Mathematics first then patent or other way around?

My game is pretty much completed and now want to move to the next stage of getting a patent and the mathematics done professionally.
Do I get the mathematics done first and then lodge a patent? Or is it the other way around?
I find this confusing as minor changes may need to be made once I find the precise current house edge, and on the flip side if I get the maths done first without a patent then surely I'm not protecting my idea.
I hope this question makes sense, and appreciate the help this forum offers.
Kingcreights

Quote: kingcreights

My game is pretty much completed and now want to move to the next stage of getting a patent and the mathematics done professionally.
Do I get the mathematics done first and then lodge a patent? Or is it the other way around?
I find this confusing as minor changes may need to be made once I find the precise current house edge, and on the flip side if I get the maths done first without a patent then surely I'm not protecting my idea.
I hope this question makes sense, and appreciate the help this forum offers.
Kingcreights

Mathematicians don't give a (insert swear word) about your game. Believe me, we know your pain and want no part of it. Hire a mathematician first. You don't even know if you have a game until a mathematician does the work.

I would 100 percent agree with that- provided you have them sign an nda first

Also agreed -- get the math done first. A good gaming mathematician will help mold the fine points of your game and put the rules in writing in a way the patent attorney will appreciate. I've found when you do the patent first the attorney will often not really understand the game concept and there will be all kinds of holes in what is called a "Swiss cheese" patent.

I was about to reply, do a provisional patent first. That's what I did. For $120 you can get one year of protection.

But then I remembered, that's not what I did.

For my Poker For Roulette game, I did the initial math myself.

Then I did the provisional. But I wrote it in a way that doesn't restrict my idea to any specific math or paytable.

Of course, if you do a bad job of writing the initial provisional patent, that could do more harm than good.


Bottom line: I have no specific answer here, but just provide food for thought.

I believe filing fee electronic for utility patent as a small entity is $70.00

Operate on the basis that the professional mathematician will maintain professional confidentiality. They won't sign an NDA as it is already in force and assumed.
Then you can file a more accurate and descriptive disclosure.

I've always had nda'S and nc's filed maybe I'm in the minority but I would always have that done- must be the lawyer side of me

Quote: Wizardofnothing

I've always had nda'S and nc's filed maybe I'm in the minority but I would always have that done- must be the lawyer side of me

Yes, everyone has NDA's - I've signed plenty. I've also refused to sign a couple. Nothing I hate more than a client who has a lawyer for a relative who has created an NDA for them. I would never sign a NC for a math project.

Ou are correct , I only referenced the nc's as I have used them in the past for employees but not in this instance but definitely an nda in my opinion

NDA's can put a person in a vulnerable position only, even if they were not the source of the dissemination, and as such are a lose-lose proposition.

Asking a mathematician to sign an NDA is announcing, "I'm a TOTAL newbie in game design, and this is my very first game."
If one is that worried, then write a provisional patent and file it for $70, then get the math, then update the provisional specs.

Quote: Wizardofnothing

Ou are correct , I only referenced the nc's as I have used them in the past for employees but not in this instance but definitely an nda in my opinion

Sometimes I feel like I am the only person who reads the details of the NDAs before signing them. Prospective clients put all sorts of creepy stuff into them. Like all the code I create for the project belongs to them. Or that my dog's first puppy will be food for their pet python. Stuff like that.

I have fought to enforce a couple of non competes back in the day and won 2 and lost 1
I want to agree with Dan however I think Dan is the same person that thinks that edge sorting is cheating ....

Many thanks, everyone
is it best to do the mathematics in two stages? an initial calculation determining house edge and then a more complete calculation later?

Quote: Wizardofnothing

I have fought to enforce a couple of non competes back in the day and won 2 and lost 1
I want to agree with Dan however I think Dan is the same person that thinks that edge sorting is cheating ....

It may very well be cheating, I just don't think it should be a crime.

It's his card counting views that are way over the top. IIRC He thinks CC and moving your bets based on the count is cheating. He's entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong it is. I can only imagine if not for AP's guys like him would be able to have a lot more games. No wonder he thinks its cheating.

If I needed advice on developing a table game I wouldn't hesitate getting advice from Dan.

I actually meant to say hole carding but I'm on lack of sleep and put edge sorting

Quote: kingcreights

Many thanks, everyone
is it best to do the mathematics in two stages? an initial calculation determining house edge and then a more complete calculation later?

Do it all at once.

Quote: Wizardofnothing

I actually meant to say hole carding but I'm on lack of sleep and put edge sorting

I'm sure Dan thinks both of those things are cheating, but he is best known for saying that card counting is cheating.

