Game protection - recent ruling
I stumbled across a ruling, albeit in a low court, about board games - http://www.strebecklaw.com/court-rules-favor-cloned-tabletop-game-no-protection-us-copyright-law/ - but guess the principles might apply to casino table game development.
I'm not pretending to understand or appreciate the subtleties of the case or its ruling except that being at such a low court it probably does not set a precedent further afield. Nevertheless it is worrying if someone can copy your game ideas and incorporate it and call it "their" game.
Quote: charliepatrickNevertheless it is worrying if someone can copy your game ideas and incorporate it and call it "their" game.
It's really not. Game mechanics not being protected is great for everybody. It might feel different for casino games since there isn't much you can protect but at the same time there isn't much to the games either. Trademark and copyright in my opinion are all you really need.
There is a lot you can protect with casino games, but copyright isn't the right tool to use for game mechanics. The most fundamental change in slot machines over the past 50 years (weighted reels) was patented and was clearly deserving of a patent. As the cited case correctly points out, functional behavior does not properly fall under the domain of copyright law but patent law. As the complaint only asserted copyright infringement, the matter was ripe for summary judgment and the decision wasn't surprising. Read it here:Quote: DiscreteMaths2It's really not. Game mechanics not being protected is great for everybody. It might feel different for casino games since there isn't much you can protect but at the same time there isn't much to the games either. Trademark and copyright in my opinion are all you really need.
http://www.strebecklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DaVinci-80fb93d0-05e5-4f5a-b3ca-84241d32fd0c.pdf
especially pp. 14-17.
If you believe that game behavior shouldn't be protected at all, even by patent, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2It's really not. Game mechanics not being protected is great for everybody.
Would be great for the casino operators, as they wouldn't have to pay monthly royalty fees, they'd make even more money. It would be bad for the Distributors/Manufacturers and game designers, though.
Quote: DiscreteMaths2It might feel different for casino games since there isn't much you can protect but at the same time there isn't much to the games either. Trademark and copyright in my opinion are all you really need.
There's quite a lot to casino games, as it is exceedingly difficult to produce a game with features that provide juice and excitement for players, income for the house, game protection, not infringe earlier games, and easy to deal all in one, - and make it all look simple, - so that John Q. Public could say "PFFT! There's NOTHING to it! It's fun and easy!"
Those who try to produce a casino game that makes it on to the casino floor for real will find that after $20,000 to $100,000 of development expenses and learning pains that their chances are tiny until they have the acceptance of 100+ installs, and that there was actually quite a bit to it. For that matter, one can say that acting is a cinch, as all you got to do is go through make up and say a few lines in front of the camera. Those that do make it find their patents and agreements were valuable. Believe me, if casino operators could legally stiff Shuffle Master or Galaxy on all the lease fees, they'd do so in a second.
Quote: MathExtremist
If you believe that game behavior shouldn't be protected at all, even by patent, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The problem is their have been so many awful game patents that have gotten through. Like Magic the Gathering getting the ENTIRE game patented, Namco's loading screen game patent, Bioware's dialogue wheel patent, Sega's arrow patent, etc. It's such a joke, so many patents are given out with no respect towards prior art, novelty, or obviousness. I don't know enough about physical engineering to say how well patents work for physical things but for game design its just a joke.
Quote: PaigowdanBelieve me, if casino operators could legally stiff Shuffle Master or Galaxy on all the lease fees, they'd do so in a second.
So you're saying the casinos would try to defeat the service fee mechanism of casino game inventors. Or perhaps they would see it as a method of helping their bottom line as a business and that would be alright. If the casinos decide to not pay game inventors that's their rules. Everyone must abide by them I suppose. :)
Quote: onalinehorseNot in ascond, no way, more like an attosecond........
What? Is that English?
Quote: darkozSo you're saying the casinos would try to defeat the service fee mechanism of casino game inventors.
Not as a goal, but as a cost saving effort. They do not like paying royalty fees if they don't have to as a business consideration.
Some casinos and operators now offer only or mostly public domain BJ side bets to avoid fees.
Quote: darkozIf the casinos decide to not pay game inventors that's their rules. Everyone must abide by them I suppose. :)
No it isn't, they have to sign lease agreements saying it is also their rules to pay, if they want to offer these games for their benefit.
Keep in mind that if the operators do not pay their license fees on proprietary games, then those table game lids go up by injunction/court order.
There's no question that the examiners don't catch everything, but there are several ways to challenge an issued patent on those grounds, even more after the AIA went into effect. If there is invalidating prior art that renders a patent claim obvious (or anticipated) then there is -- you'll get no objection from me. But that's an entirely different point than suggesting that game methods shouldn't be patent eligible in the first place.Quote: DiscreteMaths2The problem is their have been so many awful game patents that have gotten through. Like Magic the Gathering getting the ENTIRE game patented, Namco's loading screen game patent, Bioware's dialogue wheel patent, Sega's arrow patent, etc. It's such a joke, so many patents are given out with no respect towards prior art, novelty, or obviousness. I don't know enough about physical engineering to say how well patents work for physical things but for game design its just a joke.
None of the patents you referred to are actual casino games, so let's look at one that is (or was, because it's now expired): Caribbean Stud. Here's the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US4836553
In your view, should the claims in that patent have issued? If no, why not?
Quote: PaigowdanNot as a goal, but as a cost saving effort. They do not like paying royalty fees if they don't have to as a business consideration.
Some casinos and operators now offer only or mostly public domain BJ side bets to avoid fees.
No it isn't, they have to sign lease agreements saying it is also their rules to pay, if they want to offer these games for their benefit.
Keep in mind that if the operators do not pay their license fees on proprietary games, then those table game lids go up by injunction/court order.
Dan, you used the words "legally stiff" in relation to the casinos paying the game inventors. Stiffing someone implies not paying what you are supposed to and doing it legally implies that it is alright for the casinos to do that not because it is ethical or moral to stiff someone but because they can do it without getting into legal trouble.
In other words, the casinos would have no problem doing what most AP's do as long as it benefits themselves.
Quote: darkozDan, you used the words "legally stiff" in relation to the casinos paying the game inventors. Stiffing someone implies not paying what you are supposed to and doing it legally implies that it is alright for the casinos to do that not because it is ethical or moral to stiff someone but because they can do it without getting into legal trouble.
In other words, the casinos would have no problem doing what most AP's do as long as it benefits themselves.
For many, yes.
If someone is the legitimate and bona fide inventor of a game, then they do not have to be paid if they have no agreement with the casino or distributor, and if their game's intellectual property is absent, and has no IP protection (Trademarks and Patent filings for them). An example of this is the original commission-based Pai Gow Poker, invented by Fred Wolfe and Sam Torosian; they issued the game publicly without any IP protection, then tried to get a patent after they had already put it into the public domain for free use. To this day Sam and Fred receive no royalty income for their invention, and no casino will pay them a cent without IP protection and agreements in place. This is legal. Is it improper or unethical for casinos to begrudge them at least an honorarium for the game invention? Yes, perhaps.
It is also perfectly legal for card counters to run down a game on a naïve card room or casino operator, but where it is also legal to deny play or to expel from the premises, too.
Quote: MathExtremistThere's no question that the examiners don't catch everything, but there are several ways to challenge an issued patent on those grounds, even more after the AIA went into effect. If there is invalidating prior art that renders a patent claim obvious (or anticipated) then there is -- you'll get no objection from me. But that's an entirely different point than suggesting that game methods shouldn't be patent eligible in the first place.
None of the patents you referred to are actual casino games, so let's look at one that is (or was, because it's now expired): Caribbean Stud. Here's the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US4836553
In your view, should the claims in that patent have issued? If no, why not?
Legally speaking I am not knowledgeable enough to give you a play by play breakdown of what is legit or not about the particular patent. But on a philosophical level, no the patent should have not been issued. It's just a variation of poker.
to say nothing of 3 legged stools.
Quote: onalinehorseJust like a jet plane is just a variation of a propeller driven airplane, make sense to me.
to say nothing of 3 legged stools.
It's more complicated than that. But yes your point is extremely important, sure you are allowed patent something that is a composition or improvement of exisiting things but at what point does it actually become new. (among other things)
Quote: MathExtremist
None of the patents you referred to are actual casino games, so let's look at one that is (or was, because it's now expired): Caribbean Stud. Here's the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US4836553
In your view, should the claims in that patent have issued? If no, why not?
Well, I don't think think Claim 1 (or the more narrowly defined claims 2-13) should have been granted because it is overly broad.. These claims mainly define a highly generalized betting process for a table game and that the players hand will be compared to the dealers hand to determine which has the higher poker value. The number of cards in the dealt hands is not even specified, so this claim would overlap other table games such as 3-card poker (which probably came years after this CS patent application.)
BTW, I am in the unusual position of strongly agreeing with MathExtremist and Paigowdan on this thread. A process or system is patentable -not copyrite-able. A jet plane design is protected by patents and the corporate logo painted on the plane is protected by copyrite. And, yes -the intellectual property of a game designer does merit protection via the patent process.
Quote: gordonm888The number of cards in the dealt hands is not even specified, so this claim would overlap other table games such as 3-card poker (which probably came years after this CS patent application.)
I believe Caribbean Stud came way before 3 card poker.
Yes it did I assume early 90s for CS.Quote: DRichI believe Caribbean Stud came way before 3 card poker.
Quote: MathExtremistThere's no question that the examiners don't catch everything, but there are several ways to challenge an issued patent on those grounds, even more after the AIA went into effect. If there is invalidating prior art that renders a patent claim obvious (or anticipated) then there is -- you'll get no objection from me. But that's an entirely different point than suggesting that game methods shouldn't be patent eligible in the first place.
None of the patents you referred to are actual casino games, so let's look at one that is (or was, because it's now expired): Caribbean Stud. Here's the patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US4836553
In your view, should the claims in that patent have issued? If no, why not?
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the prior art in this area to say whether I think these claims were novel & non-obvious when the patent application was filed. But I suspect this patent would be vulnerable to a 35 USC 101 challenge. Under current 101 jurisprudence, a claim is invalid if it's directed to an "abstract idea" and there's no sufficient "inventive concept." Someone challenging these claims would argue that they're directed to the abstract idea of playing cards/poker, and there's no real inventive concept here.
Caveat/disclaimer: I'm not taking a position on whether such a challenge would succeed...just saying that if this patent were still alive today, it would be susceptible.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5280915
