One for the Money opening

I too would like to find out which Washington casino is spreading OftM.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Fascinating discussion. Thanks, guys!

1.)From an historical perspective, HE was developed for games either with no decision point, or with limited options for additional bets.

Let's see, like blackjack, with doubles, splits and doubles after splits?

Sorry, B^3, but I can't read any more now. I am going out tonight (to practice with a band). But I read that much and it was too much for me to take. HE (mean/average/expected value) was developed sometime around the beginning of time as far as probability is concerned. EoR is a very new invention of Mike's that has very little to do with the actual mathematics of the games.

I'll read the rest of your post when I return. Sorry for the quick and dirty rebuke.

a new threat now. Thanks.

Quote: beachbumbabs

2)Now, as to the HE being too high. I emphatically agree, and provided an adjustment mechanism for lowering it in the low-odds win paytable feature when I sold it that Bally did not initially deploy.

For example, if the hand is a push after the player does a "switch and raise" then pay the original Ante 1:1, but push the "switch" and "raise" bets. This is pretty dumb, but it gives a house edge of 1.9248%. Players will be happy to win something if they switch and raise when the hand ends up where the player and dealer push. Lots of strategy errors will occur on the player side, making up the difference.

Quote: beachbumbabs

3)As to clones/patent. I filed 3 patents, containing among them 8 variations of the game, and about 20 options.

For example -- Double Draw War -- I think you can figure out the rules I made up from the name itself. Your idea inspired that idea. Is that covered under your patents?

Quote: teliot

For example -- Double Draw War -- I think you can figure out the rules I made up from the name itself. Your idea inspired that idea. Is that covered under your patents?

This is when the SHFL (or BYI) legal team comes handy. If Double Draw War goes places, then "Yes, it is covered under B^3's patent." Has to be. A good game needs a better marketing team and some lawyers.

That's for sure.

Quote: teliot

For example -- Double Draw War -- I think you can figure out the rules I made up from the name itself. Your idea inspired that idea. Is that covered under your patents?

I don't know anything at all about this area, but I have had lawyers tell me outright that the rules of a game are not patentable. Is this something that has just never been tested in court?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I don't know anything at all about this area, but I have had lawyers tell me outright that the rules of a game are not patentable. Is this something that has just never been tested in court?

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of full issued table game patents; search on www.uspto.gov.

In spite of Bilsky, Some new table game felt based were issued.

side bets - pure and simple pay table side bets without real procedures - may not be patentable as essentially formulae.

There are issued patents for lots of thing that are not patentable, so this is irrelevant. It's up to a court to determine matters of law, not the patent office.

Anyway, I talked to a lawyer about this a few years ago. He told me that, in general, you cannot patent the rules of a game. That is why you can, for example, make a scrabble clone and distribute it, so long as you do not copy any of their artwork or their rulebook or use the word "scrabble", since all of this will be copyrighted. This is why Words With Friends can exist.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There are issued patents for lots of thing that are not patentable, so this is irrelevant. It's up to a court to determine matters of law, not the patent office.

It's very relevant:
1. Patentable = it can get and receive an issued patent.
2. Issued game patents can be asserted in court, and are often asserted and victorious in these courts of law.
3. As for patents losing in the court of law, it depends on how well the patent describes the invention, and how good your case and lawyers are. If an issued patent is infringed, you may take it to court AND you may win.
4. Keep in mind that submitted patents are reviewed to determine IF they are patentable by real patent examiners. If they say yes, and approve a patent, then yes, it is patentable, and this is proven by the very issuance of the patent. While it is up to the courts to decide/render judgement on law, -- it is the patent office and their examiners that decide what is patentable.
-->
Derek Webb, the inventor of Three Card Poker, made WAY more money asserting his table game patents than through direct Royalties from installs.

You understand that a judge decides issues of law, not a patent examiner, right?

Did Derek ever prevail at trial, or were there just settlements? If he did prevail, is there a decision that I can read?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You understand that a judge decides issues of law, not a patent examiner, right?

That's exactly my point: judges and juries decide on the law, -- and the patent office decides what is patentable. And they have approved table game patents, meaning they are patentable. The current Bilsky is a hold up in the issuance of game patents, but yes, gambling game patents have been approved, are currently being approved in electronic format, and also recently again in felt format.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Did Derek ever prevail at trial, or were there just settlements?

As far as I know, Not only was it a settlement, it was settled precisely because he had the IP, and as the patent owner he was able to assert his ownership on a table game. That what a patent does, give you ownership of Intellectual Property.

Quote: Axiomofchoice

If he did prevail, is there a decision that I can read?

Go to the law library, or track it down on line. He's worth between $10M and $20 Million because he had - and asserted - his IP on a hit game.

Quote: Paigowdan

That's exactly my point: judges and juries decide on the law

Absolutely not. Juries decide matters of fact; they have no say in the interpretation of the law. That is what the judge is there for.

