ y+ X---: P- M-- R-- A+ C- T- TV-(++) Ci>+
MuR++I+ B>+ V++
------END BRIT CODE BLOCK------
Philip Masters
Hmmmm. The initial patent thing looked like it might well be an honest - if
somewhat debate-worthy - attempt to protect *Magic: the Gathering*,
specifically. An intention that doesn't seem at all unreasonable. Rip-offs
are not something that I for one would defend.
But now we find that they're claiming it as a patent on the "Trading Card
Game Method of Play". This begins to sound sinister.
And "Wizards of the Coast has developed a licensing program to permit
others to use the patent." Adkison is also quoted as saying "Certainly, the
ability to be compensated by others who incorporate our patented method of
play into their games is important."
Err, right. Now, WotC may just be talking about outright M:tG clones here,
in which case the whole thing looks like a grade-A PR cock-up, and a
pointless exercise; there's only been one outright rip-off that I know of,
and that's dead, and I can't see anyone else bothering - the market isn't
*that* stupid. Or they may seriously be after everyone who produces a CCG,
in which case, their rather specific patent would seem somewhat less than a
lethal legal weapon, the PR cock-up is truly amazing, and the whole thing
would stink unto the throne of Zeus.
But I suppose we'd be better wait to see who they start taking to court.
*On the Edge*? *INWO*? *Xxxenophile*?
"We hope," Garfield continued, "that this results in renewed enthusiasm to
create original games that will entertain and challenge the minds of people
who enjoy playing games."
Oh dearie, dearie me. And Garfield looked like a human being when I once
met him.
Anyway, personally, I'm laughing...
--
Phil Masters
* Home Page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil_Masters
* "Battle not with flamers, lest you become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)
* Note: I have kill-filed all "Multipart/Alternative" postings. HTML is
very nice, but not on Usenet.
Shannon Appel
In article <624nnm$h...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk> hmSPA...@custard.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Huw Morris) writes:
>Shannon, reading between the lines, does this mean that Chaosium will
>definately not release New Aeon now?
No.
New Aeon is planned for late November/early December release. Unless
something goes massively awry, that'll happen. (The fact that the WotC
contract doesn't go into effect till January 1 is a big help, since
much of New Aeon should be shipped before then.)
Shannon
AtlasGames
<<(The fact that the WotC
contract doesn't go into effect till January 1 is a big help, since
much of New Aeon should be shipped before then.)>>
Does that mean Chaosium is signing the contract?
-----------------------------------------------------------
[O] John A. Nephew Atlas...@aol.com
[0] President, Atlas Games Cust. Service (612) 638-0098
[O] Atlas Web Page: http://members.aol.com/atlasgames/
Bryan J. Maloney
> does not cover using trading cards with different mechanics. This
> seems to be, at its heart, protection for the actual mechanics of
> Magic, as copyright does not cover those.
Right, and TSR missed out decades ago on patenting their mechanics, so
they tried a truly lame attempt at claiming copyright of a "game engine".
I think that the folks at WoTC watched the entire TSR/net copyright flap
fairly closely, and they took notes.
--
To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
"If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
--The Nation, June 9, 1997.
Bryan J. Maloney
> But now we find that they're claiming it as a patent on the "Trading Card
> Game Method of Play". This begins to sound sinister.
The thing is that you can't patent specific game rules, but you can patent
a new *method* that is described in those rules. Of course, this means
that WoTC has been trying to patent this virtually from the very day that
they published the card game--actually before. There's a simple rule:
"That which is already published can't be patented." Thus, WoTC must have
at least filed a statement of intent with the Patent Office before they
even published the game.
If they didn't...
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <SAPPEL.97O...@netcom15.netcom.com>, sap...@netcom.com
(Shannon Appel) wrote:
> * The concept of customizing a deck by buying additional cards and
> picking and choosing.
Which is an invention when contrasted with the traditional methods of only
having a standard deck or having a standard deck (Hoyle) plus standardized
supplements (Cosmic Encounters).
>
> * The concept of rotating a card to show usage.
Technically an invention when contrasted with turning the card face down.
Of course, no patent is actually secure until it successfully faces
serious legal challenge, as Cetus is discovering with PCR...
Tim Toner
Bryan J. Maloney wrote in message ...
>In article <791053...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
>> But now we find that they're claiming it as a patent on the "Trading Card
>> Game Method of Play". This begins to sound sinister.
>
>The thing is that you can't patent specific game rules, but you can patent
>a new *method* that is described in those rules. Of course, this means
>that WoTC has been trying to patent this virtually from the very day that
>they published the card game--actually before. There's a simple rule:
>"That which is already published can't be patented." Thus, WoTC must have
>at least filed a statement of intent with the Patent Office before they
>even published the game.
>
>If they didn't...
THey did. I recall at the time of the WotC--Palladium lawsuit that Peter
announced that he had something BIG in the works. I e-mailed him about it,
and he told me that he couldn't talk about it, as they were looking into the
patentability of the concept.
Recall that this is the same patent office that gave the concept of
"multimedia" to Compton's Interactive for its encyclopedia...
D Burton
> one of the few granted on the basis of the
> method
> of play, is a victory for game designers everywhere.
Can someone explain this to me?? Are they saying ANY CCG company is now
bound to give Wizards money simply because it's a CCG? If so, how could
this possibly have happened. It makes absolutely no since to be able to
patent that kind of an idea. Granted you can copyright Mana, etc, but to
patent a game like this...heck maybe Milton Bradly should go back and
patent the "boardgame" because of the method of play. This makes
absolutely no sense to me...that is if I'm reading it right.
Doug
--
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest
profession. I have come to realize it bears a very
close resemblance to the first.
- Attributed to General Alekandr Kerensky
Shannon Appel
In article <344557...@pilot.msu.edu> Guild of Blades <ross...@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
>The question ow
>becomes, what exactly does that patent cover? There may be many
>collectable card games, but they don't use Mana or the T symbol...
The patent doesn't cover mana or the T symbol (the latter is actually
covered by a trademark, which is a whole different kettle of fish).
If you read over WotC's patent, you'll see it includes six different
points. More or less they break down into a description of two things:
* The concept of customizing a deck by buying additional cards and
picking and choosing.
* The concept of rotating a card to show usage.
Now it's my understanding (and I'm not a lawyer, nor have I looked at
patent law that much) that you can be found in violation of a patent
even if only break some of the patent's main points. Pretty much every
single CCG in the universe (except, I believe, one that's only played
by a small civilization of amoeboid lifeforms on a small planet
circling Formahault) is going to do so because they're all built
around the "innovative" concept of customizing decks for a game.
Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
nemein
> Shannon Appel wrote:
> > Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect
> small
> > players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
> > business. In the end WotC may or may not keep their CCG patent;
> > unfortunately the US patent system is a quagmire having little in
> > common with the goals that its founders originally set forth.
>
The biggest problem with this is that while it is easy to get into the
agreement, there is only a $1 initial fee :-) There is a
$1,000,000/year net sales minimum to keep the license (or your entire
company's net annual sales, which means that card are all your company
can do if I read it correctly). WotC gets the right to pull your
product/expansion citing "quality" purposes if they feel like it. WotC
has the right to come in and review your books at any reasonable time
during the day (to make sure that you are paying your royalties). There
is a "non-disclosure" agreement, which means WotC can take over the
control of playtesting/pre-release tournies/press releases etc. Finally
there is a "Good Will" clause so that you can't take action or "bad
mouth" WotC once you've signed the agreement.
I read through the license agreement from WotC's press release page last
night while watching DC United continue on to their 2nd championship
:-) I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak at that level and say that what
I've said above is 100% correct. From a "common sense" view of the
license agreement though, I know is that if I was a small publisher I
would rather fold/drop the card game in deference to other things I was
doing instead of signing that agreement.
Just my $0.02
Nemein
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <dburton-1610...@news.fuse.net>, dbu...@fuse.net (D
Burton) wrote:
> Can someone explain this to me?? Are they saying ANY CCG company is now
> bound to give Wizards money simply because it's a CCG? If so, how could
> this possibly have happened. It makes absolutely no since to be able to
> patent that kind of an idea. Granted you can copyright Mana, etc, but to
It may make no since, but it does make sense. ANY method is theoretically
amenable to patent--you *have* brushed up on basic patent law before
spouting, haven't you? You don't want to look like an ignorant git, now
do you?
> patent a game like this...heck maybe Milton Bradly should go back and
> patent the "boardgame" because of the method of play. This makes
No can do--it's too late for them, they've been out too long.
Terry Austin
eef...@acmey.gatech.edu (RICHARD KENAN) wrote:
>
>The little players will just die. Read WotC's licensing agreement.
>It lets WotC revoke the license if the licensee doesn't make enough
>money off the game. Further, WotC then gets the rights to all of
>the remaining stock of that game. Since the license fees are skimmed
>off the top, with no allowances for non-production costs, this will
>almost certainly drive smaller companies out of business. I used to
>look for ways to interpret WotC's actions as something other than a
>fat monopoly looking for ways to squash competition so that it didn't
>have to actually bother responding to consumer wishes. I've given up
>on that, now.
The thing is, the licensing agreement is a contract, and no one can
ever be forced into a contract without due process, and even in the
patent is upheld, WotC's contract won't be. And it only takes *one*
person/company to stand up and fight, and WotC could easily be looking
at a class action suit. Not over the patent, but over the licensing
agreement. I don't personally thing they're that stupid. But then, I
could be wrong.
---------------------------------
-- Terry Austin, Grand Inquisitor, Loyal Order of Chivalry & Sorcery
Hyperbooks Online http://www.hyperbooks.com/ Order by toll free phone call!
Hanosz Prime Goes to Old Earth, by Robert Silverberg
- October Cosmic Visions
Memories are Like Clouds, by Diana Dell
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On 16 Oct 1997 06:17:21 GMT, eef...@acmey.gatech.edu (RICHARD KENAN)
uttered:
>The little players will just die.
It seems to me they are already, _without_ the patent as an excuse:
FPG, the blokes behind Galactic Empires, ... USPC and possibly Harper
Prism (okay they are large :-) ) pulling out, etc. Only the Deckmaster
line, and some of the licenced titles (Decipher's) survive for long.
--
"I could watch the paint dry on these rented walls
Or I could run wild with the first wild thing who calls"
- Joe Jackson
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen to...@online.no
Robert Morss
Shannon Appel <sap...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<SAPPEL.97O...@netcom15.netcom.com>
> >The question now
> >becomes, what exactly does that patent cover? There may be many
> >collectable card games, but they don't use Mana or the T symbol...
>
> The patent doesn't cover mana or the T symbol (the latter is actually
> covered by a trademark, which is a whole different kettle of fish).
>
> If you read over WotC's patent, you'll see it includes six different
> points. More or less they break down into a description of two things:
>
> * The concept of customizing a deck by buying additional cards and
> picking and choosing.
>
> * The concept of rotating a card to show usage.
When I read the patent, I took it as an attempt to cover CCG concepts as
broadly as possible, in order to more easily claim a violation. Among these
I recall:
1. The idea that cards are paid for in order to put into play, whether by
other cards (mana in MtG, gold in L5R) or some other method (Power in
Shadowfist). (Mille Bournes requires certain cards to be in play before you
can play others, but I suppose it doesn't violate the patent, since no
cards in Mille Bourne are construed as having a cost. I still say Garfield
got some ideas for MtG from Mille Bournes - e.g. the "coup-fouret" (sp?)
being analagous to MtG's instant.)
2. The idea that you purchase cards from dealers, or trade for them with
other players, in order to increase the size of your collecton. Yes,
baseball cards have done this forever, but I guess WotC would say it's not
for gaming purposes. (Can you really patent the concept of buying cards
from a dealer?)
3. Any game where you create a deck from a universe of cards.
4. Card commonality levels within the universe of cards.
5. Tapping of cards to signify they have been used. However, I seem to
recall they worded it to include any method of card manipulation that would
signify usage - rotating to some other orientation other than 90 degrees,
or turning upside down, for example.
Robert Morss
Jack Dracula
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <to...@online.no> wrote:
>> The little players will just die.
> It seems to me they are already, _without_ the patent as an excuse:
> FPG, the blokes behind Galactic Empires, ... USPC and possibly Harper
> Prism (okay they are large :-) ) pulling out, etc. Only the Deckmaster
> line, and some of the licenced titles (Decipher's) survive for long.
But they're living and dying on their own merits, not being killed by
a megacorp. Little guys can make it big (L5R) but only if they're not
bullied by someone trying to control (read: wipe out) the industry.
Jack Dracula
fightin' the fight
Opus
Shannon Appel wrote:
> Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
> players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
Not Decipher, I talked to Matt Marini and he seems to think that the
step of activating certain cards by "rotating," "tapping," or
"designating" one or more cards does not apply to any of Decipher's
Customizable Card Games. Apart from not commenting on the patent claim
personally, his message seems to have been very carefully worded, and it
is the opinion of a few people I have talked to that they have already
consulted intellectual property lawyers on the issue.
If they don't stand up to challenge WOTC there is not much hope that any
others will, except possibly Steve Jackson. From what I hear, elements
of this patent already existed in the old version of Illuminaty were
some cards had to rotated or "designated" when used.
--
Opus
-----------------------------------------------
"If I have seen further it is by
standing upon the shoulders of Giants."
Sir Isaac Newton in a Letter
to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675/1676
------------------------------------------------
Shannon Appel
In article <19971016233...@ladder02.news.aol.com> atlas...@aol.com (AtlasGames) writes:
>Does that mean Chaosium is signing the contract?
No idea. You'd have to ask Greg.
Shannon
George W. Harris
It is my understanding (& IANAL, esp. IANAPL)
that one could not obtain a patent for a process that
had already been published, and that this patent was
not applied for until 1995, well after the publication of
M:tG. Could someone explain to me why this doesn't
automatically mean that the patent is invalid?
--
They say that there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Shannon Appel
In article <3447C10D...@sprint.ca> Opus <op...@sprint.ca> writes:
> Not Decipher, I talked to Matt Marini and he seems to think that the
> step of activating certain cards by "rotating," "tapping," or
> "designating" one or more cards does not apply to any of Decipher's
> Customizable Card Games. Apart from not commenting on the patent claim
> personally, his message seems to have been very carefully worded, and it
> is the opinion of a few people I have talked to that they have already
> consulted intellectual property lawyers on the issue.
The problem being that tapping is irrelevent. From my understanding,
you violate a patent if you violate any ONE claim IN FULL. About half
the claims have to do with tapping. The other half have to do with
customizing a deck by purchasing additional packages. You know, like
when you buy those 10 Boosters displays so you can get your one
Decipher (tm) ultra-rare?
Shannon
Fabet
I'm not sure what to think anymore. With WOTC on one side and Games Workshop on
the other, the industry has gone completely mad. It doesn't help that the
system of law in this country seems to cater to the frivolous.
If half the creativity, energy and money that went into lawsuits and copyright
issues were spent on game development, someone might actually make money
ethically and advance the hobby.
Faron Betchley
Little Wars
11213K Lee Highway
Fairfax Virginia 22030
(703) 352-9222
Bryan Gardner
Opus wrote:
>
> Shannon Appel wrote:
> > Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
> > players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
>
What games does Decipher make?
C. S. Gaines
games. for more information go to
C. S. Gaines
C. S. Gaines
company. This gives me some access to lawyers who specialize in
patents.
From what I understand, the more broadly a patents claims are, the more
difficult it is to defend in court. Judges get suspicious that a patent
exists to PREVENT competition than to PROTECT the rights of the original
invention when the claims are broad.
C. S. Gaines
DJorgen104
>The problem being that tapping is irrelevent. From my understanding,
>you violate a patent if you violate any ONE claim IN FULL. About half
>the claims have to do with tapping. The other half have to do with
>customizing a deck by purchasing additional packages. You know, like
>when you buy those 10 Boosters displays so you can get your one
>Decipher (tm) ultra-rare?
Don't be too sure about the violation of one claim. many of those claims are
themselves based upon previous patents. If the violation of a single claim
were all that it took, then the WotC patent is itself in violation of several
pre-existing patents and still-valid patents.
M:tG draws all its mechanical components from pre-existing concepts and puts
them all together as a new concept. You can't patent the individual gears,
belts, and pulleys in a machine, but you can patent the machine. On that
reasoning, there is a fair possibility that violating one or two of the 6
claims isn't necessarily a violation of the WotC patent.
Dana Jorgensen
Alternate Realities Publications.
Talk to an IP lawyer about the subject.
Terry Austin
"C. S. Gaines" <cga...@slipnet.com> wrote:
> I am not a lawyer. I work in the Purchasing department for a large
>company. This gives me some access to lawyers who specialize in
>patents.
> From what I understand, the more broadly a patents claims are, the more
>difficult it is to defend in court. Judges get suspicious that a patent
>exists to PREVENT competition than to PROTECT the rights of the original
>invention when the claims are broad.
They also get suspicious when the patent was filed two years after the
game was first published.
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr
Bryan Gardner (Bryan....@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Opus wrote:
: >
: > Shannon Appel wrote:
: > > Expect lawsuits from the big players (Decipher, anyone?). Expect small
: > > players to quietly pay up so they don't get knocked out of
: >
:
: What games does Decipher make?
Only the second most popular CCG after "Magic:The Gathering", "Star
Wars," as well as the "Star Trek: CCG.
--
******
T. Franklin Harris, Jr.
tfha...@HiWAAY.net
Visit "Franklin Harris: Critic-at-Large," now at a web site near
you with reviews of comic books, science fiction films, b-movies,
animation and SF TV programs: http://fly.hiwaay.net/~tfharris.
Paul C Duggan
What disturbs me about this affair is that WotC apparently aided other
companaies in designing CCGs (INWO was one, if I recall).
Now to turn around and claim a patent when they were encouraging imitation
earlier seems very underhanded (or schizo).
--
"I am an impure thinker. I am hurt, swayed, shaken, | paul + | +
elated, disillusioned, shocked, comforted, and I | --|--
have to transmit my mental experiences lest I die." | + | +
-- Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy | pdu...@world.std.com
Paul C Duggan
Robert Morss (r.m...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 2. The idea that you purchase cards from dealers, or trade for them with
: other players, in order to increase the size of your collecton. Yes,
: baseball cards have done this forever, but I guess WotC would say it's not
: for gaming purposes. (Can you really patent the concept of buying cards
: from a dealer?)
: 3. Any game where you create a deck from a universe of cards.
Miniature battle games have both of these features (though not with
cards). But WotC is claiming patent on the idea in other media as well.
WinningerR
>>>They also get suspicious when the patent was filed two years after the
game was first published.<<<
Just to lay this particular one to rest -- the patent was filed legally. WotC
received an official filing extension before the game was published.
WinningerR
>>>Decipher makes Star Trek and Star Wars CCGs. It would be an intresting turn
of
events if Decipher could get the George Lucas machine to throw its weight
behind them to fight the WOTC patent.<<<
Don't count on it.
>>>Could Lucas be convinced the patent would impact negatively on Star Wars in
general?<<<
Almost certainly not since, in fact, even if the STAR WARS CCG went off the
market tomorrow it would have a near-imperceptible impact on STAR WARS in
general.
Terry Austin
winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) wrote:
>Almost certainly not since, in fact, even if the STAR WARS CCG went off the
> market tomorrow it would have a near-imperceptible impact on STAR WARS in
> general.
Be interesting if WotC tried to take ownership of the game, though,
due to "poor sales." I wonder if the license with Lucas will even
allow them to sign the WotC license.
Brian Henderson
tau...@hyperbooks.com (Terry Austin) wrote:
>They also get suspicious when the patent was filed two years after the
>game was first published.
Especially since the patent is designed to go after pre-existing games
which would be grandfathered in under the law anyhow.
-Brian
Fabet
>>>>Could Lucas be convinced the patent would impact negatively on Star Wars
>in
> general?<<<
>
> market tomorrow it would have a near-imperceptible impact on STAR WARS
The financial losses would no doubt be miniscule. However ther can be no doubt
that the Star Wars card game is an incredible advertising tool. A whole new
generation has become VERY excited adout the universe. WOTC position could be
damaging.
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr
Terry Austin (tau...@hyperbooks.com) wrote:
: winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) wrote:
:
: >Almost certainly not since, in fact, even if the STAR WARS CCG went off the
: > market tomorrow it would have a near-imperceptible impact on STAR WARS in
: > general.
:
: Be interesting if WotC tried to take ownership of the game, though,
: due to "poor sales." I wonder if the license with Lucas will even
: allow them to sign the WotC license.
This would be a neat trick. "Star Wars" outsells everything except Magic
itself. To take over Star Wars, WotC would have to take over every other
CCG first. I can see the Anti-Trust division of the Justice Dept. and the
Patent Office fighting it out already.
WinningerR
>>>The financial losses would no doubt be miniscule. However ther can be no
doubt
that the Star Wars card game is an incredible advertising tool.<<<
Not all that incredible. Trust me -- in the realm of STAR WARS licensed
merchandise, the CCG is only a tiny drop in the bucket. Now, if something
threatened that Kenner toy line . . .
Fabet
> in the realm of STAR WARS licensed
> merchandise, the CCG is only a tiny drop in the bucket. Now, if something
> threatened that Kenner toy line . . .
>
>
Can't argue about that. But Star Wars toys were scarce on the general market
until the card game showed up. Then of course with the rerelease of the the
trilogy the market exploded. Now it's hard to imagine a Toys-R-Us without Star
Wars.
It's just food for thought.
WinningerR
>>>Can't argue about that. But Star Wars toys were scarce on the general market
until the card game showed up. Then of course with the rerelease of the the
trilogy the market exploded. Now it's hard to imagine a Toys-R-Us without Star
Wars.<<<
They are entirely unrelated phenomena. All sorts of STAR WARS mechandise
started showing up at almost exactly the same time -- new toys, games,
apparel, etc. This is due to a renewed effort to agressively market the
property and renewed interest.
The Paladin of the Winds
> But they're living and dying on their own merits, not being killed by
> a megacorp. Little guys can make it big (L5R) but only if they're not
> bullied by someone trying to control (read: wipe out) the industry.
>
> Jack Dracula
> fightin' the fight
Did you, perchance, forget that FRPG is now a subsidiary of WotC? At
least we have a vantage point from which to strike WotC...internal
"subversion"...
Anway, I get the feeling that Netrunner's design team was NOT involved in
the decision...rather ironic...
Iuchi Hisamatsu
Unicorn Clan Peacekeeper
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
AtlasGames
<<There is a
$1,000,000/year net sales minimum to keep the license (or your entire
company's net annual sales, which means that card are all your company
can do if I read it correctly). >>
This may have been a typo, since two separate paragraphs refer to the same
Exhibit F (the other refers to insurance...so it might mean $1 million
liability insurance, and someone forgot to put in the minimum sales figures).
-----------------------------------------------------------
[O] John A. Nephew Atlas...@aol.com
[0] President, Atlas Games Cust. Service (612) 638-0098
[O] Atlas Web Page: http://members.aol.com/atlasgames/
Steven R Nicewarner
bj...@edu.cornell (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
>> patent a game like this...heck maybe Milton Bradly should go back and
>> patent the "boardgame" because of the method of play. This makes
>No can do--it's too late for them, they've been out too long.
And so has Magic. The filing date for the patent is thirteen months
after Gen Con '94, which was the official release date for Magic. From
everyone I've talked to [CAVEAT: which includes lawyers and others who
work with patents, but not patent lawyers], that puts everything in
the public domain.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the sample liscense agreement is
no longer on WotC's website? I didn't pull down a copy, so I would
certainly appreciate someone emailing it to me . . .
Steve Nicewarner
Cerebral Hobbies
>--
>To respond via email, switch the elements of my domain.
>http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
>"If there is no human nature outside social construction, no needs or capacities other than those constructed by a particular discourse, then there is no basis for social criticism and no reason for protest or rebellion"
> --The Nation, June 9, 1997.
APVarney
<<<The filing date for the patent is thirteen months after Gen Con '94, which
was the official release date for Magic. From everyone I've talked to [CAVEAT:
which includes lawyers and others who work with patents, but not patent
lawyers], that puts everything in the public domain.>>>
First, MAGIC was released at Gen Con 1993, not 1994. Second, as has been
stated repeatedly in these threads, the date on the patent refers to an
amended version of the original patent application, dated June 1994 -- within
a year of MAGIC's official publication.
-- Allen Varney
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr
Fabet (fa...@aol.com) wrote:
: > in the realm of STAR WARS licensed
: > merchandise, the CCG is only a tiny drop in the bucket. Now, if something
: > threatened that Kenner toy line . . .
: >
:
: Can't argue about that. But Star Wars toys were scarce on the general market
: until the card game showed up. Then of course with the rerelease of the the
: trilogy the market exploded. Now it's hard to imagine a Toys-R-Us without Star
: Wars.
Yeah, but the card game had nothing to do with the toys. The CCG and the
toys coming on the market were both just two prongs of the publicity
gear-up for the Special Editions (which were themselves designed to
generate anticipation for the prequels). The toys would have come out
when they did with or without the CCG.
Bryan J. Maloney
> They also get suspicious when the patent was filed two years after the
> game was first published.
But when was the "intent to file" placed at the Patent Office? It's the
dating of the official "intent to file" document that matters.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19971018052...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, fa...@aol.com
(Fabet) wrote:
> If half the creativity, energy and money that went into lawsuits and copyright
> issues were spent on game development, someone might actually make money
Intellectual property *is* a game--it's just a game with very high stakes
many times...
Brian Henderson
sap...@netcom.com (Shannon Appel) wrote:
>In article <3449c05e...@newsrv.microsys.net> bhend...@microsys.net (Brian Henderson) writes:
>>Sorry, but that won't fly. Sports and non-sports collectors have been
>>doing that for well over a century before WOTC ever came along. I
>>know that waaaaaay back when I was dealing in NS cards, I would buy
>>dozens of packs to get specific cards.
>Sure, but the publisher wasn't selling them as game components, which
>is the whole "innovative" crux of WotC's patent.
But you could make a case for lots of games that use "game components"
sold separately. Take Star Fleet Battles, for example, even though
it's probably a dead game now. If you're playing fleet battles, you
will probably use different SSGs from a dozen Task Force products.
Would that fall under the patent? SFB has been around since the 70s.
-Brian
Kenneth Maniscalco
Philippe DUCHON wrote:
>
> DartE...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >>Sure, but the publisher wasn't selling them as game components, which
> >>is the whole "innovative" crux of WotC's patent.
> >
> >
> >>Topps entered the baseball card field in the post-World War II >period with its first series in 1951. The series consisted of two
> >>individual sets of 52 cards each. They were designed so that each
> >>set of 52 could be used to play a game of baseball.
> >
> >Gee, how . . . original of WOTC. Yeah, that's it, original. So original
> >they ought to . . . patent it. Yeah, that's the ticket. Wow, to have
> >thought of a collectible trading card game only 42 years after Topps
> >did.
> >
> >WOTC lawyers, are you listening? Heh, heh, heh, heh.
>
> OK, I think there's a bit too much anti-WotC resentment here for everybody
> to remain calm and think rationally.
>
> I'm not a big fan of WotC anymore, though I used to be. I still think Magic was
> a pretty good game and a big new thing when it was released; I still enjoy
> playing two of WotC's other CCGs. But I don't like what they've become, or what
> they've done to a game that used to be cool - though some of the players did
> their share. Here's for background.
>
> The patent doesn't claim to cover "CCGs". It covers _some_ mechanics. These
> seem to be, mainly (I'm not a lawyer, don't live under US law, English isn't
> my native language, and I only read it quickly, so I can't be sure),
>
> (a) getting your game into individual parts so that the player builds a
> selection of them (deckbuilding), which he'll have access to randomly
> during a game (drawing from a library)
>
> (b) using some of these as resources that are later used to bring others into
> play. This means a balance of "resources" cards (or whatever format the
> parts are in) and "effects" cards, so you have enough to develop, and
> enough to do the job.
>
> Most miniature games don't conflict with (a) because you usually don't get your
> miniatures randomly when actually playing, right ? And unless you know more
> about that Topps game, we can't say it conflicts with the patent either.
>
> Now, it's pretty clear that most CCGs, as we know them, do enter the field of
> this patent. It's also pretty clear that CCGs, as we know them, were inspired
> originally by Magic and its success - like it or not, Garfield _did_ think of
> something new here, even if some of the component concepts were already
> present somewhere else.
>
> Now, you may argue over some technicalities, and you may not like what WotC
> will do with this patent, sure. But please recognize that these are
> _two_different_subjects_...
>
> --
>
> Philippe Duchon (duc...@labri.u-bordeaux.fr)
>
The patent is really not the issue, but rather the license agreement that
appears rather odious. One can argue until blue in the face about the details
of the patent, but the fact is it has been granted. Unless challenged
sucessfully it's the deal.
The license on the other hand is completely WoTC's creation. And portions of it
are incredibly hostile to to the licensee.
--
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own.
Naturally it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good
men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of
righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with
rifles."
Jeff Cooper
"The Art of the Rifle"
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <62n4b9$6...@news.u-bordeaux.fr>, duc...@LaBRI.U-Bordeaux.FR
(Philippe DUCHON) wrote:
> (b) using some of these as resources that are later used to bring others into
> play. This means a balance of "resources" cards (or whatever format the
> parts are in) and "effects" cards, so you have enough to develop, and
> enough to do the job.
"King of the Tabletop", Tom Wham, late 1980s.
Terry Austin
Kenneth Maniscalco <K.Manisc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The patent is really not the issue, but rather the license agreement that
>appears rather odious. One can argue until blue in the face about the details
>of the patent, but the fact is it has been granted. Unless challenged
>sucessfully it's the deal.
50% of patents challenged are overturned in court. It actually is the
issue to some degree, particularly if WotC uses their financial
position to bully small companies out of business with threats of
lawsuits the smaller companies cannot afford to follow through to the
conclusion. Which WotC has not done yet.
>
>The license on the other hand is completely WoTC's creation. And portions of it
>are incredibly hostile to to the licensee.
I missed it on their web page, but if it's anything like their
distribution sub-license, the portions that are incredibly hostile to
the licensee are the *good* parts. The rest is worse, or just
incomprehensible.
nemein
Terry Austin wrote:
> Kenneth Maniscalco <K.Manisc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >The license on the other hand is completely WoTC's creation. And
> portions of it
> >are incredibly hostile to to the licensee.
>
> I missed it on their web page, but if it's anything like their
> distribution sub-license, the portions that are incredibly hostile to
> the licensee are the *good* parts. The rest is worse, or just
> incomprehensible.
>
Actually check out the link after the link to IBM patent's server.
Well, here straight from the site:
"The patent claims on U.S. Letters Patent 5,662,332 can be viewed on the
Internet at
<http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5662332>. The
[patent agreement itself is available] in Adobe Acrobat (.PDF) format.
" The []s are mine and indicate a link to the PDF file that used to be
linked into the paragraph previous to this one. (aka the license
agreement). Not sure how or why it got moved, but it seems to be back
now...
Just FYI
N
Joseph Goodman
Also just FYI -- after the link to the license was removed I called WotC
and was told the licensing agreement was taken off temporarily to correct
an error of some sort. The person I talked to thought it was back on-line.
It wasn't. When I told him, he said he'd get it back up in a day. So I
called the next day since it still wasn't up, but he said the webmaster
had promised to get it back on-line by (some time, I don't remember), so
check back then. So I did, and it was back on-line. I don't think it was a
conspiracy.
--
Joseph Goodman
perip...@mindspring.SPAMBAD.com
My thoughts follow my vision and dance in the sun... --Phish
bdy...@network.rahul.net
In article <peripatetic-25...@user-2k7i85m.dialup.mindspring.com>,
Joseph Goodman <perip...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Also just FYI -- after the link to the license was removed I called WotC
>and was told the licensing agreement was taken off temporarily to correct
>an error of some sort.
Did they say what the error was? I've got a copy of the original
statement, and when I get around to it I'll compare them. I noticed that
the filesizes are different (I think the new version is slightly larger).
--
Brian Dysart | Ours is not to reason why...
bdy...@rahul.net | "...and eight for the fruit bat."
Terry Austin
Terry Austin
perip...@mindspring.com (Joseph Goodman) wrote:
>Also just FYI -- after the link to the license was removed I called WotC
>and was told the licensing agreement was taken off temporarily to correct
>an error of some sort. The person I talked to thought it was back on-line.
>It wasn't. When I told him, he said he'd get it back up in a day. So I
>called the next day since it still wasn't up, but he said the webmaster
>had promised to get it back on-line by (some time, I don't remember), so
>check back then. So I did, and it was back on-line. I don't think it was a
>conspiracy.
What is the URL?
Dave Howell
The Space-Crime Continuum wrote:
>
> Ma...@antelope.demon.co.uk (Mark Green) wrote:
>
> >
> > But nonetheless people were playing games with them. Could companies get
> >around the patent by selling the cards and decks seperately (as pure trading
> >cards), but incidentally also offering a rulesheet that happens to contain
> >a way of playing with them if you happen to want to? (Which would be sold
> >seperately for a nominal amount)
>
> It seems to me that this strategy would have huge practical and legal
> difficulties:
>
> 1. Keep in mind that sometimes staying out of court is more important
> than going to court and winning.
Hit the nail on the nose. However, it really wouldn't be that hard to
write a trading card game that doesn't violate Wizards' patent. For
example, XXXenophile does not fit the description offered in the patent.
Wizards might still be dumb enough to take such a game to court, but
they run a big risk of losing the patent if they do; many patents are
sucessfully challenged. If a defendant can demonstrate that some of the
points in the patent aren't original to Magic, but in fact have existed
in other games before, that's prior art, and invalidates that part
of the patent. That's one of the reasons it's got six parts: so that
if one part is knocked out, there are other parts left standing.
(Note anti-spam on address.)
Will Wright
I have it!!!
All anyone has to do is include gum with their cards, it then becomes a
food product... with cards. I'm not sure of the legal details but i'd
bet it would work.
Will Wright
Patrick Dolan
Would there be different flavors of gum? How would the rarity level break
down? I suppose there would be special "foil wrapped" sticks of gum as
well....:)
Will Wright wrote in message <346E03...@earthlink.net>...