Provional patents - DYI for game inventors

Game inventors have to file patents to protect their ideas so as to discuss and sell the ideas or games, but there is some questions as to how to write or file a patent. Anyone who comes up with a game idea that is both truly unique and marketable, has to patent it.

Do you send the specs to a lawyer, and have him write a full non-provisional patent, or do you write a provisional patent with a lawyer's review, or do you write your own and file it, because you're at the point where you can describe a game idea thoroughly and clearly enough to produce a valid document for a patent filing?

All have their merits, but provisional patent writings are dangerous, in the sense that they can leave you unprotected if not done very correctly. I'm at the point where my lawyer trusts me enough to go it alone and send to him after the fact, but I don't recommend this without your lawyer's okay. If you wanted to know what items I check off when I review a provisional patent before shipping, the below is an utline of some things I cover.

The criteria I use for a good PP are:
1. Seach on the www.uspto site for any and all game patents that may have covered something similar to my idea. If I come up with a distinctly different and new game, or game mechanism, or a good re-design, then I'm all right.

2. The provisional should be Short and to the point. If you can descrive your game idea in one paragraph (as you should), you can describe and protect the game in 6 to 9 pages.

3. Descriptive of its mechanisms: Describe how our game is played, and the rationale for it. Be descriptive in describing how each game mechanism is used. For example, "The wild card can be a wild joker, a bug-card joker (for straights and flushes else acting as an ace), or a declared rank of cards such as deuces or jacks, where the declared rank of wild card can be either completely wild or act as a bug-type wild card. For the use of joker-type wild cards, there may be in use between one and four joker cards." Do not assume it is known how you intend to use a common game mechanism, but describe in a straightforward manner how you do use it, and set reasonably wide lmits as to "how many" and "what is the range for the mechanism."

3. Clear english, not ambiguous. NO "amateur-lawyer" attempts at Legalese! (Compare: "A plurality of exemplary embodiments of the described aparatuses," versus saying, "a number of useful ways of implimenting the wild-card mechanism are described below:")

4. "Not limiting" (Think: "How else can it also be reasonably implimented? - Get it IN there!" - consider such things as the number of Wild card methods or house edge mechanisms are to be implemented (such as a push on a certain hand level, half-pay at a certain hand level, the use of a commission, not paying all bets if the player wins when the dealer has a weak hand, etc.) Indeed, I have a bad beat bet for Pai Gow Poker that doesn't violate an existing non-provisional patent, because their patent's payout table started at such a high level (of four-of-a-kind losing to a straight flush) that it was unimplementable, or "cannot be enabled" for Pai Gow Poker use. My payout table that started at two pairs to full house is fully below this level, and so not infringing, - and also because the new tables IS implementable in the real world. (The designers of the original patent were thinking of Hold 'em, and had just "ported it over" to PGP without thought, as the sharing a community board of cards would produce such differing high level bad beats. But PGP actually has an entirely different payout table because of the isolated player hands where no player cards are shared - it's all separate in each one's hands. So, these "hold 'em" designers trying their hand at Pai Gow Poker limited themselves because they just brought over a hold 'em bad-beat table to PGP, thinking that they could cover PGP in a patent that way - without accounting for the differing game's math to enable the new version in the real world. Left it WIDE open.)

5. Not excessively broad, such as being tempted to write something to cover every possible scenario when you cannot such as sayiong "I claim this mechanism applies to all games everyone ever thought of, as well as GM automotive products, Danish Bakery products, Walmart consumer products," etc... We see claims where they just list a broad table action occurance, then list different games thinking mechanisms can still apply! A closer example that I have essentially seen:
e.g., Claim 1. Where the player happens to WIN his bet at some gaming table. Claim 2. Where the player happens to LOSE his bet at some gaming table. Claim 3. Where the game is Blackjack; 4. Where the game is Pai Gow Poker; 5. Where the game is Baccarat. 6. Where the game is craps. 7. Any game someone ELSE may come up with! ..etc.

- While this is an exaggeration, such actions may make them think they've got every end all covered, when they covered nothing. Surprisingly, some patent lawyer may "utilitize" such garbage - and it may even pass a patent examiner to become a shotgun patent! Then later, they will threaten an infringement action because a game also happens to use "casino chips," for example. When I write, I think, how is this already current art or someone else's proprietary art because itis so broad, or did I mention it as ancillary to my own prorietary stuff, - or did I try to sneak it into a claim??!!

6. Clearly not implementable (example: "I claim a BJ wager where the player will lose his hand which'll then pay 100:1, and where the player is allowed to hit his hand until it busts...")

This is a good "run-down" list of items to check before shipping off a self-made provisional patent.

Again....don't discuss your idea until you have filed a patent, at least a provisional patent, an have received an acknowledement that it was filed without an error report.

Great advice.

That kinda sums up all the advice you had given to me via email. (By the way, thanks again for that!)


To add a couple minor details, if you're doing it yourself: Make it wide enough to cover stuff you might not have thought of, but specific enough so that the patent people know what it is.

Don't get bogged down with a specific that untimately doesn't matter.

For example, my Poker For Roulette will require some type of electronic bet tracking system. In my provisional patent paperwork, I specified that the system will either be developed and patented afterwards, or use an already patented system with licensing fees paid accordingly.

I.E. I don't know squat about designing or building the token acceptor or dealer control panel. All I know is how I think the user should be able to use it. Does my lack of electrical engineering expertise affect my idea for multiple Roulette spins that look like a poker hand? Hell no!

Note that I said 'multiple' spins, not 'five' spins. In keeping with the 'make it wide enough...' concept, my patent can cover a three spin poker version. (FYI: I did the math for that. There's not enough flexibility to make for a decent pay table. Four spins provides borderline results.)

Also, my patent doesn't really specify 'Poker' hands. Just that the spins create identifiable patterns. This allows me to have non-traditional combinations, like the Kangaroo Flush I was toying with.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Great advice.

For example, my Poker For Roulette will require some type of electronic bet tracking system. In my provisional patent paperwork, I specified that the system will either be developed and patented afterwards, or use an already patented system with licensing fees paid accordingly.

