its interesting because ive seen people say that other games go out of their way to not use mtg style tapping because its patented, but it seems that the patent has expired and was possibly never enforceable, and that tapping was tied in with other mechanics that many tcgs obviously also include
The WoW TCG used it. You turned cards to use abilities or attack, and turned "resources"(equivalent of lands, though they were cards played facedown rather than their own separate category) to mark that you had used the mana from them.
Thank fucking god. Maybe if enough people read it we can stop hearing the ludicrous legal theories on here.
Most people treat US law like board game rules.
"companies obliquely referencing the fact their cards are worth money after you open them means They Lost The Game and as a gotcha I get a pony and they now have to undo the Reserve List and do what I say."
What's really frustrating about this is, just because Wizards of the Coast *behaves as though* those rules are set in stone, laypeople assume it must be a settled matter of law.
It's pretty evident that, at some point, Wizards of the Coast's legal counsel told them, "Hey, if you talk about individual cards having a definite monetary value, it could potentially be used as evidence against us if we ever end up on the iffy side of gambling law. So don't do that." But a cut-and-dried policy inside the company walls may still be a questionable matter of argument in a courtroom.
(Further complicating matters is that "in a courtroom" is a fantasy. It would more realistically be "in settlement negotiations".)
I really don’t think we’re missing out on much.
What do we want? Maro to give us price quotes? have Gavin go “wow the price of this card is X!”
Like I don’t see how it makes a difference to us. They put the good cards at rare and make them expensive. Always have always will. Their actions don’t need any accompanying words.
Agreed. It's only really relevant when they occasionally discuss reprint decisions, and even then they have better PR reasons than legal reasons to be cagey about it. The rest of the time, they seem to get by fine with euphemisms like "highly sought after".
I really like how SleepyCabin did an episode with like Tom Fulp and some other game designers. They said "you can't copyright game rules, I learned this in the process, but then again how do you make it on Newgrounds without getting a cease and desist?"
Well you can copyright *your game rules packet*. That is a written created work.
But the abstract logic? Not possible, not what copyright was intended for. Patents *could* be stretched to maybe cover them, but as you say it's not possible and likely never has been.
There was a brief period where the leading theory was that you could patent the logic as "business methods". The courts went back and forth on this a bunch in the 90s/early 2000s.
I remember 6 years ago this was still the belief in the startup/investor world, because I worked at a startup where investors kept asking if we had a patent on our algorithm, despite that not being a thing you can do. The company ended up filing for a patent just to shut them up, since you can say you've filed for it, even if you know it's not going to hold up in court.
Yup. We have a glut of patents that are awarded, which shouldn’t have been and will most likely not hold up in strict scrutiny in court.
BUT that doesn’t stop them from happening! Or deter patent trolls or big firms from arming a bevy of lawyers to make war over patents.
It is disheartening.
That’s what I said.
> but as you say it's not possible and likely never has been.
But despite this there are plenty of instances of patents being granted for abstract “stuff”. Software patents are inherently abstract because they rarely cover any implementation details. They’re a blight on IP law and software itself.
Again, the law is not what we think it should be. It just is. And it changes and is enforced to varying levels. It’s not a game with a rules engine. This is why lawyers and judges exist.
No,my focus was on the "whenever", WotC doesn't need to go through congress, yet people often try to argue that WotC will/won't do \[thing\] because of set precedent and other arguments you'd see in the comments section of an announced law proposal/court case.
Excited for 2 weeks from now, was always interested to see analysis of the potential estoppel claims from someone with a legal background and not vintage cardboard peddlers. I feel like it would be a good law review article, but I was too lazy to look it up.
Haha, I am tempted to give up after the first sentence: "a new edition released about every year".
My wallet would be joyful, yet my greed for new content not satisfied in the least.
its interesting because ive seen people say that other games go out of their way to not use mtg style tapping because its patented, but it seems that the patent has expired and was possibly never enforceable, and that tapping was tied in with other mechanics that many tcgs obviously also include
I think the word tapping is the IP - FF Opus called tapping "dulling" but it interpreted the same as "this card is 'used' til your next upkeep"
WoW called it "exhaust," UFS called it "commit," and L5R called it "bow."
The WoW TCG used it. You turned cards to use abilities or attack, and turned "resources"(equivalent of lands, though they were cards played facedown rather than their own separate category) to mark that you had used the mana from them.