Quote:

and the patent office decides what is patentable.

Nonsense. There have been several court cases regarding whether something is patent-eligible or not. Those cases are decided by judges, not by the patent office, and have gone all the way to the supreme court. This is because it's up to a judge to interpret the law, not the patent office, and the judge needs to correct the mistake when the patent office screws up and grants a patent to something that is not patent-eligible, by law.

Quote:

And they have approved table game patents, meaning they are patentable.

Not at all. It could also mean that they have screwed up yet again.

Quote:

The current Bilsky is a hold up in the issuance of game patents, but yes, gambling game patents have been approved, are currently being approved in electronic format, and also recently again in felt format.

The fact that they have been approved does not mean that they will stand up in court. They certainly don't seem to pass any of the standard tests for patent-eligibility.

Again, this is why we have courts: to fix mistakes when the law is misinterpreted.

Quote:

Not only was it a settlement, it was settled precisely because he had the IP, as the patent owner was able to assert his ownership. That what a patent does, give you ownership of Intellectual Property.

Go to the law library, to track it down on line. He's worth between $10M and $20 Million because he had IP on a hit game.

If it was a settlement, then there is nothing to track down. There is no decision. All it means is that someone else didn't feel like fighting, which could be because he was right, or it could be because settling was the cheaper option.

Lots of patents trolls make lots of money by asserting patents that will never hold up in court, and then settling for less than a court case would cost. It's sad, but it's how the legal system works.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Absolutely not. Juries decide matters of fact; they have no say in the interpretation of the law. That is what the judge is there for.

We're discussing if something is patentable, - that is to say, if it can get a patent. The answer is yes, as table games are patentable because they can and have received patents.

The fact that some patents are weak and are defeatable in a court of law does not mean it is unpatentable. It means it is a weak patent or that there's an argument of a patent infringement. Patent battles are quite common, but again, these patent battles exist precisely because these things are patentable, and because these patents are believed infringed or invalid, etc, and the patents and their infringements are brought into court.

Do patent writers screw up? yes. Do game patents get infringed? Yes. Are there patents involved? Yes. On things that were patentable? Yes.

Getting a patent on something patentable doesn't mean the patent won't ever get questioned or infringed, and the fact that they end up in court disputes do not make casino games and other areas unpatentable. In fact, the patent litigation kind of proves these things are patentable.

Samsung and Apple had huge patent court cases on things that were patentable and indeed had issued patents. And a settlement is a very strong indication that the patent exists and is strong.

Axiom, this is how it works: if you can get a patent in a certain area, then that certain area is a patentable area. Judges render decisions, they don't issue patents.

Quote: Paigowdan

We're discussing if something is patentable, - that is to say, if it can get a patent. The answer is yes, as table games are patentable because they can and have received patents.

The fact that some patents are weak and are defeatable in a court of law does not mean it is unpatentable. It means it is a weak patent or that there's an argument of a patent infringement. Patent battles are quite common, but again, these patent battles exist precisely because these things are patentable, and because these patents are believed infringed or invalid, etc, and the patents and their infringements are brought into court.

Do patent writers screw up? yes. Do game patents get infringed? Yes. Are there patents involved? Yes. On things that were patentable? Yes.

Getting a patent on something patentable doesn't mean the patent won't ever get questioned or infringed, and the fact that they end up in court disputes do not make casino games and other areas unpatentable. In fact, the patent litigation kind of proves these things are patentable.

Samsung and Apple had huge patent court cases on things that were patentable and indeed had issued patents.

There are court cases for all sort of things involving patents. And there is always a question of whether something actually infringes.

But you are just putting up a straw man. I am talking specifically about cases where a patent office issued a patent, and then a court of law said, no, that invention is not patent-eligible, and ruled that the patent was therefore invalid. In these cases, the patent office issued a patent for something that was not patentable (I am using the word "patentable" and the legal term "patent-eligible" interchangeably here). The Bilsky case which you keep referring to is a perfect example of this. The patent office issued a patent on something for which every single court that heard the case (all the way up to the supreme court) ruled was not patentable.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

There are court cases for all sort of things involving patents. And there is always a question of whether something actually infringes.

But you are just putting up a straw man. I am talking specifically about cases where a patent office issued a patent, and then a court of law said, no, that invention is not patent-eligible, and ruled that the patent was therefore invalid.

yes, that happens. Bad or invalid patents get written that get wrongfully approved, then later get invalidated. This happens. And this is quite distinct from a discipline or area being a non-patentable area. It just might be a lousy patent written by a lousy patent attorney in an otherwise patentable area. This is why you use an experienced patent attorney in your area of discipline.

Rich Newman and Jon Muskin do their jobs well, and get gaming patents approved. All the major game distributors (Bally, Galaxy, DEQ, as well as independent designer) own game IP patents. They may go to court, they may not....but they have issued patents in a patentable area.

