Ownership of similar games and bonuses
I've noticed several proprietary bonus bets in particular that are nearly identical save for tiny differences. A great example is the Dynasty Bonus owned by (I believe) DEQ, and present on EZ Pai Gow. The payout scale is identical to Payscale 2 of Shufflemaster's Ballys' Fortune Bonus, with the only difference being the 2000:1 requires an AQ suited instead of a KQ suited. Is that really enough to make it a different game?
Another example is Ballymaster's King's Bounty bonus, which is very similar to Galaxy's Lucky Ladies. The differences here are a little more generous. Along with replacing Queens of Hearts with Kings of Spades, a couple other payouts are added to sweeten the pot a percentage point or two.
Are these games created with licensing agreements, or is there really that little difference required to consider a game original?
Quote: DeucekiesA question that has had me curious for a while. How different does a game or a bonus paytable have to be in order to be patentable without infringement?
I've noticed several proprietary bonus bets in particular that are nearly identical save for tiny differences. A great example is the Dynasty Bonus owned by (I believe) DEQ, and present on EZ Pai Gow. The payout scale is identical to Payscale 2 of Shufflemaster's Ballys' Fortune Bonus, with the only difference being the 2000:1 requires an AQ suited instead of a KQ suited. Is that really enough to make it a different game?
Another example is Ballymaster's King's Bounty bonus, which is very similar to Galaxy's Lucky Ladies. The differences here are a little more generous. Along with replacing Queens of Hearts with Kings of Spades, a couple other payouts are added to sweeten the pot a percentage point or two.
Are these games created with licensing agreements, or is there really that little difference required to consider a game original?
My understanding is, it really can be that little. When you do the patent for the game, you try to be both as specific as possible AND as broad as possible across the area of your IP (thinking of all possible permutations if you can while not straying from your base area of patentability), just to prevent this type of thing happening. But there are several people on here with more experience and knowledge about the specifics; perhaps they'll talk more about it. There are also some previous discussions on the board of this exact subject in the Game Inventor's Corner.
Quote: DeucekiesA question that has had me curious for a while. How different does a game or a bonus paytable have to be in order to be patentable without infringement?
I've noticed several proprietary bonus bets in particular that are nearly identical save for tiny differences. A great example is the Dynasty Bonus owned by (I believe) DEQ, and present on EZ Pai Gow. The payout scale is identical to Payscale 2 of Shufflemaster's Ballys' Fortune Bonus, with the only difference being the 2000:1 requires an AQ suited instead of a KQ suited. Is that really enough to make it a different game?
Another example is Ballymaster's King's Bounty bonus, which is very similar to Galaxy's Lucky Ladies. The differences here are a little more generous. Along with replacing Queens of Hearts with Kings of Spades, a couple other payouts are added to sweeten the pot a percentage point or two.
Are these games created with licensing agreements, or is there really that little difference required to consider a game original?
Side bets that are paid out against a paytable are in a different category than strategic game play mechanisms, such as the push-22, etc.
Side bets are more fair game.
Quote: PaigowdanQuote: DeucekiesA question that has had me curious for a while. How different does a game or a bonus paytable have to be in order to be patentable without infringement?
I've noticed several proprietary bonus bets in particular that are nearly identical save for tiny differences. A great example is the Dynasty Bonus owned by (I believe) DEQ, and present on EZ Pai Gow. The payout scale is identical to Payscale 2 of Shufflemaster's Ballys' Fortune Bonus, with the only difference being the 2000:1 requires an AQ suited instead of a KQ suited. Is that really enough to make it a different game?
Another example is Ballymaster's King's Bounty bonus, which is very similar to Galaxy's Lucky Ladies. The differences here are a little more generous. Along with replacing Queens of Hearts with Kings of Spades, a couple other payouts are added to sweeten the pot a percentage point or two.
Are these games created with licensing agreements, or is there really that little difference required to consider a game original?
Side bets that are paid out against a paytable are in a different category than strategic game play mechanisms, such as the push-22, etc.
Side bets are more fair game.
Well, c'mon, Dan, there's lots more you have to say on this; you were one of the experts I was referencing....:)
Quote: beachbumbabs
Well, c'mon, Dan, there's lots more you have to say on this; you were one of the experts I was referencing....:)
Dan's also the first name that came to my mind. :)
