Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
What goes around comes around. Wizards does the same thing with its patent to milk other people who - get this - had the crazy idea to make a game... using cards.
YuGiOh or Pokemon does well, Wizards does well. Patents for software and games are a freaking joke.
Wizards has a patent for turning cards sideways. Come on.
This is the sort of thing that makes me furious when Mark or someone else says Richard invented this genre. And not the guy who made the baseball card game or any other prior art. It's smugness in overdrive.
One of this guys lawsuits has the following plantiffs
1. 4KIDS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
2. CHAOTIC USA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,INC.;
3. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
4. KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
5. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.;
6. PANINI AMERICA, INC.;
7. POKEMON USA, INC. n/k/a THE POKEMONCOMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
8. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENTAMERICA LLC;
9. SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT LLC;
10. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.;
11. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC; and,
12. ZYNGA INC
Good luck being a single person suing the 10 biggest companies in all of gaming! Not like these companies are run by nerds and geeks and lawyers. I'm sure that SONY, WIZARDS, ZYNGA, EA and NINTENDO are just going to keel over in fear of you suing them...
or they will countersue you and rob you of the $4 Malt Liquor bottle that convinced you this was a good idea
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-----------------
Millennium Games with the Cyberstorm Lounge
3047 West Henrietta Road
Rochester NY 14623
585-427-2190 www.Cyberstormgaming.com
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
Patent trolls (not sure if that's the case here) are always exploiting the system no matter what chance of success. Companies that literally exist to buy up patents and sue others who have been "infringing" *since before they even bought the patents.* They have no intention on actually producing themselves anything covered in the patents, just siphoning money through legal loopholes. Maybe the problem is that patents are things that can even be sold, I don't know, but there is a problem somewhere.
Wait, so if a non-practicing entity sues a company over a completely valid and infringed patent, you have a problem with that? I'm sorry, this makes zero sense to me. The inventor got compensated for the invention (she was paid for her patent) and the infringer is violating a statute. Why should the NPE not be able to enforce their right to get license revenues from the infringer?
IMO the problem is caused by the actual trolls; the litigants who sue on a junk patent and try to get the company to give them a small-value settlement (~$100k) to just go away. Those are the suits that create problems in patent law, but I still blame the system that issues these junk patents more than I blame the litigants who sue to enforce them.
Edit: Also, before you slam NPEs too hard, you should realize that some of the biggest players in this area are entities like Stanford University and nonprofits. Yes, there are a few companies that exist purely to sue (Acacia) but most NPEs are legitimate organizations that just happen to not produce the invention commercially.
if it isn't the big tech companies sueing each other over patents filed as far back as the 90s these days. now even our hobby is being sued over 90s tech patents.
will the ghost of the 1990s tech patents ever cease in its law suits?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Companies suing like this are not uncommon and some companies are setup and acquire patents just for that reason. They never even plan on making money through their business model, they just sue others. This is basically how they work and make a profit:
1. Find a idea that is being developed or is already in use but with no patent.
2. File and get the patent on it.
3. Once the other company has a base and a profit, sue them.
4. Threaten to drag out legal proceedings so the risk is there to have large legal costs.
5. Offer to settle with the defendant for less then the legal costs (sometimes this is a lot of money).
6. Move on to the next company and start over.
They never even try to make it with a product. They just exploit the system and prey on other successful companies from it. Unfortunately they do succeed in getting money this way because some companies will bite the bullet and settle for less than it would cost them fighting it because that's better for the bottom line.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern xWBreakfast at Urza'sxW UWGBantUWG GWRNaya ZooRWG
Companies suing like this are not uncommon and some companies are setup and acquire patents just for that reason. They never even plan on making money through their business model, they just sue others. This is basically how they work and make a profit:
1. Find a idea that is being developed or is already in use but with no patent.
2. File and get the patent on it.
3. Once the other company has a base and a profit, sue them.
4. Threaten to drag out legal proceedings so the risk is there to have large legal costs.
5. Offer to settle with the defendant for less then the legal costs (sometimes this is a lot of money).
6. Move on to the next company and start over.
They never even try to make it with a product. They just exploit the system and prey on other successful companies from it. Unfortunately they do succeed in getting money this way because some companies will bite the bullet and settle for less than it would cost them fighting it because that's better for the bottom line.
