Skip to Content

Tom Jolly's patent

38 replies [Last post]
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

Brahmulus wrote:

Secondly how dare we say it took a game designer 30 seconds to come up with a mechanic that *seems* simple. Haven't you ever designed a game (anything) before and been knee deep in that process? It may take a year to come up with something that a kindergartner could think of in a minute... we now must judge the creative process... scarey.

Actually, my point came from experience. I've designed lots of mechanics in only 30 seconds. I do it all the time. Lots of us here on the site can do it. That doesn't mean that all game mechanics are easy to create. It also doesn't mean that whole games are easy to create; if anything, I'm with yogurt, that it would make more sense to patent a whole game than an individual mechanic.

This is part of my concern with the potential practice of patenting mechanics, that someone could patent a bunch of game mechanics that he came up with and then use the patent to extort money from companies and designers. This kind of thing has happened in the past, in a different context: there was a case a while back where a kid and his father discovered that they could make pretty good money by registering domain names (like "www.msdw.com") and then selling them to companies (like Morgan Stanley Dean Witter). I'm afraid that the patenting of mechanics could benefit hucksters just as much as the hard working designers that you're worried about.

Quote:

Yes independent sources can come up with similar ideas... or your hard work and/or creative mind can be ripped off.... in both cases this is exactly why you go and protect yours as soon as you are able... and if you are not able, but the other indepenent source is able (he worked a little harder, sacraficed a little more)... he is somehow evil?

No, I haven't made a single moral judgement in the entire conversation up to this point, and I don't appreciate your projecting one onto me. I'm actually in a similar situation to this right now, where a game that was just released (Shadows over Camelot) has a traitor mechanic, somewhat similar to a mechanic that one of my games also has. By being first to market with this mechanic, they have a significant advantage. I'm willing to accept that (although I don't think it has anything to do with the designers working harder or sacrificing more). What I wouldn't think was fair would be if, simply by being first to market, they were allowed to dictate to me whether or not I was permitted to sell my game or not.

Or flip it around the other way; let's say I had had the money and wherewithal to patent my traitor mechanic. Even if I wasn't in position to sell the game myself, should I be able to cripple Days of Wonders' release of their game, simply because I previously had a similar idea?

Note that I'm talking specifically about games here, not intellectual property in general. The games world doesn't currently work this way (patenting of mechanics) and I'm simply saying that I like the status quo. But in general, I'd say that I don't know if I really am in favor of the "race" aspect of intellectual property laws. I like the idea that you shouldn't be able to steal someone else's idea. I don't like the idea that someone else can, simply by being first to the patent office, prevent you from benefitting from an idea that did not actually derive from the patent holders' work.

Quote:

You don't think I'm entitled to intellectual protection for an idea that many other people could come up with!!!???

I don't think you're entitled to a protection for an idea that is trivial.

Quote:

I mean, according to this way of thinking, first I have to go through my creative process, whatever that may be, perhaps it takes me 5 years to come up with the idea to *tap* a card. So be it. Then I have to be judged on if that was too long to come up with that idea, against some threshold to see if it *counts* as a justifiable idea (in who's eyes again?)... but wait there's more... NOW I have to also think about if what I did finally come up with just happens to be something that many other people could maybe also come up with, because if it is, then Bob or Mary down the street may think of that idea too in the next few decades, and that wouldn't be fair to them or the population of people who think of ideas, so I better just leave it free and clear and try for an idea that I know for a fact other people won't think of... ever.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I claim that you could take your idea to market and try to sell it and benefit from it.

-Jeff

Anonymous
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

VeritasGames wrote:
First, if by patent people you mean the people here on the thread who think patent protection is not an unreasonable thing to have, then I take issue with your statement. I support them, because without them the law provides for no protection for pure mechanics, and I think there should be. Since the beginnings of our legal system pure process was destined for patents and creative text was protected by copyright. I see no reason to change this.

"Patent people" means anyone that supports the system as it now exists for games, without regard for the flaws and loopholes within that system. It was not directed at you or anyone else on this forum. I don't know you, so I really don't know if you are a "patent person".

Bottom line is, IMHO, by their sheer nature, games (and board games in particular) fit exponentially better into the copyright concept of "published works" (board game components are manufactured, but board games are published). Neither copyright or patent law fully address the protection required to properly protect a game. So, we end up with a mish-mash of duplicity trying to protect them with something that neither set of laws were intended to cover. It's hard to imagine that anyone would object to tweaking copyright laws so that a game designer would get the *same* protection for a game as they get under the duplicitous situation that currently exists (that is, of course, unless the driving force is greed).

