Blackjack 99
Meanwhile, here is the rack card. Click on it for a larger version.
.Anyone else know anything about it?
Quote: WizardJust saw this game at the Red Rock this afternoon, but it was closed at the time. I'll keep going back.
Anyone else know anything about it?
Nevada Approval dates
BLACKJACK 99 7/27/2000 NEW GAME
BLACKJACK 99 – VERSION 2 5/1/2009
BLACKJACK 99 – VERSION 3 3/10/2010
I don't know if there is an easy way to find out the rules for these game.
The patent number on the printout seems totally wrong.
United States Patent 6,237,917
Timpano May 29, 2001
Method of playing a baccarat game
Abstract
A method for playing a Baccarat game in which players play against a dealer using a deck of conventional playing cards or electronic representations thereof. Each player wagers and is dealt two cards to form an initial hand. Any player receiving a pre-determined winning hand is rewarded and play is terminated for that player. Otherwise, the players may opt to take a single additional card to form a final hand. The value of each final hand is determined by summing the value of each card in the final hand modulo ten, wherein face cards and tens have a value of zero, Aces have a value of one, and all other cards have a value equal to their numeric face value. The wager is collected from each player receiving a pre-determined losing hand and play is terminated as to that player. A dealer's initial hand of two cards is dealt and evaluated. If the value of the dealer's initial hand is within a pre-determined range, the dealer must take an additional card. The value of the dealer's final hand is compared to the value of each player's final hand. Wagers are resolved by rewarding players having a higher final hand value than the dealer's final hand value, collecting wagers from players having a final hand value less than the dealer's final hand value, and returning wagers on ties.
Perhaps because non-Asians are not big fans of Baccarat?Quote: cardsharkWhy do they call it Blackjack 99 when it is clearly a Baccarat based game?
Personally, I would have called it Ni9e.
Quote: pacomartinNevada Approval dates
BLACKJACK 99 7/27/2000 NEW GAME
BLACKJACK 99 – VERSION 2 5/1/2009
BLACKJACK 99 – VERSION 3 3/10/2010
I don't know if there is an easy way to find out the rules for these game.
The patent number on the printout seems totally wrong.
United States Patent 6,237,917
Timpano May 29, 2001
...
I am sometimes amazed (as is Stacy) at the number of games that are submitted to Gaming at great expense, where the patent is either not in place - or is completely representative of some other unrelated game.
Do you think Gaming could require, as a simple precaution, that an affiidavit from an attorney be submitted that:
1. A patent was filed/submitted that is representative of the actual game specs that was submitted to gaming; and
2. to the best of the attorney's knowledge, that the patent
- does not infringe, (a search was actually done) and
- is patentable
OR
- that IP rights are waved, and that the game is being offered as a public domain option?
You know, there are certain preliminary health requirements in order to apply as a policeman, soldier, sky-diver, etc...I mean, they don't let you apply if you're in a wheel chair with an IV drip running. Aslo, if you're applying as a commercial driver, in addition to a road test on the equipement, you get a health check and insurance/ability to be bonded check. Just seems to me....
Granted, I am not saying that Gaming should be involved in determining IP rights, just the merits of a game.
But they should require, in addition to extensive background checks and exhaustive gaming mathematics,
A simple statement or affidavit from the inventor that states that I.P. due diligence was also performed as part of the submission, and that inventor awareness and surity of IP rights is a part of the equation that is the repsonsibility of the inventor.
A number of people can use a bogus patent number and say, "yeah - it covers the game." Not always.
1. The obvious one - when does the dealer hit, and when does the dealer stand?
2. If you split a pair, can you take a third card on either/both of the new hands? (The description implies "no")
3. Does the "zero point" Taxpayer's Fortune payout pay based on the dealer's first two cards or the dealer's final total?
4. The last paragraph (about the Tax Fee and keeping the Taxpayer's Fortune bet in play) is confusing. As written, it sounds like you actually keep the Taxpayer's Fortune bet in play if you don't pay the tax.
I DO think he intended that patent to be for this game, and am not sure why MathExtremist thinks otherwise.
There is a least one glaring error that I saw, but otherwise, it seems like it applies.
He talks about adding the two cards dealt, and uses the phrase "Modulo 10" to suggest the Baccarat type scoring of looking only at the last digit. I assume that's an already established phrase or math function.
However, he neglects to use that phrase when talking about the new total after taking a hit.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I DO think he intended that patent to be for this game, and am not sure why MathExtremist thinks otherwise.
Quite often, there is some "game specification drift" from when the patent was originally filed, going towards how to best implement the game in the real word down the road, with rule changes, "massaging" the game, etc.
Quote: PaigowdanI am sometimes amazed (as is Stacy) at the number of games that are submitted to Gaming at great expense, where the patent is either not in place - or is completely representative of some other unrelated game.
Do you think Gaming could require, as a simple precaution, that an affiidavit from an attorney be submitted that:
1. A patent was filed/submitted that is representative of the actual game specs that was submitted to gaming; and
2. to the best of the attorney's knowledge, that the patent
- does not infringe, (a search was actually done) and
- is patentable
OR
- that IP rights are waved, and that the game is being offered as a public domain option?
You know, there are certain preliminary health requirements in order to apply as a policeman, soldier, sky-diver, etc...I mean, they don't let you apply if you're in a wheel chair with an IV drip running. Aslo, if you're applying as a commercial driver, in addition to a road test on the equipement, you get a health check and insurance/ability to be bonded check. Just seems to me....
Granted, I am not saying that Gaming should be involved in determining IP rights, just the merits of a game.