Have you contacted DEQ, Gaming Network, or Galaxy about its use as a progressive? I will be pitching to them, I will say to Jeff, "Did you know about this?? Call Dave..."

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Note that I said 'multiple' spins, not 'five' spins. In keeping with the 'make it wide enough...' concept, my patent can cover a three spin poker version. (FYI: I did the math for that. There's not enough flexibility to make for a decent pay table. Four spins provides borderline results.)

I always put in a range [2 spins to 8 spins] that'll certainly be enough, and cover all the possible ranges, to concretize things. I would never say "Five spins," as some distributor would produce a 4-spin or 6-spin version, and say too bad.

Gang -

This side conversation should have been a private message or email. So I'm responding privately.


On the other hand, one question can be answered publicly.


Although the distributor might not specifically remember, when Dan & I were in his office, I mentioned that my patent doesn't cover any electronic tracking system, that I expect to simply use/license something that already exists. He did say that's not a problem. That part of it is a minor technicality that they can work out after getting the game concept. The game idea is the important part.

Funny thing is, I originally thought the electronics might be a major stumbling block. For that reason, I was very concerned about a way to manually operate the Hit It Again idea. Once I realized that the electronics are not an issue, and started thinking about expanding on the Hit It Again concept, the Poker idea practically wrote itself.

I thought to ask this question while reading this post...
Does the Patent process differ much if applying for a "variation" or "modification" of some game(s) that can advance the state of the art?, or offer a new/easier method of play?

Thanks
Interesting read.

I'm not sure if this really answers your question, but...

If you're talking about a game that already has a patent, then it gets rather confusing and/or impossible to proceed.

If this helps, Dan's modification for EZ Pai Gow is patentable because Pai Gow Poker was never patented. Therefore, you can make a different mod to Pai Gow - as long as it doesn't infringe on Dan's patent.

Yes, it can. You have to be careful that the underlying product is in the public domain, and not under patent, otherwise you'd have to work with (license) with the original patent holder, I believe. You can also add it as an after-market item if it can be separated from (be independent of) the original product.

Quote: 98Clubs

I thought to ask this question while reading this post...
Does the Patent process differ much if applying for a "variation" or "modification" of some game(s) that can advance the state of the art?, or offer a new/easier method of play?

Thanks
Interesting read.

I was given this simple analogy once:-

Mr. A invents a chair and patents it.
Mr. B invents castors which, when fitted to a chair, allows the chair to be easily movable.

Mr. A cannot put castors on his chair, however, Mr. B cannot sell Mr. A's chair with castors on it.

So, they need to license each other, or work out an agreement, in order to offer the full chair with castors.

(Disclaimer: All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental :-) ).

This has been discussed before, but I just want to throw out there that applying for a full blown patent should at least be considered. It is more expensive than a provisional, but also more effective at protecting your game. I think Dan and I would agree that if you're on a tight budget as a game inventor, then the provisional may be your only option. However, if you can fully finance your game, I think you should go right to a patent itself.

Please read this article for more information: Pitfalls of Provisional Patent Applications By Jon H. Muskin

To everyone involved in this thread, thank you. I have just had my own provisional game idea, and this advice may prove usefull. And Paigowdan and DJTeddybear, I would like to take the time to ask if you would object to me messaging you privately to ask a few questions.

Quote: Wizard

This has been discussed before, but I just want to throw out there that applying for a full blown patent should at least be considered. It is more expensive than a provisional, but also more effective at protecting your game. I think Dan and I would agree that if you're on a tight budget as a game inventor, then the provisional may be your only option. However, if you can fully finance your game, I think you should go right to a patent itself.

Please read this article for more information: Pitfalls of Provisional Patent Applications By Jon H. Muskin

Yes, this is true: if you have:
a) the cash resources of about $10K (let's say you're Shuffle Master or DEQ, or already a successful game inventor like Derek Webb)
b) have a game design that is thoroughly and completely worked out, AND
c) pretty much a guarenteed market, or customers waiting in line to lease the game
THEN
Do it right, and spend the time and money - to hit the market with a full non-provisional patent.

IF:
a) you have less than $5,000 resources for a patent; OR
b) are UNCERTAIN of the commercial viability of the product or game
THEN
c) file a provisional patent
AND
d) convert it to a non-provisional patent IF it gets interest.

Quote: Croupier

To everyone involved in this thread, thank you. I have just had my own provisional game idea, and this advice may prove usefull. And Paigowdan and DJTeddybear, I would like to take the time to ask if you would object to me messaging you privately to ask a few questions.

If you got your letter stating the provisional patent has been approved, then there isn't any need for privacy. Heck, my lawyer tells me that as soon as the patent office acknowledges receipt you can start talking about it.

But, if you want to keep it private, I'll respect that.
You can either send me private messages thru this system, or use the contact page on my website: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com

I havnt even got around to the patent as it is still in the idea form. Whn I get a bit more together I will drop you a line.

Are there different rules for applications with the U.S. Patent office by citizens of other countries? Are provisional patents issued in the U.S. enforceable in other countries (e.g. Macau)?

Interesting thread. Thanks for the great info.

Provisional patents are not enforceable anywhere.

They merely provide one year protection to get the full, utility patent. Once granted, the utility patent is back-dated to the date they received the provisional patent application.

I.E. You're protected from the original date, but only if you move forward and get it done inside of the year.

---

I don't know how the international part works.

I been there and done that. I curently have 3 provisionals and 5 utility patents (I have yet to have anything reviewed). As I see it in hindsight, provisionals are just a way for your lawer to get you to pay double for the same thing. If this is your first patent, then yes, its a good idea if for no other reason than to familiarize you with the process. But provisionals are not looked at by anyone unless you get into a lawsuite over ownership before the thing is even reviewed. It let's your lawyer cover his rear while looking into who else might already be doing the same thing.

If you are confident that you have a unique idea THESE DAYS, you can do your own research. It's similar to the way investors used to depend on high-commission brokers to book their trades... THESE DAYS we get stock prices as fast as they used to, at etrade or whatever, and only tards still pay the vultures in suits for full-commision trades ... "a fine choice sir, will that be 10,000 shares then?"

But do you think lawyers are gonna tell you that you can get it done for less money in less time? Ha. Ha. Ha.

