I do (and putting under WWG related topics because if any WWG product has this, they owe Wizards $$).



Sad day for everyone.

CCotD'

Indeed!

I'm going to print out the patent and see where the loopholes...er...limitations...are.

EDIT: OK...found one. In the claims it is stated '...providing at least first and second toy bases for use...' Since WWG is not providing the models themselve, but rather the PLANS for the models (thanks for pointing this out to me SLymoon), then WWG (and in particular WormHole) SHOULD be exempt from any patent infringement.

Additionaly, as long as there are no removeable model parts from the [ship] models in WormHole, then that should also make WormHole exempt from this.

There may be more in there, but that is what I have seen so far.

It's unbelievably short sighted for patents to be issues on things like this. I understand getting a patent on a great invention, but this is going a bit far. Next someone will patent board games...

It's funny, but Wizards clearly got this patent to try and push Wizkids out of the market... but since Wizkids has been struggling financially anyway, this might be enough to put them under, unless their new ranges sell well. Competition is healthy and I personally collect from both Wizkids and Wizards... so I don't really see any upside to this move.

Good find though CCotD.

Arabin

That's a very good point... Wizards probably aren't that bad in and of themselves, but Hasbro has been making many bad mistakes in recent years. Even little things like scrapping the highly successful Micro Machines.

With Wizards, the quality of the collectable minis has drastically dropped in this latest release... which could well be Hasbro forcing them to cut costs. The previews for the next Star Wars Miniatures expansion, Alliance and Empire, makes the new minis look like toys, not miniatures. I know technicaly we all play with toys, but we try to make the toys look like models. If they actually look like toys, people feel silly playing with them... (I'm generalizing here, obviously).

Dreamblade had a really powerful launch, and I generally enjoyed the game. I didn't really like the collectable aspect though... and the way it's turned into a tournament only game, with expansions every couple of months has put me off it.

I'm sure some CEO will get a huge kick-back and then leave to pastures new, leaving a new CEO to clean up the mess. Of course, the new CEO will vow to undo one of the errors of the previous CEO, and when successfully on that single task, he will get a kick-back and move on.

Hmm... I guess I'm a little jaded on the way retail is handled from a corporate standpoint.

Arabin

There seem to be plenty of loopholes from what Pelthar was 'reading' to me. However, there are also plenty of pitfalls that could go by unnoticed until a patent infringement suit knocks on the door.

Speaking from my field (architecture), its very easy to lay out the building following the building codes correctly, but lose sight of them in all the redesign and so on until its too late. Clients pushing time frame, design changes issues that pop up here and there serve as a mighty good distraction.

here is the abstract....

A game, toy or article of manufacture includes a set of rules and at least one model. The model has multiple movable parts, where under the rules of play, the model begins in an assembled configuration. As the model loses points under the rules of play, at least some of the parts are removed from the model, or replaced with substitute parts. The model may be formed from a panel or other substantially planar member, with the individual pieces formed therein. Methods of game play, computer-implemented games, and other aspects of the invention are described herein. Many other options are possible, as described above.


and in the claims section....

.....wherein each toy base comprises multiple components, wherein the multiple components of each toy base are formed as generally-planar pieces, wherein the generally-planar pieces are manually punched out or removed from at least one rectangular panel......

looks like 3D minis would not be affected by the patent.... or games that don't remove parts of the generally-planar model as the game progresses, like WormHole... doesn't look like having a completly new model with said damage replace the constructed model would fall under the patent... i see nothing to worry about for WWG and WormHole... but i'm not a lawyer....

Looks like you could start the game unassembled and during the game assemble and disassemble a model all you like....

All copyrights are meaningless until someone challenges them in court. Then the guy with the most money wins.

Wizkids will likely have something pretty stern to say about this. I mean they're not Hasbro but they do have Topps behind them and certainly have the capital to go to court over something like this without it hurting them. In this industry the requested patent is tantamount to patenting "the action of sticking two pieces of plastic together" or something equally ridiculous. You're telling me they can patent adding or removing elements from a game model??? I think not.

Someone wasn't thinking on this one. At the very least, whoever cooked this up will do nothing but hurt innovation and the image of the companies involved.

What's really fun is the impression I get from glancing at the later sections on the intranet...at my first glance it looks like Wizards could sue Blizzard for copyright infringement based adding and removing components to your WoW character. Then again, I only took a quick glance at that section.

Lord Abbadon- From how I am interpreting what I read, pure Miniature Games should not be affected by the patent. Then again, I have not read through the entire patent document, but I believe that GW, Privateer Press, et al should be safe from this.

Hmm, I wonder if anyone has the patent on an electronic Power button? That might be fun to file... heh.

Arabin

Patents offices are weird. Harley-Davidson tried to patent their sound in the late 1990s, and discontinued it in 2000 as unnecessary. if they had a problem they shouldn't have given so much of their technology to the Japanese before the war...

Okay, I hate to derail a fun argument - but I doubt that WotC is going to sue anyone over this, anymore than they did over their CCG patent. A spokesperson for WotC has already stated that they have no intention of taking WizKidz to court.

The patent was applied for in 2002 - before WizKidz' pirates game even came out.

A patent can be used in multiple ways - the first is to protect an idea and limiting access to that idea. The other is to protect yourself from others patenting the idea and going after you.

Go ahead and patent all games starting with the letter 'W' - you will have to pay the registration fee and it will be summarily dismissed - even by the 'idiots' in the patent office. (Prior Usage - there are already games starting with 'W', so it would be dismissed. No Use - the idea is not a concrete process or material creation, or type of material creation and so is also beyond patent. Obvious - an idea must be new and non-obvious to obtain a patent.)

From the U.S. Patent Office webpage -
What Can Be Patented

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon 42 U.S.C. 2181 (a).

The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.

Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.

A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.

Back to the Top
Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

The law is grey enough that some things that have patents must be challenged to prove the patent. Until they are challenged then they remain uder patent until successfully challenged.

An example is the waterbed - a patent was denied due to prior usage even though the waterbed had never been made before - Robert Heinlien described one in the novel Double Star, over ten years before the patent was attempted.

Another area of 'fuzziness' creeps in simply because of the sheer breadth of human endeavor - no one person is familiar enough with everything to be fully cogent of whether an idea is patentable, and this includes the overworked folks working at the patent office - who generally get about fifteen minutes or so to decide if an idea is patentable, whether they know what the heck the widget under scrutiny does or not.

Add to this Copyright and Trademark laws and it gets very messy indeed - a trademark can cover something as abstract as the Olympic rings, and can be lost if not defended.

Copyright is another killer, and one that I have had some brushes with in regards to folk music - a song can be around for hundreds of years, known and sung by thousands, but the first person to copyright it owns it, no matter how old it is at the time. There used to be professional 'song finders' who did exactly that - one of the most famous was Burl Ives.

The Auld Grump, many, many years since those classes, but some of it stuck....

Seems that Wizkids is a bit about the WoTC Patent.

CCotD'