WotC Boycott
Bonn Ortloff
FO> What's all this I hear about a boycott of Wizards of the Coast?
Don't get yerself caught up in it. iut's just because of the patent.
<shrug>
---
ž SLMR 2.1a ž Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
Frederick Scott
"Skull One" <skul...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The boycott is due to their Licensing Agreement. And I am leading one in
>the Dallas area.
I can't help but ask: How does one "lead" a boycott? Do you march at the
head of line of people who walk into game stores just so as to _not_ buy
Magic cards. (And how do they tell you're not buying Magic cards, as
opposed to, say, not buying copies of Trivial Pursuit or chess sets or
something? It would be a shame to lose your boycott to such ambiguity.)
Fred
Skull One
No, you logically present your opinions on the matter. If the person agrees
with you, then they will proabably choose the same course of action you
have. If they don't, then they will do what they feel is right for them.
And currently I and others boycott all WoTC products.
If you would read the Licensing Agreement, then I would be more than happy
to discuss the matter with you in private. As I now see no more reason to
waste bandwidth here.
Frederick Scott wrote in message ...
Søren Skarby
Why boycott WotC? "®©™"
They make some great stuff and I think no one should boycott them.
Again, why do it?
From: Tino Didriksen
Darren Sparrow
Søren Skarby wrote in message <3479A5...@post9.tele.dk>...
I agree, why boycot WotC? If it wasn't for them I wouldn't have recently got
Portal and been introduced to a great hobby! By the way noone really makes a
game better than the people who first made it possible. WotC that is!
Darren.
Remus Shepherd
Darren Sparrow <dms...@interalpha.co.uk> wrote:
> Søren Skarby wrote in message <3479A5...@post9.tele.dk>...
> >Why boycott WotC? "®©™"
> >They make some great stuff and I think no one should boycott them.
> >Again, why do it?
> Portal and been introduced to a great hobby! By the way noone really makes a
> game better than the people who first made it possible. WotC that is!
WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and is in a
position to drive all other game companies out of the market. Some people
are nervous about their business practices, which seem to be just on the
edge of ethical. For this reason, many people (mostly people who do not
already play Magic) are boycotting them. I'm not sure how big a deal this
is; it may be so limited that WotC can ignore it completely.
For the record, I'm not overly upset about WotC's patent, and I have
no intention of boycotting them or quitting Magic over this...until the
first time they use their patent to close down a competitor's game. Then,
I'll be furious. :)
... ...
Remus Shepherd (re...@netcom.com)
Lord Black Goblin
> WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and is in a
>position to drive all other game companies out of the market. Some people
>are nervous about their business practices, which seem to be just on the
Oh! It's WotC... I could swear I saw Microsoft written in here... my mistake
:)
Lord Black Goblin
Bennett
In article <remusEK...@netcom.com>
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and is in a
>position to drive all other game companies out of the market. Some people
>are nervous about their business practices, which seem to be just on the
>already play Magic) are boycotting them. I'm not sure how big a deal this
>is; it may be so limited that WotC can ignore it completely.
>
companies out of business. I don't know where people are pulling this
stuff from. I mean really, if you beleive that to the point of boycottinhg
WotC, you have more of a problem than just looking out for small gaming
cmapnies; you really have it out for WotC.
Bennett Campbell
HCS...@cnsibm.albany.edu ----- appa...@juno.com
The mark of a civilized society is the difference between revering
one's elders and eating them.
RWWells
>Why boycott WotC? "®©™"
>
>They make some great stuff and I think no one should boycott them.
>
>Again, why do it?
>
>
Because WotC wants to prevent another other company from having the chance of
producing great products. Read the WotC license agreement and see the great and
beneficient WotC include clauses that permit WotC to steal other companies card
games and prevent other companies from providing promo cards to magazines.
But, if you feel that WotC should use its size to drive competitors out of
business, then feel free to support them.
Richard Wells
Make Peter Adkinson Happy -- Boycott WotC
Remus Shepherd
Bennett <HCS...@uacsc2.albany.edu> wrote:
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
> > WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and is in a
> >position to drive all other game companies out of the market.
> >
> companies out of business. I don't know where people are pulling this
> stuff from.
WotC is forcing other companies to patent their collectible card
games from them. The terms of the license includes a royalty on the
card sales (not profits, but sales) above $500,000, and a clause that allows
WotC to *take control* of any game that does not sell 'well enough'. If
WotC does this, it assumes ownership of the game and all unsold stock.
If that isn't a recipe for putting competitors out of the business,
I don't know what is.
> I mean really, if you beleive that to the point of boycottinhg
> WotC, you have more of a problem than just looking out for small gaming
> cmapnies; you really have it out for WotC.