That's not actually how patent trolls work. If it was, they'd be REALLY easy to beat in court.
In actuality patent trolls buy up existing patents and look for people/companies that infringe (or allegedly infringe) that patent, and sue them. Usually, the goal is a quick settlement.
It all started out about thirty years prior. Rick Morse invented a wargame which was played primarily with knights and vikings that grew to include Britains and Zulus and eventually became a full out backyard wargame reconstructing major war episodes. The original game he invented utilized card choices which players would use to clash simultaneously. All other card wargames and pawn games stem off from Rick's ideas. He was a great person to play with and he truly loved the art of gaming so much that he even invented a Star Trek tabletop role playing game. Rick believed the games should be made for fun and disagreed with the others who would go on to capitalize on his ideas.
I actually browsed through the patent, and I cant believe a patent like this has ever been allowed to get licensed.
While quite in depth, the creator was smart enough to add clauses that would deal with any future technology.
I am no patent expert, but would the case be decided over similarities, or differences?
If it would be similarties, the creator of this patent would be able to sue all digital trading card games ever created, if it is differences it has no ground to stand on and the case easily goes to wotc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Give credit, where credit is due. Give irony and sarcasm, when ignorance and stupidity is found. The whip is kept for special occasions
The Internet was a revelation to me, I never imagined there are so many idiots on this planet.
The patent in question may be ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than the patent Garfield took out on Magic. Basically, they have sued Pokemon TCG for selling cards that are used to build customized decks. It also covers board games despite Magic not being remotely board related. I feel that this is just deserts. It won't amount to anything, maybe an out fo court settlement or a total dismissal, but I feel that modern patents are an insult to creativity anyways.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Petition to stop WotC from making M:tG cards that do not fit my specific likes! Join the revolution! If not you, then who?
Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.-Friedrich Nietzsche
Sometimes I feel like the word "interactivity" around here is akin to the word "electrolytes" in sports drinks. The public doesn't really know what it means, but they figure it's a good thing to have.
I actually browsed through the patent, and I cant believe a patent like this has ever been allowed to get licensed.
While quite in depth, the creator was smart enough to add clauses that would deal with any future technology.
If you've never read a patent before, it will be hard to get much useful information out of it. Honestly, it's hard enough for those of us who read them for a living.
For example, everything that precedes the claims (the claims are the numbered entries at the end) is known as the "specification" and has very little legal meaning in this context. During prosecution it's used to satisfy certain legal requirements like enablement, and it's also used as a contextual guide for interpreting the claims.
Basically, what really matters are the claims. The rest of the patent you can pretty much ignore here.
I am no patent expert, but would the case be decided over similarities, or differences?
If it would be similarties, the creator of this patent would be able to sue all digital trading card games ever created, if it is differences it has no ground to stand on and the case easily goes to wotc.
Simplifying greatly, the outcome of the case is decided by two questions:
1. Does MTGO practice each and every element of one (or more) of the claims?
2. Is the patent valid and enforceable? (This can be "no" for many reasons, but often it's because the invention was known or used by others before it was "invented.")
If the answer to both questions is "yes," WOTC loses. If either or both are "no" WOTC wins.
This is an extreme oversimplification, but the takeaway is that it's decided based on whether the patent claim language exactly covers some functionality or feature of MTGO.
Also, I feel like some people have been talking as though this suit would shut down MTGO or put wizards out of business. These days, nonpracticing entities can almost never get an injunction, and damages for this kind of thing are typically pretty limited. Worst case scenario WOTC would lose maybe 10%-20% of their MTGO revenue. Realistically, maybe 2% or 3%. And that's assuming they lose the suit.
good job wizards of the coast. i hate when the weird patent thing happens just like the iphone claiming that they got the rectangle border of the phone. this is just outrageous
If you've never read a patent before, it will be hard to get much useful information out of it. Honestly, it's hard enough for those of us who read them for a living.
