WizKids Sues Wizards of the Coast over Game Patent 104
An anonymous reader writes "WizKids Games (makers of the HeroClix games) is suing Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic: the Gathering), seeking judgment that their Pirates game does not infringe on a recently granted patent. From the article: '[T]he suit claims that WOTC contacted WizKids via a letter in May 2004 concerning the filing of the patent, and that WOTC asserted that WizKids Pirates game fell squarely within many of the proposed claims of the pending patent application. WOTC warned that when the patent [was] issued, WOTC would have the right to sue WizKids for an injunction and damages. WOTC threatened that it would take legal action against WizKids if or when a patent was allowed if WizKids did not cease and desist selling its Pirates game.' The suit asks the judge to declare that the Pirates game does not infringe and seek to stop Wizards of the Coast from pursuing any legal action. The patent in question is for a 'Constructible Strategy Game,' where players build models from punch-out cards sold in booster packs. The Pirates game seems to fit the patent description perfectly."
umm... prior art anyone? (Score:1)
Re:umm... prior art anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
release VS developed/conceptualized (Score:2)
Development time doesn't really count. (Score:2)
At the very least, WizKids would have to show that they (or anybody besi
Re: (Score:2)
When was the patent actually GRANTED?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even though Car Wars doesn't work as prior art, the patent is still a dumb patent. Basically, once you have car wars (or any of a large number of earlier design-your-piece games), you just say "Wouldn't it be cool if instead of just writing down 'add a machi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
WotC licensed their patent for CCGs to just about anyone--I'm not sure why they're being so restrictive in this case, maybe it's a Hasbro thing.
Re: (Score:1)
What about Game Of Life where if you pick the card you add a child or wife to your car. Or Monopoly that once you have the set you can put houses on plots. Or Buckaroo where there are components on the horse?
Apologies I haven't been to read the relevant materials and am just inferring from the thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeay Capitalism where might makes right
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In many ways, the original purpose of patents was to prevent trade secrets. So the
Re: (Score:2)
The legal definition of "invent" (Score:2)
True, the United States has a "first to invent" patent rule, but the government's definition of "invent" is bit tricky. The court precedents say an invention isn't really "invented" until the inventor either files a patent, practices the invention (that is, makes or sells something that uses the invention), or publishes a detailed description of it.
To oversimplfy that a bit: It's not legally an invention until the public knows about it. Inventing something in secr
Sad (Score:2)
And, call me weird, but I seem to recall all sorts of "constructable strategy games" when I was a kid. Most of them required assembly of pieces. There should be scads of prior art...
Re: (Score:2)
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sad (Score:4, Informative)
You have Hasbro to thank for that, of which Wizards is a wholly owned subsidiary. While generally considered a big payday for a company and/or salvation from bankruptcy (I don't recall how they were doing financially in 1999, other than the Wizards store nearby was open for like a whole 3 months before closing), it's a little like selling it's soul to the corporate giants.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Say what now?
I lost faith in WOTC as a well-mannered company when they released the 15915th expansion for MTG.. at that point it became painfully obvious they were in it for the bucks.. whcih is fine.. it's the goal of a company.
Another (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Patent Game (Score:1)
This gives me an idea for a game: Patent! Build up a corporation, design products to build up cash. Be the first to patent common knowledge and screw the competition in the ensuing legal battles, forcing them to hand over portions of THEIR cash, or drop products entirely! But be careful, if your patent is too common and ridiculous, you'll lose the legal battle and be forced to hand a portion of YOUR cash to your opponent.
Comes complete with punch-out models (patent pending).
Patent Troll with 3D8 Battle Axe (Score:3, Funny)
"No Sir, It's a $25 fine for reversing over a patent troll in a supermarket car park. Just mail it in. "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TSR's downfall coincided tightly with their choosing to focus on lameass lawyer tricks instead of making games.
And with publishing ridiculous amounts of totally crap paperback novels.
Re: (Score:2)
(Boy, is that going to make me unpopular... but it needs to be said. Most of (A)D&D is unimaginative crap; not all of it, certainly, but enough to turn me off.)
Compare "v. Attorney General" suits (Score:3, Informative)
In the United States, lawsuits to get a federal law ruled unconstitutional are filed against the sitting Attorney General in his official capacity, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the law. Examples include Eldred v. Ashcroft. Seeking clarification in ad less risky than breaking the law and then gambling with one's business or with one's freedom on whether or not it is overturned.
