Skip to Content
 

TCG and the WotC patent

54 replies [Last post]
Teemany
Offline
Joined: 03/28/2010
Non-trading card game using Magic mechanics

I am developing a game using similar mechanics to Magic. However, my game is not a trading card game as it will be sold in sets, and there will be no "rarity" issues.

As such, will my game considered to infringe on WOTC''s patent? My game uses deck building, but from a resevoir of NON-SIMILAR cards.

Also, could anyone please tell me when WOTC's patent expires?

What does WOTC mean in claim 3's "designating one or more of the cards on the playing surface for entry into play."? In my game, when a player plays a card, he/she must spend energy tokens as required for each card. There is no tapping of cards. Does spending energy tokens constitute "designating the cards for entry into play"?

Thanks,
Tee

guildofblades
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
The points of the patent work

The points of the patent work collectively together to form the uniqueness that is claimed by the patents. The points individually means nothing.

""designating the cards for entry into play"?"

When you are playing poker, when you have taken one card out of your hand and begin to set it down, you have designated it for entry into play. Same with dropping cards in UNO and just about any other game that has cards in a hand of cards and rules on how those cards can go from your hand into play.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Retail Group - http://www.gobretail.com
Guild of Blades Publishing Group - http://www.guildofblades.com
1483 Online - http://www.1483online.com

scifiantihero
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2009
Yeah . . .

. . . as long as you're not tapping mana to put cards into play after drawing them from your library . . . you're all set.

Snarke
Offline
Joined: 05/07/2010
WotC Patent

>will my game considered to infringe on WOTC''s patent? My game uses deck building, but from a resevoir of NON-SIMILAR cards.

Years ago, I translated the original patent into English.

http://howell.seattle.wa.us/games/MtG/patent.html

To answer your question, Claim 3 doesn't have anything to do with tapping. That comes from Claims 4, 5, and 6, and those only are relevant if somebody manages to get Claim 3 invalidated.

Claim 3 does require a pool of cards where there are duplicates. A game with deck building is more likely to conflict with Claim 1.

The patent will expire in 2014.

Snarke
Offline
Joined: 05/07/2010
> How did Konami and

> How did Konami and Upperdeck avoid being sued from WotC when they've made CCG's that are similar to MTG?

They paid the licensing fee. It's not a gigantic amount of money. In fact, it was specifically chosen so that all the other companies with TCG's could say "Heck, it's definitely cheaper to pay the fee than it is to try to get the patent overturned in court."

Snarke
Offline
Joined: 05/07/2010
It's not about tapping.

>So they've essentially patented, as was noted above, the mechanic of "tapping"

No, they really haven't. Claims 4-6 are subservient to Claim 3, which includes "activation" (methodology unspecified) as a component.

What they patented was deck-building. For example, Dominion is absolutely in violation of Claim 3.

OK, more specifically, they patented deck-building with games where the cards are useful after you play them. If you made a game with deck-building and all that jazz but the only kinds of cards were functionally like sorceries and instants, then you'd be outside the patent.

Ironically, when I first did this analysis, the only TCG on the market that dodged the patent was James Ernest's xXxenophile game, because it was possible to take a turn without playing a card onto the table, or (for claim 2, which doesn't require that) to play it with a small common stack instead of a constructed deck.

truekid games
truekid games's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/29/2008
Quote: What they patented was

Quote:

What they patented was deck-building. For example, Dominion is absolutely in violation of Claim 3.

OK, more specifically, they patented deck-building with games where the cards are useful after you play them. If you made a game with deck-building and all that jazz but the only kinds of cards were functionally like sorceries and instants, then you'd be outside the patent.

the patent seems more to me (admittedly a layman) about cards which have an intrinsic secondary market value (rarity levels, trading) and the tap mechanic, with deck-building being a side effect of the trading aspect. i notice that all the claims mention trading for cards, and indicating use of those cards once in play (generally by turning them sideways). there were tons of games already in existence where just purchasing cards was possible (of course), and there were tons of games where cards were useful/used after they were already in play. if being useful while in play was the primary thing, there's WAY too much prior use out there. if acquiring cards for your personal use from a pool of cards once inside the game itself were the limiting factor, we'd have to look no further than Rummy.

i don't assert that i've got any superb understanding of patent laws, but my limited understanding is that prior use would kill any of the smaller sub-aspects of magic (because it really is just an aggregate of parts), and it doesn't really mean anything until you start combining the external trading (of cards specifically) WITH the gameplay AND the game having the tap mechanic. so, sure, lots of CCG's fall under that blanket, but dominion wouldn't be even in the same ballpark... you do not acquire the cards which your deck is constructed of OUTSIDE the actual gameplay via unequal distribution. there are no "extra cards to trade", nor is there any tapping once in play.

let me know if i'm missing something, like i said, i've only got a basic understanding.

seller19792011
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2010
WOTC is smart guy

Trading card game is a name for their new invention. What WOTC doesn't want you to know is the fact that Trading card game is just a new mask that cover a new look but they are just "PLAYING CARD".
Look at a playing card, change the "king" image with a "Dragon"image, and now change a value (for example value "10") into value "10000" and that's it! It is the same structure. So their patent can be invalid if they meet a tough patent lawyer.