The provisional won't do anything but delay your plans for at least one year and let the competition creep in in the meanwhile. You need to stake your claims a.s.a.p., but just make sure all your ducks are lined up; you wont get any chances to correct anything. A lot of people use provisions for that very reason.... like scratch pads on trail runs. Only the Utility ever gets reveiwed, and nobodys even gonna look at all of your hard work on a provisional. I can't belive I actually once paid a lawyer to retro-fit some changes back into a provisional... he said "sure, we can do that... a fine choice sir ..."

marty

discflicker -

You either have some very bad information, or a bad lawyer. Or both.

>> provisionals are just a way for your lawer to get you to pay double for the same thing.
Provisionals only cost $110, and are designed so that the common person can file it WITHOUT the help of a lawyer.

>> provisionals are not looked at by anyone unless you get into a lawsuite over ownership before the thing is even reviewed.
No. Provisionals are not looked at by anyone - PERIOD.

>> It let's your lawyer cover his rear while looking into who else might already be doing the same thing.
No, it let's you discuss it without fear that someone you talk to will steal the idea.

>> But do you think lawyers are gonna tell you that you can get it done for less money in less time? Ha. Ha. Ha.
You're dealing with the wrong lawyer. "Do it yourself cheaply" is exactly what my lawyer said to me. FYI: My lawyer is Richard Newman.

>> The provisional won't do anything but delay your plans for at least one year and let the competition creep in in the meanwhile.
No, it gives you a MAXIMUM of one year to finish your plans, PREVENTING the competition from creeping in.

>> nobodys even gonna look at all of your hard work on a provisional.
Provisionals are designed to not require a lot of hard work.

>> I can't belive I actually once paid a lawyer to retro-fit some changes back into a provisional.
I'll repeat my first comment:
You either have some very bad information, or a bad lawyer. Or both.

Dave is absolutely right.
1. Provisionals are inventor written - but with BOTH guidelines and practice. There is a sample gaming-specific provisional on this board, I believe. If not, I can post one. Mike S. disagrees on this point as to the way to go, but EZ Pai Gow went "live casino" production in 2009 at the exact time the full utility was filed, based on a thorough provisional in effect filed 9 months prior. We RAN to get it out! That game would not be in many casinos in multiple states if it were not for the provisional patent process, P,EOS.
2. Provisionals have to be reviewed by distributors to protect their investment in your product. And it's all right, IF the provisional were done right. Do your homework, and you're okay. Be sloppy, or miss a detail, you will give the competition a work-around, but that is also true for a full utility patent.
3. You can discuss the game or invention fully if a GOOD provisional was filed.
4. Some lawyers are slime-bags, a few are truly helpful and knowlegable saints. Newman is one, perhaps one of a very few, who is great with game inventors and is on their side, very brilliant, and exceedingly fair and decent. I say this from experience working with him, and he is one of three I'd consider using (the others being Phil Kantor and Jon Muskin).
5. Provisionals speed up the "game to casino" process by up to a year, if money is tight. It also saves huge money by allowing a patent to be abandoned into the public domain, skipping the Utilitization step, if it has no commercial prospects. I did so on a Roulette side bet that's different from Dave Miller's idea.
6. "Nobody's gonna look at the hard work of the provisional." They are designed to be straightforward descriptions, and yes, hard work and thoroughness can be required - but your "grade" on your patent is the grade that your invention makes in terms of return, acceptance, and use by the industry. THEN, and only then, will the hard work be seen, because it is on display as a viable product in the real world.

There are a lot of "patent paper" inventors, and fewer "real gaming product" inventors with real games in real casinos, or who have had at least meetings with game distributors and casinos.

Quote: Paigowdan

Dave is absolutely right.
...
I did so on a Roulette side bet that's different from Dave Miller's idea.

He's talking about me. Dave Miller is my real name.

FYI: I also did a provisional, and later abandoned it, for a different side bet. Hit It Again Roulette was discussed here, and anticipated by the general membership. But everyone who has real casino inner-workings type knowledge (i.e. The Wiz, Dan, Rich Newman, the distrbutor I brought it to, and I think at least one other person) told me it wouldn't work. Some also told me why.

So that idea only cost $110, plus a couple bucks for minor expenses. About $150 total.

I've gotten nothing but positive reaction to my Poker For Roulette idea.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I've gotten nothing but positive reaction to my Poker For Roulette idea.

Now THAT'S an IDEA!
Dave, I would recommend spending to convert it to a Utility patent no matter what, because that is the Roulette game idea of the 21st Century, even if the Mrs. looks at you crossed eyed.

I will post a sample provisional patent (abandoned) in a separate thread, with the USPTO receipt.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I've gotten nothing but positive reaction to my Poker For Roulette idea.

Dave, I would recommend spending to convert it to a Utility patent no matter what, because that is the Roulette game idea of the 21st Century, even if the Mrs. looks at you crossed eyed.

If I had a distributor in my back pocket, those wheels would already be turning.

Without a distributor, then it's a matter of timing with the wife. I'm certainly not gonna let it drag until the eleventh hour.

I've got nine months left on my provisional. If I don't get a distributor sooner, I plan to give Rich the green light sometime within the next month or so.

By all means.
Me and Steve at Lubin-Jones, LLC will be backing this thing up; we should be flush (no pun intended) by mid-year with a bunch more EZ Pai Gow tables going out (can't tell ya until they go live).
Poker for Roulette WILL become a real casino product, and will be the first to really automate Roulette side betting.

I went down that road as a newbie, starting with LegalZoom.com telling me the same thing DJTeddy said "Only $110 and should be short and to the pointy"

Next, they came back like Paigo, saying "But to make it work, you must do it right, so we need to look it over, that will be another $1,200 thank you"

I wound up spending $6,000 on my provisional, and then I got to spend it all over again doing the exact same thing creating the Utility.

I like the Wizard's take on it: (less than $5,000) dont bother, ($5,000) Get a provisional, ($10,000 or more) get a Utiliity.

The Wizard is like the farmer in the movie "Babe".. He says more with less words that anyone ... "That'll do, Piggy, That'll do". I think that movie has the best ending of any movie ever made,...

Reality...