Quote: Paigowdan

yes, that happens. Bad or invalid patents get written that get wrongfully approved, then later get invalidated. This is quite distinct from a discipline or area being a non-patentable area. It just might be a lousy patent written in an otherwise patentable area.

Possibly. Then again, Bilsky had nothing to do with table games, directly.

Do you think that a table game patent satisfies the machine-or-transformation test? If so, how? If not, do you think that it's patent-eligible for some other reason? Do you really think that these would stand up in court?

I understand that you hope that they are upheld, but, as they say, hope is not a strategy.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Possibly. Then again, Bilsky had nothing to do with table games, directly.

Do you think that a table game patent satisfies the machine-or-transformation test? If so, how? If not, do you think that it's patent-eligible for some other reason? Do you really think that these would stand up in court?

I understand that you hope that they are upheld, but, as they say, hope is not a strategy.

True. Hope is not a strategy. Attorneys, money, and damn good and brilliant patent writers are needed in these highly complex patent areas, including computer science, medicine and pharmaceuticals, and gaming.

And attorneys are not attorneys, in the sense that general attorneys, or attorneys who operate outside their areas (like Real Estate attorneys discussing medical malpractice law) often give very bad advice outside of their specialties.

Some gaming patent attorneys write patents to pass such tests, and also provide a very accurate scope of a game without being either too broad or too narrow.

Every barrel of apples have some bad ones, so select your lawyers and doctors extremely carefully. IMHO, Go Howard & Howard or Jon Muskin in this area.

Quote: Paigowdan

And attorneys are not attorneys, in the sense that general attorneys, or attorneys who operate outside their areas (like Real Estate attorneys discussing medical malpractice law) often give very bad advice outside of their specialties.

That's definitely true. The person who told me this was a patent attorney. However, we did not go into a lot of details. I was just asking out of curiosity for something completely unrelated. (It was not legal advice; just a discussion with a friend)

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

That's definitely true. The person who told me this was a patent attorney. However, we did not go into a lot of details. I was just asking out of curiosity for something completely unrelated. (It was not legal advice; just a discussion with a friend)

I see. As a general rule, gaming patents are long and expensive and hard to do just right, and often fail in the hands of a non-specialist.

So, as a general rule, a "don't go there/forget about it/Are you sure you want to do this?" brush-off warning is common, and appropriate for many seekers. As a general rule, even with a 100% patent, the chances of any new game's success is a difficult longshot.

In terms of getting into the game design thing - From math, to procedures, to finding a good gimmick not taken, to finding a pro gaming lawyer, to having money to go forward and doing it all right, the general rule in game design is "proceed with money, guts, caution, hard work, prayer, contacts, research, luck, and also a marriage counselor." As in everything has to be done perfectly. The only real established independent rainmaker is Geoff. And on OftM - this thread, Babs had it all together on her game.

Quote: Paigowdan

I see. As a general rule, gaming patents are long and expensive and hard to do just right, and often fail in the hands of a non-specialist.

So, as a general rule, a "don't go there/forget about it/Are you sure you want to do this?" brush-off warning is common, and appropriate for many seekers. As a general rule, even with a 100% patent, the chances of any new game's success is a difficult longshot.

In terms of getting into the game design thing - From math, to procedures, to finding a good gimmick not taken, to finding a pro gaming lawyer, to having money to go forward and doing it all right, the general rule in game design is "proceed with money, guts, caution, hard work, prayer, contacts, research, luck, and also a marriage counselor." As in everything has to be done perfectly. The only real established independent rainmaker is Geoff. And on OftM - this thread, Babs had it all together on her game.

Dan,

You are too kind (to me, not to Geoff; he is amazing, I agree) and I caution you all, it is too early to call this a success. I'm sure some of you already know that, but I want to say it again. We're in 5 casinos this month, 7 next month, good interest in many corners for future placement. So far, OftM is defying the odds, but as Roger said last month, 90% of games that open in a casino still fail. I'm doing what I can to improve those odds, and other people are working hard on it as well, but the jury's still out. No complaint either way from me, because this is an adventure and a great learning experience I'm grateful to have.

My point is just that I don't understand how a casino game could possibly meet the tests for being patent-eligible, particularly in light of certain court rulings. I'm also curious to know if any game patent has ever been upheld in court, because, if so, I'd like to read the opinion.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Dan,

You are too kind (to me, not to Geoff; he is amazing, I agree) and I caution you all, it is too early to call this a success. I'm sure some of you already know that, but I want to say it again. We're in 5 casinos this month, 7 next month, good interest in many corners for future placement. So far, OftM is defying the odds, but as Roger said last month, 90% of games that open in a casino still fail. I'm doing what I can to improve those odds, and other people are working hard on it as well, but the jury's still out. No complaint either way from me, because this is an adventure and a great learning experience I'm grateful to have.