For example, everything that precedes the claims (the claims are the numbered entries at the end) is known as the "specification" and has very little legal meaning in this context. During prosecution it's used to satisfy certain legal requirements like enablement, and it's also used as a contextual guide for interpreting the claims.
Basically, what really matters are the claims. The rest of the patent you can pretty much ignore here.
Simplifying greatly, the outcome of the case is decided by two questions:
1. Does MTGO practice each and every element of one (or more) of the claims?
2. Is the patent valid and enforceable? (This can be "no" for many reasons, but often it's because the invention was known or used by others before it was "invented.")
If the answer to both questions is "yes," WOTC loses. If either or both are "no" WOTC wins.
This is an extreme oversimplification, but the takeaway is that it's decided based on whether the patent claim language exactly covers some functionality or feature of MTGO.
Also, I feel like some people have been talking as though this suit would shut down MTGO or put wizards out of business. These days, nonpracticing entities can almost never get an injunction, and damages for this kind of thing are typically pretty limited. Worst case scenario WOTC would lose maybe 10%-20% of their MTGO revenue. Realistically, maybe 2% or 3%. And that's assuming they lose the suit.
If you're a practicing patent attorney, you would know the practical results better than I. I'm surprised that its so hard to get an injunction these days. It was only a few years ago where patent litigators believed they could obtain an injunction automatically if infringement could be shown. I think this prior to the ebay case.
As for the claims, well. I work in prosecution so my standard of interpretation doesn't really apply to litigation. Still though, as far as I know, the claims are still interpreted in light of the specification.
You commented earlier also about invalidating the patent. Again, thats not my area of expertise, but others have told me the practical difficulties of getting patents invalidated because of the presumption of validity. From your writings earlier, you made it seem like this doesnt seem as intractable as I've been told.
Just curious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
YuGiOh or Pokemon does well, Wizards does well. Patents for software and games are a freaking joke.
Wizards has a patent for turning cards sideways. Come on.
This is the sort of thing that makes me furious when Mark or someone else says Richard invented this genre. And not the guy who made the baseball card game or any other prior art. It's smugness in overdrive.
1. 4KIDS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
2. CHAOTIC USA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,INC.;
3. ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
4. KONAMI DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;
5. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC.;
6. PANINI AMERICA, INC.;
7. POKEMON USA, INC. n/k/a THE POKEMONCOMPANY INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
8. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENTAMERICA LLC;
9. SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT LLC;
10. THE TOPPS COMPANY, INC.;
11. WIZARDS OF THE COAST LLC; and,
12. ZYNGA INC
Good luck being a single person suing the 10 biggest companies in all of gaming! Not like these companies are run by nerds and geeks and lawyers. I'm sure that SONY, WIZARDS, ZYNGA, EA and NINTENDO are just going to keel over in fear of you suing them...
or they will countersue you and rob you of the $4 Malt Liquor bottle that convinced you this was a good idea
Millennium Games with the Cyberstorm Lounge
3047 West Henrietta Road
Rochester NY 14623
585-427-2190
www.Cyberstormgaming.com
you forgot about the crack rock.
patent trollers are useless people.
Not in all cases, however if it is a very vague patent then its stupid. If it's a specific invention then it's very very useful.
Wait, so if a non-practicing entity sues a company over a completely valid and infringed patent, you have a problem with that? I'm sorry, this makes zero sense to me. The inventor got compensated for the invention (she was paid for her patent) and the infringer is violating a statute. Why should the NPE not be able to enforce their right to get license revenues from the infringer?
IMO the problem is caused by the actual trolls; the litigants who sue on a junk patent and try to get the company to give them a small-value settlement (~$100k) to just go away. Those are the suits that create problems in patent law, but I still blame the system that issues these junk patents more than I blame the litigants who sue to enforce them.