VeritasGames wrote:
FastLearner wrote:
Will everyone please stop it with this "chief" nonsense? It's intended to be deragotory, pure and simple, and is unacceptable (and yes, that begoms with Lee).

How calling somebody "chief" (impliedly, the man in charge, the man you report to, etc.) is negative is beyond me.

Actually Lee, I did find your use of "chief" derogatory, especially since I am new here, and you don't know anything about me.

Later...

Tony Williams
Josdan Games

Anonymous
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

FastLearner wrote:
Brahmulus wrote:
Wha-wha-what!?

Where do I begin?

By taking a deep breath, please. No need for outrage or exasperation, logical discussion will suffice nicely, thank you.

Ok, so I'm the scape goat on this one, ok, I'll saddle up, I'm a big boy.

Remember email/posting is pretty emotionless and void, not all that easy to read... my entire post was toungue in cheek.

Additionally "Wha-wha-what" is the classic South Park sound bite that Stern always plays. It's funny.

Quote:

Same people who are now, the USPTO and, following the inevitable lawsuit, a judge. Nothing new there. (Mind you, I'm not a supporter of the "only if it was hard" school -- just noting that the "almighty Judge" already exists in this arena.)

Disagree. A judge in a court of law does not tell me if my idea has merit based on if it took me 30 seconds or 30 years to create, let alone that I shouldnt create it at all because someone else might come up with it later...

I guess I would just take my scolding more seriously if you at least pointed out a few key elements of other posts that were a bit *out there* I guess... alas... you know I love ya FastL.

Quote:
Will everyone please stop it with this "chief" nonsense? It's intended to be deragotory, pure and simple, and is unacceptable (and yes, that begoms with Lee).

Come on, its just an expression, chief, boss, cuz, homie... it means nothing except that the conversation is casual among gentlemen and scholars...

Quote:
Quote:
Did you read what you wrote here... sorry just legitimately confused.

No, that's intentional condescension, not "just legitimately confused." Please cease.

Cease? Easy big shooter... Though I sense your mind reading powers, I am in fact legitmately confused... I thought some of the comments were too far out there and must have been meant to flame or originated from a troll or some sort of Tom Jolly stalker hater... I was freaked a bit so I called it like I saw it.

Quote:

This is a great discussion, minus the hostility. Let's keep it that way, ok, y'all?

Come on, that whole MARS thing... thats pure comedy (and really how I was feeling at that point), I have no hostile feelings when I'm typing it... I save those for the ring or the cage.

I know your role here, and I respect it FastL... but you cant come out all guns blazing on me from left field without at least a small response, cool?

___

VeritasGames wrote:
josdan wrote:
Short of that you need to litigate to gain any real protection in this country.

Here here!

And thats in this country. See how well you can protect your game (your anything) in another country.

Anonymous
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

jwarrend wrote:

Actually, my point came from experience.

As do most of mine.

Quote:
I've designed lots of mechanics in only 30 seconds. I do it all the time. Lots of us here on the site can do it.

Hmmmm... so fair question here... have you designed lots of GREAT JUSTIFIBLE (in who's eyes again?) ideas in 30seconds? Or lots of trivial ones?

Oh, and what is this speaking for *lots of us here* thing... who? Should we take a poll or is there a private club or something?

I dont work that way, I cultivate and brood on ideas for months at a time before I even put pen to paper or finger to key.

My simple question still remains... how dare someone pretend to know how long it took Tom Jolly to create a mechanic, or berate him by saying it took 30 seconds... I'll sic FastL on anyone who belittles Tommy J again! (kidding, laugh, smile)

Quote:
This kind of thing has happened in the past, in a different context: there was a case a while back where a kid and his father discovered that they could make pretty good money by registering domain names (like "www.msdw.com") and then selling them to companies (like Morgan Stanley Dean Witter).

Brilliant!

Quote:
I'm afraid that the patenting of mechanics could benefit hucksters just as much as the hard working designers that you're worried about.

But everything in life is like that, it can go both ways... and btw I'm not worried about the hard working designers, because they are the ones on the shelves, not the ones still keeping their day job and maintaining a normal life and then designing games in their spare time and whining about successful game designers.... woe as me... etc...