Several successful games started by independent developers: 3 card poker and High Card Flush are 2 good examples. Roger+SHFL, Dan+Galaxy are not the norm.

I havent ready everything on here so im sorry if someone had said something here about this already...

A) The judge directs the jury on how to apply the law properly and then the jury makes its decision... Not the judge...

B) what still baffles my mind about bilski which i had mentioned to many people on the forum in person is this. (its been a while since i read the decision but...) the two outcomes of the decision in bilski was 1) the mathematical equation to hedge risk in an unstable market demand is obviously not patentable as all math is public domain and 2) the machine or transformation test is not, and i repeat IS NOT the sole determining factor in determining patentable v non patentable material. which is why i dont understand why in all office action regarding game applications get rejected for not passing this test... doesnt make much sense to me.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Dan,

You are too kind (to me, not to Geoff; he is amazing, I agree) and I caution you all, it is too early to call this a success.

True; even me touching 100 EZpg installs, and with a few years down the road with acceptance and performance, there is no guarantee on this potentially shifting landscape; complex political issues abound. Keep your head up, Barbara.

For One for the Money, if you get even 50 to 100 permanent installs, (and I see your game sticking), you're doing fine, the equivalent of permanent corporate executive salary in royalties. Never a worry for the mortgage or steakhouse dining, pray it comes, and SHFL's got a serious sales force on your side headed by Roger. Got to say that the demo you gave us at GG was thorough, professional, impressive, and deserving 100%, - and you got there moving right past Shipwrecked to a winner without missing a beat.

I know a guy (whom I've mentioned) who lives really well off of 80 good BJ side bet installs. 'Good guy Joe from AC.'

Geoff is perhaps the most successful current independent who lives off of Royalties of his fine work, just brilliant and awesome stuff, in terms of BJ "super-humdingers" that are just incomparable - with Derek Webb, (aka "the Big Bloke," or "the Supreme Master Kahuna") with 1,500(?) Three Card poker and 1,400 21+3's (as his permanent casino artwork sold to the big distributors), and a ton of money via disputes on it all, (savage way to win) - a separate blood bath way back when, not too long ago, and sometimes part of the blood sport politics. It's a rude and nutty industry in some pockets, I tell ya, the casino pit ain't nothing. And you got MathExtremist, Stanley Ko, Joe "Ya-Ya" Awada, the Spanish-21 guys, the late Howard Grossman (superfun-21), with Brent W. and B^3 rising.

Some games like Deuces Wild rose up to good double digit installs and then just seemingly collapsed; that's the risk to get past.
It happens, on to the next. Babs, I will say:
1. you hit double digits, and;
2. they stick around

What a club.

Quote: B^3

I'm sure some of you already know that, but I want to say it again. We're in 5 casinos this month, 7 next month, good interest in many corners for future placement. So far, OftM is defying the odds, but as Roger said last month, 90% of games that open in a casino still fail. I'm doing what I can to improve those odds, and other people are working hard on it as well, but the jury's still out. No complaint either way from me, because this is an adventure and a great learning experience I'm grateful to have.

Let Roger & co. do what they can to improve the odds for you - so LET HIM, - but for the first year you may constantly disagree and second-guess and slap your forehead, in having to turn over your trust to the pros on your precious baby, - wanting and expecting 100 or 1,000 installs overnight, G-d dammit! Be thankful for Roger and 80 solid installs after it shakes out a year out. No input at this point.....So there's no "[but] I'm doing what I can do to improve the odds...." from people signed up. You have now signed your baby over to a pro in the business, ------ trust him and done with, as such as I hate to say it. Design your next game, and leave him alone to do his work and to get the current one out. ...DEQ and Galaxy same-same....

Derek Webb went through 40 full-body blood transfusions to stay alive through it all on the way up to tremendous heights [FIGURATIVELY!] (he's bald but we say that he himself pulled his hair out while in this gaming business.) Turn it over and trust God above, - and the devil down here in the big office building.

Quote: UCIvan

Several successful games started by independent developers: 3 card poker and High Card Flush are 2 good examples. Roger+SHFL, Dan+Galaxy are not the norm.

True, it isn't natural a natural way to make a living. It's very bizzare - a day in the life of a corporate game designer [Roger+SHFL or Dan+Galaxy] :

1. A lot of the time is thinking up/Trying out the new game designs ("The Humdinger Search") done in house, with the BIG GUY taking part (Rob Saucer IS a game designer and the CEO and my boss).....Thinking up gambling humdingers with an open excel spreadsheet and a deck of cards or pair of dice in a your office, or walking into the company's showroom to deal the game out - talking to ghosts in the process - while co-workers walk by the showroom and say "INCREASE the medication for this bastard...." But we hit some new game humdingers by doing this...."This is NOT an accountant's office!!"

2. Checking everything we've done for prior art as a lay patent examiner, on games designed in-house, and writing up a provision patent draft and getting Rich Newman on the phone to codify it in legalese and submit, after checking WOO and other sources for prior art. Contribute to WOO if you're in the business.

