| Author |
Message |
Patrick S. Duff (Pduff)
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 07, 2001 - 9:38 pm: | |
Are there any patent law experts out there who could comment on supplementing copyright of the rules and other design elements by getting a patent on the "method" of play?
I've been told that a patent is granted for an "invention" which is "not obvious to an expert in the field". But in practice, apparently just about any "method" can get patented.
As evidence, consider US patent number 05443036, "A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase instinct." (http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__)
If that can get patented, surely any original method for playing a game should be patentable.
Does anyone know approximately how much getting a game patent would cost? |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 10:02 pm: | |
I'm not as familiar with Patent law as I am with Copyright law. Mostly because it's too expensive for me to reasonably bother with. (I was looking at fees well past the thousand dollar range. And that's not including the hundreds for trademarks!)
But oh yeah, games get patents all the time. The small devices that come with games get patents, too. In fact, if I may be so bold, I'ld say the Patent and Trademark office has been very lax in their administration and granting of patents. I mean, to allow some software companies patents on mathematical algorithms is absurd. They might as well grant me a patent on the plus sign. Heh, "The Onion" news humor magazine once published an article titled, "Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeros."
Wizards of the Coast was granted a patent on the method of play for their popular card game, "Magic: The Gathering." This was considered a landmark award for the games industry, though I don't remember why exactly.
But the good news is that only the inventor of an invention can claim the patent to it. The bad news is it can be difficult to prove if you don't register early enough. In one part of the world, a man has thought up an idea, in another, a kid is developing it, and elsewhere, a girl is patenting it. Happens all the time.
Copyrighting the rules could serve as prima facie evidence if it is descriptive enough. And it's cheap, too. Right now, around thirty bucks is all. |
Daniel Patterson (Reflux)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 10:03 pm: | |
Oh, and one other thing. The Patent Office is working sometimes at a grinding pace. I once requested their free patent kit. I got it two years later. So if you want a patent, the sooner the better. |
Jeff Mallett (Jeffm)
| | Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2001 - 11:41 pm: | |
Good point. I've been an inventor on patents before (non-games) and they take years to issue. And that protection doesn't extend world-wide, so you've got to decide if something's worth applying for international patents on. Trademarks are not too speedy either. |
Dan Troyka (Dtroyka)
| | Posted on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 10:26 pm: | |
You can review patent fees at www.uspto.gov. The fee structure is complicated but the basic rules are that it costs $355 to file an application, $195 to have it processed, $620 if the patent issues, $425 in maintenance fees after 4 years, $975 after 8 years, and $1495 after 12 years. In short, it cost $1170 to get your patent and $2995 to maintain it over its 17-year life. This assumes that you qualify as a small entity.
And then there's the lawyer fees. |
Karl Scherer (Karl)
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 3:17 am: | |
I would like to add that these are the absolute minimum costs in an ideal scenario.
I reality you most likely will have to argue your case (show that is enough different from similar
patents the patent office came up with
in comparison)
and does not only takes a lot of time, but
also a lot of additional money (lawyer fees, patent office fees) etc.
And that is before your first court case.
(who like court cases anyway? I do not.)
One expert once wrote in the respected
"New Scientist" journal:
"If you do not have a spare millions dollars
to sue someone over several years,
forget patenting." |
Dan Troyka (Dtroyka)
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 1:43 pm: | |
Yeah that's pretty much right. Patent litigation is extremely expensive. The good news is that abstract game patents are never litigated. The bad news is that they are never litigated because they don't make enough money to justify it.
Having a patent could still be helpful short of litigation. You can label the game as patented and send cease-and-desist letters to infringing games. You also have a ready response to anyone who argues that copyrights don't protect games.
But even then I doubt it's cost-effective to get a patent. The only situation in which I could imagine suing over an abstract game is if an established game company steals an idea and actually makes money off it. But established companies are likely to seek a license in the first place given the uncertainty of copyright law as applied to games, and given their exposure (read "deep pockets") in the event of litigation. |
Matti Wirkkala (Mwirkk)
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
I don't know how it has been the past few years, but in the 1995 to 2000 timeframe, software patents were getting processed within about 2 years. Part of that was probably likely because software patents were relatively new. Though, some of the mathematical principals sometimes were derivatives of work that was decades old. Alot of the expense and time invested into the grants of patents is involved in the search and research of existing patents. The vast majority aren't stored in electronic databases waiting for your queries. They are on paper, in files, in boxes, on shelves. Someone has to go do the grunt work. That's part of what patent lawyers (and their armies of paralegals) are for. To make sure you aren't wasting your time, and that there isn't somebody out there who's already beaten you to it.
Oh, BTW, when patents are filed, they are descibed as if they were a mechanical device -- even if it is software. The legal description of algorithyms can get rather strange. Anyway, that's why board games can be patented. Otherwise, if they were merely a collection of behaviours (rules) they would be more likely to fall under the jurisdiction of copyright law. Any supporting background story and printed material should be placed under copyright anyway. |
|