Patentability
November 8th, 2010 at 6:46:41 PM
permalink
In an attempt to break my habit of diverting other people's threads, I am starting a new one this time....
As a little background, during my previous employment, I led a research team that developed some technologies for industry. This research resulted in a couple of patents for which I am the first named inventor. Although the rights to the inventions belong to the university, if these technologies achieved commercial success, I would draw some financial benefit. While I would very much enjoy seeing those technologies widely implemented, I have no entreprenurial spirit, and the money I might get is not enough to motivate me very far. I have encouraged some companies to look into licensing the patents (noting the commercial rewards they might receive), but it's not a big enough deal to me that I would expend much effort on encouraging implementation. I doubt that anything will ever come from these patents.
This history has made me think about some of the discussions in this forum related to inventors of casino games. There have been several threads discussing new games and the difficulties of getting them patented and commercialized. The point was made that if an invention concept is prematurely publicly disclosed, that might prohibit it from ever receiving a patent. (I may have misinterpreted that; at the university, I just followed the instructions from the intellectual property folks.) With this possibility in mind, an odd thought occurred to me.
Suppose that someone (perhaps a creative member of this forum) came up with a truly original idea for a casino game. Suppose also that this concept was one that could be developed into a popular game in casinos and would be wildly successful. Suppose also that the inventor, like me, exhibited a lack of entrepreneurial spirit and had no desire at all to pursue the concept toward a patent or commercial implementation. Instead, he just posted a full description of it here for discussion or perhaps described it in detail on his own web site as something that others could play around with.
Would that public disclosure mean that nobody could ever get a patent on the game, even if they paid the inventor for his idea or he just gave the rights to them? Would such a lack of patentability and the associated inability to control the use of the game mean that no one would undertake the effort and expense of field testing, commercialization, and such?
It just seems that the commercial opportunity for something, and the opportunity for others to enjoy such a game in a casino, should not be destroyed by public disclosure just because the idea man/woman isn't personally driven to seek the potential financial rewards.
Have I interpreted the situation correctly? Does anyone else see a problem here?
As a little background, during my previous employment, I led a research team that developed some technologies for industry. This research resulted in a couple of patents for which I am the first named inventor. Although the rights to the inventions belong to the university, if these technologies achieved commercial success, I would draw some financial benefit. While I would very much enjoy seeing those technologies widely implemented, I have no entreprenurial spirit, and the money I might get is not enough to motivate me very far. I have encouraged some companies to look into licensing the patents (noting the commercial rewards they might receive), but it's not a big enough deal to me that I would expend much effort on encouraging implementation. I doubt that anything will ever come from these patents.
This history has made me think about some of the discussions in this forum related to inventors of casino games. There have been several threads discussing new games and the difficulties of getting them patented and commercialized. The point was made that if an invention concept is prematurely publicly disclosed, that might prohibit it from ever receiving a patent. (I may have misinterpreted that; at the university, I just followed the instructions from the intellectual property folks.) With this possibility in mind, an odd thought occurred to me.
Suppose that someone (perhaps a creative member of this forum) came up with a truly original idea for a casino game. Suppose also that this concept was one that could be developed into a popular game in casinos and would be wildly successful. Suppose also that the inventor, like me, exhibited a lack of entrepreneurial spirit and had no desire at all to pursue the concept toward a patent or commercial implementation. Instead, he just posted a full description of it here for discussion or perhaps described it in detail on his own web site as something that others could play around with.
Would that public disclosure mean that nobody could ever get a patent on the game, even if they paid the inventor for his idea or he just gave the rights to them? Would such a lack of patentability and the associated inability to control the use of the game mean that no one would undertake the effort and expense of field testing, commercialization, and such?
It just seems that the commercial opportunity for something, and the opportunity for others to enjoy such a game in a casino, should not be destroyed by public disclosure just because the idea man/woman isn't personally driven to seek the potential financial rewards.
Have I interpreted the situation correctly? Does anyone else see a problem here?