We have taken our ideas to Sonna Moble gaming (when they were still around), Bally's and ShuffleMaster. Right now, my software could be used in ShuffleMaster's RapidRoulette game... a button could be added allowing players to play games of craps and crapless-craps (with dont bets) against possibly LIVE roulette spins without requirening ANY modifications to the hardware. This would serve to captuire any drunken craps players with bankrolls already in the casino, but on the way out because the 5-man crew shut down for the night. To me, that is a whole bunch of money lost.

But ShuffleMaster tells me that I need to have a reviewed Utility before they look.

Now I ask, what does waiting an additional year do for my bottom line? How does it help me at all?


Companies like LegalZoom and most patent lawyers not want you to be successful, they want to make money off of you. They do so by preying upon your ignorance just like those full service stock brokers do.

If you know an honest patent lawyer, that is precious, like knowing a good plumber or a good mechanic, but most of 'em are in it just for the money, and will drag things out as far and long as your pockets are deep.

marty

Quote: discflicker

I wound up spending $6,000 on my provisional, and then I got to spend it all over again doing the exact same thing creating the Utility.

That's far too much. It sounds like you either got bad legal advice or didn't know what you wanted to invent. Being uncertain during patent drafting, when an attorney is billing you, can be very expensive.

You can absolutely file a provisional for very little money. There are good reasons not to, but even a full utility shouldn't cost that much if you've written a good specification. You can learn how to do that yourself and just have the attorney draft the claims. See Nolo Press books for more. What I usually do is draft the spec myself and then take a stab at the claims, but I'm very experienced for a non-attorney, and I *always* have my attorney review/edit them for structure and form. I would never attempt to file claims without competent legal review if you don't have specific training in that.

Quote:

We have taken our ideas to Sonna Moble gaming (when they were still around), Bally's and ShuffleMaster. Right now, my software could be used in ShuffleMaster's RapidRoulette game... a button could be added allowing players to play games of craps and crapless-craps (with dont bets) against possibly LIVE roulette spins without requirening ANY modifications to the hardware.

ShuffleMaster already has a craps product out there - a few of them, actually. Also, that'd be backwards from the mapping you've proposed so far - you'd need to take the 38 outcomes from a roulette wheel and map them to two dice rolls. It's not clear how you'd do that for 0/00, especially in a compelling way for dice players. I don't share your vision of drunken craps players who wanted to shoot dice deciding to play a computerized roulette game that shows a craps layout on a terminal with outcomes generated by a central roulette wheel. If I were the drunken craps player, I'd go next door to where the table is still running so I could shoot the dice myself.

Quote:

But ShuffleMaster tells me that I need to have a reviewed Utility before they look.
Now I ask, what does waiting an additional year do for my bottom line? How does it help me at all?

That depends on what your goals are and how you plan to monetize. There are several very, very good reasons to have a non-public patent application. And you probably mean "issued" patent, not just "reviewed". Most reviews (office actions) are rejections, and going to ShuffleMaster with a currently-rejected patent application wouldn't get you very far.

Quote:

Companies like LegalZoom and most patent lawyers not want you to be successful, they want to make money off of you. They do so by preying upon your ignorance just like those full service stock brokers do.

If you know an honest patent lawyer, that is precious, like knowing a good plumber or a good mechanic, but most of 'em are in it just for the money, and will drag things out as far and long as your pockets are deep.

That's ignorance speaking. It's unethical for an attorney to prey on his or her client, and *all* of the IP attorneys I know and work with definitely want me to be successful -- because when I'm successful I'll file more patents and they'll make more in fees. None of that will happen if I fail miserably and go broke. I know well over a dozen IP attorneys from various dealings I've had in the past, and none of them are unethical as you imply.

But if you feel that they are, why are you in the business at all? I don't understand why you would choose to work in an environment where the people you hire for help are preying on you as you suggest they are.

Quote: discflicker

But ShuffleMaster tells me that I need to have a reviewed Utility before they look.

Now I ask, what does waiting an additional year do for my bottom line? How does it help me at all?


marty

Marty, I can't see how a reviewed utility would benefit more than a provisional application especially as Shuffle Master would perform their own investigation to see whether the ip was original enough.

It's more likely a delay tactic or intermittent rejection, leaving them enough scope to pursue your concept at a later date if they wished.

Sometimes, there are concepts, (such as yours), that are difficult to initially assess the customer acceptance and playability due to it being so different to existing games. Converting a roulette number to a dice roll, and vice versa, requires players to change their betting habits. The question is "Would craps players bet on the spin of a roulette wheel or would roulette players bet on the rolls of a dice" ? Both sets of players are using a non-RNG game method so there is no elimination of RNG-devised outcomes here.

It may be worth talking to players and seeing if they would migrate to another form of producing a random occurrence - if a large % say 'Yes' then it adds a lot of weight to your concept.

I think you have something unique - your energy and enthusiasm is boundless - but I'm not entirely sure in the exact format that it could be applied to the gaming industry (yet :-) ). Feedback from posters such as MathEx, positive or negative, are valuable simply as they are coming from someone who has numerous experiences in this field. I think that you have a fantastic positive outlook and your persistence may well pay off however, take a step back and digest all of the feedback, good or bad, in order to ensure that you give yourself the optimum chance to gain success in this arduos area of gaming.

Quote: discflicker

Now I ask, what does waiting an additional year do for my bottom line? How does it help me at all?

A provisional patent does not ADD a year to the process - except in the ass-backwards way you did it. It provides up to a year of protection while you prepare and file the utility patent.

If you have an idea and wish to go directly to a utility patent, there is no need to do the provisional first.

If you are not ready to do the utility, the provisional, NORMALLY is a simple, cheap way of buying protection while preparing the utility patent.

Quote: discflicker

Companies like LegalZoom....

I think that's your problem right there.

Well, if everyone really reads what everyone wrote, then everyone can see why its a big learning curve. I am not a genious, and legal and business stuff is my weakest asset. Ok, besides my poetry.. OK, OK!! My nephew and me just winged it and we had to learn the process the hard way.

Of course hindsight is always more clear, and what I'm reading from all you fine contributors is that (in hindsight) it would have been smart to be able to encapsulate the ideas down to a very small clear set of definitions, fit them into a template something like what got posted today, and by-pass all the reviews and bypass all of the research and just run with it.