Timeline from the comments of original article (Score:5, Informative)
2002 - Wizards files a patent application on constructible strategy games based on Punchbots
Fall 2003 - WOTC R&D Design Lead Mike Selinker leaves Wizards of the Coast and begins designign a new game for WizKids
March 2004 (GTS '04) - WizKids announces it is publishing a revolutionary new Mike Selinker game called "Pirates of the Spanish Main", the first in a "new" category called "constructible strategy games"
May 2004 - Wizards of the Coast sends a cease & desist letter to WizKids warning them not to publish POTSM
July 2004 - WizKids publishes POTSM
Correction (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe you know that for sure.
Wizards filed the patent before Pirates was published. When Pirates was invented is the important date, and if it can be proven to be before the patent filing, it will have status of prior art.
Insane Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
If I filed a patent for a "Rulebook about roleplaying games. This rulebook would contain all rules necessary to play said game. Additional rulebook supplements would also be referenced" and made sure no one else could make any RPGs besides MINE, what the heck would the RPG m
Re:Insane Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually answer:
Because it is their idea and they have the privledge to control it until the patent expires.
All patent cases are more complex then they seem on slashdot, but if they were told about the pending patent, and sent description of the patent, and still violated it, then they get whats coming to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that people ask the wrong question to judge obviousness. We ask "Is Z obvious to you?", but "Given the goal of X and constraint Y, what would you do?" is the question we should ask. If something is obvious enough that anyone skilled in the industry can come up with Z and make it work, what e
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't own the concept of tapping. Many card games feature rotation of a card by 90 degrees to indicate some effect --- you just can't call it tapping.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
L5R --- bowing.
Call of Cthulhu --- exhausting
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even that is a false dichotomy. It's not a matter of "patent and make money" versus "release for the good of the world." Rather it should be "patent and make money" or "don't patent and make money" or "release for free for the good of the world" and so on. The current mindset in business is that the only way to
Re: (Score:2)
Why even FILE patents like this?
I realize that this was a rhetorical question, but I can give you a real answer.
At the very least, you file for patents like this to make sure that you beat anybody else who files for patents like this. It's called a defensive patent [wikipedia.org], and even if you never intend to use it against anybody else, it prevents somebody else from patenting the same thing later and then trying to attack you with it.
Now, obviously the patent in the story isn't being used defensively, but do be aware that they do exist.
quit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For the longest time, the only reason I kept playing at all was because I was winning local tournaments and that was keeping me in new cards. Otherwise, it would have been nearly impossible to compete with people who were literally spending hundreds of dollars a month on cards.
Re: (Score:1)
When I started, the most sought-after expansion (that was still within reason) was The Dark... Out of print and rapidly running out of sealed boxes, they were a premium at $5 per pack! Fallen Empires (Which friends of mine joked were worth more as toilet paper than as actual cards) was everywhere at $0.75 - $1.50 a pack. (I had one guy selling me Fallen Empires at buy-one for $1, get two free.)
You can't tell me that in 10 years the price of ink and cardboard
Re: (Score:2)
The storage lands were handy, Hymn to Tourach was great, Goblin Grenade came to be dreaded when I used it, Mindstab Thrull was fun (can you tell I often played discard/deck depletion decks?), Soul Exchange was just plain nasty...
It was a really under-rated set. The problem is that most people just didn't get how to put together a decent str
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Problem is, I live(d) in a rural area. There were only 4-5 of us that played, and our parents became convinced that the game was "satanic" and we were all forced to quit playi
Re: (Score:1)
*checks release dates* I started right when 4th Ed came out, pre-Ice Age... So Early Spring of 1995 was when I was getting Fallen Empires at 3 for $1, and Dark at $5 per pack.
Re: (Score:2)
Whiz Kids are suing?.... (Score:4, Funny)
How quickly they forget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell do you patent this? (Score:2)
Great Idea for a Collectible Card Game (Score:1)
Calm down! Don't hastily dismiss this patent! (Score:5, Informative)
Now slow down and look at the patent, which was linked to in the summary. Yes, there's some legalese, but that's because patents are both technical and legal documents. There are 15 claims, which are the heart of the matter. The claims cover a game using punched-out pieces that are assembled to make models for the game, weapon accessories, and a "random-value generator." The model that is assembled can be a vehicle or robot, and the models use the accessories to inflict damage to each other. Finally, the pieces are distributed in categories of common, uncommon, and rare. This is one of the better-written patents I've read, and it narrowly covers a definite physical invention.
Earlier posters have mentioned a couple more interesting facts: First, this patent was filed in 2003, while the pirate game was released in 2004. Second, Mike Selinker, the creator of WizKids' pirates game, worked for WotC when they were designing the game mentioned in WotC's US Patent 7,201,374, and later left to work for WizKids.