November 8th, 2010 at 7:10:51 PM
permalink
Your interpretation is mostly correct. Public disclosure is critical with respect to patents. From the time you come up with your idea, and have public disclosure, you have 1 year from that date of public disclosure to file an application with the patent office, also known as the 102(b) date (after the particular patent law it is related to).
Unfortunately, yes - patents are intended to give the inventor a temporary monopoly for him/her to benefit. After the patent expires, the ideology of it is that this public knowledge then benefits the greater good of the world. Failure to file an application timely means that the idea/invention is public knowledge long enough for it to be used against the inventor in stating that it is not patentable in view of the patent laws of the United States. This doesn't mean that someone wouldn't use the idea if it still is commercially viable (after all, the patents on the transistor have long been expired), nor would it prevent the inventor from making money on it (albeit much less than if the game was patented)
-B
Quote:Would that public disclosure mean that nobody could ever get a patent on the game, even if they paid the inventor for his idea or he just gave the rights to them? Would such a lack of patentability and the associated inability to control the use of the game mean that no one would undertake the effort and expense of field testing, commercialization, and such?
Unfortunately, yes - patents are intended to give the inventor a temporary monopoly for him/her to benefit. After the patent expires, the ideology of it is that this public knowledge then benefits the greater good of the world. Failure to file an application timely means that the idea/invention is public knowledge long enough for it to be used against the inventor in stating that it is not patentable in view of the patent laws of the United States. This doesn't mean that someone wouldn't use the idea if it still is commercially viable (after all, the patents on the transistor have long been expired), nor would it prevent the inventor from making money on it (albeit much less than if the game was patented)
-B
November 8th, 2010 at 7:32:21 PM
permalink
Well, since I have two ideas with provisional patents, and I have already announced my intention to abandon one of them, I feel obligated to reply.
Several people told me that my first idea, Hit It Again, might not be patentable. Of course, the only one who I listened to was the lawyer I would have hired if he gave me a different opinion. Talking himself out of potential business has a way of convincing me that he wasn't bullshitting me. At the time, he did say that I could trademark the name, and go about marketing it that way. I wasn't too keen on that idea, but, since I had a meeting with a game distributor scheduled for the next day, I went with that idea into the meeting.
The distributor didn't really ask if it was really patentable, but told me the idea wasn't commercially viable.
I told the lawyer I was abandoning it, but asked what happens to the idea. Could someone wait a year for my provisional patent to expire, and then get their own patent? His answer was no. Not so much because I had a provisional patent, but because I had made it public domain by discussing it here. Once my year is up, nobody can patent it. Theoretically, if someone wanted to try to patent it, I could sell them my provisional patent.
But that doesn't answer your question.
If an idea gets discussed here, prior to getting a patent or provisional patent, then it gets questionable. And that becomes a question to ask a lawyer.
And, I suppose that could potentially kill a great idea.
Bottom line, if someone here has an idea, spent the $110 to get a provisional patent, and THEN we can discuss it.
An alternative is to set up a think tank among a group of people, agree to share everything, then take the actual idea discussions to private messages or emails, and not discuss it publicly until the provisional patent is done.
For what it's worth, the $110 I spent for the provisional patent on my Hit It Again idea might seem like wasted money. I think of it as a great investment in the learning process.
Most importantly, it got me a friendship with a game inventor (PaiGowDan), meeting with The Wiz, meeting with a lawyer who is a specialist in casino games patents, and a meeting with a game distributor. All of this helped me better understand the process of getting a game into a casino.
And that knowledge helped me develop my Poker For Roulette idea. Although the game distributors are currently bogged down with G2E, I hope to get the ball rolling afterwards. (FYI: I did tell the one distributor that met with me for Hit It Again about my new idea. I decided that although now is not a good time to discuss it, it's better if they know the concept when they are at G2E.)
Does that help?
Several people told me that my first idea, Hit It Again, might not be patentable. Of course, the only one who I listened to was the lawyer I would have hired if he gave me a different opinion. Talking himself out of potential business has a way of convincing me that he wasn't bullshitting me. At the time, he did say that I could trademark the name, and go about marketing it that way. I wasn't too keen on that idea, but, since I had a meeting with a game distributor scheduled for the next day, I went with that idea into the meeting.