Did I mention i love everyone here... and TGIF!... come on group hug!

Quote:
I'm actually in a similar situation to this right now, where a game that was just released (Shadows over Camelot) has a traitor mechanic, somewhat similar to a mechanic that one of my games also has. By being first to market with this mechanic, they have a significant advantage. I'm willing to accept that (although I don't think it has anything to do with the designers working harder or sacrificing more). What I wouldn't think was fair would be if, simply by being first to market, they were allowed to dictate to me whether or not I was permitted to sell my game or not.

I just cannot comprehend this line of thinking at all and I apologize, honestly.

With all respect (watching myself closely seriously and calmly) I just cant imagine if I drew a page of a comic book every weekend for one year and then saw MARVEL come out with a similar super hero and thinking they are legally unjust in putting that comic out... and should wait for me to finish mine in my kitchen, after my dentist appointment.

I 'spose I am the only one here afterall who has seen a movie, heard a song, played a game, used a gadget and said "great idea, I wish i had thought of it"... but I dont remember feelings of bitterness and anger that followed.

Worse yet would be to say "Thats my idea, I thought of it... I mean sure I didnt quit my job and get a small business loan, incorporate, network everyday fulltime to lock down investors, miss Xmas with my family because I was meeting with a chinese plastics manufacturer and havent been able to buy myself something nice in years... but so what... I thought of it first!"

I guess, unlike others, I envy the people who followed their dreams, unlike others (in general, not necesarily here) who seem bitter and despise them.

Quote:
Or flip it around the other way; let's say I had had the money and wherewithal to patent my traitor mechanic. Even if I wasn't in position to sell the game myself, should I be able to cripple Days of Wonders' release of their game, simply because I previously had a similar idea?

Um... in a word... yes.

Its not really crippling anothe rcompany as u say, its just business. Lots (most) patents are of things that arent physically invented yet by people who have no means of producing them. Getting a patent ALONE is a great accomplishment and very taxing.. but its a first step towards a dream. A dream of making it a reality, or being fairly compensated when someone comes along who can.

Lets say you think of a great funny name for a website for you to post your hobby poetry that you write on the weekends. You wanna call it PoetKnowit.com - oh no - but wait - what if somewhere in the world at some future time a company could form that collects poetry from orphaned children and publishes them and they wanna call their company PoetKnowit.com... you could never do that to the mysterious future maybe possible company... so just scrap the whole thing and dont grab that name.

I'm just echoing FastL's cry for logic here.

You pay a record label/artist to license thier song for use in a separate project (film, tv, etc)

I would pay a game mechanic fee to use it in my game, if I thought it was worth it to me.

I could also choose not use the artists song or write a better one... I could also not pay the people who have the patent on electricity or the guy who has the patent on the house I rent... (stretching i know).

Quote:
I'd say that I don't know if I really am in favor of the "race" aspect of intellectual property laws.

I'm just not sure what other measure there is of determinng who legally secured an idea first... I dont get it... I guess we could give gold medals to the third place winners too... or ask the runner in the lead to not cross the finish line yet because other people have a chance of crossing it too?

Quote:
I like the idea that you shouldn't be able to steal someone else's idea. I don't like the idea that someone else can, simply by being first to the patent office,

Well as you described it here, If they actually stole your idea and ran to the patent office, then you would actually have a case, and I will stand behind you, that is wrong.

If they came up with your idea on their own and went to the patent office, then they would be the more succesful game designer and deserve to reap any benefits from their hard work (and big investments!)... is there something in that I am missing? Should we cry *not fair* or *do-over* perhaps?

Quote:

I don't think you're entitled to a protection for an idea that is trivial.

Gawd thats an uncomfortable statement for me...

If someone who didnt know me from adam called me out and said "Yo chief (they called me that mind you), your game idea is trivial" - I dont know what I would do.

Isn't that the equivalent of going to a book signing and telling the author he sucked or he writes to fast (because he wrote about a story I came up with on my back porch last April!)

Or how about heckling actors in a play, because they got the role fair and square but we really wanted it.

Who is to ever say what ideas are trivial or not?

Imagine if you will a world of game designers living in fear that their ideas will be judged as trivial so they should just forget them... Think of all the great ideas that *some of us* think are brilliant no matter how simple they seem or how bad we thought we had thought of them first.

