my new game unveiled at the g2e
Aloha here is the link to the USPTO I hope this will get you there
Who are you accusing of doing that?Quote: JohnnyHawaiianI just don't understand how anybody can claim ownership of something that we own and invented and have a patent # 6,079.713
Quote: MathExtremistWho are you accusing of doing that?
sounds like we might have a fun story here.
Racing Card Derby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfrZir5S-qA
Win, Place & Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwqEqQIzNrc
From a mechanics standpoint, I like portions of both games.
I like the betting options as well as the use of the two Jokers for the house edge in Win, Place & Show. I believe Racing Card Derby uses the 2 of Spades as the house edge mechanism which I screws up the odds for Spades vs. the other "horses". I could be remembering that incorrectly.
But, I much prefer the optical reader and the single card selection for the 2nd and 3rd place "horses" in RCD. Even if the optical reader did need a 2nd take on at least one card in the video. How does one back up a dealer mistake if they lay a card on the wrong suit initially in WPS?
ZCore13
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/cacdce-634412-paz-gaming-v-racing-card-derby-holdings
Happy Thanksgiving lawsuit.Quote: MathExtremistHis attorneys filed a lawsuit yesterday:
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/cacdce-634412-paz-gaming-v-racing-card-derby-holdings
WPS must really think that RCD made some big $$$, otherwise what can the damages possibly be?
I asked Roger Snow once about SHFL suing independent table game inventors over patent infringements. As I recall, he said that it wasn't worth considering until the game had a non-trivial number of placements and some longevity.Quote: UCivanWe have one really upsetting inventor; it is definitely not for the money. I saw one blackjack-variant game, one table, in CA using 22 push feature. SWITCH was informed, but I think he let go of it just because it's not a threat.
Interesting. But wouldn't that later be considered "failure to protect the patent"?Quote: teliotI asked Roger Snow once about SHFL suing independent table game inventors over patent infringements. As I recall, he said that it wasn't worth considering until the game had a non-trivial number of placements and some longevity.
I mean, I would think that it's one thing to be unaware of a potential infringement, but entirely different thing to be aware and do nothing about it.
What would happen if some random casino dealt RCD or WPS from an eight-deck shoe?Quote: Dicenor33No AP is possible. Doubt it will attract anyone's attention.
Quote: teliotWhat would happen if some random casino dealt RCD or WPS from an eight-deck shoe?
I believe a casino did this with RCD back in 2013 (post the game coming in 2nd at Raving TG Conf in late 2012). I had heard that they had some AP losses...it didn't last long on their floor.
Quote: teliotI asked Roger Snow once about SHFL suing independent table game inventors over patent infringements. As I recall, he said that it wasn't worth considering until the game had a non-trivial number of placements and some longevity.
I see prior art in "push 22" and I personally don't think SHFL and its inventor have strong case in defending the "push 22" claim.
Assuming a lease rate of $300 per license x 2 licenses x 5% to 20% royalty rate (no punitive damage), the potential recovered damage is much less than the legal fees and court costs. And there is a thing call principle, and large and well finance entity often threaten the accused infringer with a cease and desist letter, but in this instance the economic factor wins over the principle factor ????
Quote: GWAEI know nothing about patents but I thought I have heard before that you have to defend your patent if you find someone is infringing on it. If you dont defend it then that is like giving permission to use it.
If you are aware of a infringement on your patent and ignore to take action, then you effectively forfeit your right to collect the damage during the period of infringement that you are aware of. For example, you first learn of the infringement on 1/12/2015 and did nothing and wait until 1/12/2025 to notify the infringer to take legal action, then you loose the right to collect the damage/royalty during those 10 years of infringement.
Quote: ParadigmAre there any installations of either game live at any US casinos? International casinos? The argument on "damages" should be an interesting one.
Perhaps the damage is miniscule plus court costs and attorney fees. But at stake is the principle of defending one's patent.
Not only is that wrong (laches and detremental reliance are not givens), but your example doesn't even make sense. You can't collect more than 6 years of back patent damages in any event. See 35 USC 286.Quote: 777If you are aware of a infringement on your patent and ignore to take action, then you effectively forfeit your right to collect the damage during the period of infringement that you are aware of. For example, you first learn of the infringement on 1/12/2015 and did nothing and wait until 1/12/2025 to notify the infringer to take legal action, then you loose the right to collect the damage/royalty during those 10 years of infringement.
The moral of the story: don't take legal advice from strangers on the Internet. Especially where hundreds of thousands in costs are involved.
Quote: MathExtremistNot only is that wrong (laches and detremental reliance are not givens), but your example doesn't even make sense. You can't collect more than 6 years of back patent damages in any event. See 35 USC 286.