The distributor didn't really ask if it was really patentable, but told me the idea wasn't commercially viable.
I told the lawyer I was abandoning it, but asked what happens to the idea. Could someone wait a year for my provisional patent to expire, and then get their own patent? His answer was no. Not so much because I had a provisional patent, but because I had made it public domain by discussing it here. Once my year is up, nobody can patent it. Theoretically, if someone wanted to try to patent it, I could sell them my provisional patent.
But that doesn't answer your question.
If an idea gets discussed here, prior to getting a patent or provisional patent, then it gets questionable. And that becomes a question to ask a lawyer.
And, I suppose that could potentially kill a great idea.
Bottom line, if someone here has an idea, spent the $110 to get a provisional patent, and THEN we can discuss it.
An alternative is to set up a think tank among a group of people, agree to share everything, then take the actual idea discussions to private messages or emails, and not discuss it publicly until the provisional patent is done.
For what it's worth, the $110 I spent for the provisional patent on my Hit It Again idea might seem like wasted money. I think of it as a great investment in the learning process.
Most importantly, it got me a friendship with a game inventor (PaiGowDan), meeting with The Wiz, meeting with a lawyer who is a specialist in casino games patents, and a meeting with a game distributor. All of this helped me better understand the process of getting a game into a casino.
And that knowledge helped me develop my Poker For Roulette idea. Although the game distributors are currently bogged down with G2E, I hope to get the ball rolling afterwards. (FYI: I did tell the one distributor that met with me for Hit It Again about my new idea. I decided that although now is not a good time to discuss it, it's better if they know the concept when they are at G2E.)
Does that help?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 8th, 2010 at 7:39:40 PM
permalink
Then again....
I remember reading the story about the guy who invented Pai Gow Poker.
He was an important person in a California card room. Owner? Pit boss? I don't recall.
But he came up with the idea, played it on his kitchen table, and people liked it. He also got advice that it's just a card game, and, as such, isn't patentable.
He introduced it on a Friday at one table in his card room. The table was packed all night.. He added a table Saturday, and a few more tables the following weekend. It spread to other card rooms like wildfire.
But here's the key.
He later learned that he COULD have patented it, and could have done it as late as a year after introducing it into his card room.
Unfortunately, he learned that more than a year later.
I remember reading the story about the guy who invented Pai Gow Poker.
He was an important person in a California card room. Owner? Pit boss? I don't recall.
But he came up with the idea, played it on his kitchen table, and people liked it. He also got advice that it's just a card game, and, as such, isn't patentable.
He introduced it on a Friday at one table in his card room. The table was packed all night.. He added a table Saturday, and a few more tables the following weekend. It spread to other card rooms like wildfire.
But here's the key.
He later learned that he COULD have patented it, and could have done it as late as a year after introducing it into his card room.
Unfortunately, he learned that more than a year later.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 8th, 2010 at 8:14:37 PM
permalink
Quote: DocWould that public disclosure mean that nobody could ever get a patent on the game, even if they paid the inventor for his idea or he just gave the rights to them? Would such a lack of patentability and the associated inability to control the use of the game mean that no one would undertake the effort and expense of field testing, commercialization, and such?
A patent isn't a right to make, sell, or use your invention - it's a right to preclude others from making, using, or selling your invention. If you have that right, and others want to use your ideas, they must either take a license from you or risk committing patent infringement. Public disclosure is basically tantamount to saying "Here, world, I invented this idea and I'm giving it to you all." I am anecdotally aware of IBM, the world's most prolific patentee, publishing regular documents on ideas that they have invented, not found commercially viable, but which they want to prevent a potential smaller competitor from monopolizing and profiting from. The contents are public domain and are therefore not patentable by anyone.