3. Recombining the gambling humdingers (usually leaving/using only one or two "game hummers" to prevent gambling player overload on the new sh*t) into an elegantly dealable and playable game, on ANY type of game (though I CANNOT beat Geoff when it comes to BJ, though maybe yes in PGP, - and Roulette is JUST modification/side bet-resistant)

4. Doing a lot of immediate ad hoc gaming math (21+3 classic on a THREE DECK SHOE - SERIOUSLY??, for example, comes out to 5.7% HE) for a casino lease for an Indian tribe card room in the Southwest - on a 45 minutes deadline. Two tables to install. ("Three deck shoe, Dean??" I say. "Yeah" he says.) Then I call Steve How in San Diego for a provable "external-from-distributor" verification, exchanging excel spreadsheets - a 6 minute project for Steve - he squeezes it in, then I go to Accounts payable, and have Tommy in AP send him $187, short-time work, and done and installed. Two installs for $xxx a month, 45 minutes. take it.

5. Meet game designer 'X' on a game demo pitch for an hour in the "Stardust" conference room. Seriously, and it's cool. Classic Vegas Murals of the Rat pack and a 14-foot Mahogany table with telecommunications. The current Galaxy Office building used to be the LVPD's detectives' bureau, and it is large and it's FBI-level wired and hooked up - at 6767 Spencer Street. Come on down with your game demo). And we will do it on the 2nd floor casino pit showroom when done soon. The game designer can be anyone from a Geoff Hall level pro to Latka from Taxi type. Fine consideration to all, whatever you want to show. This is a REAL crap shoot part of the job......always take everything with an open mind and with gracious considerations, this is people dreams and money, and it very well may work upon review!....

I assure you I've seen some not-so-good games - to Absolutely awesome games to sign up. You don't know, you got to review it all. One out of 30 are signable, and Babs with her One for The Money was a pro demo, way up there in the game and demo department. She demo-ed it at our old office just before we moved up from Rainbow and Sahara. Sorry Galaxy lost her.

6. Verify the math reports on our secret projects from GLI and BMM. (You'll see the games at G2E). Often find mistakes, especially in dealing procedure descriptions, but they've gotten way better. Geeks are not dealers, especially crap dealers, except for me and Mike P.....

7. Write "Rules of Play" and "Dealing Procedures," in house math, and GLI/BMM reports and other gaming technical writing (after checking the sh*t out of them), as a part of the game submission, and submit the finalized gaming submission kits to our product compliance officer. I no longer work out typo bugs with state gaming jurisdictions directly, because it's back to more new games (95% of which are unsignable, but you're looking to get signed), more math, more dealing procedure checking, etc.

8. I am not a part of games negotiation deals the way my counter part is at SHFL/Bally. I submit a YES!(very rare)/"Yellow light maybe"/"plain old No" on a game submission, forwarded to "Ken." I recommend a certain percentage and a signing bonus on a RARE fine game. ("She has a great game, with a great humdinger, really clean and worked out, with a CRM/SH math report and a Jon Muskin Provisional patent. I think a $7,000 signing bonus and 20% gross, My opinion, yada, yada, yada" and throw it upstairs. The designer can get accepted, rejected... or he/she can go independent, and if we like it we can get outbid by the Humongous Empire.)

9. Sometimes we get a small card room or small casino that takes liberties re-designing our certified product and just puts it right onto the casino floor. No math, no nothing. Table Game Director decides to get creative with a dart board. Seen some doozies. Pisses us off. Usually I convert the game/dealing procedures to math results and say "Auug! It's an AP player's wet dream," or 'Auug! - It has a HUGE house edge and it'll burn out the players saying our games are crap!" - This is in addition to "This is totally out of Gaming compliance!!!" 100%of the time. Today I saw a GREAT idea for one of our products, (we'll have to re-submit to gaming), and just submitting as a version II. This is VERY rare.


All in all, an awesome and crazy job.

Dan, where would you rank Perry Stassi and the fire bet? He must make a decent living off one of the most popular craps side bets?

What about the dude who invented the blackjack "mirror". DO you know him at all?

Quote: Tomspur

Dan, where would you rank Perry Stassi and the fire bet?

Very Fine and excellent!!! Really sharp and awesome bet he created. Simple, elegant, lots of action.

I mean, I cannot play at a crap game without betting it, (or without betting the All Tall/All Small Galaxy type bet from Jack M.)

This type of crap game "pseudo-progressive bet" added a huge payout side bet, - like a progressive - just a hit it and go-for-the-gold prop bet without the need for electronics. When it gets hot, it is really celebratory in nature, at a live and red-hot crap game.

so much juice when it comes into play. Gotta bet it.

Huge kudos on this, and to Jack M. on the All Tall/All small bet.
Now THIS stuff really works well with craps. I play it.

Quote: Tomspur

He must make a decent living off one of the most popular craps side bets?

Yes, sure did he really fine, again, kudos.

Quote: Tomspur

What about the dude who invented the blackjack "mirror". DO you know him at all?

No....Might be very good, don't know, but I never game across it.

Quote: Paigowdan

No....Might be very good, don't know, but I never game across it.

I mean the mirror that the dealers use to check for blackjack?

I heard it was a valet at the Riviera or Sahara but that may simply have been an urban legend?

Quote: Tomspur

I mean the mirror that the dealers use to check for blackjack?

I heard it was a valet at the Riviera or Sahara but that may simply have been an urban legend?

Ohhh.... Yeah. That was a brilliant mechanical device to assist dealers in peeking, but I didn't/don't consider it a game.

Not a game, but a brilliant gaming industry assist elegant mechanical device invention.

A comment here....the BJ mirror was a pure game protection device invention, not a game.

There'll be some remarkable new game protection devices in this area at this year's G2E....on full and pure felt/layout games.

Quote: Paigowdan

A comment here....the BJ mirror was a pure game protection device invention, not a game.

There'll be some remarkable new game protection devices in this area at this year's G2E....on full and pure felt/layout games.

Glad I'm back in town then. I need to meet you too Dan so hopefully we can catch up at G2E or sooner. I'm taking up a position at SLS and I'm hoping to further develop my game. It is currently being installed in Switzerland. If things go well there and in Egypt then I'll chat tom some people in the US.

Quote: Tomspur

Quote: Paigowdan

A comment here....the BJ mirror was a pure game protection device invention, not a game.

There'll be some remarkable new game protection devices in this area at this year's G2E....on full and pure felt/layout games.

Glad I'm back in town then. I need to meet you too Dan so hopefully we can catch up at G2E or sooner. I'm taking up a position at SLS and I'm hoping to further develop my game. It is currently being installed in Switzerland. If things go well there and in Egypt then I'll chat tom some people in the US.

okay, thanks! PM me here. I'll give you the game submission Ritual. The process is piece of cake (almost....) if you've done you're homework.

Quote: beachbumbabs

The most I know about patent law is that indirectly it killed my best cousin well before his time.

OK Babs, now you have to tell that story!

Quote: mrsuit31

I havent ready everything on here so im sorry if someone had said something here about this already...

A) The judge directs the jury on how to apply the law properly and then the jury makes its decision... Not the judge...

The jury only decides matters of fact, not law.

Quote:

B) what still baffles my mind about bilski which i had mentioned to many people on the forum in person is this. (its been a while since i read the decision but...) the two outcomes of the decision in bilski was 1) the mathematical equation to hedge risk in an unstable market demand is obviously not patentable as all math is public domain and 2) the machine or transformation test is not, and i repeat IS NOT the sole determining factor in determining patentable v non patentable material. which is why i dont understand why in all office action regarding game applications get rejected for not passing this test... doesnt make much sense to me.

machine-or-transformation is not the only test (in fact, the court pointed that out in their decision). However, it seems as though every other test that has been used has been rejected by the courts, so I'm not sure what the other valid tests are, and, it seems, neither does anyone else.

In the end, it is all about how the judge interprets the statute, and, if there is enough money involved, it will be appealed all the way up to the highest level. However, given the most recent supreme court rulings (which, obviously, form precedent) I don't see how any reasonable judge could rule that any patent on a casino table game is valid, and, if a judge did, I really don't see how it could hold up on appeal.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I don't see how any reasonable judge could rule that any patent on a casino table game is valid, and, if a judge did, I really don't see how it could hold up on appeal.

That's very true - you simply do not see it how this can be. And I - like many in this industry - had spent tens of thousands of dollar on getting these patents.

The risk of litigation is that some judges may rule that a bona-fide examined and issued patent can indeed describe an invention that is used with a novel method, and in protected use in the real world, - in a discipline that some feel very strongly shouldn't be patentable. .

This applies also to pharmaceuticals, and to computer program/software methodologies, electronic technology - and a whole host of other things that some lay people - even some attorneys - strongly believe should not be patentable areas in their minds and point-of-view. It is very tempting to feel that our opinions on things are gospel, and we are often shocked, and in disagreement, with opinions rendered. We read in the papers about cases, and we feel that the juries, the judges, etc. are wrong and off the mark. ("How can O.J. be acquitted?" etc....)

But since we're not judges or legal scholars, we're talking opinions and wind here.

Another straw man. I'm not talking about what should or should not be patent-eligible. I'm talking about what is and isn't patent-eligible, according to current law (including case law). Opinions on what the law should be are another matter entirely. If you feel that the law should change, write a letter to your congressman.

As for the amount of money that you have spent, if you offer a lawyer a lot of money to file some paperwork and get you a patent, that is what he will do (or, at least, he will try). He is not guaranteeing you that the resulting patent will stand up in court.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Another straw man. I'm not talking about what should or should not be patent-eligible. I'm talking about what is and isn't patent-eligible, according to current law (including case law).