However, If they sue anybody for making a card game using "tapping", they may WIN since playing card does not have "tapping" on any of their game (I mean a card game documented or obviously know to use "Tapping" system.)

But, yeah, they do try to scare people preventing anyone from making a trading card game . If you can find proper documentation(dated before WOTC 1997 patent) of a playing card game and you are using same method, WOTC will not bother you.

Remember, playing card are NOT outside Trading Card Game !
Playing Card is the father of all trading card game! It has picture (King, Queen etc...) and a value (1,2,3,4, ect...) and it is also used to play many games and build deck, using dice or even "attacking" phase using values on cards to attack the other card!

A patent becomes invalid if there is proof that the invention was already invented by somebody else before. In patent law, there is also a law called "Doctrine of equivalent". WOTC are using many "playing card" method in their trading card game. People think playing card are not in the same page as Trading card game, but they are!

We can still invent great trading card game!

seller19792011
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2010
The true story

Playing card have been here for more than a century...
It it a system of 52 cards with pictures and numbers used to play many game and even stratedy games. It already uses deck building thing and shuffing cards from hand before TTG!.

Now somebody invented trading card, but trading card does not have deck building or any game system similar to playing card. It was just for collector or for very simple game like Basebal TTG.

Now, the new guy, WOTC, very smart. Invented Trading card GAME, claiming it is an improvement from trading card. But it improvement were mostly based on copying playing card system. SO he copied ideas of playing cards game and stick it into trading card to make trading card game.

I agree that he invented some new method of play like Tapping, but
he can't prevent anyone from inventing a card game with strategy.

If WOTC would make his cards something folded in two like a folder or something that doesn't look like a card, then, he would be ousite playing card and would rules trading card games(must not look like a card) but it is not the case.

My advise is, you can start to create your trading card game as very simple, then in two years(not sure), when WOTC patent expire, you can still add new rules as tapping to your card game!

It takes months, years to draw and save any good characters, so in one year or two years, you will be ready.

Relexx
Relexx's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/31/2010
Now glad I read this post ...

Now glad I read this post ... I was not aware of the WotC patent, and since my Village game has card rotation to show build time I may have to think of an alternate.

ReneWiersma
ReneWiersma's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/08/2008
Relexx wrote:Now glad I read

Relexx wrote:
Now glad I read this post ... I was not aware of the WotC patent, and since my Village game has card rotation to show build time I may have to think of an alternate.

I think you might be fine, though. The Settlers of Catan Card Game also uses card rotation to show build time (if I remember correctly), and other ganmes probably as well. As long as your card game isn't a collectible, customizable game and doesn't make overt use any other of the patented elements of MtG you are probably fine.

InvisibleJon
InvisibleJon's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/27/2008
I agree with Rene W.

ReneWiersma wrote:
Relexx wrote:
Now glad I read this post ... I was not aware of the WotC patent, and since my Village game has card rotation to show build time I may have to think of an alternate.

I think you might be fine, though. The Settlers of Catan Card Game also uses card rotation to show build time (if I remember correctly), and other ganmes probably as well. As long as your card game isn't a collectible, customizable game and doesn't make overt use any other of the patented elements of MtG you are probably fine.

There's a difference between "passage of time" and "expending a resource." I'm inclined to agree with Rene and say you're good. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so take it as you will...)

Qamar
Offline
Joined: 08/20/2010
Thoughts

Patent will expire in 2015.

I think that it is worth noteing that it's US patent. Unless I'm wrong about it, you can release your CCG outside USA without any worry. For example Germany is especially good market for games, as acordingly to what I have read there is most gamers in that country.
If you want to release the game in USA I would sugest to be creative in the field of terminology and also do not copy color wheel concept.

Also I think that blatant plagiary doesn't need to violate any patent to cause legal problems. See WCW Nitro and WWF Raw Deal.

