Patent

[Doehring]

I was woundering if anyone else has knoledge in this but I herd that it is possible to patent ideas enfact I do believe the system for the CCG Magic is patented. I was woundering if anyone has attempted to patent there game system for a role playing game.

Further more I have realised that companies that use the d20 system get some sort of licence to use it. How can a companie who cannot copyright a game system be giving out licences.

[Angaros]

As far as I know, you can only patent specific technological innovations. This can be an idea or process or design of some kind, but a game system would not qualify as an innovation I believe. That which you patent must solve some sort of problem or perform a task in order to be patentable. I'd also like to point out that copyright protects a presentation of some kind (like a painting, a work of music or a poem), not the actual system or idea behind it. For example, a car manufacturer might sell repair manuals for their models, but this does not prevent anyone else from learning how to repair the engine and publishing a repair manual of their own. It's not the idea of how you repair the engine that is protected by copyright, it's the actual presentation of the idea.

[GaryTP]

Hi Doehring,

WOTC patenting their game was the exception, not the rule. I spent several years working with patents for a corp. and they're expensive.
A regular utility patent is around 15k to fully patent something. Less for what is called a "design patent", which is more about how it looks...its style. I believe these run 3 to 5k. Design patents are important to people like Apple computers, or automobile manufacturers. (A fender is a fender...until it's sleek and cool and can only be from a certain make and model of car:)

Wizard's patent does not cover all collectable card games, just ones that use specific mechanisms in a specific way, like tapping a card. They had their patent.

Even after you file for a patent, and pay your money, you can still be denied after a few years if they find examples out in the world of prior use.
Some companies often file a preliminary "intent to patent" on something, allowing them to place "patent pending" for a year or so. This only costs a few hundred dollars, but must be followed up with big dollars later.

A patent is a waste of money in the gaming industry. Patents are great for computers, jet engines, chemical formulas, etc. Bad for board, card and roleplaying games. You have to prove that what you're patenting isn't already out there (it probably is) and that there is no prior occurance of it. Also, if you try to patent something you must be covered by NDA's. If not, and you release your product, your patent can be challenged because you didn't show due diligence in protecting your information up front.

Also, most patents can be easily gotten around. Reverse engineering is a standard in most industries. All you have to do is change a certain percentage of things in a patent to have a new, patentable idea. That is why companies keep progressing their patents, evolving them and then submitting updates, so that they continue to own their intellectual property.

In games, copyright should do you. Even then, the mechanisms you utilize in your game can be adopted by other designers legally. The copyright will protect your work to the extent that anything can be protected.

I've got to go pick up my kid, but someone around here should be able to point you to the legal info on the d20 license and explain it a bit further.

C ya,
gary

[jdagna]

Gary's explanation of patents is pretty much right on the mark.  A game system is a process by the definitions of a patent, and thus can be patented just like software or chemical formulae.  However, game systems are very easy to change, profits are slim, and so Gary's right that there's just no real reason to do it.

You also asked about the d20 license, and I'll answer that in particular because the d20 program isn't about patents, it's about:
1) intellectual property (copyright being a portion of this
2) trademarks

The rules specific to intellectual property and copyright give you permission to reprint certain portion of text, or to change it.  They restrict you from doing some things as well - no character creation and you cannot redefine certain game terms, for example.  By producing a d20 system, you're licensing the right to use things, and agreeing to abide by the other rules.

Additionally, much of the d20 license has to do with how to use their trademark (i.e. the name "d20 System" the d20 System logo and trademarked phrases like "Requires the Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook by Wizards of the Coast").  

A trademark provides certain kinds of protection compared to copyright and patent.  For specific, I recommend the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) website, which talks a lot about the details.  Anyone can claim a TM trademark, but you have to officially register to use the (R) symbol.  This might be worthwhile for an RPG, but you'll notice a lot of popular products that still use the TM which tells me that there's no urgent need for it.

[caio_maximino]

We´re already doing it indie-style; why not go a little bit further?

