[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad

Four Comments about end of CCP involvement (LSJ

librarian

9/12/2010 4:50:00 AM

First comment: Kudos to all those who helped make VTES great - LSJ, Oscar,
Robyn, and others unnamed and perhaps unknown outside of WW's doors.
Thanks for your years of service to all.

Second Comment/Question: LSJ, when will you "officially" give up being the
rulesmonger (I always wondered why you were called the seller of rules), if
ever?

Third Comment: Haven't read anyone comment on this angle specifically yet.
CCP no doubt has no desire to sell the rights of the Old World of
Darkness to anyone else. VTES was already muddying the waters of their new
World of Darnkess intellectual property, and if in the hands of someone
outside their company, I think that muddying would be exacerbated even further.

Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
Tapping? What else?

best -

chris
9 Answers

ashur@hotmail.com

9/12/2010 11:26:00 AM

0

On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:

> Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> Tapping? What else?

I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
"tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.

Juggernaut1981

9/12/2010 1:55:00 PM

0

On Sep 12, 9:26 pm, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
> > Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> > Tapping? What else?
>
> I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
> be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
> can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
> "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
> could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.

It's all to do with IP, where it is held, the nature of the IP law of
the country where it is held and how far people will go across the
world to hunt you down for IP infringement. IP can be a very tricky
legal area and I'd not want to go in for anything like that without
getting some on paper advice from a reputable IP lawyer about exactly
what is owned by who and what would not infringe on IP.

If you think IP isn't tricky, a guy who invented the formulas that
made wi-fi security possible is currently suing every major IT company
that uses wi-fi which is reliant on his formulas. He's already had a
number of major backdowns and pre-court settlements. Plus there was
the recent case where the CSIRO won a big pile of royalties for their
own technology underpinning wi-fi (reassembly formulas and work that
was originally designed to remove scattering effects from radio
telescopy image caused by galaxies in between the target body and the
radio telescope).

I doubt Hasbro/WotC will be too keen to let out EXACTLY what is their
IP unless you're looking to do a royalty/licensing deal with them.
Then you'd have to sign a big wad of secrecy deals first I'd bet.

librarian

9/12/2010 3:43:00 PM

0

Juggernaut1981 wrote:
> On Sep 12, 9:26 pm, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
>>> Tapping? What else?
>> I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
>> be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
>> can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
>> "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
>> could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.
>
> It's all to do with IP, where it is held, the nature of the IP law of
> the country where it is held and how far people will go across the
> world to hunt you down for IP infringement. IP can be a very tricky
> legal area and I'd not want to go in for anything like that without
> getting some on paper advice from a reputable IP lawyer about exactly
> what is owned by who and what would not infringe on IP.
>
> If you think IP isn't tricky, a guy who invented the formulas that
> made wi-fi security possible is currently suing every major IT company
> that uses wi-fi which is reliant on his formulas. He's already had a
> number of major backdowns and pre-court settlements. Plus there was
> the recent case where the CSIRO won a big pile of royalties for their
> own technology underpinning wi-fi (reassembly formulas and work that
> was originally designed to remove scattering effects from radio
> telescopy image caused by galaxies in between the target body and the
> radio telescope).
>
> I doubt Hasbro/WotC will be too keen to let out EXACTLY what is their
> IP unless you're looking to do a royalty/licensing deal with them.
> Then you'd have to sign a big wad of secrecy deals first I'd bet.

Actually, patents and trademarks are public knowledge. They sort of have
to be, so if others infringe, they can be sued or prosecuted under the
assumption that they did it "with malice", since they should have known.

That said, it is all couched in so much legal gobbledygook that it is
practically unknowable except to those who are trained to read and parse
that stuff, i.e. trademark/patent lawyers.

Recent radio story about IP Trolls, people who go around buying up patents,
and then sue companies using things similar to those patents just to
squeeze them for money. Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft) seems to be
one of them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId...

I do know WotC tried to trademark the idea of a collectible card game, and
I'm not sure if that worked or not.

But really, I think the tougher nut to crack would be with CCP - using oWoD
IP would really cause confusion in the marketplace, especially with respect
to their nWoD. For instance, Ventrue is in both NWOD and OWOD. My guess
is CCP would like to keep that with their NWOD product, and not allow an
outside company to use it. It starts there and gets more minute and complex...

best -

chris

Robert Goudie

9/12/2010 5:00:00 PM

0

On Sep 12, 4:26 am, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
> > Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> > Tapping? What else?
>
> I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
> be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
> can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
> "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
> could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.

This is generally true. However, in something of a surprising turn,
WotC was granted a rather broad patent.

Richard 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 has developed a licensing program to permit others to use the
patent.

You can find the original patent here:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5662332.PN.&OS=PN/5662332&RS=...

-Robert

John Whelan

9/12/2010 9:45:00 PM

0

On Sep 12, 7:26 am, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> > Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> > Tapping? What else?
>
> I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
> be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
> can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
> "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
> could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.

I can never help laughing when I read the claim that "tapping" is a
unique patented legally protected feature of Deckmaster card games.

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, or protected. To do so would violate the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees
freedom of speech and of thought. If a patent was granted in this
case, it only proves that beaurocrats can make mistakes. It would not
withstand a legal challenge.

The idea of orienting a game piece to convey information about its
state of play is extremely basic. Tip over your submarine to indicate
it is submerged. Tip over your battleship to indicate that it has
taken one hit. The idea of using a playing card as a game piece is
also very basic; as is the idea of orienting that card in any number
of ways to convey game state information. All these ideas are older
than Deckmaster.

Bob

9/12/2010 11:26:00 PM

0

On 12 sep, 23:45, John Whelan <jwjbwhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:26 am, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> > > Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> > > Tapping? What else?
>
> > I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
> > be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
> > can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
> > "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
> > could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.
>
> I can never help laughing when I read the claim that "tapping" is a
> unique patented legally protected feature of Deckmaster card games.
>
> Ideas cannot be copyrighted, or protected.  To do so would violate the
> First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees
> freedom of speech and of thought.  If a patent was granted in this
> case, it only proves that beaurocrats can make mistakes.  It would not
> withstand a legal challenge.
>
> The idea of orienting a game piece to convey information about its
> state of play is extremely basic.  Tip over your submarine to indicate
> it is submerged.  Tip over your battleship to indicate that it has
> taken one hit.  The idea of using a playing card as a game piece is
> also very basic; as is the idea of orienting that card in any number
> of ways to convey game state information.  All these ideas are older
> than Deckmaster.

Yet, other CCGs use other words than tapping/untapping: bow/
straighten, for L5R, tack/untack for 7th Sea... It might be because
the word is under copyright.

John Whelan

9/12/2010 11:58:00 PM

0

On Sep 12, 7:26 pm, Bob <boris.mai...@free.fr> wrote:
> Yet, other CCGs use other words than tapping/untapping: bow/
> straighten, for L5R, tack/untack for 7th Sea... It might be because
> the word is under copyright.

Coming up with your own word is cheaper than defending even a
frivolous lawsuit.

The Deckmaster patent, IIRC speaks of "flagging and unflagging".

The actual rulebook, as a whole, is of course under copyright.

Juggernaut1981

9/13/2010 3:47:00 AM

0

On Sep 13, 2:59 am, Robert Goudie <robertt.gou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 4:26 am, "as...@hotmail.com" <henrik.klippst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Sep, 06:50, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually Deckmaster based?
> > > Tapping? What else?
>
> > I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games cannot
> > be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the US. What
> > can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like the word
> > "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true? Not true? It
> > could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.
>
> This is generally true.  However, in something of a surprising turn,
> WotC was granted a rather broad patent.
>
> Richard 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 has developed a licensing program to permit others to use the
> patent.
>
> You can find the original patent here:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITO......
>
> -Robert

Warning: IAN a patent lawyer.

The original patent seems to try to extend to the entire concept of a
collectible card game or trading card game. But has some very
specific points it claims as its own. The core of those is the
"tapping" concept, the idea that "tapping utilises a resource provided
by the card that is tapped" and that there is a stage in a turn where
"tapped" cards are returned to their original state.

Other sticking points is the content of the "6 Claims" and having to
basically errata the entire catalogue of cards and rules to avoid
infringing Claims 4, 5 & 6.

That's probably where it comes unstuck and the entire catalogue of
cards would need to be errataed to avoid that, the rules reconstructed
to get away from 90-degree turning and the concept of tapping, in that
sense and the idea that a tapped card is a "consumed resource". It's
possible, but would require completely restructuring the language
around VTES.

Kevin M.

9/13/2010 7:26:00 AM

0

John Whelan wrote:
> "as...@hotmail.com" wrote:
>> librarian wrote:
>>> Fourth Comment: How much of the VTES rules are actually
>>> Deckmaster based? Tapping? What else?
>>
>> I have heard several people state that rules mechanics in games
>> cannot be protected by any legal means. At least not outside of the
>> US. What can be protected is certain terms in certain contexts (like
>> the word "tap" in games when you twist down a card). Is this true?
>> Not true? It could be interested for the survival of Vtes I guess.
>
> I can never help laughing when I read the claim that "tapping" is a
> unique patented legally protected feature of Deckmaster card games.
>
> Ideas cannot be copyrighted, or protected.
[snip explanation of why]

From http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-pr...:

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original
works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and
artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer
software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect ideas,
concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. Copyright does
not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although
it may protect the way these things are expressed.

"The way these things are expressed" is obviously the issue.

In any case, lawsuits versus Hasbro are likely to get expensive.


Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.mymin...
Please bid on my auctions! http://shop.ebay.com/kjmer...