We just can't do that... and luckily... legally... we dont.

I could NEVER bring myself to point a finger from on high, down upon someone and their ideas and judge them as trivial or as lame 30 second beneath me concepts...

I think the lightning mechanic is great, I've never seen it before, or thought of it... it made me slap my forehead and say "I shoudl have thought of that" - but then I say "Bravo to that guy, good one." and I move on.

I slapped my head when I saw my first heroclix figure as well... such a simple obvious concept... I mean make a piece of plastic that clicks to keep track of health... must have been a 30second no brainer... and tehy have the patent... trivial criminals!

Quote:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I claim that you could take your idea to market and try to sell it and benefit from it.

-Jeff

Lost me here.

___

josdan wrote:

Actually Lee, I did find your use of "chief" derogatory, especially since I am new here, and you don't know anything about me.

Welcome!

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

Brahmulus wrote:
jwarrend wrote:

I've designed lots of mechanics in only 30 seconds. I do it all the time. Lots of us here on the site can do it.

Hmmmm... so fair question here... have you designed lots of GREAT JUSTIFIBLE (in who's eyes again?) ideas in 30seconds? Or lots of trivial ones?
[...]
I dont work that way, I cultivate and brood on ideas for months at a time before I even put pen to paper or finger to key.

There may be a major confusion here between the idea for a game mechanic and the implementation of that mechanic. In general, it probably does only take 30 seconds to come up with the idea for a mechanic - and, depending upon circumstance and experience, anywhere from 30 seconds to several years before you realise that it does or doesn't work :-) You seem to be suggesting that you generally don't commit anything to paper before you've decided that it will work; that seems OK to me but not particularly different to the way anyone else does it in the long run, except that people who make early notes have probably wasted more paper than you....

Brahmulus wrote:
My simple question still remains... how dare someone pretend to know how long it took Tom Jolly to create a mechanic, or berate him by saying it took 30 seconds... I'll sic FastL on anyone who belittles Tommy J again! (kidding, laugh, smile)

Well I'm with Jeff here; I do indeed guess that it took Tom 30 seconds to come up with the idea. What deserves the protection is the developmental process of time and resources required to turn the idea into something interesting at the other end. But I still also think that a patent is so obviously not the right way to go about ensuring that protection - if it was, then artists would be patenting their artwork, which clearly doesn't happen (maybe it should?)

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Tom Jolly's patent

Brahmulus wrote:

I thought some of the comments were too far out there and must have been meant to flame or originated from a troll or some sort of Tom Jolly stalker hater... I was freaked a bit so I called it like I saw it.

Since you've decided to ignore Matthew's polite rebuke, I'd like to respond just a bit. You could easily tell from the fact that I'm a site Admin, or that I have over 1300 posts, that I am not a troll or stalker. That does not mean that my position is correct, of course, and it doesn't mean that you need to agree with me. But part of what makes this community so great is mutual courtesy and respect. Your posts in this thread have been very condescending and sarcastic, and this just isn't that kind of a community. We take design seriously here -- not that it means we don't have fun, or joke around: quite the opposite! But maturity and polite discourse are crucial to the spirit of the conversations we're trying to have, and I encourage you to drop the ascerbic tone in favor of something more consistent with the overwhelming majority of posters here. Argument by belittlement is not only logically fallacious, it violates the collegial atmosphere that we're trying to create.

Quote:

Hmmmm... so fair question here... have you designed lots of GREAT JUSTIFIBLE (in who's eyes again?) ideas in 30seconds? Or lots of trivial ones?

Probably some of both (though overwhelmingly more of the latter!), but my point is that it doesn't matter: if you can patent game mechanics, you can patent the great ones and the trivial ones, and you could then force companies to pay you when they use the mechanics.

Quote:

Oh, and what is this speaking for *lots of us here* thing... who? Should we take a poll or is there a private club or something?

It's not a private club, it's an online community. I've been here for 2 years and I know many of the designers, and I know their capabilities. Coming up with mechanics (mechanics, not finished game designs) quickly is really not that hard once you're experienced as a designer. The Game Design Showdown that we have every month used to occur in a chat format, and people only had 5 minutes to come up with game mechanics. Many people participated in those contests and came up with some pretty clever stuff. I suspect that there are transcripts in the archives, which you could find by doing a forum search on "Game Design Showdown".