But they should require, in addition to extensive background checks and exhaustive gaming mathematics,
A simple statement or affidavit from the inventor that states that I.P. due diligence was also performed as part of the submission, and that inventor awareness and surity of IP rights is a part of the equation that is the repsonsibility of the inventor.
A number of people can use a bogus patent number and say, "yeah - it covers the game." Not always.
To your first point, I disagree -- I'd say it's not necessary. Gaming commissions in most jurisdictions don't care about whether a game is patented or not. There are a few exceptions -- I've had to submit IP details in Mississippi, for example -- but for the most part, the role of a gaming board isn't to vet IP issues but to vet regulatory issues. It's between the vendor and the operator to determine the license structure and compensation, if any, for use of the product. The government doesn't and shouldn't need to be involved.
As to the last point:
Quote: 35 United States Code
35 U.S.C. 292 False marking.
(a) Whoever, without the consent of the patentee, marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with anything made, used, offered for sale, or sold by such person within the United States, or imported by the person into the United States, the name or any imitation of the name of the patentee, the patent number, or the words "patent," "patentee," or the like, with the intent of counterfeiting or imitating the mark of the patentee, or of deceiving the public and inducing them to believe that the thing was made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States by or with the consent of the patentee; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any unpatented article the word "patent" or any word or number importing the same is patented, for the purpose of deceiving the public; or Whoever marks upon, or affixes to, or uses in advertising in connection with any article the words "patent applied for," "patent pending," or any word importing that an application for patent has been made, when no application for patent has been made, or if made, is not pending, for the purpose of deceiving the public - Shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.
(b) Any person may sue for the penalty, in which event one-half shall go to the person suing and the other to the use of the United States.
(Subsection (a) amended Dec. 8, 1994, Public Law 103-465, sec. 533(b)(6), 108 Stat. 4990.)
Quote: DJTeddyBearWhile I defer to the experts, I read thru a lot of that patent.
I DO think he intended that patent to be for this game, and am not sure why MathExtremist thinks otherwise.
The intent of the inventor is rarely important. What matters is what the claims encompass. Read the claims and let me know if you think the rules posted by the Wizard match up with every limitation of those claims.
1. What I was saying is perhaps this could be a "check-off item" or a pre-requesite item, as part of the submission process - that this area is the game designer's/distributor's responsibility, and that it was addressed prior to submission as to NOT involve the gaming board as an issue or problem, that an affidavit of due diligence was done in this area (affix notoary stamp). At least, it would be a wake-up call to a submittor to ask "Do I really have this area covered, in orde to go forward now with this serious stepnow that I am spending so much on licensing, distribution, etc?"
2. The CLAIMS are vital, and is what the IP basically is. The body of the patent document (Detailed Description, Background, Prior Art, etc.) is to clarify the role of the invention and its operating environment, but what is claimed in the CLAIMS section is in essence the unique "ownable" processes of the invention.
Quote: Paigowdan1. What I was saying is perhaps this could be a "check-off item" or a pre-requesite item, as part of the submission process - that this area is the game designer's/distributor's responsibility, and that it was addressed prior to submission as to NOT involve the gaming board as an issue or problem, that an affidavit of due diligence was done in this area (affix notoary stamp). At least, it would be a wake-up call to a submittor to ask "Do I really have this area covered, in orde to go forward now with this serious stepnow that I am spending so much on licensing, distribution, etc?"
Anyone who doesn't think through the IP issues before going through the regulatory process is ignorant (literally, not necessarily in the malicious way that word is normally used), but it's not typical part of the purview of regulatory bodies to ensure that participants aren't ignorant. The goal of a regulatory body is to serve the public interest, and I'm not sure that requiring an intellectual-property application on a regulatory filing either serves or harms the public interest. I'm in favor of lighter regulations whenever possible so I'd leave it out.
That is true. Certainly you've read a patent or two here and there and the word "ignorant" may have crossed your mind.... :) :)
I don't think it harms to ask "are you sure you covered this area well, and state that you have, in order to go forward at this point?"
"Can you sign a statement that you have indeed?"
A good faith statement, at least. I think it is reasonable.
Some may have missed it, some clearly have.
I could take a game that is patented, and approved in Mississippi or New Jersey, and if it were not known or applied for in Nevada, I could probably get a Nevada approval for it, legal fallout not withstanding, if willing to spend the money as an exercise.
Things like this have been done to point out glaring loopholes or weaknesses, you can probably give me examples. College engineering homework assignments have been patented and approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as experiments, when written up by guidelines - only to be rescinded as an exposed "weakness exercise."
There should be at least a small "Clearinghouse" effort at this point, considering the plethora (yikes - that word!) of new games busting out all over the place.
Quote: Paigowdan
I could take a game that is patented, and approved in Mississippi or New Jersey, and if it were not known or applied for in Nevada, I could probably get a Nevada approval for it, legal fallout not withstanding, if willing to spend the money as an exercise.
That's just it -- the approval process doesn't put any restrictions on who's allowed to license the game. It simply says that casinos are permitted to operate the game. If you want to take someone else's game from New Jersey and run it through the NGCB approval process on your own dime, the inventor will probably thank you. He'll end up with an approved game without paying for it. The only thing that matters is whether a game is on the "approved" list, not who put it there.
But if it's patented and you then offer to sell it to casinos, you're committing patent infringement (35 U.S.C. 271(a): "... whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.") But patent infringement is a federal matter and gaming boards are state (or tribal) entities.
As to the "clearinghouse" effort -- who's going to pay for that? The inventors? The taxpayers?