Edit: Also, before you slam NPEs too hard, you should realize that some of the biggest players in this area are entities like Stanford University and nonprofits. Yes, there are a few companies that exist purely to sue (Acacia) but most NPEs are legitimate organizations that just happen to not produce the invention commercially.
will the ghost of the 1990s tech patents ever cease in its law suits?
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
1. Find a idea that is being developed or is already in use but with no patent.
2. File and get the patent on it.
3. Once the other company has a base and a profit, sue them.
4. Threaten to drag out legal proceedings so the risk is there to have large legal costs.
5. Offer to settle with the defendant for less then the legal costs (sometimes this is a lot of money).
6. Move on to the next company and start over.
They never even try to make it with a product. They just exploit the system and prey on other successful companies from it. Unfortunately they do succeed in getting money this way because some companies will bite the bullet and settle for less than it would cost them fighting it because that's better for the bottom line.
Modern
xWBreakfast at Urza'sxW
UWGBantUWG
GWRNaya ZooRWG
That's not actually how patent trolls work. If it was, they'd be REALLY easy to beat in court.
In actuality patent trolls buy up existing patents and look for people/companies that infringe (or allegedly infringe) that patent, and sue them. Usually, the goal is a quick settlement.
While quite in depth, the creator was smart enough to add clauses that would deal with any future technology.
I am no patent expert, but would the case be decided over similarities, or differences?
If it would be similarties, the creator of this patent would be able to sue all digital trading card games ever created, if it is differences it has no ground to stand on and the case easily goes to wotc.
Give irony and sarcasm, when ignorance and stupidity is found.
The whip is kept for special occasions
Banner ala Lymons
If you've never read a patent before, it will be hard to get much useful information out of it. Honestly, it's hard enough for those of us who read them for a living.
For example, everything that precedes the claims (the claims are the numbered entries at the end) is known as the "specification" and has very little legal meaning in this context. During prosecution it's used to satisfy certain legal requirements like enablement, and it's also used as a contextual guide for interpreting the claims.
Basically, what really matters are the claims. The rest of the patent you can pretty much ignore here.
Simplifying greatly, the outcome of the case is decided by two questions:
1. Does MTGO practice each and every element of one (or more) of the claims?
2. Is the patent valid and enforceable? (This can be "no" for many reasons, but often it's because the invention was known or used by others before it was "invented.")
If the answer to both questions is "yes," WOTC loses. If either or both are "no" WOTC wins.
This is an extreme oversimplification, but the takeaway is that it's decided based on whether the patent claim language exactly covers some functionality or feature of MTGO.
Also, I feel like some people have been talking as though this suit would shut down MTGO or put wizards out of business. These days, nonpracticing entities can almost never get an injunction, and damages for this kind of thing are typically pretty limited. Worst case scenario WOTC would lose maybe 10%-20% of their MTGO revenue. Realistically, maybe 2% or 3%. And that's assuming they lose the suit.
Thank you for your indepth reply good sir!
A day something learned, is a day well spend
Give irony and sarcasm, when ignorance and stupidity is found.
The whip is kept for special occasions
good job wizards of the coast. i hate when the weird patent thing happens just like the iphone claiming that they got the rectangle border of the phone. this is just outrageous
thanks for the awsome image http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=329663!
proud member of the Spirit Of EDH
If you're a practicing patent attorney, you would know the practical results better than I. I'm surprised that its so hard to get an injunction these days. It was only a few years ago where patent litigators believed they could obtain an injunction automatically if infringement could be shown. I think this prior to the ebay case.
As for the claims, well. I work in prosecution so my standard of interpretation doesn't really apply to litigation. Still though, as far as I know, the claims are still interpreted in light of the specification.
You commented earlier also about invalidating the patent. Again, thats not my area of expertise, but others have told me the practical difficulties of getting patents invalidated because of the presumption of validity. From your writings earlier, you made it seem like this doesnt seem as intractable as I've been told.
Just curious.