Quote: Wizard

I'm sure Dan things both of those things are cheating, but he is best known for saying that card counting is cheating.

And at the risk of digging up the dead horse and beating it some more, courts in Nevada have explicitly ruled that card counting in one's head does not fall within the limits of NRS 465. It's not "cheating at a gambling game", which is illegal in Nevada per NRS 465.083, nor is it illegal under any other provision of that chapter.

Card counting using a mobile phone app *is* illegal, though:
http://gaming.nv.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5343

All that being said, Dan is one of the few people on this planet who has taken a table game from inception to over 50 installs so he's someone to listen to with regard to table game distribution.

Quote: teliot

Sometimes I feel like I am the only person who reads the details of the NDAs before signing them. Prospective clients put all sorts of creepy stuff into them. Like all the code I create for the project belongs to them. Or that my dog's first puppy will be food for their pet python. Stuff like that.

I do too, but that's why I almost never sign them. But the stakes are much higher for a math analyst who is also a game inventor with competing IP. That's why most big gaming companies don't sign NDAs either.

Quote: Wizard

I'm sure Dan things both of those things are cheating, but he is best known for saying that card counting is cheating.

Well, let's clarify:
1. Edge sorting, Card counting, hole carding, pinching and capping bets, marking cards, the whole array of "house defeating mechanisms" are mechanisms to defeat the house edge that allow the casinos to offer the games to you in the first place. They are grounds for at least a back off. I don't count down decks, I don't edge sort, I don't mark cards, I let the game play by the clean rules, and I accept the result win or lose like the majority of real gamblers. for that matter, I don't double-up on movies at the movie house, I also don't leave the Buffet with food in my pockets, and I pay my way fully where ever I go. I am not a Schnorrer to any business, one who sees what can be scammed or mooched out of some joint - as the player's real intent of his action. The fact that I actually don't fit in here all too well allows me to sleep well at night. I am actually best known for saying that schnorring is schnorring. Also, it is possible to become a reformed schnorrer, as opposed to a formerly orthodox schnorrer.

2. As for NDAs. NDAs provide no IP protection, and are basically useless, except for producing conflict in case of a breach that comes from any source. You have to operate on the basis that if your idea is known, that it is provably known as your product or IP via patents, trademarks, and copyrights. If someone is not going to lift your game idea, he will not regardless of telling him: "I can tell you, but I will have to kill you, so sign here" kind of thing.

a) An NDA doesn’t show or prove that you’ve developed or patented anything. No real IP protection in it.
b) People don’t generally sign it, as it only puts them in the bad position of being a potential discloser of proprietary or secret information, even if they reveal nothing but the word of your concept got out anyway; they could be wrongfully accused of disclosing it. They’d be foolish to put themselves in such a “lose only” vulnerable position by signing an NDA.
c) If you show your game before its patent filing occurred, requesting that the game viewers at a Distributor sign an NDA, they may tell you very clearly they won’t do it and that you should come back when you have a patent filing that protects it. If you're going to spend $40 preparing an NDA, then spend the freaking $70 and file a provisional.
d) Lawyers and mathematicians practice professional confidentiality.
e) Emailing specs provide a time-stamped discovery trail.

If you're paranoid about it, file a small entity provisional patent and wait for the receipt. If the specs later change much, then file an update or supplemental filing.

Quote: Paigowdan

If one is that worried, then write a provisional patent and file it for $70, then get the math, then update the provisional specs.

Paigowdan might not have done a provisional for a while. The price would be about $135 (?) for small entry.

IMO, any potential designer that has no intention to invest this tiny amount money should find something else to do.

I paid more, actually, earlier on.

I think there is now very cheap "democratic" pricing, to allow the fruits and advantages of the American patent system to be in reach of all. Bless them!

Unless your game uses a special deck of cards, or some type of device, don't expect to be granted a patent for a table game recipe. It's the unfortunate new way they're handling table game patent requests.

Quote: Paigowdan

Edge sorting, Card counting, hole carding,

Not cheating.

Quote:

pinching and capping bets, marking cards

Cheating.

Please don't make me block this thread, Dan.

Quote: Hittem

Unless your game uses a special deck of cards....

Hmmmm.... Curiosity is getting to me....

Does 'Special deck of cards' include something as relatively simple as a Spanish 21 deck, where the tens are removed?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Hmmmm.... Curiosity is getting to me....

Does 'Special deck of cards' include something as relatively simple as a Spanish 21 deck, where the tens are removed?

I don't believe so, but not 100% sure on that. My understanding is something like those colored card games that pop up at gaming shows. I forget the name of their company.

You have to be very careful with filing your own provisional patent as well. Failing to include all of the necessary information/mechanisms can seem that provisional unless later on or even damage your chances at protecting the idea.