Commercial opportunity is tied to patentability wherever the cost of duplicating the efforts are low. With a casino table game, the patent usually covers the method of betting, dealing, resolving wagers, etc., so a patent is the only thing standing between you and a copycat. And since a casino can very easily just print up a layout and train its dealers directly, if you don't have a patent then there's nothing stopping a casino from just operating your game with no further duty to you. That's exactly what happened with Pai Gow Poker, by the way - the fellow who invented it failed to get a patent. Today, Pai Gow Poker is the most prolific of the new games in Nevada, ahead of even Three Card Poker and behind only craps, roulette, and blackjack.
Read this article about Pai Gow Poker.
Edit: I see that DJ beat me to the punch with the Pai Gow example while I was afk. The article above has all the gory details.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 8th, 2010 at 10:00:14 PM
permalink
Under the current guidelines, patenting a card game is next to impossible. Most will be rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, as they are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, nor do they transform a particualr item to a different state or thing.
As of a result of Bilski F3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski
which is a case that had to do with a method for hedging risks in commodoties trading, the USPTO has unofficially adopted the approach of other contries when it comes to patenting card games. Not only does this have an impact on prospective developers, but also the strength of defending existing card game patents.
To ensure that a possible patent is safe, you should file a provisional patent. In the US, it will take a year to two before you actually have to file the real application. You can file after it becomes public, but if someone uses it before you file a provisional, you have no recourse for stopping them in the future. In any case, until one of the big companies like Shuffle Master take this ruling on and spends the legal to challenge the USPTO's current position, don;'t hold your breath for a patent approval unless it involves some apparatus or machine.
I sugguest that you trademark your logos and game designs and copyright all material (pay tables especially). This will offer the most protection in many other jurisdictions, but it can't stop someone from playing let's say "triple card poker" with the same rule as Three Card Poker, changing some of the payouts and using different graphics.
It's the new dirty little secret that operators do not know about, but they generally have respected the games from developer companies.
As of a result of Bilski F3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski
which is a case that had to do with a method for hedging risks in commodoties trading, the USPTO has unofficially adopted the approach of other contries when it comes to patenting card games. Not only does this have an impact on prospective developers, but also the strength of defending existing card game patents.
To ensure that a possible patent is safe, you should file a provisional patent. In the US, it will take a year to two before you actually have to file the real application. You can file after it becomes public, but if someone uses it before you file a provisional, you have no recourse for stopping them in the future. In any case, until one of the big companies like Shuffle Master take this ruling on and spends the legal to challenge the USPTO's current position, don;'t hold your breath for a patent approval unless it involves some apparatus or machine.
I sugguest that you trademark your logos and game designs and copyright all material (pay tables especially). This will offer the most protection in many other jurisdictions, but it can't stop someone from playing let's say "triple card poker" with the same rule as Three Card Poker, changing some of the payouts and using different graphics.
It's the new dirty little secret that operators do not know about, but they generally have respected the games from developer companies.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:13:12 AM
permalink
MathExtremist -
Thanks for the link. Although I had some of the minor details wrong, I had the basic concept.
My most important point was, he had the game in his casino, and it was spreading to other casinos, and he STILL could have patented it up to a year after first putting it on his casino's floor - if he had only gotten better advice.
On the flip side, that was back in the days before the Patent Office offered a Provisional Patent. Maybe back then, part of the process was to prove that the idea is your own, and that it was made public less than a year before filing. That may or may not still be an option.
Today, for $110, you can easily file for a Provisional Patent. While it proves nothing about the idea, it does prove who came up with the idea. Then you have a year to get the full patent - which is far more complicated and costly. Once approved, the full patent is 'back-dated' to the date that the Provisional Patent was first submitted.
For example, I mailed my Provisional Patent paperwork for my Poker For Roulette idea on 10/8/10. I got the acceptance letter on 10/28/10, but it's dated 10/12/10. I have until 10/11/11 to submit a full patent application. Once approved, the patent will be dated 10/12/10.
Thanks for the link. Although I had some of the minor details wrong, I had the basic concept.