This is an opinion on some internet forum. Some believe X is a patentable area, and some don't.

Quote: AxiomofChoice

Opinions on what the law should be are another matter entirely. If you feel that the law should change, write a letter to your congressman.

I have no strong opinion on what the law should be, they are what they are. I have opinions on what my lawyers tell me I can and cannot achieve with their help. I take their legal advice, not legal advice here. They tell me I have an enforceable game patent or a case, and that games are a patentable area if novel in nature and properly written, I believe them.

Quote: AxionOfChoice

As for the amount of money that you have spent, if you offer a lawyer a lot of money to file some paperwork and get you a patent, that is what he will do (or, at least, he will try). He is not guaranteeing you that the resulting patent will stand up in court.

Yes, I know. They did patents for me and delivered. I can tell the difference between a patent attorney and a litigation attorney, and the difference between the USPTO and a courtroom.

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes, I know. They did patents for me and delivered. I can tell the difference between a patent attorney and a litigation attorney, and the difference between the USPTO and a courtroom.

The point is that spending a lot of money on lawyers does not make your position correct. I have never heard of anyone having a hard time getting a lawyer to accept large sums of money.

Hypothecating on what will or won't stand up in a court of law is irrelevant. Who really can predict what courts or judges or juries will do?

Patents whether they be pending with the USPTO or issued by the USPTO are simply hurdles to put in place against competition. How high those hurdles are in a court of law comes down to legal teams, judge selection and a host of other factors built into any single case.

Today it appears that if you stick a live table game on an electronic format, the USPTO seems to be agreeing that this electronic format passes the Machine or Transformation Test (MoT). at least they are issuing patents for those forms of casino games even post Bilski. Is that enough to protect the live version of the game.....another debate that really is immaterial. You do what you can to protect your games from being ripped off by the competition and if your game is working you have revenue to hire attorneys to fight that battle for you should it arise.

At the end of the day, the customer determines what they want to buy from whom. In my mind, many will chose the original product vs. a rip off provided the original product license fees are a reasonable value and the original is available to them in their jurisdiction. Sure there are those out there trying to spread "Tre Card Poker" and not pay SHFL......but really, customers don't want to fight that battle if the pricing on 3CP is reasonable. They would rather have the brand recognition of SHFL's product on the floor and that patent is or soon will be expired.

If anyone thinks any issued patent or whether or not a game is patentable is the issue, I think they are mistaken to put the focus there. A brand be created around a product that justifies paying a for it vs. not paying for it. In the meantime, USPTO filings and issued patents represent just another way to protect your ideas.....nothing is for sure in a system enforced by the unknown of a legal system in flux and unable to keep up with an ever advancing IP world.

Quote: Paradigm

Hypothecating on what will or won't stand up in a court of law is irrelevant. Who really can predict what courts or judges or juries will do?

This is the point of existing precedent. It dictates what future courts will do.

Quote:

At the end of the day, the customer determines what they want to buy from whom. In my mind, many will chose the original product vs. a rip off provided the original product license fees are a reasonable value and the original is available to them in their jurisdiction. Sure there are those out there trying to spread "Tre Card Poker" and not pay SHFL......but really, customers don't want to fight that battle if the pricing on 3CP is reasonable. They would rather have the brand recognition of SHFL's product on the floor and that patent is or soon will be expired.

Yes, IMO this is the real problem. The threat of costly litigation is stifling competition, even if the suit would have no merit. This is always the problem with patent law. It would be a great area of law to reform, but it is really not clear where to start.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The point is that spending a lot of money on lawyers does not make your position correct. I have never heard of anyone having a hard time getting a lawyer to accept large sums of money.

Axiom, people don't or shouldn't spend money on lawyers "to make their position correct."

People may spend money on lawyers to assert their contentions or positions - that they believe are already valid. This can be in many areas: real estate disputes, wills and inheritances, medical malpractice, IP infringement, sexual harassment, etc.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Yes, IMO this is the real problem. The threat of costly litigation is stifling competition, even if the suit would have no merit. This is always the problem with patent law. It would be a great area of law to reform, but it is really not clear where to start.

This is a very salient point. +1 for you, Axiom - very fine. Patent trolls and NPE's (Non-practicing entities) who exist only to shake down or extort people and companies are hugely damaging. Steven Levy gave us some good areas to start.

See Steven Levy's article in Wired (magazine): The Patent Problem.

Quote: teliot

B^3, for your consideration, here is my article on hole-carding One for the Money:

http://apheat.net/2014/06/11/one-for-the-money-hole-card-play/

I welcome your input.