I'm not saying that Hasbro/WotC's patent can't be invalid. WizKids may be right. But this patent shouldn't be automatically dismissed.
Re: (Score:1)
"it narrowly covers a definite physical invention"
The physical part has prior art dating decades; the "usage" part is obvious. Yet another stupid "X + Y" patent. And yet another example why patents today PREVENT rather than HELP innovation: WotC decided not to use the concept in a commercial product, and is now trying to stop someone else from doing it. Result if they get their way? You don't have a "constructible punch out blahblah game."Re: (Score:1)
* Competitive play -- your punch-out toy versus my punch-out toy
* Punch-out toy is vehicle or robot
* Punch-out toy can be customized with accessories that help it in its battles
* There is/are some random element(s) -- dice, cards, flip a coin, pop-o-matic bubble, etc.
* There are definite, codified rules -- not something where we build models on our own and decide to battle them
* The model kits and/or accesso
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The interesting parts here (and probably the ones deemed sufficiently innovative for a patent) come in with having some codified rules, the inclusion of random chance, and the rarity of different accessories.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
your punch-out toy versus my punch-out toy
Warhammer 40K plastic models. You were give pieces that could be put together not just for different poses but different weapons.
Punch-out toy is vehicle or robot
Punch-out toy can be customized with accessories that help it in its battles
40K models also had different kits for putting together stuff like dreadnoughts and there were a ton of vehicles too.
There are definite, codified rules -- not something where we build models on our own and decide to ba
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
* Don't use robots or vehicles
* Ditch the whole collectible aspect
* Ditch the random aspect
For example, I am reading patent literature and come upon this one. I think, "A game from punch-out models! That's a good idea!" To avoid WotC's patent, my game:
* Is non-collectible. There are no rare or common pieces. You buy a base set, and
Was innovation promoted? (Score:2)
Another example -- WotC has a patent on collectible card games. That didn't stop everyone and his brother from making CCGs. Was innovation really stifled?
Let's turn that around. Was innovation really promoted? Or did burdensome patent regulation impose an overall cost on game developers while reducing consumer choice?
If the minor changes you suggest are sufficient to avoid infringing the patent, then we have a
Re: (Score:1)
They developed the CCG, which isn't as simple as just running some card blanks through a printer. And the demand for this radically new kind of game -- based off WotC's idea -- was so great that there were tons of different CCGs. Magic, Pokemon, Battletech, Dr. Who, Monty Python, Babylon 5, Rifts, and Illuminati, to name only a few of scores.
Did the patent work? In theory, licensing the patent allowed WotC (at that time, a small company, remember)
Re: (Score:2)
Would WotC have put Magic out there without a patent?
Yes. From Death to the Minotaur [salon.com]:
"Wizards first showed off Magic in the summer of 1993 at the Origins game convention in Dallas. [..] It was a disaster. [..] A year later, Wizards hired me. In the months in between, Magic had hit the gaming hobby like an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease [..] Wizards also experienced explosive growth. I joined the company in May 1994, when there were about 50 employees -- already up massively from a year earlier, when only a handful of people worked at the company. By the
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no. Just little cut-outs. The whole real patent is about a business model. Wow, some things are more common than others and they're distributed in booster sets.
Did these people totally miss baseball cards and the rest of human history where people have done every single thing mentioned therein?
Note, patents aren't supposed to cover things you just haven't thought of yet, but things that
Re: (Score:1)
I see it a lot in chemistry -- A chemical formulation has been used extensively in field A (lots of prior art). I spend time and money to determine that the same formulation is extremely useful in field B, but no one has ever thought of using it there before. I can then apply for a patent using the existing formulation in field B. There's still technical advancement in
Re: (Score:2)
Side note. TSR fell to WotC because TSR was sued over the
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting aside about TSR. I thought they went under because they stagnated -- not much of a rules update, and all the supplements and books were just rehashes. Kinda like Magic and all the expansions.
Re: (Score:2)
get the corporate dick out of your mouth and think about how stupid everything you wrote really is.
Re: (Score:1)
To answer your question (which was a good one, despite the fact you asked it like a jackass): According to the patent, it looks like the difference between Warhammer and the WotC/WizKids games is that Warhammer isn't packaged randomly like CCGs. Go back and read the claims.
Not to mention that, unlike Warhammer, the WotC and WizKids games don't need a tape measure and a strong b
Prior Art from the 60's and 70's (Score:2)
Sorry for the long post, it is a very long claim.. (Score:1)