My most important point was, he had the game in his casino, and it was spreading to other casinos, and he STILL could have patented it up to a year after first putting it on his casino's floor - if he had only gotten better advice.
On the flip side, that was back in the days before the Patent Office offered a Provisional Patent. Maybe back then, part of the process was to prove that the idea is your own, and that it was made public less than a year before filing. That may or may not still be an option.
Today, for $110, you can easily file for a Provisional Patent. While it proves nothing about the idea, it does prove who came up with the idea. Then you have a year to get the full patent - which is far more complicated and costly. Once approved, the full patent is 'back-dated' to the date that the Provisional Patent was first submitted.
For example, I mailed my Provisional Patent paperwork for my Poker For Roulette idea on 10/8/10. I got the acceptance letter on 10/28/10, but it's dated 10/12/10. I have until 10/11/11 to submit a full patent application. Once approved, the patent will be dated 10/12/10.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 9th, 2010 at 7:30:33 AM
permalink
The Supreme Court considered and changed the Fed Circuit's Bilski decision last June. Although the Supremes didn't do much in the way of providing a new guideline, they specified 2 important things - business methods were not unpatentable and the "machine or transformation" test was an investigative tool but not the sole test for determining patentable subject matter. The Patent Office has since issued internal guidance instructing examiners accordingly. In fact, I recently used those guidelines against the examiner to get a "machine or transformation" test 101 rejection withdrawn. It looks like we're back to novelty and non-obviousness rejections only.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:23:08 PM
permalink
Quote: KelmoUnder the current guidelines, patenting a card game is next to impossible. Most will be rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, as they are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, nor do they transform a particualr item to a different state or thing.
Quote: RichNThe Supreme Court considered and changed the Fed Circuit's Bilski decision last June. Although the Supremes didn't do much in the way of providing a new guideline, they specified 2 important things - business methods were not unpatentable and the "machine or transformation" test was an investigative tool but not the sole test for determining patentable subject matter. The Patent Office has since issued internal guidance instructing examiners accordingly. In fact, I recently used those guidelines against the examiner to get a "machine or transformation" test 101 rejection withdrawn. It looks like we're back to novelty and non-obviousness rejections only.
One thing to remember, the Bilski type rejections apply to method claims and/or computer-readable medium (or Beauregard-type) claims. Since there are many ways to draft claims, one could still patent a card game if the claims are written properly. Especially with Shufflemaster automating part of the table game process, I could easily see a card game patent in a method which claims the actual device which deals the cards, which would overcome any Bilski-type issues (in my opinion). IANAL, so YMMV. ;)
-B
November 9th, 2010 at 4:06:06 PM
permalink
I don't know why I didn't say this sooner.
Rather than debating this, if you're really interested, talk to a lawyer.
The lawyer Dan uses, and I will be using, is Richard Newman.
Rather than debating this, if you're really interested, talk to a lawyer.
The lawyer Dan uses, and I will be using, is Richard Newman.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 9th, 2010 at 4:30:20 PM
permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBearI don't know why I didn't say this sooner.
Rather than debating this, if you're really interested, talk to a lawyer.
The lawyer Dan uses, and I will be using, is Richard Newman.
Look up 2 posts...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 9th, 2010 at 5:00:50 PM
permalink
Dave -
Rich Newman is key for table and slot specific gaming industry patents.
He was formerly the primary counsel at Shufflemaster, and went independent, and is now at Howard & Howard, Las Vegas.
He is also super-fine at patent infringement "defense or attack," for lack of a better description, in protecting gaming patents against questionable infringement claims against you, as well as going after the infringers of your product.
Also great is Philip Kantor for gaming patents; and Phil is also a top expert on Trademarks (Game Logos, artwork) and Copyrights (product related naming and phrases), the ancillary stuff needed for commercial gaming products in terms of market protection.
These guys are crucial.
Other stuff:
1. Earlier I abondoned a provisional patent, and posted at this site, the Roulette "Keno" style bets and the "hit a group of numbers until you zero-out (hit a zero)" Anyone may use it, and no one can claim it: public domain. Same as the original inventor of commission-based Pai Gow.