Ahh, if we already knew everything, we wouldn't have to live and learn anything.

Who do you think recommended going the long, long way around?

But whatever the path home, it was best for us to go through all of the hassle. We wound up breaking down my multi-layered invention into 4 seperate Utility patents. I don't know if y'all yet fully understand what I'm trying to accomplish, but it works across several levels. My biggest problem was figuring out how to break the whole thing down into these 4 encapsulations. If it were up to my lawyers, it would have been closer to 40 of 'em becuase based upon these ideas, I already have 26 games designed and running, and that's just a start.

For MathEx, one of them is a version of Crapless-Craps that supports don't-pass and DC bets. I have a web site dedicated to explaining it called

crapless-dont.com

Please check it out and follow the information links if you like.

Ths game works off of a Roulette spin and the mapping for it is specifically mentioned in my pending mapping patent.

I call these games RB_TraditionalCraps, RB_CrapLessCraps, Etc.. The RB_ stands for "Roulette Bonus".

Capturing drunks on the way out? Honestly, I would play it, I love live craps. Not every city has another table waiting next door, even in Vegas even in the big casinos, the craps game often shuts down and players are turned away who still want to play. This happens every day, please don't tell me that some of them arent gonmna sit down and play some craps on the way out.

But my entire company is not hinged around this one possibility, nor the posssibilty to run a Roulette game from a 3-DD throw, or any of the cross mappings possible. My software can be used for a lot of things, too many to list here, and again, that was the big challenge for us when it came down to picking which claims were for which patents.

Thanks everyone for your time and comments

Quote: Switch

I think you have something unique - your energy and enthusiasm is boundless - but I'm not entirely sure in the exact format that it could be applied to the gaming industry (yet :-) ). Feedback from posters such as MathEx, positive or negative, are valuable simply as they are coming from someone who has numerous experiences in this field. I think that you have a fantastic positive outlook and your persistence may well pay off however, take a step back and digest all of the feedback, good or bad, in order to ensure that you give yourself the optimum chance to gain success in this arduos area of gaming.

Very positive. When I undertook the games I patented, I said to myself:
"if I spend my energy doing this, and don't make it to the promised land of tables in casinos, would it still have been worth it?" I said yes, because I would have just watched CSI, read books, and rented movies. I mean, the most productive thing we can do is create instead of vegetate. Artist don't paint to get into museums, they paint to paint.
And getting games out there is also a lot of luck, no matter how finely-tuned the effort. There are some fantastic games that would have been hits that died not in patent hell, but in pitch-meeting hell and executive hemming and hawing. It's a tremendous and discouraging effort with slim prospects, but the only way to get there is to die trying as your shot in this life. Salmon don't have sh*t on game developers. Of the 644 or so games approved by Nevada, 14 or so have gotten live casino action with some longevity. That's a LOT of patent-paper inventors.

My experience is that the provisional patent always comes from your product description guide, which comes from a garage or basement field trial of the game, which comes after your math, - which comes after a layout design and the "can I describe the premise of the game in 30 seconds or less?" trick. If a gaming concept is difficult to assess, quoting Switch, it might not be such a hot concept.

A game has to be fun, mathematically sound, have enourmous elegance and clarity, not re-hash old ideas by mixing existing ideas, but apply a twist in a striking and fun way. The catch has to be crystal clear:

Craps: 7 you win without a point, 7 you lose with a point.
BJ: make a better hand than the dealer without busting.
Pai Gow: win both sides by balancing the poker hands really well.
Roulette: hit a number or an area (red, even, row).
EZ Pai Gow: same game, no commission, no catches to it.
BJ switch: Playing two BJ hands? Then switch the cards to make two better hands!
Baccarat: get closer to 9.
Can you describe your game like that?
If you're spending the bulk of your time and aggravation on patents, not enough time is spent on game design, gaming math, product description guide writing, pitch meetings and mini-field trials that'll direct what the game should look like if it has a shot of getting out there.

Keep the energy,

<duplicate delete, computer re-transmitted>

Quote: Paigowdan

..."can I describe the premise of the game in 30 seconds or less?" trick.

Commonly known as "The Elevator Speech." I.E. If you meet someone in an elevator, can you tell them a little about yourself to strike their interest and perhaps create a relationship?


My 'Elevator Speech' for Reverend Dave Miller:
I've been a Wedding DJ Entertainer for 27 years. Lately, I've discovered that Wedding Officiants tend to be stuffy and not too entertaining, so I became a Reverend. While I maintain the dignity it deserves, I make the wedding ceremony entertaining.

My 30 second (5 second, actually) description of Poker For Roulette:
You bet that the next five Roulette spins produce a result that looks like a Poker hand. And the zeros are wild!

I worked in hospitals for 8 years as a registered respiratory theapist. I spent a lot of time on elevators, and here is what I concluded after working 8 years in critical care situations:

1) Never pass gas on an elevator, because you never know who's getting on before you get out
2) Don't get sick

Actually, number 2 is really sound advice, DON'T GET SICK.

I love the comments by Paigo, I lived it... nobody has any idea of how many hours I spent on this, its impossible to imagne the dedication it takes to create something from nothing that people will enjoy. Dont get sick and dont waste your life away. JUST DO IT !!!!

Thanks for that stirring summary.