And BTW. I'm curious what's the practice. How often WotC had forced their exclusive rights and how many CCGs was released in USA without problems with WotC's lawyers.

c12mm
Offline
Joined: 09/20/2010
safty guard absent from game for 6 match

Defending champion New Orleans saints all-star security guard darren ShaPo will miss the season's first six games, but the starting line to guard Jonathan - more unfortunate algeciras, in the last game against Tennessee preseason game after his leg injury, had[url=http://www.2008jersey.com] NFL jerseys[/url] earlier this season and said good-bye.
Saints on Saturday announced several players, they will be side changes to activate list of league rules adjust at 53 people. New Orleans decision will ShaPo and line guards Clint - Ingram PUP on list, both of them are in the offseason left[url=http://www.ecsoso.com] MLB jerseys[/url] in the camp, and minimally invasive surgery in the beginning of the PUP list. This means that ShaPo will not be in the season opener and his old friend Brett - method to compete..... ShaPo said his recovery training well, he hopes to play against his former club Minnesota's game, but he also understand the PUP list for his future is the beginning of a new season to play for a longer time has the potential to help.
Last year in algeciras card as a free agent in the draft of the election joined New Orleans saints, online health Scott fudge tower as a free agent after leaving the club, he is expected to start this post. Meanwhile, the saints also officially lay off 19 players, including some [url=http://www.2009allstar.com/products/NFL-Women-Jerseys-s437_p1.htm] NFL jerseys[/url] experienced players, such as defensive feng bobby - MaiKeLei, quarterback Patrick - rumsey, defense, KenDeLiKe - clancy is opening section feng center Nick lecky and ran WeiLan dyer - Bates. After the big layoffs, saints activation roster had only two quarterbacks drew - Boris and 2 grade chase – Daniel.

pauly hart
pauly hart's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2010
facing the wizards

yes! here is an example of WOTC in action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havic:_The_Bothering

pauly hart
pauly hart's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2010
tapping versus turning

catan uses it's cards in a full 180 degree rotation, not the 90 that the WoC / garfield patent claims. plus they use dice to determine the resource growth and everyone gets the growth, not just the player... not it's not even "manna" anymore. yeah. settlers card game is pretty smartly "outside" of the patent".

Simon T Evans
Offline
Joined: 11/03/2010
Re-issued patent 2003

Hi - I am new to the forum and have found this thread very interesting. I have not seen mention (although I may have easily missed it!) of the re-issued patent which was granted in 2003 - RE37,957 E which you can see at http://tinyurl.com/2fze5r4

This does not have just the 6 original claims - it has 60 claims (though many of these are dependant)!

very useful discussion - thanks!

Simon

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
ive only ever seen it happen once

ive only seen it happen once, and it was with "havic: the annoying" or bothering or something like that.

Everything about the game screamed MTG plagiarism, and in this case, if i were wizards of the coast, i would have done the same thing.

i know that you cannot completely patent game MECHANICS, you just cant copy rules texts, or characters, or steps. In the case of magic, you also cant copy or displace terms or try to rearrange them (like putting the "upkeep" step at the end of the turn).

i would go ahead and create away without worry, as long as you dont copy terms like "tap".

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
a further point

if we wanted to look at game mechanics through the eyes of patent law, almost every game out there would be in breach of claims for patents on dice, regardless of the number of sides, or where you throw them, or whether or not any form of wagering accompanies it.

even "pop-o-matic trouble" would be in ...well, Trouble! for using dice inside of their invention.

pelle
pelle's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
expiration date

Since patents can only last at most about 20 years I wouldn't worry too much about dice or any other device or mechanic that existed before 1990, even if game mechanics were frequently patented (which they are not, so this is a hypothetical question anyway).

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
then there is this

this pretty much makes all of WotC's TCG claims invalid due to prior use...

http://www.oldcardboard.com/wg/allegheny/allegheny.asp?cardsetID=1175

create away!

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
irdesigns510 wrote:this

irdesigns510 wrote:
this pretty much makes all of WotC's TCG claims invalid due to prior use...

http://www.oldcardboard.com/wg/allegheny/allegheny.asp?cardsetID=1175

create away!

How does this show prior use? The patent is not for cards but how they are used.

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
Dralius wrote:irdesigns510

Dralius wrote:
irdesigns510 wrote:
this pretty much makes all of WotC's TCG claims invalid due to prior use...

http://www.oldcardboard.com/wg/allegheny/allegheny.asp?cardsetID=1175

create away!

How does this show prior use? The patent is not for cards but how they are used.

i think peoples' biggest fear is infringing on the use of trading cards as game components, that is all im showing.
Alot of people on this post make claims that they are doing different things with their games, but dont think they can go the "TCG" route, and are forced to go a closed set.
im just saying "dont worry about it, create your game!", that's all.

irdesigns510
irdesigns510's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/24/2009
actually dralius your right.

ive been going between posts of "Tapping" (this place) and "TCG's" on another page.

although im not sure if you had seen that it was a game, and not just simply baseball cards.
It must be a VERY simple game, unless people are expected to just know the stats of things. (knowing magic players who can spout out card abilities just at the mention of the card titles, its possible :)

in this posts case:
"turning" a card is the same as "turning" a counter to a different number, or "turning" a coin to the other face. They all use a method to show a different status other than the previous one.

These mechanics are invalid claims because they have all existed long before M:tg.
Turning cards have been used to mark scored hands (a status other than "in play"), or to close a set or start a new one (a status other than "active") in many traditional card games. its nothing new or inventive.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut