Game / IP protection
I've created a new card game, but I don't know what I should do about IP protection.
I suppose I could trademark the name, but then someone could just come up with a different name.
And I could copyright the layout and/or pay tables, but creating alternate layouts and pay tables would not be difficult.
So what can I do?
For the record, my new concept is so simple that I wonder if I could get a patent, even if there weren't any Bilsky / Alice issues....
Quote: DJTeddyBearSince the Bilsky and Alice decisions make getting game patents nearly impossible, what is everyone doing about game / IP protection?
I've created a new card game, but I don't know what I should do about IP protection.
I suppose I could trademark the name, but then someone could just come up with a different name.
And I could copyright the layout and/or pay tables, but creating alternate layouts and pay tables would not be difficult.
So what can I do?
For the record, my new concept is so simple that I wonder if I could get a patent, even if there weren't any Bilsky / Alice issues....
Isnt their position that the game only qualifies if it has some mechanical or programmable aspect?
If so why not try making only an E-game version which would require software creation? Claim the software that operates the game is the patentable item?
Just a thought
Quote: darkozIsnt their position that the game only qualifies if it has some mechanical or programmable aspect?
Yes, this is accurate.
Quote: DJTeddyBearWouldn’t that leave the plain felt table version unprotected?
Im not a patent attorney but i believe once you have yhe patent you can claim patent violation if someone makes a copy for the plain felt
At least you have enough to scare people with
Ay any rate no one will be able to steal the e-game version which leaves that entire half of the field in your court
Matt wagner created a comic book character named grendel. The comics company publishing the series went into bankruptcy
His character was considerd part of the company assets. Wagner was forbidden from writing or publishing his own creation for years
Here is where im comparing the e-game suggestion
Wagner was forbidden from even writing a simulacrum character. For example he couldnt create a character that dressed and acted in any similar manner just with a different name.
So im thinking if you get a patent on the e-game version that may be enough to protect a table game iteration as you now have an enforceable patent on an iteration or any simulacrum of the game
Of course this is something to confirm with your patent attorney
Quote: darkozIm not a patent attorney but i believe once you have yhe patent you can claim patent violation if someone makes a copy for the plain felt
At least you have enough to scare people with
Ay any rate no one will be able to steal the e-game version which leaves that entire half of the field in your court
No, you need to take the steps to write up mechanical (felt) play and e-game or digital play in the same patent application. Don't leave that out. My advice based on 6 drafts and many thousands of dollars for the non-provisional legalese. All variations, all potential paytables, all HE mechanisms should be described in agonizing and minute detail.
My extremely simple game (if i recall correctly) makes 27 claims and runs 43 pages in its latest iteration.
When I filed the provisional, I included all my work notes and drawings, table card, math, and marketing claims. (Actually, i amended it twice as new aspects came up, before the lawyers took over. You can do that without disturbing the original protection date if you're careful.)
This helped protect all iterations as of that date, and pending (you have 1 year) the lawyers turning my notes into a proper document. And they required copies of everything to make sure they had as much info to work with as possible in finding unique IP to claim.
I would highly recommend you do it the same way. But start with advice from Rich, of course, (I mention him because i know you know him) who advised me on doing it.
Quote: darkozI dont know if its apples n oranges but here is one copyright case i read about
Matt wagner created a comic book character named grendel. The comics company publishing the series went into bankruptcy
His character was considerd part of the company assets. Wagner was forbidden from writing or publishing his own creation for years
Here is where im comparing the e-game suggestion
Wagner was forbidden from even writing a simulacrum character. For example he couldnt create a character that dressed and acted in any similar manner just with a different name.
So im thinking if you get a patent on the e-game version that may be enough to protect a table game iteration as you now have an enforceable patent on an iteration or any simulacrum of the game
Of course this is something to confirm with your patent attorney
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in gaming, at least in my experience. See my post above.