Oh! We KNOW the hours spent! :) DJTeddybear, MathEx, et al....
Thanks! Just remember,
The process of game design gets far more efficient over time. Specifically:

* writing the patent: you know what forms to fill out, how to fill them out, how to search for similar patents, and how to write a clear design description of your game that closes off work-arounds. A good provisional can be four to six pages. If the game is hard to describe in a provisional patent (game premise, game play, dealing procedures), then you'll have the same problems with the game in its implementation.
* benchmarking the game: you spot inefficiencies and conflicting issues. For example, if you pay a bonus or insurance if two hole cards match in a poker game variant, did you clarify that they are NOT matches if one hand forms a flush? Don't miss these points. If so, you then make two separate bets, one called "hole card rank match," and the other bet called "hole cards matches that push the hand," to exclude flush-based non-equal hand results. Then you clarify the differences, advantages, disadvantages, and effects on the house edge of the bets, and pick the better one for the game. In the product documentation (not necessarily the patent), you describe these effects, and why you selected specific options as better for the game.
* Game premise: Will it make them say: "Your game's GREAT!" or "Your game SUCKS!" You get feedback just like that. If the premise is elegant and fun, then great; problems can be fixed. If it is complicated or awkward, it's death. If it's a variation of a game, what does it fix? The commission? The lack of true poker on both sides? Too many high-card hands are produced by the hand configuration? Lack of options?
* easy to implement: easy to deal, simple rules, no special equipment, lots of options (bad beat bet, bonus bet on strong hands, insurance)

ALL of these things become second nature: you see what works, what doesn't, and why. But it's countless hours to get to that point. Time learning and creating is an investment. Time watching TV is lost time. You live and enjoy the process and its challenges, and hope you arrive at the casino destination.

Quote: discflicker

For MathEx, one of them is a version of Crapless-Craps that supports don't-pass and DC bets. I have a web site dedicated to explaining it called

crapless-dont.com

Please check it out and follow the information links if you like.

I followed your link to
http://spikersystems.com/FlashNet_Pointer/www/downloads/SpikerSystems/e-Gamers/AAA_Information/TruePlaceBets_Utility_Patent_Application.pdf. I'd be concerned that claim 1 as drafted will be rejected under 35 USC 102 in view of craps. Here's how I'd read it if I were the examiner:

In craps, I can make a put bet on the number 5, take odds on my 5 (equivalent to your TruePlace bet) and also make a put bet on the number 8 (equivalent to your Flat bet). The two bets are not directly related, and it looks like everything else is covered.

Dickinson says they have a gaming unit, but do they do many gaming patents? If not, with due respect to counsel, you should switch attorneys. Talk to Jon Muskin or Rich Newman. Both of them have filed dozens of issued patents specifically on casino games.

First off, the link from DJTeddy to Dave Miller CRIPPLED MY COMPUTER and has infected my regsitry with viruses.

DO NOT TRY IT!!!!

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. The patent you're looking at is not the mapping one, its for my TruePlaceBet concept.

My lawyers name is Jon Shackelford (I'm still wondering if he's related to the Wizard), who works for Dickerson + Wright, who specialize in gaming patents. In fact they have a whole building floor full of 'em.

Is this paragraph specifically the only one you think a reviewer would have a problem with, or is it the whole concept your having trouble with?

I will certainly forward any concearns you have to him, that's what I paid the big bucks for.

Thanks again...

watch out for bad links.. my site is clean and add-free


marty

Quote: discflicker

Is this paragraph specifically the only one you think a reviewer would have a problem with, or is it the whole concept your having trouble with?

I didn't read the spec, just the first claim. My point is that I think the claim is too broad and covers existing games like craps, which likely renders it non-patentable. You need to draft claims to draw a bright line between your invention and the prior art.

Your speaking about claim 1 from my TruePlaceBet utility patent application, right?

What is claimed is:

1. A method for playing a game of chance having various wagering options, said method
comprising the steps of:
A. providing at least one game of chance in which a game decision is selected from a
defined set of possible outcomes, each possible outcome having a specific probability
of being randomly generated in the course of game play;
B. providing a plurality of wagering options each based on a forecast for a particular
outcome from the defined set, each wagering option guaranteeing a return in the event
of a win determined by a pre-set payout ratio multiplied by a value placed at risk, the
wagering options including
1) at least one Flat bet (FB) in which the pay-out ratio is less than the probability
of the forecasted outcome being randomly generated, and
2) at least one TruePlace bet (TP) in which the pay-out ratio is equal to the
probability of the forecasted outcome being randomly generated;
C. providing at least one player;
D. receiving from the player at least one Flat bet (FB) and an accompanying value at
risk;
E. receiving from the player at least one TruePlace bet (TP) and an accompanying value
at risk;
F. randomly generating an outcome from the defined set of possible outcomes;
G. comparing the generated outcome to the Flat bet (FB) and TruePlace bet (TP), and
then determining whether each respective bet (FB, TP) is won, lost or unresolved; and
H. the forecasted outcome for the TruePlace bet (TP) being dissimilar to the forecasted
outcome for the Flat bet (FB), whereby the TruePlace bet (TP) is not directly
associated with the Flat bet (FB) such that the generated outcome may yield a
different resolution for the TruePlace bet (TP) and the Flat bet (FB).

2. The method of Claim 1 wherein the Flat bet (FB) cannot be changed until won or lost....



I'm not seeing any refernces to Craps here.

Quote: discflicker

I'm not seeing any refernces to Craps here.

Bear in mind that that ambiguity could also hinder you. If you do not specifically refer to the games you would apply it to, then someone else could probably circumvent your patent somehow.

Or at least I would imagine so. Maybe someone more experienced in these matters could clarify my guesswork.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, so don't take this as legal advice.

That's not how claims are examined. The craps example I gave would fall under your claim. That means it's too broad. Here's an analysis:

1. A method for playing a game of chance having various wagering options, said method
comprising the steps of:

-> craps has various wagering options

A. providing at least one game of chance in which a game decision is selected from a
defined set of possible outcomes, each possible outcome having a specific probability
of being randomly generated in the course of game play;

-> craps is a game of chance with these features

B. providing a plurality of wagering options each based on a forecast for a particular
outcome from the defined set, each wagering option guaranteeing a return in the event
of a win determined by a pre-set payout ratio multiplied by a value placed at risk, the
wagering options including
1) at least one Flat bet (FB) in which the pay-out ratio is less than the probability
of the forecasted outcome being randomly generated, and
2) at least one TruePlace bet (TP) in which the pay-out ratio is equal to the
probability of the forecasted outcome being randomly generated;

-> craps provides a plurality of wagering options with those features, including
1) -> all of the place bet, buy bet, pass/come bet, and put bet have pay-out ratios less than the probability of the forecasted outcome
2) -> the free odds bet has a pay-out ratio equal to the probability of the forecasted outcome

C. providing at least one player;

-> there's obviously a player, but this element should be re-drafted; no game operator "provides" a player. All of the elements in a method claim should be written from the standpoint of the same party to avoid difficulties in asserting infringement down the road.

D. receiving from the player at least one Flat bet (FB) and an accompanying value at
risk;

-> the player makes a put bet on 5. This put bet is equivalent to the FB bet.

E. receiving from the player at least one TruePlace bet (TP) and an accompanying value
at risk;

-> the player makes a put bet on 9 and an accompanying odds bet. This odds bet is equivalent to the TP bet.

F. randomly generating an outcome from the defined set of possible outcomes;

-> roll the dice

G. comparing the generated outcome to the Flat bet (FB) and TruePlace bet (TP), and
then determining whether each respective bet (FB, TP) is won, lost or unresolved; and

-> resolve the wagers per the rules

H. the forecasted outcome for the TruePlace bet (TP) being dissimilar to the forecasted
outcome for the Flat bet (FB), whereby the TruePlace bet (TP) is not directly
associated with the Flat bet (FB) such that the generated outcome may yield a
different resolution for the TruePlace bet (TP) and the Flat bet (FB).

-> the odds bet on the 9 and the flat bet on the 5 are not directly associated, and a generated outcome (e.g. 5) may yield a different resolution for the two wagers.

There's nothing else. If I were the examiner, I'd issue an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 102.

You may have intended additional restrictions that would rule out the example above, but those aren't in the claim. It's not what you invent, it's what you claim.

Thanks for your input.

I spend about 20 pages applying it directly to craps in that patent. I have extremely lengthy detailed examples using this betting method in craps.

By the way, before I completely hijack this thread, lets give some thanks to PaiGow Dan for his extremely helpful comments and his summary of how to approach patenting new gaming concepts.


WATCH OUT FOR THE BAD LINK FROM TJTeddyBear !!!


marty

So what your thinking is that in claim 1, as this genious reviewer is reading throught it, he's gonna be thinking to himself, "hmmm this looks just like craps...", and because I don't say it can be used for craps, when claim 1 ends, he jumps up and shouts outloud with a big grim "OUTA HERE, SEEN THAT, DONE THAT, BYE BYE", starts dancing on the table because he don't need to be waisting any more time on any more cliams, starts running down the hallway slappin' high 5s, and screeming "This boy is Fried! This boy is TOAST!! This boy...".

Is that it? Is that what your'e thinking?

This is not a patent for a game, it is a METHOD of wagering. There is a difference, and you must know it.

If you look close enough you will see that a PLEURALITY of TP bets available from a single flat, no craps game offers anything like it; its all one-for-one right now (one flat bet for one free odds bet), although there are a pluearility of them there, in craps, for a given point number, they are available ONE FOR ONE. I'm an Oracle database design expert, I know the difference. between one to one, and one to many, and many to many, that's how all database entities are created.

Please look at the screen shots in crapless-dont.com, near the bottom. All three of these games employ my TruePlace Bet ... all of the Orange bets shown.

The method could be manually implemented, but would be a but complex for the dealers. Its easy to do in an automated implementation.


Here's WHY this invention is awesme (I think):

When I play craps, I want to bet directly on certain numbers. If I follow the natural flow of the game and make pass / come bets, I am following whatever number happens to come up. If I bet $10 on the line and a 4-point is rolled, I have earned the right to make up to $30 (stacked odds) on the free-odds 4. Thats a HUGE player advantage as everyone who understands what craps is really all about knows.

But what if I want to bet on the 6 point for whatever reason? I mean, I EARNED THE RIGHT TO MAKE A $30 FREE ODDS BET, why does all of it have to be bet only on the 4?

My TruePlace betting pool counts up all of your "earned the right to bet" flats and sums it up into a balance. The game offers any or all of this balance to be bet on any or all of a whole slew of bets including all of the point numbers and a whole lot more, get this, ALL AT TRUE ODDS!!! Why not, you earned it didn't you?

And so, with TruePlace bets, craps players FINALLY get to have the best of both worlds... Bets that payout at true odds, PLACED ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME!!!

Wow! We finally get to have our cake and eat it too. ASK ANY CRAPS PLAYER IF THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANT. ANY BODY, ANY TIME, GO AHEAD.

The house might not like it because now there really ARE ways to overcome it via some really nifty hedging stragtgies that were unavailable before TruePlaceBets. I have accounted for all of these issues and made everyone happy in the meanwhile from player to house.


The word PLEURALITY changes things in claim 1 quite a lot.

marty

Quote: discflicker

So what your thinking is that in claim 1, as this genious reviewer is reading throught it, he's gonna be thinking to himself, "hmmm this looks just like craps...", and because I don't say it can be used for craps, when claim 1 ends, he jumps up and shouts outloud with a big grim "OUTA HERE, SEEN THAT, DONE THAT, BYE BYE", starts dancing on the table because he don't need to be waisting any more time on any more cliams, starts running down the hallway slappin' high 5s, and screeming "This boy is Fried! This boy is TOAST!! This boy...".

Is that it? Is that what your'e thinking?

Marty, if that's your attitude, be prepared to spend a lot of money on patent prosecution. Best of luck.

Wow, I'm just trying to add a bit of spice to the conversation, sorry if I offended you in any way. I do appreciate your feedback. Really.

But by now, I hope you realize that I have put a lot of thought into everything here and paid my dues as far as the math goes, especally on the first patent.

So please, I welcome your commments with respect and dignity and if I need to bitch-slap my lawyer per anything you uncover, I will, and I will be thankful to you for your help.

marty

Quote: discflicker

The house might not like it because now there really ARE ways to overcome it via some really nifty hedging stragtgies that were unavailable before TruePlaceBets. I have accounted for all of these issues and made everyone happy in the meanwhile from player to house.

"The house might not like it..." Yikes... If they are happy, you have installs...
The house HAS to LOVE it, - and has to trust it totally, to get a game installed. They make the decisions, any reason for a no is a no. You'll be fighting 100 years of craps history - and what they, and the dealers and players, know and love. Changing the game into a new game, when the existing one works, is risky.
ADDING a change or two to "the existing" crap game is fine: Fire bet, Hard Pass, replay bet.

Craps has a fine house edge, very low on the pass/come, high on the props, very moderate on the place bets.
The question is not how it's different, it's how its better than the current game. Think ">", not "NEQ." If it's better, it gets its first install.