Don't look at me. <:) As I said, I'm not boycotting WotC, just
keeping an eye on them. Except for the 'piracy' clause, I think it's a
fair licensing agreement, and as long as they never use that clause I
wont be upset with them. :)
Darren Sparrow
Tell you what, lets wait and see if WotC tries to sue some company for
producing a great game. If they do and it is totally unfair THEN lets
boycott them and see what comes of it. It would be very unfortunate for WotC
to decide to sue companies for coming up with better game designs as this is
most certainly to lead to suicide for WotC. OR we could all get together and
just email them lots and lots until they get the message, I'm sure
encouraging others to assert their democratic right to freedom of expression
wont be misconstrued as 'terrorism'. So, what do you all have to say to
that? I feel it is the only real way to make sure that we are not dictated
to buy corperations who feel 'they' have our best interests at heart. I
mean, did anyone patent html? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm able
to use html without any problems so why patent 'tapping' 'turning' or
whatever you want to call it?
Darren, 'I understand it now' Sparrow.
Bennett
In article <remusEK...@netcom.com>
Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
>
> WotC is forcing other companies to patent their collectible card
>games from them. The terms of the license includes a royalty on the
>card sales (not profits, but sales) above $500,000, and a clause that allows
>WotC to *take control* of any game that does not sell 'well enough'. If
>WotC does this, it assumes ownership of the game and all unsold stock.
clauses? i'd like to see a quote or a pointer to where I can find this
info. ATM, nobody knows anything, they are instead eithe rmaking it up
or (more ofteN) repeating what they've heard.
Remus Shepherd
Bennett <HCS...@uacsc2.albany.edu> wrote:
> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
> > WotC is forcing other companies to patent their collectible card
> >games from them. The terms of the license includes a royalty on the
> >card sales (not profits, but sales) above $500,000, and a clause that allows
> >WotC to *take control* of any game that does not sell 'well enough'. If
> >WotC does this, it assumes ownership of the game and all unsold stock.
>
> Rubbish. Which companies are being affected currently? where are these
> clauses? i'd like to see a quote or a pointer to where I can find this
> info. ATM, nobody knows anything, they are instead eithe rmaking it up
> or (more ofteN) repeating what they've heard.
The patent license can be found at
http://www.wizards.com/Corporate_Info/News_Releases/WotC/Patent_Info.html.
Read it and make your own conclusions. And if you wish, you can probably
find people to discuss it with in rec.games.trading-cards.misc; many people
there are more knowledgable and less indifferent than I about this subject.
Skull One
Bennett wrote in message <17C3112E7A...@uacsc2.albany.edu>...
>In article <remusEK...@netcom.com>
>Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
>
>>
>> WotC is forcing other companies to patent their collectible card
>>games from them. The terms of the license includes a royalty on the
>>card sales (not profits, but sales) above $500,000, and a clause that
allows
>>WotC to *take control* of any game that does not sell 'well enough'. If
>>WotC does this, it assumes ownership of the game and all unsold stock.
>
>
>Rubbish. Which companies are being affected currently? where are these
>clauses? i'd like to see a quote or a pointer to where I can find this
>info. ATM, nobody knows anything, they are instead eithe rmaking it up
>or (more ofteN) repeating what they've heard.
The clauses are in their PDF file (attached). So next time do a little
research before you make comments on a subject matter YOU know nothing
about. Because the rest of us DO know what is going on and are making
informed decisions about WoTC and their business practices.
BTW: This should be the most update version of the Agreement, if someone has
a more current one please post it here.
>
>
>Bennett Campbell
>HCS...@cnsibm.albany.edu ----- appa...@juno.com
>The mark of a civilized society is the difference between revering
>one's elders and eating them.
>
begin 666 Patent_Agreement.pdf
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Lou Zifer
Lord Black Goblin schrieb:
> > WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and is in
> a
> >position to drive all other game companies out of the market. Some
> people
> >are nervous about their business practices, which seem to be just on
> the
> >edge of ethical. <snip>
>
> Oh! It's WotC... I could swear I saw Microsoft written in here... my
> mistake
> :)
>
> Lord Black Goblin
Everything I know about this topic is what I read in Inquest Magazine
#31(?).There was stated that Richard Garfield had tried to patent MtG
since he had
created it.Now he finally got it.He has the copyright for the exact game
mechanism of Magic-The Gathering:
1.untap
2.upkeep
3.draw
4.main phase
5.discard
So,any game that is way to similar to this,is violating his patent,but
if any game manufacturer is producing a CCG that does not resemble
MtG,it is free to do so.
Further the patent includes the mechanism of tapping (a.k.a. as bend,
bow etc.) but I am afraid I have to admit that I don't remember that
part exactly.
Lou Zifer
RWWells
>Everything I know about this topic is what I read in Inquest Magazine
>#31(?).There was stated that Richard Garfield had tried to patent MtG
>since he had
>created it.Now he finally got it.He has the copyright for the exact game
Well, not exactly. The six claims cover much more than just MtG. The claims
include the concepts of building a deck by using only a portion of the cards
you own (every CCG uses that one), drawing cards from the stack (library), and
playing those cards. Also, cards in the process of being played may be rotated
(tapped). Potentially covers much more than just MtG.