For example, if you change something after the provisional is filed and later try to tack on that idea to the utility, you lose the date of the provisional... This could allow a knockoff to come in and file a utility or provisional on the amendment....

At least that's why I had been told.

I also agree with doing the math first... Not necessarily from a bmm or GLI, but someone to make sure the game is feasible...

Quote: mrsuit31

For example, if you change something after the provisional is filed and later try to tack on that idea to the utility, you lose the date of the provisional... This could allow a knockoff to come in and file a utility or provisional on the amendment....

May I suggest you file another provisional, spending another $135.

Regarding NDA's, I avoid signing them as much as I can. If they have a non-compete clause, which they often do, I definitely won't.

I find that game inventors that insist on an NDA usually have lousy games, make lousy clients, and are very slow to pay. People with good games generally respect the professionalism of the mathematician to keep his mouth shut.

+1. Well said.
This is because experienced (read: better) game designers know the ropes about their mathematicians. The mathematicians have seen it all, are not game designers but technical workers, and follow the rules of confidentiality.

Quote: UCivan

May I suggest you file another provisional, spending another $135.

Of course you can... The issue is losing that filing date. For example, you file the original provisional, discus the game for months with people, change something and file the new provisional. It is that interim period between the two that leaves a period of vulnerability where anyone can file something containing your ideas and your new provisional is predates by the new third party...

I think my only point with this is that in working with a lawyer they are bound by and subject to Aba. What is a mathematician bound by- just speaking strictly about letter of the law and recourse, I could be completely naive on this subject..

Also Dan those things you mentioned are 100000 million percent different

Quote: Wizardofnothing

I think my only point with this is that in working with a lawyer they are bound by and subject to Aba. What is a mathematician bound by- just speaking strictly about letter of the law and recourse, I could be completely naive on this subject..

Also Dan those things you mentioned are 100000 million percent different

Yes, but that wasn't the issue. Trusting a mathematician is what you do, ABA or not, and if you don't have this capacity, then file a provisional patent before doing math.

If it turns out that the math indicates that changes are needed and that a new provisional patent filing is necessary, then the original patent spec was no good in any case, so no loss on an earlier filing date.

Quote: UCivan

Paigowdan might not have done a provisional for a while. The price would be about $135 (?) for small entry.

IMO, any potential designer that has no intention to invest this tiny amount money should find something else to do.

Dan is right, at least this time. $70 if you file electronically.

small micro
Basic filing fee - Utility (electronic filing) 280.00 70.00 70.00

Check this out:

http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule

1005/2005/3005 1.16(d) Provisional application filing fee 260.00 130.00 65.00

weird. May be someone can explain.

$65 FOR micro

Qualifying as a Micro Entity

To qualify as a Micro Entity, the filer must be a Small Entity and must meet the following criteria:

(1) The applicant has not been named as the inventor on a total of more than four utility patents (regular utility patents, not provisional patent applications), design patents or plant patents. This also does not include certain international PCT applications and applications owned by a previous employer. In addition, the applicant had to have had a gross income in the previous year of less than three times the median household income reported by the Bureau of the Census (In 2014, the applicant would had to have earned less than $155,817. Current gross income information is here.) In the event that the patent application has been assigned, the assignee had to have a gross (not net) income of less than three times the U.S. median household income; or

(2) the majority of the patent filer’s employment income is from an Institution of Higher Learning, or the applicant has assigned, or is obliged to assign the patent to an Institution of Higher Learning. An Institution of Higher Learning is a public or non-profit accredited institution that admits post-secondary students for programs of not less than 2 years.

The question was Provisional $130 for Small Entity, much more expensive than Basic Utility (electronics filing) $70. I always do $130 Provisional electronically also.

I will be doing Micro. first time in 57 years I got a break. LOL

Quote: kingcreights

My game is pretty much completed and now want to move to the next stage of getting a patent and the mathematics done professionally.
Do I get the mathematics done first and then lodge a patent? Or is it the other way around?
I find this confusing as minor changes may need to be made once I find the precise current house edge, and on the flip side if I get the maths done first without a patent then surely I'm not protecting my idea.
I hope this question makes sense, and appreciate the help this forum offers.
Kingcreights

There are many outstanding ideas and patents, but many of these are not commercially viable. The reason you need to do math analysis first is to determine if your game is commercially viable or has house edge(s) that casinos would embrace.

Quote: kingcreights

Many thanks, everyone
is it best to do the mathematics in two stages? an initial calculation determining house edge and then a more complete calculation later?

If cost is a factor, then a preliminary or initial calculation to see if your game is commercially viable could be sufficient IMO. But it could end up costing you more ....