The moral of the story: don't take legal advice from strangers on the Internet. Especially where hundreds of thousands in costs are involved.
I agree. That was a ridiculous statement. You do not necesarly lose the right to collect damages based on time spent deciding if you are going to pursue legal action.
ZCore13
Quote: MathExtremistNot only is that wrong (laches and detremental reliance are not givens), but your example doesn't even make sense. You can't collect more than 6 years of back patent damages in any event. See 35 USC 286.
The moral of the story: don't take legal advice from strangers on the Internet. Especially where hundreds of thousands in costs are involved.
Good point about the advice on the info on the internet.
I wasn’t giving LEGAL ADVICE. My posting is intent for all to contribute and dissect. Just as my 1 viewpoint about the “push 22” and then followed by 10000 more of diametric viewpoints on the “push 22.” These discussions are not to be taken as legal advice.
The Doctrine of Laches can be very complicated and only real professional can give legal advice.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/09/maintains-defense-damages.html
I think my exaggeration on 10-year laches status limitation is in the same order as the 10000 consecutive of whatever event, and the exaggeration are for discussion/debate purposes.
Quote: Zcore13I agree. That was a ridiculous statement. You do not necesarly lose the right to collect damages based on time spent deciding if you are going to pursue legal action.
ZCore13
The 10-years status limitation I used is not a good one, and your comment is a clear indication of your COMPLETE lack of understanding about the doctrine of laches. This is not my legal advice to you, but I encourage to take some time to understand more about the doctrine of laches. And if you want to enhance your knowledge further, a good reading for you is the recent SCOTUS' decision on Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
It's bad form to accuse someone else of having an invalid patent, or make utterly wrong proclamations about legal interpretation, and then turn around and say "just kidding, I was exaggerating." It's not an exaggeration, it's false. If you want to have a discussion of patent law, at least make it intellectually honest.Quote: 777Good point about the advice on the info on the internet.
I wasn’t giving LEGAL ADVICE. My posting is intent for all to contribute and dissect. Just as my 1 viewpoint about the “push 22” and then followed by 10000 more of diametric viewpoints on the “push 22.” These discussions are not to be taken as legal advice.
The Doctrine of Laches can be very complicated and only real professional can give legal advice.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/09/maintains-defense-damages.html
I think my exaggeration on 10-year laches status limitation is in the same order as the 10000 consecutive of whatever event, and the exaggeration are for discussion/debate purposes.
Quote: MathExtremistIt's bad form to accuse someone else of having an invalid patent, or make utterly wrong proclamations about legal interpretation, and then turn around and say "just kidding, I was exaggerating." It's not an exaggeration, it's false. If you want to have a discussion of patent law, at least make it intellectually honest.
No, I wasn't kidding. I was comparing the exaggeration of the 10-year limitation and 10000 consecutive of whatever event.
My gosh, do you not even read your own cites? You just linked to the PatentlyO discussion of patent laches in SCA, which saysQuote: 777The 10-years status limitation I used is not a good one, and your comment is a clear indication of your COMPLETE lack of understanding about the doctrine of laches. This is not my legal advice to you, but I encourage to take some time to understand more about the doctrine of laches. And if you want to enhance your knowledge further, a good reading for you is the recent SCOTUS' decision on Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
And now you're pointing directly to Petrella as being applicable? It's always fun when attorneys cite cases that directly refute their arguments, especially when they don't even realize it.Quote: PatentlyOOn en banc rehearing, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision (eliminating the doctrine of laches for back-damages for copyright infringement) does not directly apply in the patent context.
Nothing Zcore13 said was wrong. You *don't* necessarily lose any rights if you wait to file an IP suit. You may, if laches or some other defense is found, but that's not a given.
Quote: muleyvoiceFree advice is worth the price.
It is the fact that everyone comes here or any other internet sources for "free advice," but not all take the free advice at face value.
Quote: MathExtremistMy gosh, do you not even read your own cites? You just linked to the PatentlyO discussion of patent laches in SCA, which says
And now you're pointing directly to Petrella as being applicable? It's always fun when attorneys cite cases that directly refute their arguments, especially when they don't even realize it.Quote: PatentlyOOn en banc rehearing, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the Supreme Court’s Petrella decision (eliminating the doctrine of laches for back-damages for copyright infringement) does not directly apply in the patent context.
Nothing Zcore13 said was wrong. You *don't* necessarily lose any rights if you wait to file an IP suit. You may, if laches or some other defense is found, but that's not a given.
I did not state that Petrella is applicable. Petrella was mention to give Zcore10000 specifically (and perhaps others) a broader understanding of laches.