Also, my dad had 14 patents approved as a box designer. However, they were all work product, so the patents were assigned to the company, as you note. Something to consider, especially if negotiating with a distributor. Mine structured 2 deals, one where they bought the IP outright, the other where they leased the game. So that may be a choice in the future.
Some of Dad's designs, patented in the early 1960s, are still in use today. A nice legacy, even if it is without royalties.
Since I have neither heard of nor read these decisions I really should keep my yap shut but you might think about the layout. If the casino table's layout as mandated by simplicity and surveillance rules is under some sort of protection, then you might be able to exclude copycats using the same text and physical layout orientation.Quote: DJTeddyBearSince the Bilsky and Alice decisions make getting game patents nearly impossible, . . .
Agree that a game's name offers little protection. Casinos that do trials often alter the name of the game anyway. A publisher rarely grants a writer any control over the title of a novel or the cover art.
I wish all game developers the best of luck but it seems the law never offered much protection against market forces and now offers even less.
If you build a better mousetrap, the world will yawn... and then try to copy it for free.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo, you need to take the steps to write up mechanical (felt) play and e-game or digital play in the same patent application. Don't leave that out. My advice based on 6 drafts and many thousands of dollars for the non-provisional legalese. All variations, all potential paytables, all HE mechanisms should be described in agonizing and minute detail.
My extremely simple game (if i recall correctly) makes 27 claims and runs 43 pages in its latest iteration.
When I filed the provisional, I included all my work notes and drawings, table card, math, and marketing claims. (Actually, i amended it twice as new aspects came up, before the lawyers took over. You can do that without disturbing the original protection date if you're careful.)
This helped protect all iterations as of that date, and pending (you have 1 year) the lawyers turning my notes into a proper document. And they required copies of everything to make sure they had as much info to work with as possible in finding unique IP to claim.
I would highly recommend you do it the same way. But start with advice from Rich, of course, (I mention him because i know you know him) who advised me on doing it.
I totally agree
Perhaps I had oversimplified it
The minutiae and details of every aspect including potential table gane versions must be included in the egame patent application.
That still may not be enough
But it is a huge weapon to have a patent claim which can be used with authority
If someone creates a table felt version cease and desist letters with claims of patent are very powerful
Fighting those means hiring attorneys, long court battles, and possibly the game(table version) from being distributed until the outcome (while the e-game patent allows the game to be popularized and become a money earner for the patent holder during any litigation)
That should be enough to scare away copycats was what I was trying to get at
Quote: SandybestdogI don’t know anything about this stuff but it seems a patent/copyright doesn’t mean much. Galaxy Gaming literally copies every one of Shufflemasters table games. Their latest Spanish 21 version literally copies the whole game but changes one payout. I’ve seen a number of casinos switch their games to the Galaxy version, presumably because their license fee is less. Doesn’t seem right.
Are you certain one company isnt paying the other a patent license fee for their iteration?
Quote: darkozAre you certain one company isnt paying the other a patent license fee for their iteration?
Yes, that is certain.
All of those games being copied have no patents, and that is the problem. Galaxy just copies, and charges less.
Although to be fair, it seems the other way around. Shufflemaster finally made a copy of their own with Tri lux and it is popping up all over. Maybe charging less than 21+3 and giving Galaxy a taste of their own medicine?
Quote: SM777Yes, that is certain.
All of those games being copied have no patents, and that is the problem. Galaxy just copies, and charges less.
Although to be fair, it seems the other way around. Shufflemaster finally made a copy of their own with Tri lux and it is popping up all over. Maybe charging less than 21+3 and giving Galaxy a taste of their own medicine?
Im confused i thought you said a patent didnt mean much?
If the games have no patent then there naturally is no protection
Quote: darkozIm confused i thought you said a patent didnt mean much?
If the games have no patent then there naturally is no protection
When did I say this?
A patent on a felt table game is currently impossible to get unless there's a mechanical device or special deck of cards (as you mentioned). Hopefully this changes soon.