Thanks Dan

All I really did was this:

1) Define what is going on between these 1-6 family games and categorize them
2) Create a database defining wagers and wager classes based upon these categories
3) Define the work flow of the casino floor. It's similar to machining and assembly operations, my area of greatest expertice
4) Create the system that implements the work flow. I already did this, its STILL running in over 200 Ford plants as we speak, monitoring plant conditions, determining trends and exceptions, generating notifications and dispatching them to lists of recipients, all in real time.

Making it apply to specific games was simple...

I start out with a generic system and create games from there!!!

All the discussions about whether this game will work or that game will work are beneath the system... I can get it to play any way the casino wants it to. In fact, THEY can get it to work any way THEY want it to, just by making changes to the database.

If they need to schedule higher minumums at 5:00 PM, its easier than using an ATM machine. If they want to change the way a certain bet pays off, make up new bets on the fly, create mystery bets, whatever..the system has NO RESTRICTIONS, and because I wrote it, these changes can take place during a live game, on-the-fly, uninterrupted and seamlessly. Its the same way we used to bring a new machine on-line in the piston machining plants.. nobody wants to pay $10,000 a minute while my system re-boots, do they?

My ideas are JUST getting started, I'm not looking at individual games, I'm looking at the casino floor operating flow specifically for live gaming. Being able to automate this workflow is the first step in obtaining what we used to call "Metrics"... operational statistics that are un-obtainable without automated data collection, so these studies cannot be made until we put touch screens in front of everyone. Chip-less gaming is the only way to fly to get these numbers. I'm more interseted in that part of the bussiness than the rest, but my stuff is top to bottom, all in one package.

BTW, my first touch screen program was written in 1988 using a language called Easel specifically for touch screens. I always envisioned casinos using them in conjunction with live betting action. 22 years later, I'm still waiting for technology to catch-up. I already have the top layers in my pocket as well. I'm not worried about a game or two.

marty

A total redesign of casino pit operations.....start small - have you seen the D.A.R.T. system that casinos currently use? Each table has a networked computer under it, with a screen where dealers slide the players comp account cards.

Shufflemaster has some semi-chipless systems we saw at G2E: you buy in and get money credited to a console at your seat, and bet, raise, fold, double down, whatever, on the computer console. All the cards are known as the dealer slide the cards out of a reader, and your hand is displayed. You got chips when you left a table, to cash out at the cage or join another table, that was it.
Five years ago, MindPlay-21 (what a name!) was in use at the Hilton, where chip amounts were tracked by sensors in the betting spots. Faded quickly.

The latest game I designed and finished (a variation of PG poker), was designed to use "stone age" resources: a dice-shaker with one die for the dealing start position (dealer + 5 players), with a paper copy of the game-specific house way, the size of an index card. The shuffler was needed, but not with "card knowledge" features. I did this partly because of the negative reaction that the players had to Fortune's I-deal machine, and wanted the game technology independent; cards and dice are the technology that works. When we (dealers and floor) used the "set players hand, position #4" feature, players would freak when they saw their own hands displayed on the table computer's display. The computer knew their cards, and the computer also dictated the dealing start position by its RNG, so it could keep track of the entire table deal. The machine knows the cards before it even fires off its RNG. This went over like a lead ballon. From that point on, dealers set the hands by looking at the cards and applying the house way, the good ol' fashioned way. We change table minimums by reaching under the table and pulling out a green $25 sign. Boom, it's done.
I took this to heart, fearing that the casino of the future will occur later in the future. Not all technology takes hold or is appropriately necessary. The last time I saw an electric can opener was when I was a kid; one power outage and you starve. Casino execs get technology on an "As needed" basis. As with considering new games, they'll wait for someone else to be the guinea pig, and see how it works out.

The approach of automating the casino pit like an automated factory is a fantastic theory to casino execs. They trust pencils and paper, and every shift, the shift manager/pit boss with a floorman walk to each table, play stops, and they manually count down the racks and write the tallies on a slip, and drop it into the tables' drop boxes when the money drop cans are changed.

Me, as a game designer, I'm looking at individual games that can run separately as a single table, function fully with existing technology, and sweat each one like my next child's first day at school. Anyone else may automate my basic games - if and when a casino wants to do that.

One day casinos will be like as you discussed, and you may have written some of the blueprints for it. Things start slowly: RFID chips, D.A.R.T. systems linked on a network, but it seems more bottom-up than top-down.

Quote: Paigowdan

Craps: 7 you win without a point, 7 you lose with a point.
BJ: make a better hand than the dealer without busting.
Pai Gow: win both sides by balancing the poker hands really well.
Roulette: hit a number or an area (red, even, row).
EZ Pai Gow: same game, no commission, no catches to it.
BJ switch: Playing two BJ hands? Then switch the cards to make two better hands!
Baccarat: get closer to 9.
Can you describe your game like that?

Casino Holdem®: (The First) Texas Hold'em against the Casino.
Play Demo / See Lage Lay-Out



Introduction to: Casino Holdem®
Invented in 2000
US Patents: 6,206,373 and 6,637,747
Distributor: TCSJOHNHUXLEY

Mathematical Analysis = Michael Shackleford (Wizard of odds), A.S.A.

Played Live in Egypt, Russia, South Africa, Holland, Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Morocco, Malta, Ukraine, Panama, Romania...
Available at over 800 (70%) online Casinos using Playtech, Net Entertainment, Boss Media, Real Time Gaming, CTXM, Random Logic, 888, Bodog, PKR, iPoker Network, Entraction...

Quote: discflicker

WATCH OUT FOR THE BAD LINK FROM TJTeddyBear !!!

WHAT bad link?

When I hit the link to that New York Pastor, it hijacked my box and established a TSR program which I had to recover my registry to get rid of. Have you checked out the site lately? DONT DO IT with a computer you need!!!

If you know the guy, better tell him his site is infected.

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm in NJ. I don't have any links to ANY OTHER OFFICIANT.


And check out the site? I'm on it all the time. I even went on it earlier today trying to figure out what you're talking about.

FYI: MY officiating site is: www.ReverendDaveMiller.com