Quote:

My simple question still remains... how dare someone pretend to know how long it took Tom Jolly to create a mechanic, or berate him by saying it took 30 seconds...

I have no idea how long Tom Jolly took to make his mechanic. I'm saying that given that it is possible to create mechanics simply and easily, I don't think they rise to the level of what should be entitled to intellectual property protection.

Quote:

I just cannot comprehend this line of thinking at all and I apologize, honestly.

It wasn't very complicated. Let's say designers A and B design games that use a similar mechanic. At present, if designer A's game is first to market, he gains an advantage, but designer B's game isn't precluded from being published simply by the existence of A's game. In a model where patenting mechanics became commonplace, designer A, by patenting the mechanic, could prevent B from publishing. This could happen even if A was not ready to sell his game and B was. I'm saying that the current situation is preferable to the latter, in my opinion.

Quote:

With all respect (watching myself closely seriously and calmly) I just cant imagine if I drew a page of a comic book every weekend for one year and then saw MARVEL come out with a similar super hero and thinking they are legally unjust in putting that comic out... and should wait for me to finish mine in my kitchen, after my dentist appointment.

It's almost as if you're not reading a word that I say. In the example I described, I talked about a game company that is putting out a game with a similar mechanic to one of mine. I think that is perfectly fair. What I wouldn't like is if they were allowed to patent their mechanic and then prevent me from selling my game some day.

Quote:
I 'spose I am the only one here afterall who has seen a movie, heard a song, played a game, used a gadget and said "great idea, I wish i had thought of it"... but I dont remember feelings of bitterness and anger that followed.

Nor do I.

Quote:

Worse yet would be to say "Thats my idea, I thought of it... I mean sure I didnt quit my job and get a small business loan, incorporate, network everyday fulltime to lock down investors, miss Xmas with my family because I was meeting with a chinese plastics manufacturer and havent been able to buy myself something nice in years... but so what... I thought of it first!"

You seem to have this notion that the only people entitled to an opinion on this issue are self-publishers, since they are personally invested financially in their game. Why can't a seeking-to-be-published designer, or even a not-seeking-to-be-published-designer, have an opinion?

Quote:

Its not really crippling anothe rcompany as u say, its just business. Lots (most) patents are of things that arent physically invented yet by people who have no means of producing them. Getting a patent ALONE is a great accomplishment and very taxing.. but its a first step towards a dream. A dream of making it a reality, or being fairly compensated when someone comes along who can.

But that's just my point; I don't think that I'm entitled to be fairly compensated by Days of Wonder simply because we both have a game with a traitor mechanic: their mechanic didn't derive from mine, and mine didn't derive from theirs. Why should I be able to stop them from publishing? "It's just business" doesn't cut it. You're proposing a change in the way that the game business works. Why would that change be a good thing, in your opinion?

Quote:
Lets say you think of a great funny name for a website for you to post your hobby poetry that you write on the weekends. You wanna call it PoetKnowit.com - oh no - but wait - what if somewhere in the world at some future time a company could form that collects poetry from orphaned children and publishes them and they wanna call their company PoetKnowit.com... you could never do that to the mysterious future maybe possible company... so just scrap the whole thing and dont grab that name.

It's not the same thing at all. Domain names fall under the category of trademark/brand name kind of considerations. By registering "poetknowit.com", you're not preventing the other company from doing business; they simply need to get a different name so as not to infringe on your trademark. Patenting of game mechanics would have a different effect: it would affect the product itself.

Quote:

I'm just echoing FastL's cry for logic here.

I'm afraid that you are not heeding that cry yourself. Your entire post is a mix of argument by condescension and argument from incredulity. You haven't secured a logical foundation yet for either posture. Without resorting to an irrelevant hypothetical, explain to me, in a coherent, logical way, why changing to a world where patented game mechanics were commonplace would be preferable to the current situation, where this is rare.

Quote:

I'm just not sure what other measure there is of determinng who legally secured an idea first... I dont get it... I guess we could give gold medals to the third place winners too... or ask the runner in the lead to not cross the finish line yet because other people have a chance of crossing it too?

This is indeed one of the flaws in my argument, that I'm seeking a model of patent protection that protects you from stealing but doesn't force someone with a non-derivative but similar idea to go through you to benefit from his idea, and it's hard to identify how that would work.