So from my view, pouring money and time into useless lawyers and experts is a horrendous idea. The result will end up in no patent.
Quote: mcallister320095% of galaxy’s table games offerings are shufflemaster games with a sidebet or two added, or a minor paytable tweak. It’s an obviously shameless, pathetic way of doing things but it’s also obviously working for them looking at pits across the US. Yeah, shufflemaster did the same thing with a few from galaxy think it’s just the way that business operates, lucky ladies, tri-lux, (hcf?) but it’s not literally 90%+ of their offerings like galaxy.
How do you arrive at the "95%"/"literally 90%+" figures you cited above?
Quote: SM777When did I say this?
A patent on a felt table game is currently impossible to get unless there's a mechanical device or special deck of cards (as you mentioned). Hopefully this changes soon.
So from my view, pouring money and time into useless lawyers and experts is a horrendous idea. The result will end up in no patent.
Sorry
Sandybestdog said patents dont mean much
Then i responded to him. You responded to me
You get the mixup
Claim 3 of this just issued patent. Anybody care to comment ?
United States Patent Application 20180182211
Kind Code A1
Stream; Matthew Henry June 28, 2018
RAPID LOW TOTAL-CARD BLACKJACK-TYPE GAME
Quote: dogqck
Claim 3 of this just issued patent. Anybody care to comment ?
Yes, the best way to write patents is to copy already issued patents and change as little as necessary. There is no copyright or plagiarism for patents. That can make for a cheap way to do your own patents if you can't afford a patent attorney.
Quote: dogqck" The method of claim 1 wherein the method is executed on physical gaming table with physical playing cards provided from a physically randomized set of physical playing cards and the wager is committed by placement of a physical element on a wagering wager at the player position in an area on the gaming table identified for receiving committed wagers, and the specific predetermined value is between 7 and 11. "
Claim 3 of this just issued patent. Anybody care to comment ?
United States Patent Application 20180182211
Kind Code A1
Stream; Matthew Henry June 28, 2018
RAPID LOW TOTAL-CARD BLACKJACK-TYPE GAME
This appears to be a new patent APPLICATION that has not undergone USPTO examination. Claim 3 will be disallowed under examination as relating to abstract matter and unpatentable under Section 101.
Quote: ParadigmThis appears to be a new patent APPLICATION that has not undergone USPTO examination. Claim 3 will be disallowed under examination as relating to abstract matter and unpatentable under Section 101.
Once again you are correct sir!
Correspondence Address Customer Number: 97462
Filing or 371 (c) Date: 12-11-2017 Status: Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination
Application Type: Utility Status Date: 02-06-2018
Examiner Name: HU, KANG Location: What is a Location? ELECTRONIC
Group Art Unit: 3717 Location Date: -
Confirmation Number: 1076 Earliest Publication No: US 2018-0182211 A1
Attorney Docket Number: 777_746US1 Earliest Publication Date: 06-28-2018
Class / Subclass: 463/016 Patent Number: -
First Named Inventor: Matthew Henry Stream , Las Vegas, NV all Inventors Issue Date of Patent: -
First Named Applicant: - International Registration Number (Hague): -
Entity Status: Small International Registration Publication Date: -
AIA (First Inventor to File): Yes
FYI. I got a PM response on the subject. The advice wasn’t exactly earth shattering so I don’t know why it was sent as a PM rather than publicly posted.
At any rate, the advice was basically to copyright everything. Procedure manuals, table layouts, rack cards (player instructions), pay tables, etc.
Not sure how useful copyrights would be but I believe they are relatively cheap and easy to obtain.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThanks for the info.
FYI. I got a PM response on the subject. The advice wasn’t exactly earth shattering so I don’t know why it was sent as a PM rather than publicly posted.
At any rate, the advice was basically to copyright everything. Procedure manuals, table layouts, rack cards (player instructions), pay tables, etc.