I did NOT state that you lose your right for waiting to file lawsuit. My statement was in the context of KNOWING the current violation INTENTIONALLY not taking timely action (the fictitious example I used is for the 10 years loss of compensation). That the doctrine of laches was established as a remedy to such abuse, and I don't think anyone here is qualified to give a legal assessment about the consequent in the context which I replied to. Even though no one has the legal expertise, but we all can still provide comments based on our limited knowledge and common sense.
Edited to add original context that created the subsequent laches discussion:
My original reply to telliot is based on this context:
Quote from telliot:
"asked Roger Snow once about SHFL suing independent table game inventors over patent infringements. As I recall, he said that it wasn't worth considering until the game had a non-trivial number of placements and some longevity."
"NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 F . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions."
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/cacdce-634412-paz-gaming-v-racing-card-derby-holdings
I also remember someone saying that Three Card Poker (or was it another game) coming out of the 10-year something - but don't know what the exact legal situation is.
Quote: muleyvoiceFree advice is worth the price.
I believe board is helpful in providing info about Vegas, AP, DI, gambling and other technical issues such as legal, patent, math and game designs. With that being said, let me pose you this question with regarding to your comment about free advice (this question is somewhat off topic, but since your well heeded advice of "free advice is worth the price" is within this thread, it is best to pose the following question to you here instead of creating a new thread/topic).
Many thanks to the contributions of many WoV members, I was able to read many fantastic game & math discussions (one example on top of my head is the memorable 10,000 consecutive of whatever event theory by MadExtremist). Of these, one common topic I noticed is the strategy for various dice and card games. Considering the potential large bet or bankroll by some members here and the absence of the strategies certified by GLI or other approved gaming agencies, how would you put the confidence on various strategies provided on this WoV board?
Buzzard won, but told Ahigh spend the $100 on his kids. Ahigh is the research expert on field trial. SooPoo set the bet guidelines and a good time was had by all.
Quote: 777I believe board is helpful in providing info about Vegas, AP, DI, gambling and other technical issues such as legal, patent, math and game designs. With that being said, let me pose you this question with regarding to your comment about free advice (this question is somewhat off topic, but since your well heeded advice of "free advice is worth the price" is within this thread, it is best to pose the following question to you here instead of creating a new thread/topic).
Many thanks to the contributions of many WoV members, I was able to read many fantastic game & math discussions (one example on top of my head is the memorable 10,000 consecutive of whatever event theory by MadExtremist). Of these, one common topic I noticed is the strategy for various dice and card games. Considering the potential large bet or bankroll by some members here and the absence of the strategies certified by GLI or other approved gaming agencies, how would you put the confidence on various strategies provided on this WoV board?
GLI nor any other gaming agency on the casino side of things (including regulatory) ,that I am aware of, certify any strategy nor would they as that is not within their realm of operation. GLI basically certifies that a game will perform as described and follows whatever strictures are in place for the relevant regulatory structure. As far as the math and strategies detailed on the WoO website, I can state that casino staff do visit that site because of the accuracy of the math and strategies. Not sure if this has answered the question or not but hope it helps a bit.
I'm pretty sure you're referring to me, and if that was intended to be an insult rather than a typo it wasn't a very clever one. In any event, I don't recall the "memorable 10,000 consecutive of whatever event" discussion so it couldn't have been all that memorable. Did I once say that 10,000 losses in a row could happen? Because that's true. Not very likely, but still true.Quote: 777Many thanks to the contributions of many WoV members, I was able to read many fantastic game & math discussions (one example on top of my head is the memorable 10,000 consecutive of whatever event theory by MadExtremist). Of these, one common topic I noticed is the strategy for various dice and card games. Considering the potential large bet or bankroll by some members here and the absence of the strategies certified by GLI or other approved gaming agencies, how would you put the confidence on various strategies provided on this WoV board?
To your question, betting strategies don't change the house edge and would never be certified by GLI. Playing strategies, on the other hand, are checked by tech services labs in the context of calculating the optimal-play RTP of a game. What GLI or other labs do not check are suboptimal but concise strategies, at least not unless you ask them to; they'll be happy to take your money and do the work. For example, I just submitted a tiles game through BMM and had them verify that my math was correct for both the optimal (but complicated) strategy as well as the one-line house way strategy. If the game ever gets into the market and doesn't bomb, I'd expect there would be a thread on a near-optimal but player-friendly playing strategy right here at WoV, just as there was for the game Dan just installed at GVR. Based on the high level of competence demonstrated by the members here who tend to be involved in such discussions, I would place a very high level of confidence in whatever came out of that discussion. It's easy enough to check, too. When someone says "the house edge on new game such-and-such is X% if played with strategy S" that's independently verifiable and/or easily refuted. That's why the end product of such discussions tends to yield correct results: many eyeballs on the same problem.
