I thought that horse was dead and buried. I'm all about live gaming, that's why. The 3-dice mapping would most likely NOT be used in any industry - wide accepted standard protocol. In fact, standard protocols generally would not include anything as specific as that, they're made to apply to general uses, and leave it up to the application to jump through whatever hoops it needs to.
OK, I just read 9,986,055. And excuse my ignorance of patents, the description said "filing date...", and “publication date...". Hey Math, does this mean it was approved? (I have yet to have any of my 5 currently "in review" patents be approved, so I really don't know).
Oh, that clears things up. I didn't realize you had more than one patent pending. The only one I found was the dice mapping piece. If you have other pending apps directed toward the protocols/architectures/standards aspect, I didn't see those. And yes, 6,986,055 is an issued patent. The point I was making is that it was filed a long, long time ago.
3) It has the TRUE capability to play multiple concurrent games where they ARE all in synch with each other. The RND system handle all concurrently played games completely independent from one another.
Be careful with this argument, though. It's just as easy to do a RNG pull, get 64 bits, and then scale the same 64 bits to a 2-dice outcome and then to a 3-dice outcome simply by using the bits differently. That's been around for a while. As for doing it with live gaming elements instead of an RNG, Interblock has a system that does this already:
"We are very pleased to present our fully automated G4 Organic Dice generator. The Organic Dice is designed to randomly generate results for Craps, Sicbo, Fish – Shrimp - Crab or even all three at once."
(No, I don't yet understand "Fish - Shrimp - Crab". It's a Chinese street game with specialty dice, from what I can tell.)
In my RollStation patent, I clearly state every possible randomization range the invention is capable of accepting and what (possibly other) ranges these can then be mapped to, and exactly how these ARE mapped (vs. a concept only states that they CAN BE mapped). My lawyer told me this is key... it makes my RollStation viable as "THE definitive mapping machine".
Hmm. I'm not an attorney, but I'm not convinced by this reasoning. The fact that you have implemented a mapping that someone else has indicated was possible doesn't make it sound like you invented the idea of doing the mapping. Just that you implemented someone else's idea, and in doing so, demonstrated that *they* were right that it can be mapped. Why does your attorney think your specific set of numbers/ranges/mappings is independently patentable over the suggestion that such a mapping is possible?