I and mine are moving forward and making our "good ideas" into a legitimate company with profitable ventures.  Now, no one is looking to topple giants (ah, but wouldn't it be lovely?) but it would be nice to make some games, have some fun, earn some pocket monies, and not get sued in the process.

The "generics" of starting a business I can mine from websites dedicated to such and the lovely articles right here.  However, I've got a few questions having to do with our chosen path specifically.  Namely, I'm curious with the rules having to do with creating CCG's.  Having noticed that Wizards have practically purchased the rights to all things collectible, traded, or gamelike, I was wondering how one safely publishes a CCG?

IANAL, but I do have some experiance in this field in particular having published and maintaining the card game Final Twilight. Always best to verify everything, however, whether you find it or someone else says it. Research exactly what Wizards has a copyright on, avoid that territory, and be safely aware that companies the world over are publishing CCGs and card games of every stripe. Its kinda like RPGs before the OGL- you can make an RPG, just don't remake Dungeons & Dragons.
Wizards specifically owns trademarks and patents on things related to Magic. Terminology, packaging, etc. Other elements have been widely adopted by other companies: booster packs, rareity, draftability in packaging, a variety of concepts in play including personalized decks, "graveyards" though they're usually termed something else as appropriate, and an appropriation of several concepts found in miniature war gaming, such as the concept of the card as a fighting unit and spell effects.
From what I've been able to see, Wizards holds these patents much as AOL does. If they were deadly serious about patroling the generic concept of a CCG, Decipher, Upper Deck, Nintendo, AEG, and a whole host of other companies would make much better, higher profile, targets than a small publisher like ourselves. Instead, like AOL, Wizards holds the patents and such that they do as a deterrant from having people tread on that territory.
Given the number of other high-profile publishers of CCGs, and the fact what Wizards does have is tenious at best, the likely hood of being sued over a small-time card game is practically nill. Just make sure you're aware of what it is exactly that Wizards holds and don't go near it and back up anything you can with a lawyer.

>>From what I've been able to see, Wizards holds these patents much as AOL does. If they were deadly serious about patroling the generic concept of a CCG, Decipher, Upper Deck, Nintendo, AEG, and a whole host of other companies would make much better, higher profile, targets than a small publisher like ourselves. Instead, like AOL, Wizards holds the patents and such that they do as a deterrant from having people tread on that territory.<<

Defending that territory is useless and they know. If they had to defend it against any company with enough money to hire good lawyers, they would lose.

The value of the TCG patent is even more basic. Hasbro is a publicly traded company. When Hasbro promotes itself, they can point to this little WOTC division and the fact that is has "the" TCG patent/ Yes, in the past, I have seen it referenced as "the", not "a", leading non informed to believe this territory is exclusively owned by them. Its misleading of course, but mainly, its aimed at potential share holders and general media to help maintain the stock value.

In other words, acting to enforce (or attempt to enforce) the patent brings into risk a possible negative result and even if they should somehow win, possible negative commentary and negative media which would contradict the manner in which Hasbro likes to position itself on the TCG issue to the general investor audiences. So no chance they'll ever act on the thing. Not while its in Hasbro's hands.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Publishing Group
http://www.guildofblades.com
http://www.1483online.com
http://www.thermopylae-online.com

While I agree in spirit with everything Nate and Ryan have said above, this is treading pretty close to the line of offering legal advice which we don't want to be doing.

Yeah, I definately don't want legal advice, just trying to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls of making a game with similarities to trademarked properties.  I mean, lots of small publishers make CCGs, I was just looking to avoid any big mistakes out of the gate.

But, if it's as simple as "Don't rip anyone off", I think I'll be fine with regards to that.