On expensive games and specialty games

To me, a really good game is like a piece of art, limited printed art, after spending years on my own creation around a $100 seems more than reasonable

You can find more info on the uspto website - search patent no 6106300.

(note: I am not a patent attorney.)

Most people will tell you that it isn't worth it... after many years of thought with many things of my own in consideration, I agree. This wasn't easy for me to arrive at, but it is an informed opinion and one that comes from studying the industry quite a bit over those years.

Patents, largely, are for people with too much money when it comes to the gaming industry. It tends to be 3 different types:

1) Mr. Sue-Happy: Tries to get loosely worded patents through and sue anything vaguely similar with a decent profit.

2) Archaic corporate protector of evergreen product/acquirer of competition: We the corporate must do everything according to the book of doing business... protecting those items that sell for us year in and year out. Have a big legal team and sue thieves. (This is reinforced when every person pitches them things like "it's like Monopoly, but different" games". They buy out competition instead of innovating them because they have more money and most people have a price.

3) Mr. I-have-the-best-idea-on-the-planet: This is where most of us come in.... we believe or hear that we should protect something and start spending money before we should... I'll get in to this more below.

The profits do not justify the ends largely.

Look at Richard Garfield's patents - "tapping" and "collectible". There are several games they could fight in court.... but don't. Largely, they are waiting for something to make millions upon millions before trying to enforce such patents.... and then, they are at a wash because they won't hold up half the time and the owner spent thousands of dollars obtaining them.

Defeat tapping - don't use it - put a counter on the card instead... same thing.

Defeat collectible - call it customizable.... same thing.

I read through Cranium's patent and though it was well written, I don't think it could hold up either.... using different "abilities" in a game - doesn't every RPG on the planet require both "acting" and "strategic analysis"?

One thing I noticed though is that if Hasbro develops patent envy they may make an offer for your company.... especially if you cut into their market share.

Take Dragon War by Robert Kraus (and others). Most people don't know this game. Mr. Kraus obtained a patent for a trading card board game in which the cards made up the board upon which the game was played. The game was largely panned for it's lack of innovation outside of the patentable concept (an unofficial 5.09 at BGG), but the patent was bought by Hasbro for an undisclosed sum.

I immediately thought of a short lived CCG that came before, called Sim City that had used that same mechanic 4 years earlier. So, in many ways, the #2 corporate is an under-informed #1 sue-happy guy. I thought of a couple of games to use this idea myself, but shied away and wonder now if I should.... in theory, doesn't Agricola use this now? Things that make you think!

Here's the thing....

If you have the next great thing and your patentable aspect has broad, money grossing appeal, then maybe you should look at those protections in a serious manner. But if it is not both BROAD and WORTH MILLIONS, don't do it immediately.... release your game and patent it off those profits if you still feel the need. IF you turn a profit of more than $2000, then you might have enough to start that process.... but if you don't, maybe you just saved yourself some money.

As I see nightmare patents get granted by an under-informed patent office, researched by incompetent/lazy patent attorneys, and taken out by under-researched designers. I see a system that I don't hold confidence in... and it makes me not want to waste the money. I rather have the confidence in myself that I can come up with several great ideas and games without worrying if I miss out on a real good one... that's what will set you apart in the long run... if you can do something great repeatedly and not be a one-trick pony.

Ask yourself this question:

Why do you want the patent? Is it because you think someone will get to the idea first? From your replies of 99.999999% surety, I'd say that isn't it. Is it because you have several more games in line using this patentable thing and want to make sure no one else makes those before you? Then maybe you should obtain the patent when you sell through your first print run and allow that to be your guide as to when and if you should patent the patentable element of your game.

Hope this helps.... and I'd love to see your finished product.

Can you sell products first and then patent using the profits? I was told that if something was commerciaslised prior to protection then it was fair game for anyone who wanted to make the same thing.

Just did quick research in Google patents and came up with Richard Garfield's "Method of building a deck of collectible cards" and it was filed in 2000 - seven years AFTER the game debuted.

In short, why should I pay more for your labour-of-love soul-catching mood-evoking game with beautiful art when I can wander down to the store and buy someone else's labour-of-love soul-catching mood-evoking game with beautiful art for $20?