Not sure how useful copyrights would be but I believe they are relatively cheap and easy to obtain.
Anyone advising you to spend money "protecting" you game isn't doing you any favors.
Quote: SM777Anyone advising you to spend money "protecting" you game isn't doing you any favors.
cOLD sHOT. cARE TO EXPLAIN JUST ASKING ?
So, putting money into these things, in a industry where Shufflemater fails to get to 20 installs on 95% of their games, is just dumb.
It's a losing ROI every single time.
Quote: dogqckY know it's a gamble, but so is life. Not doubting you but failing to get 20 installs on 95% of their games. Not aware they have that many table games in their arsenal. Usually Mike has an analysis on any new table game placement. Just don't remember seeing very many SHFL table games placed in the last few years or even on their product list. Correct me if I am wrong, I am wrong quite a bit,
They have a huge catalog. Mostly shelved (not actively being sold by the sales force) because the casinos aren't picking them up, but any that ask for one can get it installed. I would guess roughly 75-80 games floor-ready, several very good. If you go to the scientific games website, they have maybe 30 listed last I looked.
Besides as a micro entity, cost Teddy $70 to file PPA. Not exactly a fortune.
PPA? You mean a Provisional Patent Application?Quote: dogqckBesides as a micro entity, cost Teddy $70 to file PPA. Not exactly a fortune.
Sure, they’re cheap, but worthless if not followed up by an expensive patent within 1 year. And since the patent will probably never be issued, what’s the point?
Quote: dogqckI just cant accept the 95% don't get 20 placements. Roger and Elliot don't buy that many losers. On SHFL site 11 BJ side bets and pretty sure 6 have over 20 placements. 11 variant BJ and 5 for sure have 20. 14 specialty games with 8-9 getting placements. 4 poker games at least 2 have placements. I doubt SHFL has 400 losers they tried to place.
Besides as a micro entity, cost Teddy $70 to file PPA. Not exactly a fortune.
It's likely higher than 95%. I was being generous.
A majority get 1 or 2 placements, then disappear. They don't buy all of them, most are created internally. I'm not counting BJ sidebets.
Quote: DJTeddyBearPPA? You mean a Provisional Patent Application?
Sure, they’re cheap, but worthless if not followed up by an expensive patent within 1 year. And since the patent will probably never be issued, what’s the point?
Then what do you expect to show a potential distributor like SHFL ?
Quote: dogqckThen what do you expect to show a potential distributor like SHFL ?
I have to agree
Its cheap so can't hurt
And protects you for 12 months while you shop it around
Certainly some small protection is better than none at all
Quote: dogqck" The method of claim 1 wherein the method is executed on physical gaming table with physical playing cards provided from a physically randomized set of physical playing cards and the wager is committed by placement of a physical element on a wagering wager at the player position in an area on the gaming table identified for receiving committed wagers, and the specific predetermined value is between 7 and 11. "
Claim 3 of this just issued patent. Anybody care to comment ?
United States Patent Application 20180182211
Kind Code A1
Stream; Matthew Henry June 28, 2018
RAPID LOW TOTAL-CARD BLACKJACK-TYPE GAME
That's a publication, not a patent. If the independent claim recites performing it on an electronic device you may have 112 2nd and 4th issues. I don't feel comfortable getting more specific.
Once again, those are not issued claims unless you accidentally wrote the wrong number.
Then there is Brent Weiss and his valiant attempts to gain traction.
My very short advice is I would just stay out of this arena, unless you have special connections to get your games on the floor. If you must invent games, stick to electronic ones.
Quote: WizardI would start out by trademarking the name and doing a provisional patent. The provisional should try to connect it to physical things any way it can, like a computer or gaming machine. Throw every claim you think of in the first application. The patent office will disallow lots of them on the first review. You will probably never get a patent but can fight it through the "pending" stage for years. Still, even with a patent, if the game gets big, there is little to stop anyone from changing the name, adding a side bet, and running with it. You'd pay enormous legal fees to fight it and would probably lose. It has become a game where you want the game to get big enough to make money but not too big to get copied.