2. Note that two companies, Galaxy and Shufflemaster, marketed as proprietary commission-based Pai Gow Poker, even though Commission-based Pai Gow poker is in the public domain. Wolfe and Torosain history denotes that. As a result, Some Casinos use One Betting Spot Commission Pai Gow Poker with no side bets as a "free house game" to the casino. These Galaxy and Shufflemaster games with added features are proprietary via Copyrights, Specific Gaming approval and trademarks of their "product protection branding." If you wanted to offer side bonus bets, you have to either buy their trademark protected products, or trademark and copyright your own version of the side bets (also public domain), and then submit to Nevada Gaming and all the other gaming authorities for separate approval at great time and expense. It's cheaper to rent a full featured commission-based game from Shufflemaster or Galaxy, or rent the Commission-free version EZ Pai Gow from DEQ Systems, than to spend $50,000 and two years wait for some tables for your Gambling Hall.
3. EZ Pai Gow (no commission) is patented, because the added commission-free mechanisms were patented, making the entire no-commission version of the game fall under the patent protection, in addition to trademarks ("EZ Pai Gow," "Dynasty Bonus", "Luhn Tao Wheel Bonus," "Pai Gow Protection Bet" etc.) - which then needed additional and separate gaming approval and new math work as a distinctly patented and trademarked product. I and my distributor spend a fortune through the two-year process.
4. You CAN take a PUBLIC DOMAIN game (unpatentable and otherwise free to use), and add specific stylistic characterists and brand logos and fun buzz-phrases and the like to form a "branded product" version of a public domain game, and get seperate gaming approval for it, and and have essentially a proprietary game. This is because you cannot use "known and respected" trademark and copyrighted versions with their underlying gaming approval.
You CAN use a Naked Blank Green Felt with one betting spot to offer Pai Gow Poker in your own casino, with a sign saying nothing else than the three words "Pai Gow Poker" - a la Blackjack style, but no player plays an unfeatured Pai Gow game with a commission and NO approved bonus bets or progressives; People now choose to play Blackjacl with the side bets (Instant 18, push your luck, etc.) It would be like eating butt-naked spaghetti with no sauce or Parmagean, just as you won't spend for that at an italian restaurant. Gamblers need options and flexibility. The California Casino downtown sometimes does this on $5 PG games with a Naked $100 felt with one bet spot, but they make many more thousands of more dollars with full features and busy tables, and for a few hundred dollars a month rental.
5. If you add a unique twist to a game that improves a game into a truly new version of the game, that's patentable, like Double-exposure blackjack or Spanish-21.
If you add public domain features in a new combination mix for a game and you brand it and get gaming math done, that's trademarkable and also protected, but not to the same degree, but good enough.
6. If you had a provisonal patent that expired or was disclosed, you can modify the game into new patentable version in some cases.
A lot can be done.
Rich Newman is key for table and slot specific gaming industry patents.
He was formerly the primary counsel at Shufflemaster, and went independent, and is now at Howard & Howard, Las Vegas.
He is also super-fine at patent infringement "defense or attack," for lack of a better description, in protecting gaming patents against questionable infringement claims against you, as well as going after the infringers of your product.
Also great is Philip Kantor for gaming patents; and Phil is also a top expert on Trademarks (Game Logos, artwork) and Copyrights (product related naming and phrases), the ancillary stuff needed for commercial gaming products in terms of market protection.
These guys are crucial.
Other stuff:
1. Earlier I abondoned a provisional patent, and posted at this site, the Roulette "Keno" style bets and the "hit a group of numbers until you zero-out (hit a zero)" Anyone may use it, and no one can claim it: public domain. Same as the original inventor of commission-based Pai Gow.