"But... if anyone may copy your books and do without buying them, how do you earn your living?"
People ask us this question quite often, nearly always adding this remark: "Copyright is necessary, an author's work must be protected!".
This kind of utterances shows how much smoke and sand the ruling culture (based on the proprietary principle) and entertainment corporations have been able to blow in the eyes of the public. As regards authors' rights and intellectual property, confusionist ideology still prevails in the media as well as in our brains, although it's passing through a crisis thanks to the rebirth of movements and the ongoing transformations. Only bloodsuckers and parasites benefit from a view that mistakes "copyrights" for "authors' rights" and sets the latter against "piracy". This is very far from truth.
The books by the Wu Ming collective are published with a particular notice: "Partial or total reproduction of this book and its diffusion in electronic form are consented for non-commercial purposes, provided that this notice is included". This notice is based on the concept of "copyleft", which was invented in the 1980's by Richard Stallman and the Free Software Movement and is being applied in other realms of communication, science information, creative writing and arts.



"Copyleft" is a dense and untranslatable pun denoting a philosopy and a set of peculiar licenses. The first one was the GPL [GNU Public License], which was devised to protect free software and prevent third parties (an example at random: Microsoft) from appropriating and privatizing the work of self-managed communities of users and programmers. For those who don't know it, free software has an open source-code that can be checked, modified and improved by a user, either individually or in collaboration with others.
Had it remained simply in the public domain, sooner or later free software would have fallen into the clutches of corporate predators. The solution was to turn copyright rightside left: what had been an obstacle to free reproduction became the prime guarantee of it. In plain words: I put a copyright on my work, therefore I am the owner, and I avail myself of this and permit people to use my work any way they want: they can copy it, change it and spread it. The only thing they cannot do is forbidding someone else to do the same, i.e. no-one may appropriate the work and limit its circulation, no-one may put a copyright on it because there is already one, it belongs to me and I'm gonna kick the shit out of you.
Any ordinary person who either has no money to purchase a Wu Ming's book or doesn't want to buy it blindfolded may photocopy it, OCR-scan it, or (a rather convenient way) download it free of any charge from our website www.wumingfoundation.com. Since this reproduction is not for profit, it's perfectly OK with us. However, if a foreign publisher wants to translate the book and put it on sale in their country, or a producer wants to make a movie out of it, that's a reproduction for the sake of gain, which means these people have to contact us and pay, for it is right that we too make a profit. After all, it was us who wrote the book.


Now let's go back to the question: are we not losing money?
No, we are not. Ever more examples are disproving the equation between "piracy" and the decrease in sales. Otherwise the Italian edition of our novel Q, which can be downloaded free of charge since 2000, wouldn't have had twelve reprints and, what's more, wouldn't have sold over 200,000 copies.
In actual fact, the more a book circulates, the more it sells. Important experiences take place even in a country that's obsessed with intellectual property: the US of A. My comrade Wu Ming 2 effectively described them in an article you can read here.

It is sufficient to explain what's happening with our books: someone logs on our website and downloads a novel, e.g. 54. If they do it from an office, or from a college, they may even print it for free. If they read it and enjoy it, they may as well want to present friends with it. Nobody would present a friend with a pile of A4 sheets, most likely they'll go to a bookstore and purchase a copy, which draws a new equation: one "pirated" copy = one purchased copy. Some people e-mailed us and wrote that they bought six or seven copies for presents. One "pirated" copy = several purchased copies. Even those who don't have money for presents happen to mention and praise the book during conversations, sooner or later someone else will take the advice and buy it, or download it. As regards the people who don't like the book, at least they didn't spend a cent.
This way, as happens with free software and Open Source, we manage to reconcile the need to reward authors (or, more generally speaking, brainworkers) for their work with the guarantee of its free reproduction and social use.

The majority of publishers have not yet become aware of this situation and are still very conservative as far as copyright is concerned. the reasons of such a short-sightedness are more ideological than economical. We believe publishers are about to open their eyes. Unlike the record industry, the book industry is not facing extinction, for it operates in an entirely different context. Publishers have not yet gone completely insane, they are not pig-headedly opposing the big revolution which is "democratizing" the access to the technologies of reproduction. Until a few years ago only recording studios owned masterizers and CD-burners; nowadays we all have them in our homes. And what about P2P file sharing? In the face of this irreversible change, all the present legislation on intellectual property is already obsolescent, it's in decay.

When copyright was invented, about three centuries ago, there was no possibility of a "private copy" or a "reproduction for non-commercial purposes": only a competing publisher could use a printing press. Copyright was not perceived as anti-social, it was a publisher's weapon against competitors, not against the public. Nowadays the situation has drastically changed, the public has access to machines (computers, photocopiers etc.) and copyright turned to a weapon shooting in the crowd.

There are many more things to say, and we ought to go back to basics: all knowledge is generated socially. All ideas are either directly or indirectly shaped by the social relations we maintain, by the communities we're part of. If the genesis of knowledge is social, than its use is to remain social. This is a long story though. I hope I explained myself. For further info: giap@wumingfoundation.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further details:

Copyleft as explained in The New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft/copyleftart.jsp

On Free Software
http://www.gnu.org/

The biggest on-line archive of public domain material
http://www.archive.org

The first publisher to build a free-of-charge on-line library
http://www.baen.com

The MIT Open CourseWare project
http://ocw.mit.edu

A team working on a new set of open copyright licenses
http://creativecommons.org/

Peer-to-peer, experinents in "free publishing", copyleft in the publishing industry
http://www.openp2p.com

[daMoose_Neo]

Caio brings up an interesting point with pirated copies = legitimate copies.

I've done that with music. Normally, I only download singles I enjoy. While looking for it, if its a new band I don't know, I may download another two or three to check out their sound. Theres been occasions where my response has been "WOW! I like this!" And run out and buy the CD, mostly because its easier than downloading them all, and if I like the group I want to support them as well.
Years ago, I had started on a coding project to duplicate the Pokemon video game, except as an online system. The project became REALLY well known...and we started getting people from MMO's going "Wait, Pokemon is really an RPG? And its best suited for an MMO? Lemme check this out!" Before the game was shut down via Nintendo's lawyers, we had encouraged the sale of a handful of the Gameboy Advances (this was when they were new!) and a number of Pokemon cartridges, people wanting to check the games out or become familiar (Train) with it before the online version went up. Didn't matter the online version was a free tribute to how much we loved the games and wanted to play with folks all over the world, Nintendo wanted it shut down.

Many companies would do well to realize this. "Piracy" isn't really that- its the consumer deciding if they like it with no strings attached. It sucks having to pay for something that sucks.
I understand this with Twilight- I give away packs of cards, all you need is a die for each player. Theres all sorts of free cards online as well, just download them and play!

[madelf]

I don't know... copyleft sounds like a good idea in theory.

And the idea of releasing a free product as a sample to promote sales of other products in the line is a tried and true method of promotion, but I honestly can't wrap my head around how it would work for an entire product line.

Even the Baen Books library is a sampler. They aren't putting up all their books for free, only some of them. That way you can read a book by AuthorX, and if you like it then go buy his other books. That makes sense to me.

But putting up an entire product line for free... I can see it generating goodwill, I can see it generating some sales. I can't imagine it generating more sales than if it weren't available for free, and I'm awfully skeptical that it generates as many sales as it would if it wasn't free (Again, I see the free sample model as better for "spreading the word" about a product line).

There's a lot of talk about how people will "support the publisher," but I thought the dismal profits of most shareware products would have proved that the good will of the public is unreliable. Yet here is copyleft, shareware to the next level... now you can use it for free and we won't even give you a guilt trip.

Since this reproduction is not for profit, it's perfectly OK with us. However, if a foreign publisher wants to translate the book and put it on sale in their country, or a producer wants to make a movie out of it, that's a reproduction for the sake of gain, which means these people have to contact us and pay, for it is right that we too make a profit. After all, it was us who wrote the book.

Even as generous as the model you're using is, this is a pretty limited copyleft. You're allowing private non-commercial use only. Many copyleft licenses go so far as to allow commercial use of the material.

Look at the Creative Commons license, that Clinton Nixon's using on his games (sorry to pick on you, Clinton, but yours is the only example I know of). With the license he's using (and the game text being up on his website) I could take one of those games, translate it and sell it without ever paying Clinton a cent (I wouldn't, mind you, but I have no doubt there are those who would), heck... I wouldn't even have to translate it, I could just sell it. To the best of my knowledge (without rechecking his license), I could even make a movie based on his game setting and not pay him anything. The only big restrictions are that I have to credit him as the original author, and I can't stop others from copying my translated version, or movie (because I have to release it under the same license).

In this example, Clinton made some money selling his game and some people got it for free, so they think Clinton is a hell of a guy. Did he make as much as he would have without releasing his work? Who knows? But he has lost out of money from my blockbuster movie (well, maybe he'll sell a few more copies of his game because of it, but he's not getting the cut an author normally would for something like that). Now, I'd make some money on the box-office release of the movie, but as soon as I release the DVD, I'm suddenly competing with anybody else who wants to make and sell a copy of it too.

So all I really see these strong copyleft licenses doing is creating a lot of good will, opening up the author's creation to potentially undesirable alterations by others (completely throwing away the creative control many authors squack so loudly about), and reducing potential profits for the creator and everyone involved.

I'm freeling willing to admit that I might be missing something, but right now... I'm not seeing the logic here.


And how is this supposed to work?

Had it remained simply in the public domain, sooner or later free software would have fallen into the clutches of corporate predators.

If something is put into the public domain, it's public domain. It can't be taken back out. Sure the corporate predator could make it's own version and lock that up, but it can't take the public version away from people.

[madelf]

Jeeze...
Other places, I post a dissenting opinion on something and I'll get six people jumping up to tell me how wrong I am.
Here.... crickets...


I hope I didn't come off ranty and unwilling to budge. I was just stating how it looks to me at this point. I also think there may be more than meets the eye with these schemes, I just haven't seen a really convincing argument for it yet.

So somebody give me a convincing argument already!
:)

[jdagna]

Well, I would have argued, but I basically agree with you.

I look at it in terms of the following groups:
X number of people know about your game/product.  Many of them are past customers or whatever.  Let's say 50% of these people will buy something you put out, even if there's a free version.

Y number of people do not know about your game/product.  They just haven't heard of you, or don't know enough to consider buying you.  Let's say 10% of these people would buy something if they read it.

Now, for an indie publisher, there are tons more people in Y than in X.  If you have 100 loyal fans, putting out a free copy costs you 50 sales (according to these assumed numbers).  But if 1000 people in Y hear about you, that's 100 sales.  The net effect increases your sales by 50%.

However, for a big publisher, the numbers look different.  D&D claims 2/3s of the market.  So if they have 10,000 in group X, there's only 5000 in group Y.  A free copy loses 5000 sales from the X folks, and only gains 500 back from the Y folks.  This is a losing proposition for them.

I would argue that no one could become as large as WotC is (relative to the industry size) based on offering free versions of everything.  I think the freebie mentality can only get you so far (it certainly held true for dot-coms, though they had other problems).

By the way, I do caution against too many anecdotal examples like caio_maximino's.  A single case can't prove a business strategy, especially in entertainment industries where one product succeeds beyond expectation and a similar product dies the unknown death.  Additionally, I could easily cite many cases where a copyleft failed, and many more cases where a traditional copyright succeeded.  That's just business, and there's no one way to approach it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Discussions here at the Forge are not oriented toward argument, but discourse. If you simply post a strong opinion and look forward to others leaping forward to present theirs, then you are effectively flaming. Yup. Forge rules.

I'm not seeing a discussion topic in this thread. It was supposed to be about patents. However, it seems to have become an opinions ground for too many different topics concerning copyright, copyleft, and so on.

If you have something to discuss about any of these, as opposed merely to sounding off, then please start a new thread. This one may continue as long as folks are talking about patents and role-playing publishing.

Best,
Ron

[Doehring]

I wanted to say thank you to everyone this helped make more sense of my question.

               Thanks to all,  Doehring