My very short advice is I would just stay out of this arena, unless you have special connections to get your games on the floor. If you must invent games, stick to electronic ones.
Great Advice, Wizard.
Quote: dogqckAren't most table games available and increasing their presence in casino's in an electronic form. Bubble craps, electronic roulette, stadium blackjack, etc.
There is always a feeling of history and romance and daresay conservatism in any field changing its delivery status
Just for example:
Filmmakers want that theatrical release - straight to video is a downgrade
For years shooting on film was professional. Shooting video or smaller film guage was looked down upon
Table game developers have the same opinion of what their games should have as respectful representation
I read a blurb somewhere about Stadium Blackjack being so popular that Venetian sent 22 of the 44 tables to Pilazzo. I think if games was that popular, Pilazzo would have order 44 for themselves. Plus I believe slots replaced those 22 tables at Venetian.
Been out of the design game for a bit, and got the itch again. I'm working on a new concept that I have created a custom playing deck for, and added (forced) some digital gameplay elements. Are they granting game patents again or is it still the same ol' bs?
Quote: shrimpboatcaptRIP Dan. He was always fast to help a fellow inventor.
Been out of the design game for a bit, and got the itch again. I'm working on a new concept that I have created a custom playing deck for, and added (forced) some digital gameplay elements. Are they granting game patents again or is it still the same ol' bs?
As far as I know it is still the same.
Quote: WizardI would start out by trademarking the name and doing a provisional patent. The provisional should try to connect it to physical things any way it can, like a computer or gaming machine. Throw every claim you think of in the first application. The patent office will disallow lots of them on the first review. You will probably never get a patent but can fight it through the "pending" stage for years. Still, even with a patent, if the game gets big, there is little to stop anyone from changing the name, adding a side bet, and running with it. You'd pay enormous legal fees to fight it and would probably lose. It has become a game where you want the game to get big enough to make money but not too big to get copied.
My very short advice is I would just stay out of this arena, unless you have special connections to get your games on the floor. If you must invent games, stick to electronic ones.
I also agree with what the Wizard is saying for the most part. We have been able to get a number of patents and even won two appeals over the last couple of years. The only problem with keeping it in the pending stages is that it gets very costly. Even with the pending title, you are still playing with a limited amount of time. You can always refile the game at certain points of the process if you get stuck in the entire process, but once again, it gets very expensive in a hurry.
Quote: shrimpboatcaptRIP Dan. He was always fast to help a fellow inventor.
Been out of the design game for a bit, and got the itch again. I'm working on a new concept that I have created a custom playing deck for, and added (forced) some digital gameplay elements. Are they granting game patents again or is it still the same ol' bs?
If you are changing the standard deck of cards for your game, I like your chances of getting a patent allowed.
I don’t know, don `t know ... maybe in countries like the United States, Britain, Australia, and it is possible to protect the rights to the game, but in the countries of the former USSR and Europe in my opinion at the moment it is impossible. Games for land and online casinos are copied constantly. It was especially fun to find out when a well-known company patented the game Russian Poker, naming it Lunar Poker.
I, as a game developer, are certainly angry. But on the other hand, it can be good in the modern world. Imagine that there will be a person who will prove that he owns the rights to the game of "roulette", and that all casinos will have to transfer him a percentage of income/GGR?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think it’s better for a game developer to pre-negotiate with a casino operator
Quote: billryanSometimes having a patent is worse than not having one. I've seen many a company pretty much go broke defending patents. It sometimes comes down to do you want to sell product or do you want to pay lawyers to stop someone else from selling the product.
That is why most patent disputes are resolved without the court system.
Flush Rush by SHFL/SG. Similar concept? No one brought up the case anywhere? If you have over $1M, do it.
