Hello, I sometimes read this forum but this is my first post here, so I hope I´m making it in the right place. :-)
I´m currently designing a multiplayer non-collectable cardgame ("Vorago") in which each player represents a god with 3 avatars cards. Each gameround is composed by successive turns, where a player chooses an avatar, makes something with it (attack another avatar, steal energy from a player, put in defensive position, take a card in play for its owner, etc...), and then gives the turn to the next player. When all the avatars have been "activated" once, the round finishes and another phase begins.
Everithing is OK until I notice that I need a way to "mark" which avatars have been activated in the current round. Since the avatars can also be killed (discard the card), wounded (put face down), and defending (placed near the center of the table), the easiest way of marking them "activated" is rotating them 90 degrees.
We all know that Richard Garfield has a patent over the "tapping" mechanism in his MagicTG patent. I read the patent but I´m quite lost with all that legal stuff.
Here comes my question. Can I change the name of "tapping" for something else (as an example, "activating") and use it freely? Other games in the market have "tapping" mechanisms (with other names). Or has Richard Garfield rights upon ANY game in which rotating of cards is involved? My "activating" mechanism is conceptually different from the MTG tap: only the avatars can tap, the tapping of an avatar each turn is mandatory, and there are no cards or effecs that can trigger an untap or tap. It´s quite straightforward.
How do you cope with those "patenting" limitations when designing? You simply discard any idea which could be similar (but not the same) to a patented one, to prevent legal problems?
I live in Spain, I´m not from the EEUU. If I publish this game in Spain, I know that EEUU patent won´t affect me... will it? but if I publish the game via internet and let anyone download it, it will...
Placing a pennie or a counter over an activated avatar could state they have been activated (instead of turning them), avoiding all this legal problem. But if you can tell me something about this it would be great. First, because my game has already enough markers and pennies, and second, because I have a similar problem with other games of mine.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for all this information!
MatMiller´s observation is true: is obvious that I can´t just change the name and use it. I wanted to know until what point can we design a card-rotating mechanism... well, actually I was wondering if simply putting a little rotating mechanism in a game could get me sued.
So, let´s say that legally it can be discussible that my game gets into the patent, but only that: discussible. That explains the existence of more commercial games with similar mechanisms.
I think I was a bit paranoid with this. The CCGs have influenced me so much that my cardgame designs usually include cards which can be at different "states" (like electronic flip-flops): active, passive, hidden, wounded... Turning or flipping the cards is the simplest way to mark those states (I hate counters!), but I was afraid of the legal consequences of this. From now, I won´t worry.
Thanks again ^-^