Poker game IP
For example, MrCasinoGames offered up this game
Raise’em® 3-Card Draw (Patent Pending)
1. Each Player makes an Enter-bet.
2. Each Player receives three cards face down.
3. Each Player must stand with his 3-Card Poker-hand (no additional bets) or exchanging one card by making a Draw-bet either equal to or double his Enter-bet.
4. Based on the Player’s 3-Card Poker-hand the Player’s Enter-bets and Draw-bets will be paid according to the 3-Card Draw Pay-table.
The basis of the game is obviously 3 card poker hands. The novel idea, I believe, is to pay for a draw card, with enter bets and draw bets having different payouts. Is that enough? Without knowing what exists, I would imagine there are patents involving payout of a 3 card poker hand and patents involving paying to receive another card.
Since there are a lot of the ideas involving poker hands with various number of cards and payouts, does it just come down to the "method" of play?
The reason I ask is I'd like to think that the idea above is considered IP.
But now, say I come up with a paytable for 4 card poker that only pays if you hit 4 of a kind (hypothetical). Is that novel? Could I patent it?
I know these are questions for attorneys and ultimately USPTO, but with a million paytables, is each one being patented?
New, non-obvious and novel game mechanisms are patentable, even if based on some public domain platforms.
A current Patent blockage on felt-base games has occurred because of a financial theory related patent decision (Bilsky case), although the electronic versions of the same games are patentable.
This is it in a tiny nutshell.
I have been reading the forums here for awhile and I have to say that I am very impressed with your knowledge and all the advice and help you provide for everyone.
Quote: RealizeGamingPaigowdan,
I have been reading the forums here for awhile and I have to say that I am very impressed with your knowledge and all the advice and help you provide for everyone.
Wow, thank you. I appreciate that very much.
I am deeply involved in this business, but often if I offer an opinion here that in any way goes against current consensus, or even against one member's opinion (which often is not very advanced), I get spat upon, and burnt in effigy by many member's "inner trolls." I still speak my view.
This thread was a bit easier, because it is more neutral in subject matter.
Anyway, thanks again!
Quote: PaigowdanWow, thank you. I appreciate that very much.
I am deeply involved in this business, but often if I offer an opinion here that in any way goes against current consensus, or even against one member's opinion (which often is not very advanced), I get spat upon, and burnt in effigy by many member's "inner trolls." I still speak my view.
This thread was a bit easier, because it is more neutral in subject matter.
Anyway, thanks again!
I must just read the neutral posts! Very much appreciate all the input you put out here. I'm sure sometimes the answers aren't what people want to hear, but you can't overcome obstacles if you don't know about them. As I told Roger, right now my obstacle to developing a good game is thinking I can correct my slice...
Quote: RealizeGamingPaigowdan,
I have been reading the forums here for awhile and I have to say that I am very impressed with your knowledge and all the advice and help you provide for everyone.
Quote: PaigowdanWow, thank you. I appreciate that very much.
I am deeply involved in this business, but often if I offer an opinion here that in any way goes against current consensus, or even against one member's opinion (which often is not very advanced), I get spat upon, and burnt in effigy by many member's "inner trolls." I still speak my view.
This thread was a bit easier, because it is more neutral in subject matter.
Anyway, thanks again!
PGD,
I concur with RG above, FWIW: you are the furthest thing from a troll in the thousands of posts I've read on here. You take exception on the issues, listen to others, and argue on the merits. Very different from a provocateur and very much worth reading. Can't imagine why you would believe those who hurl invective rather than cogent arguments. JMHO, as always.
Quote: PaigowdanA current Patent blockage on felt-base games has occurred because of a financial theory related patent decision (Bilsky case), although the electronic versions of the same games are patentable.
I was not aware that you couldn't get a patent on a felt based game. My understanding with the Bilsky case was that as long as you can transfer the invention over to a physical means, it could be patentable. You can't just recite the game rules and say that it is a table game or video poker/slot game. You can explain the rules but the language in the patent must show that your rules are transferred over to another medium in order to play the game. For instance, with video poker I need to make sure that the wording in the patent reads that the game is played on a video poker machine containing the CPU, video display, etc. and I need to state how all these things transfer the game from a concept to a real tangible item.
Hope I didn't confuse anyone more. The whole Bilsky case held up a number of my patents, but at least now, it makes more sense than when I was getting a number of patent applications rejected due to Bilsky.