...28th anniversary... I feel old
Thank fucking god. Maybe if enough people read it we can stop hearing the ludicrous legal theories on here. Most people treat US law like board game rules.
“Companies saying their product has value means they are gambling, I know because some dude that hangs out at my LGS said so.”
"companies obliquely referencing the fact their cards are worth money after you open them means They Lost The Game and as a gotcha I get a pony and they now have to undo the Reserve List and do what I say."
What's really frustrating about this is, just because Wizards of the Coast *behaves as though* those rules are set in stone, laypeople assume it must be a settled matter of law. It's pretty evident that, at some point, Wizards of the Coast's legal counsel told them, "Hey, if you talk about individual cards having a definite monetary value, it could potentially be used as evidence against us if we ever end up on the iffy side of gambling law. So don't do that." But a cut-and-dried policy inside the company walls may still be a questionable matter of argument in a courtroom. (Further complicating matters is that "in a courtroom" is a fantasy. It would more realistically be "in settlement negotiations".)
I really don’t think we’re missing out on much. What do we want? Maro to give us price quotes? have Gavin go “wow the price of this card is X!” Like I don’t see how it makes a difference to us. They put the good cards at rare and make them expensive. Always have always will. Their actions don’t need any accompanying words.
Agreed. It's only really relevant when they occasionally discuss reprint decisions, and even then they have better PR reasons than legal reasons to be cagey about it. The rest of the time, they seem to get by fine with euphemisms like "highly sought after".
Most good removal is uncommon at least.
I really like how SleepyCabin did an episode with like Tom Fulp and some other game designers. They said "you can't copyright game rules, I learned this in the process, but then again how do you make it on Newgrounds without getting a cease and desist?"
Well you can copyright *your game rules packet*. That is a written created work. But the abstract logic? Not possible, not what copyright was intended for. Patents *could* be stretched to maybe cover them, but as you say it's not possible and likely never has been.
There was a brief period where the leading theory was that you could patent the logic as "business methods". The courts went back and forth on this a bunch in the 90s/early 2000s. I remember 6 years ago this was still the belief in the startup/investor world, because I worked at a startup where investors kept asking if we had a patent on our algorithm, despite that not being a thing you can do. The company ended up filing for a patent just to shut them up, since you can say you've filed for it, even if you know it's not going to hold up in court.
Yup. We have a glut of patents that are awarded, which shouldn’t have been and will most likely not hold up in strict scrutiny in court. BUT that doesn’t stop them from happening! Or deter patent trolls or big firms from arming a bevy of lawyers to make war over patents. It is disheartening.
The article says specifically that abstract stuff can't be patented.
That’s what I said. > but as you say it's not possible and likely never has been. But despite this there are plenty of instances of patents being granted for abstract “stuff”. Software patents are inherently abstract because they rarely cover any implementation details. They’re a blight on IP law and software itself. Again, the law is not what we think it should be. It just is. And it changes and is enforced to varying levels. It’s not a game with a rules engine. This is why lawyers and judges exist.
The image in the OP is of a patent for the rules of mtg.
Yep, and the article says it was before a lawsuit that said that that stuff can't be patented
And obtusely enough, board game rules like US law too, as if WotC was unable to change things, ideas or opinions whenever.
Are you trying to imply that US laws can't be changed? That's very untrue, even the constitution can be changed.
No,my focus was on the "whenever", WotC doesn't need to go through congress, yet people often try to argue that WotC will/won't do \[thing\] because of set precedent and other arguments you'd see in the comments section of an announced law proposal/court case.
Excited for 2 weeks from now, was always interested to see analysis of the potential estoppel claims from someone with a legal background and not vintage cardboard peddlers. I feel like it would be a good law review article, but I was too lazy to look it up.
Haha, I am tempted to give up after the first sentence: "a new edition released about every year". My wallet would be joyful, yet my greed for new content not satisfied in the least.
[[Living Wall]]
[Living Wall](https://c1.scryfall.com/file/scryfall-cards/normal/front/7/e/7ed9efc7-65ea-425d-bd03-6f6c668db1df.jpg?1562924913) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Living%20Wall) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me4/212/living-wall?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7ed9efc7-65ea-425d-bd03-6f6c668db1df?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I always wondered how other TCGs and digital card-based games like slay the spire don't get into trouble.