Richard Wells
Boycott WotC
Ken Moore
RWWells <rww...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19971129060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
But what you don't understand is that a game has to include ALL of those
characteristics in order to violate the patent. Someone else can make a
collectible card game, they just can't include tapping. (Netrunner already
does this, and look at what a great game it is. Although, it hasn't been
very lucky at gaining much popularity.) There'll be more CCGs, just give
people time to come up with an idea of their OWN.
--
Post successfully created by:
KEN MOORE
(Committed to not poking you with a thumbtack.)
RWWells
>But what you don't understand is that a game has to include ALL of those
>characteristics in order to violate the patent. Someone else can make a
>collectible card game, they just can't include tapping. (Netrunner already
>does this, and look at what a great game it is. Although, it hasn't been
>very lucky at gaining much popularity.) There'll be more CCGs, just give
>people time to come up with an idea of their OWN.
>
Sorry, but claim 2 does not require tapping. Claim 2 does require indivual deck
building and cards being drawn from deck. Everything else that is still covered
is left to being at the player's option in accordance with the game rules.
Also, claim 3 does not require tapping, but does require shuffling the deck and
cards being placed on the surface face up. Lest you think that the way to avoid
the patent is to play cards face down, claim 1 does not require cards to be
played face up.
And this excludes the other patent applications WotC has on file. (After all,
the patent WotC got was part of their original filing.) Many more years of
legal fun will be had.
Richard Wells
Josh Hesse
Ken Moore (squi...@pcpartner.net) wrote:
:
: But what you don't understand is that a game has to include ALL of those
: characteristics in order to violate the patent. Someone else can make a
: collectible card game, they just can't include tapping. (Netrunner already
: does this, and look at what a great game it is. Although, it hasn't been
: very lucky at gaining much popularity.) There'll be more CCGs, just give
: people time to come up with an idea of their OWN.
*BZZZT* Thank you for playing, please try again.
If it has any of them, it would violate the patent.
The WotC patent also includes individual player's decks, so
this leaves what, DinoHunt?
(Hey, I kind of like SJG's DinoHunt, anybody sure if it's covered?)
-Josh
--
Do not send mail to this account. Really.
"Talk about silly conspiracy theories..." -Wayne Schlitt in unl.general
This post (C)1997, Josh Hesse. Quoted material is (C) of the person quoted.
|ess|erb|unl|u|
email: jh|e@h|ie.|.ed|
Vote for "citizan" Bob! <http://www.wtv.net/trustee/>
Bennett
In article <19971130013...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
rww...@aol.com (RWWells) writes:
>>But what you don't understand is that a game has to include ALL of those
>>characteristics in order to violate the patent. Someone else can make a
>>collectible card game, they just can't include tapping. (Netrunner already
>>does this, and look at what a great game it is. Although, it hasn't been
>>very lucky at gaining much popularity.) There'll be more CCGs, just give
>>people time to come up with an idea of their OWN.
>>
>
>building and cards being drawn from deck. Everything else that is still covered
>is left to being at the player's option in accordance with the game rules.
>Also, claim 3 does not require tapping, but does require shuffling the deck and
>cards being placed on the surface face up. Lest you think that the way to avoid
>the patent is to play cards face down, claim 1 does not require cards to be
>played face up.
>
>And this excludes the other patent applications WotC has on file. (After all,
>the patent WotC got was part of their original filing.) Many more years of
>legal fun will be had.
>
>Richard Wells
>
The patent is extant. Apparently it covers 95% of the CCG genre. So, the
question is, why HAVEN'T all these other games and companies been affected?
Why hasn't the Star Wars game been shut down? What about Vampire:TES?
If the patent spells such doom and gloom, why hasn't it arrived yet?
Remus Shepherd
Bennett <HCS...@uacsc2.albany.edu> wrote:
> Alright.
>
> The patent is extant. Apparently it covers 95% of the CCG genre. So, the
> question is, why HAVEN'T all these other games and companies been affected?
> Why hasn't the Star Wars game been shut down? What about Vampire:TES?
> If the patent spells such doom and gloom, why hasn't it arrived yet?
IIRC, WotC has stated that they are not going to enforce the patent until
the first of the new year...other companies have until then to license it
from them. HarperPrism is the only one who has publically done so, to allow
their Aliens vs. Predator game to come out.
Vampire: TES is owned by WotC, in case you hadn't noticed. <:) In fact,
if you look around, most of the really popular games are owned by WotC,
either because they invented them or because they bought the game by buying
a smaller company. Star Wars is the glaring exception. A Lucas vs.
Garfield lawsuit would be interesting...I'm not sure who has more money. ;)
re...@usa.net
On 1997-11-25 re...@netcom.com said:
>Bennett <HCS...@uacsc2.albany.edu> wrote:
>> Remus Shepherd <re...@netcom.com> writes:
>> > WotC has patented the idea of 'collectible card gaming', and
>>is in a >position to drive all other game companies out of the
>>market. >
>> There is no truth to the statement that WotC can drive other
>>gaming companies out of business. I don't know where people are
>>pulling this stuff from.
>WotC is forcing other companies to patent their collectible card
>games from them. The terms of the license includes a royalty on the
>card sales (not profits, but sales) above $500,000, and a clause
>that allows WotC to *take control* of any game that does not sell
>'well enough'. If WotC does this, it assumes ownership of the game
>and all unsold stock. If that isn't a recipe for putting
>competitors out of the business, I don't know what is.
Get real people, that clause that allows WotC to "take over" a card
game is, if anything, a blessing to the other card game producers.
Take a hypothetical situation...
I, as an independent game producer, produce a game called "Collect This"
I have to license it from WotC, with the license agreement stating
that they get a percentage of all sales above $500,000.00 which I have
absolutely no problem with because by the time I have sales above
$500,000.00 I should be making a profit and the license agreement does
NOT net WotC a huge percentage, only 3% of the sales I think (out of the
15% minimum profit I would be making on sales over $500,000.00).
Now, if my game DOESN'T sell, WotC has the option to take it over.
Oh damn, they get to take over my stinker that isn't making me any money.
I cannot see how this can be bad.
--HiRez
re...@usa.net
Remus Shepherd
re...@usa.net wrote:
> On 1997-11-25 re...@netcom.com said:
> Get real people, that clause that allows WotC to "take over" a card
> game is, if anything, a blessing to the other card game producers.
> Now, if my game DOESN'T sell, WotC has the option to take it over.
> Oh damn, they get to take over my stinker that isn't making me any money.
> I cannot see how this can be bad.
Uh, that stinker that isn't making you any money cost you some few
thousands of dollars to produce. Now that WotC has it, you don't even
have a chance to break even. You're in the hole for your entire investment.
Still sound like a good idea to you?
Ignorance of basic MTG strategy, I can overlook. But ignorance of
basic economics...don't they teach that in schools, anymore? <:)
Steve Brinich
Josh Hesse wrote:
> *BZZZT* Thank you for playing, please try again.
>
> If it has any of them, it would violate the patent.
*SIGH* Doesn't _anybody_ bother to do any homework
?
A patent is infringed by matching _all_ elements of _any one_ claim.
As an example, let's take this claim, which I found after 30 seconds
of browsing at the IBM Patent Server (http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/):
From http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5658072:
1. A vehicular marker Imp comprising:
a lamp body having a front opening;
a reflector disposed at an inner-rear surface of said
lamp body;
a light source mounted at the central part of said
lamp body for emitting a light beam; and
an outer lens covering said front opening of said lamp
body,
said outer lens comprising a first fisheye step group
comprising convex fisheye steps and a second fisheye
step groups comprising concave fisheye steps whereby
an appearance of depth is provided.
Obviously, this patent does not include every "lamp body having
a front opening". It includes items that match _all_ its elements.
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
Josh Hesse
Steve Brinich (ste...@access.digex.net) wrote:
:
: *SIGH* Doesn't _anybody_ bother to do any homework
: ?
: A patent is infringed by matching _all_ elements of _any one_ claim.
As opposed to all _claims_ of any one _patent_, which was the misconception
that I was responding to.
[snip patent example]
:
: Obviously, this patent does not include every "lamp body having
: a front opening". It includes items that match _all_ its elements.
Which comprises one claim of the patent. The last element would distinguish
the claim from an ordinary reflector-type lightbulb.
Patent
claim
element
element
claim
element
ect...
-Josh
--
Do not send mail to this account. Really.
"Talk about silly conspiracy theories..." -Wayne Schlitt in unl.general
This post (C)1997, Josh Hesse. Quoted material is (C) of the person quoted.
|ess|erb|unl|u|
email: jh|e@h|ie.|.ed| .Sigfile freshness date: 12/1/97
Did you vote? 7.7% for Bob: <http://www.wtv.net/trustee/>
David Pipgras
> *SIGH* Doesn't _anybody_ bother to do any homework
> ?
> A patent is infringed by matching _all_ elements of _any one_ claim.
>
Greetings! I am just joining this discussion, so I would like to add my
comments if I may...
I think the WotC patent will eventually spend more time in court being
argued (and won against) by card companies who have the guts to tackle the
almighty Wizards Goon Squad...
If you read the thing, it is so poorly written as to be open to any of a
hundred different interpertations. They way is is written, it can, by its
own defination, include things like, oh, say, Poker, and all the various
forms of that....
I beleive once more companies sit down and look this silly thing over,
they will find loop hole after loop hole and will successfully challange
it again and again. Ultimately, the patent will either be revoked,
rewritten or forgotten altogether....
Right now, a lot of the smaller companies are being intimidated by WotC,
and more or less either forced to sign an agreement they don't totally
understand or go out of business....
Personally, I am looking forward to this.
And besides, at the rate in which WotC is killing itself by flooding the
market, how much longer will it be before it is not an issue anymore?
Dave
afl...@calvin.usc.edu
> I think the WotC patent will eventually spend more time in court being
> argued (and won against) by card companies who have the guts to tackle the
> almighty Wizards Goon Squad...
<snip>
> I beleive once more companies sit down and look this silly thing over,
> they will find loop hole after loop hole and will successfully challange
> it again and again. Ultimately, the patent will either be revoked,
> rewritten or forgotten altogether....
It doesn't matter if the patent was written by a pack of prarie dogs
high on crack. The question isn't really, "Is the patent strong
enough to defend a legal challenge?' -- it's "Is the challenging
company strong enough to pursue the legal challenge?"
Here's an analogy.
You and I decide to play a game. Take a six-sided die. Every time the
die comes up 2-6, you put a penny in the pot. Every time the die comes
up 1. I put five pennies in the pot.
The game is won when one of two conditions is met.
1) If, at any time, you cannot afford to put a penny in the pot, I win, and
collect the pot.
2) When you have successfully rolled a '1' 100 times, you win, and you collect
the pot.
Your chances of winning are, of course, 100%, given enough time. However,
getting to the 'win' condition may break you, in which case I win. Even given
the certainty of my loss, the game is worth it for me to play, in the hopes
that I can financially break you, and win, before you can get to the point
of your 'win' condition.
> Right now, a lot of the smaller companies are being intimidated by WotC,
> and more or less either forced to sign an agreement they don't totally
> understand or go out of business....
>
> Personally, I am looking forward to this.
You are looking forward to companies going out of business?
I think you've mis-spoke.
> And besides, at the rate in which WotC is killing itself by flooding the
> market, how much longer will it be before it is not an issue anymore?
It will be an issue for the duration of the patent. Even if WotC kills the
CCG industry, the patent will not expire.
My first and last word on the issue.
Alan (aj)
Gerrud Rasmussen
Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if *every*
element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company prints a
ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think they're
ok in the eyes of the law.
Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements of the
patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG anyways.
flame on!
Patrick Dolan
Gerrud Rasmussen wrote in message <348F8B57...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if
*every*
>element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company
prints a
>ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think
they're
>ok in the eyes of the law.
I think the trick is that you have to point to at least one element in the
claim and prove that it isn't in your product. Unfortunately, the patent is
very broadly written and could describe many card games already on the
market.
Also, I don't know if you have to show that an element of _each_ claim
doesn't apply to you, or simply one element of one claim.
>Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements
of the
>patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG
anyways.
>
Well, the "elements" that WOTC is patenting are things like: Creating your
own deck, drawing cards randomly to put in your hand, taking cards from your
hand and putting them "in play", using cards that are in play to do things
with, etc. From what I can tell, it covers every CCG in existance, and
leaves very little room to make one that doesn't infringe on their patent.
The B5 game might avoid it, since you select your starting hand, you don't
draw it randomly, but a later claim in WOTC's patent refers to "obtaining a
hand of a predetermined number of trading cards from the player's library of
trading cards", so....
Ray Brown
Gerrud Rasmussen wrote:
>
> Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if *every*
> element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company prints a
> ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think they're
> ok in the eyes of the law.
> patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG anyways.
>
Hello,
Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
another clones of Magic The Gathering. Same concept different rules or
criteria for winning the game. The patent is just good business. My
problem is with the WOTC license itself. It grants them an absurd
amount of control over the business practices of it's competitors.
Please download adobe if you don't have it and read the document. It
really is disgusting. I believe a reasonable annual fee for the license
would have been far more acceptable to the industry and public. They
just want an unreasonable amount of control over the industry which will
prove disasterous results for everyone. I really hope the companies
contacted by Wizards for patent infringment just gives them the finger
and ignores the greedy wretches. Bad publicity will follow WOTC if they
start suing small companies into extinction.
Patrick Dolan
Ray Brown wrote in message <349087...@atlantic.net>...
>Gerrud Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>> Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if
*every*
>> element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company
prints a
>> ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think
they're
>> ok in the eyes of the law.
>> Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements
of the
>> patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG
anyways.
>>
>> flame on!
>
>Hello,
>
>Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
>another clones of Magic The Gathering. Same concept different rules or
>criteria for winning the game. The patent is just good business.
I don't agree with that, especially since they didn't really invent anything
"new". Frankly, I'm not sure they have the right to claim ownership of the
idea. Plus, I can't see this _helping_ the industry in the slightest. Giving
complete control over a "concept", not the actual implementation of it,
seems like it's going to result in very little innovation (why make
something "new" when you have to pay for the patent anyway? Just use the
same rules and slap new pictures on it) and little competition (no matter
how minor the fees, it's going to scare some small companies away). On the
other hand, the fact that basic concept for RPG's, minatures games and board
games _weren't_ patented seems to have resulted in an amazing wide, diverse
and highly competitive marketplace.
>My
>problem is with the WOTC license itself. It grants them an absurd
>amount of control over the business practices of it's competitors.
Agreed. Despite my objections to WOTC even being granted a patent on CCG's,
I wouldn't be nearly so upset if they _did_ do what they (supposedly) were
going to do in the first place (charge a token fee, give WOTC credit for
"creating" the concept).
>Please download adobe if you don't have it and read the document. It
>really is disgusting. I believe a reasonable annual fee for the license
>would have been far more acceptable to the industry and public. They
>just want an unreasonable amount of control over the industry which will
>prove disasterous results for everyone.
Well, according to Peter Adkinson, they plan on "guiding" the industry to a
better and brighter future. I suppose they feel that can't "guide" it if
they _don't_ have as much control as possible.
>I really hope the companies
>contacted by Wizards for patent infringment just gives them the finger
>and ignores the greedy wretches. Bad publicity will follow WOTC if they
>start suing small companies into extinction.
I don't think it would really hurt them, unfortunately. They'd simply crank
up the PR machine, and increase the volume of promotions, drowning out any
insults hurled their way. And with the influence they're getting in the
industry, I don't even think they'd _allow_ much in the way of negative
commentary (okay, that's blind cynicism at work in that last comment, but
still....)
Glen Barnett
In article <349087...@atlantic.net>,
Ray Brown <rbr...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
>another clones of Magic The Gathering.
Bull. Maybe you haven't played some of the ones that aren't, but
that doesn't mean they aren't there. Many are very, very different
indeed. The only thing some of them have in common with magic
is that they are collectible.
Or is anything collectible "the same game" to you?
Glen
mli...@securitydynamics.com
In article <66qo94$bkl$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>,
bar...@agsm.unsw.edu.au (Glen Barnett) wrote:
>
> In article <349087...@atlantic.net>,
> Ray Brown <rbr...@atlantic.net> wrote:
> >Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
> >another clones of Magic The Gathering.
>
> Bull. Maybe you haven't played some of the ones that aren't, but
> that doesn't mean they aren't there. Many are very, very different
> indeed. The only thing some of them have in common with magic
> is that they are collectible.
Ah, but that's what the patent is, isn't it? Take Star Wars. Star Wars
as a game is really not very similar to Magic at all; the game just works
completely differently. But if you think of Star Wars as a product, not
just a game, it has the following basic traits.
(1) You play a game with it.
(2) You get a random assortment of cards, and are expected to trade
for cards you want.
(3) The cards also form a collectible - some cards are printed in limited
editions; some are more rare than others.
Notice that Magic has these same aspects. So, as a *game,* Star Wars
isn't even close to Magic, but as a *product,* it is. In fact, I might
go so far as to say that most card games printed after magic were
attempts to make a product very similar to Magic and sell them well.
The patent doesn't mention anything about the specific look and feel
of MTG or its game mechanics. Wizards wasn't patenting the game,
they were patenting the product.
-Moses
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
mli...@securitydynamics.com
> > Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if *every*
> > element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company prints a
> > ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think they're
> > ok in the eyes of the law.
> > Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements of the
> > patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG anyways.
You are wrong. Patents make a certain number of claims, and anything
that falls under *any* of the claims is covered under the patent.
And yes, MtG has a pretty good grip on the market. But (forgive the
heresy) there *could* be a game which is better than Magic, and will
become more popular, and was designed as a rip-off. Therefore Wizards
has quite a reasonable interest in protecting their product - it *could*
be in danger without the patent.
R. Serena Wakefield
My spies inform me that, on Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:00:43 GMT, Ray Brown
<rbr...@atlantic.net>, hiding under the bedcovers, scribbled in the
following in their diary:
>Gerrud Rasmussen wrote:
>> Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if *every*
>> element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company prints a
>> ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think they're
>> ok in the eyes of the law.
>> Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements of the
>> patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG anyways.
>> flame on!
>Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
>another clones of Magic The Gathering. Same concept different rules or
>criteria for winning the game.
I see you've never played Highlander, xXxenophile, INWO, Middle Earth,
Gridiron, Mythos, Star Trek, X-Files, Star Wars, Star Trek TOS, or
Netrunner.
Yeah, there are, or rather were, derivative games. But most died out
on their own. A patent was not needed to kill them.
>The patent is just good business.
So's assassination.
>My problem is with the WOTC license itself. It grants them an absurd
>amount of control over the business practices of it's competitors.
>Please download adobe if you don't have it and read the document. It
>really is disgusting. I believe a reasonable annual fee for the license
>would have been far more acceptable to the industry and public. They
>just want an unreasonable amount of control over the industry which will
>prove disasterous results for everyone. I really hope the companies
>contacted by Wizards for patent infringment just gives them the finger
>and ignores the greedy wretches.
Here you are very right. The criteria given are far too encompassing;
by that definition, Cosmic Encounter and Changeling are collectible
card games.
The problem is that, like most government institutions, the patent
office didn't have a clear idea of what they were regulating. They
allowed the company applying for the patent to explain it to them, and
that's ALWAYS a mistake.
From what I can see, the Wizards patent is likely to shut down a lot
of promising games and game designers, and now that types of games can
be patented we can look forward to a lot less diversity in the future.
It's sad, really, but I think we can thank our lucky stars that TSR
didn't try this back in 1977. There would BE no hobby today.
Truth be told, if Garfield was simply collecting a *royalty* on
collectible card games, I wouldn't see the problem. It's the
*licensing* that gets me ... WotC has the power to shut down other
games before they've even gotten started. This is really worrying.
And before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, I would like to point out
that the only two games I play that are still even in print are Magic
and L5R. I haven't exactly got a lot to lose from this patent, but
that doesn't mean I don't think it's a bad idea ... and terrible
publicity. Anyone else see the halfhearted spin control in the last
Duelist?
>Bad publicity will follow WOTC if they start suing small companies into extinction.
Well, they're in good company. After all, they bought TSR, the former
industry leader in lawyer-domination and bad PR. And here I had
expect TSR to have cleaned up their act when Wizards took over.
(Got a Magic: the Gathering website? Look out ...)
--
R. Serena Wakefield
rai...@pretensions.GATE.net (drop your pretensions to e-mail)
Serena's Sanctuary: http://www.gate.net/~raistw
Joseph William Dixon
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:29:14 GMT, rai...@pretensions.GATE.net wrote:
: And before anyone accuses me of sour grapes, I would like to point out
: that the only two games I play that are still even in print are Magic
: and L5R. I haven't exactly got a lot to lose from this patent, but
: that doesn't mean I don't think it's a bad idea ... and terrible
: publicity. Anyone else see the halfhearted spin control in the last
: Duelist?
I don't read the articles in that piece of trash. I just borrow it for
a few minutes from someone who already has it so that I can read Foglio's
"What's New?"
/===== Joseph W. Dixon ==== Team *AMIGA* ==== -*[Gumby]*- =====\
\= aa...@chebucto.ns.ca === http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~aa343/ =/
Frederick Scott
(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)
rai...@pretensions.GATE.net (R. Serena Wakefield) writes:
>Anyone else see the halfhearted spin control in the last Duelist?
Yup. It was pretty awful. It reminded me of 1984 and newspeak. "We're
doing this _for_ the game designer! (Yea, that's it, that's the ticket...)
After all, game designers design stuff all the time that would make them
a _great_ living if only there weren't that awful possibility that the
next guy was going to rip off their good ideas (yea, _that's_ it) and
keep them from making any money..."
Sheesh. HELLOOOooooo, YOOHOO WotC!?!?! _REALITY_, REMEMBER?!? Hardly
anyone ever one makes a lot of money off game designs anyway and of those
that do, the chances that someone else will copy their game concepts
(as opposed to the game itself, which should be protected by copyright) is
hardly what's holding them back. Now, the chance that they might get _sued_
by some large company with a huge legal budget that will put them out of
business whether they're right or wrong - now, _that's_ something that's
a real problem to the budding game designer. Hmmmm.....
Gad, I hate it when people lie to such an extent that they wind up trying
to convince you night is day. If WotC's going to take this shabby patent
and use it in an egregious power play to sqelch any possible competition
in the CCG line simply because _THEY CAN_, then fine. Do it and don't
bother trying to sugarcoat it. But don't insult our intelligence.
Fred
Frederick Scott
(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS)
rai...@pretensions.GATE.net (R. Serena Wakefield) writes:
>Anyone else see the halfhearted spin control in the last Duelist?
Yup. It was pretty awful. It reminded me of 1984 and newspeak. "We're
doing this _for_ the game designer! (Yea, that's it, that's the ticket...)
After all, game designers design stuff all the time that would make them
a _great_ living if only there weren't that awful possibility that the
next guy was going to rip off their good ideas (yea, _that's_ it) and
keep them from making any money..."
Sheesh. HELLOOOooooo, YOOHOO WotC!?!?! _REALITY_, REMEMBER?!? Hardly
anyone ever one makes a lot of money off game designs anyway and of those
that do, the chances that someone else will copy their game concepts
(as opposed to the game itself, which should be protected by copyright) is
hardly what's holding them back. Now, the chance they might get _sued_ by
some large company with a huge legal budget and a vaguely-related patent
they've pulled out of their ass which COULD put them out of business just
from the litigation - whether they're right or wrong - now that's something
else....
Patrick Dolan
Ray Brown wrote in message <349087...@atlantic.net>...
>Gerrud Rasmussen wrote:
>>
>> Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if
*every*
>> element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company
prints a
>> ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think
they're
>> ok in the eyes of the law.
>> Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements
of the
>> patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG
anyways.
>>
>> flame on!
>
>Hello,
>
>Ah, all the games currently out on the market are in some form or
>another clones of Magic The Gathering. Same concept different rules or
>criteria for winning the game. The patent is just good business.
I don't agree with that, especially since they didn't really invent anything
"new". Frankly, I'm not sure they have the right to claim ownership of the
idea. Plus, I can't see this _helping_ the industry in the slightest. Giving
complete control over a "concept", not the actual implementation of it,
seems like it's going to result in very little innovation (why make
something "new" when you have to pay for the patent anyway? Just use the
same rules and slap new pictures on it) and little competition (no matter
how minor the fees, it's going to scare some small companies away). On the
other hand, the fact that basic concept for RPG's, minatures games and board
games _weren't_ patented seems to have resulted in an amazing wide, diverse
and highly competitive marketplace.
>My
>problem is with the WOTC license itself. It grants them an absurd
>amount of control over the business practices of it's competitors.
Agreed. Despite my objections to WOTC even being granted a patent on CCG's,
I wouldn't be nearly so upset if they _did_ do what they (supposedly) were
going to do in the first place (charge a token fee, give WOTC credit for
"creating" the concept).
>Please download adobe if you don't have it and read the document. It
>really is disgusting. I believe a reasonable annual fee for the license
>would have been far more acceptable to the industry and public. They
>just want an unreasonable amount of control over the industry which will
>prove disasterous results for everyone.
Well, according to Peter Adkinson, they plan on "guiding" the industry to a
better and brighter future. I suppose they feel that can't "guide" it if
they _don't_ have as much control as possible.
>I really hope the companies
>contacted by Wizards for patent infringment just gives them the finger
>and ignores the greedy wretches. Bad publicity will follow WOTC if they
>start suing small companies into extinction.
I don't think it would really hurt them, unfortunately. They'd simply crank
Scott Johnson
Joseph William Dixon (aa...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
<regarding the duelist>
:
: I don't read the articles in that piece of trash. I just borrow it for
: a few minutes from someone who already has it so that I can read Foglio's
: "What's New?"
Oh, is he writing that again?! I loved it when it was in Dragon Magazine.
Shoot, it'd almost be worth getting the Duelist just to be able to read
new strips of What's New.
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Nework, Inc. (313) 647-8647
Finger for PGP public key.
sawb...@uniserve.com
fred_...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote:
>Fred
For a fun historical perspective read the interview with Peter Adkison
in Pyramid #1 regarding WOTC's woes at thet time with Palladium.
Grant
sawb...@uniserve.com
"Patrick Dolan" <patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
Following the corporate path has (unfortunatly) not seemed to harm
GW's ability to make money, even if they are unpopular with just about
the whole world. WOTC isn't going to hurt no matter how things are
going currently.
Grant
sawb...@uniserve.com
"Patrick Dolan" <patd...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Gerrud Rasmussen wrote in message <348F8B57...@sk.sympatico.ca>...
>>Sorry if I'm wrong, but doesn't U.S. Patent law only come into effect if
>*every*
>>element of the patent in question is infringed upon? If another company
>prints a
>>ccg that has only one or two of the elements of the patent in it, I think
>they're
>>ok in the eyes of the law.
>I think the trick is that you have to point to at least one element in the
>claim and prove that it isn't in your product. Unfortunately, the patent is
>very broadly written and could describe many card games already on the
>market.
>Also, I don't know if you have to show that an element of _each_ claim
>doesn't apply to you, or simply one element of one claim.
>>Besides, if another ccg hits the market and infringes on all the elements
>of the
>>patent, nobody will play it since it is such a blatant clone of MtG
>anyways.
>>
>Well, the "elements" that WOTC is patenting are things like: Creating your
>own deck, drawing cards randomly to put in your hand, taking cards from your
>hand and putting them "in play", using cards that are in play to do things
>with, etc. From what I can tell, it covers every CCG in existance, and
>leaves very little room to make one that doesn't infringe on their patent.
>The B5 game might avoid it, since you select your starting hand, you don't
>draw it randomly, but a later claim in WOTC's patent refers to "obtaining a
>hand of a predetermined number of trading cards from the player's library of
>trading cards", so....
pre-determined number, but not a predetermined selection (i.e. the
predetermined number is still a random assortment.) In B5 you don't
draw randomly
Grant
RWWells
>>The B5 game might avoid it, since you select your starting hand, you don't
>>draw it randomly, but a later claim in WOTC's patent refers to "obtaining a
>>hand of a predetermined number of trading cards from the player's library of
>>trading cards", so....
>
>pre-determined number, but not a predetermined selection (i.e. the
>predetermined number is still a random assortment.) In B5 you don't
>draw randomly
Claims 1 and 3 require cards placed in the hand be shuffled first. B5 avoids
those claims. Claim 2 however places no restriction on how cards are placed in
the initial hand. Thus, pre-selecting your initial hand does not escape Claim
2. B5 CCG would need an additional change to completely escape the patent.
Richard Wells
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 17:56:38 GMT, sawb...@uniserve.com uttered:
>pre-determined number, but not a predetermined selection (i.e. the
>predetermined number is still a random assortment.) In B5 you don't
>draw randomly
There ought to be a "your starting hand" in there - your first four
cards are selecetd, though one of them has to be your "Starting
Abbassador" - the wording is presumably chosen so that John Sheridan
can don the role of Jeffrey Sinclair at a later date.
--
"In practical terms, borders are little more than lines on a map."
- FAO lady, "The X-Files"
to...@online.no http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/