2. Note that two companies, Galaxy and Shufflemaster, marketed as proprietary commission-based Pai Gow Poker, even though Commission-based Pai Gow poker is in the public domain. Wolfe and Torosain history denotes that. As a result, Some Casinos use One Betting Spot Commission Pai Gow Poker with no side bets as a "free house game" to the casino. These Galaxy and Shufflemaster games with added features are proprietary via Copyrights, Specific Gaming approval and trademarks of their "product protection branding." If you wanted to offer side bonus bets, you have to either buy their trademark protected products, or trademark and copyright your own version of the side bets (also public domain), and then submit to Nevada Gaming and all the other gaming authorities for separate approval at great time and expense. It's cheaper to rent a full featured commission-based game from Shufflemaster or Galaxy, or rent the Commission-free version EZ Pai Gow from DEQ Systems, than to spend $50,000 and two years wait for some tables for your Gambling Hall.
3. EZ Pai Gow (no commission) is patented, because the added commission-free mechanisms were patented, making the entire no-commission version of the game fall under the patent protection, in addition to trademarks ("EZ Pai Gow," "Dynasty Bonus", "Luhn Tao Wheel Bonus," "Pai Gow Protection Bet" etc.) - which then needed additional and separate gaming approval and new math work as a distinctly patented and trademarked product. I and my distributor spend a fortune through the two-year process.
4. You CAN take a PUBLIC DOMAIN game (unpatentable and otherwise free to use), and add specific stylistic characterists and brand logos and fun buzz-phrases and the like to form a "branded product" version of a public domain game, and get seperate gaming approval for it, and and have essentially a proprietary game. This is because you cannot use "known and respected" trademark and copyrighted versions with their underlying gaming approval.
You CAN use a Naked Blank Green Felt with one betting spot to offer Pai Gow Poker in your own casino, with a sign saying nothing else than the three words "Pai Gow Poker" - a la Blackjack style, but no player plays an unfeatured Pai Gow game with a commission and NO approved bonus bets or progressives; People now choose to play Blackjacl with the side bets (Instant 18, push your luck, etc.) It would be like eating butt-naked spaghetti with no sauce or Parmagean, just as you won't spend for that at an italian restaurant. Gamblers need options and flexibility. The California Casino downtown sometimes does this on $5 PG games with a Naked $100 felt with one bet spot, but they make many more thousands of more dollars with full features and busy tables, and for a few hundred dollars a month rental.
5. If you add a unique twist to a game that improves a game into a truly new version of the game, that's patentable, like Double-exposure blackjack or Spanish-21.
If you add public domain features in a new combination mix for a game and you brand it and get gaming math done, that's trademarkable and also protected, but not to the same degree, but good enough.
6. If you had a provisonal patent that expired or was disclosed, you can modify the game into new patentable version in some cases.
A lot can be done.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:07:05 PM
permalink
Son of a ...Quote: MathExtremistQuote: DJTeddyBearI don't know why I didn't say this sooner.
Rather than debating this, if you're really interested, talk to a lawyer.
The lawyer Dan uses, and I will be using, is Richard Newman.
Look up 2 posts...
I hadn't realized that was him!
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 9th, 2010 at 7:21:35 PM
permalink
Of course, as the OP, I tried to make it clear that I am not interested in trying to patent a game idea nor commercialize it. I just thought it a little strange that mentioning an idea in public might mean that commercialization opportunities for anyone might completely disappear. Quite possibly no one would go to the effort of trials and marketing, if they would not be able to protect their game.Quote: DJTeddyBearRather than debating this, if you're really interested, talk to a lawyer.
The motivation for my original post was a comment in another thread that suggested there might be an opportunity for new dice games. A couple of interesting features for a new game came to mind, but I didn't carry it through far enough to do calculations of all the probabilities and the appropriate payouts. As I stated, I don't have the entrepreneurial spirit to pursue the idea fully, and I was just musing about how mentioning the idea here could queer the deal for everyone. Then, a few hours after my initial post, DrEntropy started a thread on "Interesting Hazard Variant" in which he described a few aspects of a possible dice game. No replies on that thread yet, but the coincidence is amusing.
Not to worry though -- there have been some comments posted in this thread that were more interesting than my original question. Have at it!