Eliot,

I finally had time to really concentrate on your write-up. Incredibly well written and very fair analysis of the game, as well as some very favorable comments from you. Thank you so much. I especially liked the following paragraph, as you explain this aspect better than I or anyone else has:

OM is similar to the game Casino War, only the player is allowed to trade his card (like drawing cards in stud poker) and to raise (like doubling down in blackjack). In return for these privileges, the dealer receives two cards from which she chooses her highest ranking card to compete against the player. Ultimately, it is one player card versus one dealer card that compete to determine the outcome.

A casual player sees the game, and perhaps at first glance thinks "it's 2 against 1. Can't win". But it's not, exactly because of the privileges (as you stated above) the player has to improve their hand and raise on a good one. No way to know if that's a show-stopping perception (I don't think it is), but I've had it said (and had to point out the above in response) to a couple of new players myself.

Good observations on the hole-carding as well, and thanks for providing the public analysis of it. Much appreciated.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I especially liked the following paragraph, as you explain this aspect better than I or anyone else has

Now you have your 30 second description (if you didn't before). Glad you liked the post. I also provided the full math analysis in one of the spread sheets on the site, in a format that may be convenient for you. Good luck with your game.

Quote: teliot

Now you have your 30 second description (if you didn't before). Glad you liked the post. I also provided the full math analysis in one of the spread sheets on the site, in a format that may be convenient for you. Good luck with your game.

Yes, I had my 30 second pitch all tuned and ready when I sold it (I did, after all, buy your book and commit it to heart, and used your checklist religiously). But stating that portion in the language of privilege and advantage to the player (which it is) was what I appreciated about how you said it.

Although I wish you luck babs, I've met many players that won't play the four card poker game in which the dealer makes their best 4 card poker hand out of 6 cards while the player does so out of 5 cards only. They think it's unfair, so they choose to play Crzy 4 poker where dealer and player get 5 cards, although there is the forced super bonus bet. Maybe you can add a forced bonus bet that ties in with the game, and eliminate the dealer getting a second card. Just to get away from the stigma of 2 against 1..

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The jury only decides matters of fact, not law.

So in a patent infringement lawsuit who decides who is the victor? judge or jury?

"A jury’s infringement issues may include whether the patent claims read on the
devices, methods or other items accused of infringement. The jury may decide if the
claimed invention and the accused things are equivalent – whether there is no
substantial difference between them. The judge may decide if the patent owner is
blocked from claiming equivalence by the positions taken in getting the patents to
issue in the Patent and Trademark Office.

Validity issues for the jury may include:

• Whether the patent adequately proves the inventors had the claimed
invention in their minds at the time of their patent application.

• Whether the inventors described the invention so that a person of ordinary
skill in the field of the invention could make and use it.

• Whether the inventors described the best mode of practising the invention.

• Whether the invention was on sale, in public use, patented elsewhere, or
described in printed publications, at times that would cause the patent to be
invalid.

• If the invention was obvious in having insubstantial differences from the old
devices on sale, in public use, in patents, and in printed publications, such
that a person of ordinary skill would have considered the invention obvious at
the time of invention.

On damages, the jury may decide if profits have been lost, and if so, how much.
They may decide if a royalty should be awarded, and how much."

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

machine-or-transformation is not the only test (in fact, the court pointed that out in their decision). However, it seems as though every other test that has been used has been rejected by the courts, so I'm not sure what the other valid tests are, and, it seems, neither does anyone else.

Additionally, in a patent infringement suit by a vaccination company (I forgot the name of the case) It was held by the court that because two of the three patents had a physical tangible applicable step in the claimed process (the actual step of vaccinating the patient) deemed those two patents valid and enforceable. Therefore the doctors whom mimicked the use of the vaccination schedules described in the claims of these valid (non M or T test passable) patents had in fact infringed upon this IP.

There is one for you...

This is my argument for the application of physical table game procedures as long as they are novel and non prior art or obvious (which of course is another reason why most new game patents are not valid as almost everything is prior art or obvious)... Again i have discussed this with many people on this forum in person..

Quote: allinriverking

Although I wish you luck babs, I've met many players that won't play the four card poker game in which the dealer makes their best 4 card poker hand out of 6 cards while the player does so out of 5 cards only. They think it's unfair, so they choose to play Crzy 4 poker where dealer and player get 5 cards, although there is the forced super bonus bet. Maybe you can add a forced bonus bet that ties in with the game, and eliminate the dealer getting a second card. Just to get away from the stigma of 2 against 1..

riverking,

Thanks very much for the feedback. There may possibly be that initial perception; don't know yet. There are a couple of ways we could work it, I think, if necessary to change that, but I think we're going with this as it is for now. Ultimately up to Bally.

That's kind of what I was talking about in admiring how teliot wrote what he did; the player is never limited to 1 card. They can always take a second one if they don't like the first. So they get as many cards as the dealer, they just don't always get the better of the two. This is made up for somewhat by being able to raise on a good card, either before or after a trade. It all comes out close enough to even that the game works.