But aside from trying to make me look foolish, I don't think you've actually engaged my point. I claim that if I didn't borrow any aspect of an idea from Joe, then it is somewhat unfair for Joe to be able to prevent me from using my idea. Why, logically, is that unreasonable? Why does "I got here first!" represent a fair basis for deciding who can use an idea and who can't? (and "because that's just how it works" is NOT an adequate response).

Quote:
Quote:

I don't think you're entitled to a protection for an idea that is trivial.

Gawd thats an uncomfortable statement for me...

If someone who didnt know me from adam called me out and said "Yo chief (they called me that mind you), your game idea is trivial" - I dont know what I would do.

Well, if you're going to hang around here, better get used to this kind of criticism! Speaking from experience, I can guarantee that you're going to receive it!

Quote:
Isn't that the equivalent of going to a book signing and telling the author he sucked or he writes to fast (because he wrote about a story I came up with on my back porch last April!)

Not really. I'm not saying that patents should be withheld from only trivial mechanics; I'm saying that they should be withheld from all mechanics. This removes the ambiguity of deciding which are trivial and which aren't. And what does heckling an author have to do with anything? If you don't like an author's book, you don't buy it. If you don't like a designer's game, you don't buy it. Why is additional patent protection needed?

Quote:

Imagine if you will a world of game designers living in fear that their ideas will be judged as trivial so they should just forget them... Think of all the great ideas that *some of us* think are brilliant no matter how simple they seem or how bad we thought we had thought of them first.

No, again, you're confusing everything. Designers can, at present, attempt to sell their games, and if people think they are trivial or bad or whatever, they won't buy them. The voting as to which ideas are worthwhile is made by consumers rather than by patent officers. I'd like it to stay that way.

But my point with saying that you're not entitled to protection for a trivial idea was different. First, I'm not advancing a specific definition of what constitutes a "trivial" idea at this time, but surely I can give a simple example. How about this, you came up with the idea to wipe your bottom with your right hand rather than your left, you patent it, and now everyone who does so must pay you royalties. Silly, right? Obviously. Now, I am saying that game mechanics are more in that category than in the category of say, electricity or the cotton gin. Again, not that game mechanics are always easy to create, but that they can be created off the top of one's head: they fall more in the realm, in my opinion, of whimsy rather than ingenuity. And I don't think you can patent whimsy.

Quote:

I could NEVER bring myself to point a finger from on high, down upon someone and their ideas and judge them as trivial or as lame 30 second beneath me concepts...

Again, I'm not saying Jolly's mechanic is lame, or trivial: I'm saying that game mechanics as a family don't rise to the level of what should be patentable, in my opinion. You're more than welcome to disagree with it. But part of my point is that patenting of mechanics would change the way that games were designed and that companies do business, and I feel, as yogurt does, that it would be a negative change. Do you disagree with this? In what way would patenting of mechanics be a good practice for the hobby to incorporate?

-Jeff

VeritasGames
VeritasGames's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
Re: Is a New Copyright Classification the Answer???

josdan wrote:
Bottom line is, IMHO, by their sheer nature, games (and board games in particular) fit exponentially better into the copyright concept of "published works" (board game components are manufactured, but board games are published). Neither copyright or patent law fully address the protection required to properly protect a game. So, we end up with a mish-mash of duplicity trying to protect them with something that neither set of laws were intended to cover.

Actually, since VERY early on, copyright decisions have explicitly NOT covered utilitarian or process oriented things. Copyrights were never intended to cover a process. They don't cover a recipe, for instance. A recipe is a process.

Processes are covered by patents.

It is the express intent of the law, that a patent covers a process and a copyright covers the verbatim expression of that process insofar as the expression is distinctive of a description of the process itself.

You keep saying patents don't do the job and copyrights would do better. You keep saying it, but you offer no explanation consistent with the law as to why.

Quote:
Actually Lee, I did find your use of "chief" derogatory, especially since I am new here, and you don't know anything about me.

Would you have found "dude" similarly offensive? Because I used it rather off-the-cuff the way I would use "dude". I don't feel the need to know anything about somebody to call them "dude".

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Tom Jolly's patent

This was a very interesting thread. Much as been said and I feel it's getting too general and a bit too heated up.

I am closing it up now.

Feel free to start a new more specific thread.

PS: Camelot sounds fun and I'm eager to see this cool simultaneous play mechanic in action.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut