You can't, with board games. I'm not sure why you can with video games. (maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can, if you have enough money to keep anyone from successfully challenging it because they can't afford to)

▲

bbanyc 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You very much can with board and card games. Monopoly was patented and so was Magic: the Gathering.

My question is whether this patent only covers specific game mechanics introduced in the most recent Pokemon game or whether it's broad enough to monopolize the entire genre. Because if a clone of the original Pokemon from 30 years ago (has it really been that long? I feel old) is infringing, then the patent is clearly invalid due to Nintendo's own prior art.

▲

ffsm8 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

IANAL, but I think you're misunderstanding their point. MtG did not patent the genre/game type. There are countless other cards games that are essentially MtG, just not called that. Same with monopoly and any other established board game.

It's mostly trademarks with physical games, not patents.

But video games are ultimately software, and that's easy to patent...

▲

bbanyc 2 days ago | parent [-]

US Patent #5,662,332 - Trading card game method of play, inventor Richard Garfield, assigned to Wizards of the Coast https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en

Obviously there have been lots of other TCGs, but up until that patent expired in 2014, they had to either be sufficiently different from MtG to avoid the patent, or pay royalties to WOTC.

	▲	pessimizer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		There were also cases that just invalidated it in place. It was a dead patent. You still can't call turning cards to indicate use "tapping" though. edit: to be clear, anyone can copy every single element of any board game, as long as they don't infringe on the game's copyrights or trademarks i.e. the art and the text, including the names of things. This is absolutely true in the US, but not necessarily true in other countries, and I'm pretty sure false in Germany. Also, there is a European alliance of board game designers who will blacklist retailers that sell your copied game, and the sites that promote it. Monopoly harassed the game "Anti-Monopoly" forever over this, but eventually when the law became clear, realized they would lose, so settled by paying the designer and giving him a perpetual license to any IP involved in the mechanics of Monopoly so there wouldn't actually be a court decision recorded that officially invalidated their patents (I'm not sure if it was still Parker Brothers by the conclusion.) They could theoretically go after people still, and probably have sent letters (everybody who was going to get rich off the next big board game in the 60s and 70s made a Monopoly clone.) But after the Anti-Monopoly guy published about the experience, everybody knows that any threats are toothless.

▲

mike50 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are three types of patents in the United States design utility and plant. This is probably the cause of the confusion.

▲

mort96 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> maybe it's one of those things where you "can't" but actually you can

Like how you "can't" patent stuff with prior art but then, somehow, big companies seem to be granted patents for things with plenty of prior art all the time?

▲

dmoy 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Some of it is that "getting a patent" isn't always a high bar, and the real bar is "successfully using a patent in a lawsuit". Patent examiners don't have the time and resources to thoroughly vet every application, so there are a lot of patents granted that are pretty much worthless.

In this specific case I don't know. I would have to ask.

▲

mort96 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Some of it is that "getting a patent" isn't always a high bar

Which is a big fucking problem, to be honest. I would not want to enter a lawsuit with Nintendo to try to convince a judge that the patent I'm clearly violating is invalid.

If I was making a game with capture/summon mechanics and got a call from Nintendo, I would probably take capture/summon mechanics out of my game if their lawyers were threatening enough. That's the value in unenforceable patents.

▲

estimator7292 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yup. The patent system has been gutted and rigged in favor of whoever has the most money. Pretty much our entire legal system (and government for that matter) simply comes down to having more money than the other guy.

▲

dmoy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean yea, you're not exactly wrong, but the cost to fully investigate every application would be incredibly high. Maybe the answer is to make patents cost $20k (fee) + $20k (your patent lawyer's fee) instead of $1k (fee) + $20k (your patent lawyer's fee). But that's gonna be a lot of extra cost to file.

> If I was making a game with capture/summon mechanics and got a call from Nintendo, I would probably take capture/summon mechanics out of my game if their lawyers were threatening enough. That's the value in unenforceable patents.

It really depends? If you could hire a good patent lawyer for say $5k-$10k to dig up a reasonably correct answer for you, and that answer was "lol this patent is a joke, Nintendo will get quickly smacked out of court and all your attorney fees will get paid for by Nintendo", then maybe that would be sufficient if the cost to you to rework the mechanic would be order(s) of magnitude higher than $5k.

You're definitely right in that before you actually call their bluff and enter litigation, you'd want to be damn sure what you're getting in to.

▲

mort96 2 days ago | parent [-]

It doesn't seem like such a bad idea for a patent grant to be a long and expensive process... Why should Nintendo getting a 20 year state-mandated monopoly on an idea be treated lightly? Why is it a goal to make that process go quickly and cheaply?

	▲	dmoy 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Seems reasonable to me, yea It's probably a nonstarter for the current year, given that you'd need to pay for substantially more patent examiners, and better trained patent examiners (even if it does ultimately come a lot from increased fees). Or maybe fewer patent examiners but much more highly trained ones? I'm not sure how that would pan out. But it would be very cool if the gap between "granted patent" and "proven useful patent" was closed substantially.

▲

Kranar 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Being granted a patent does not make it enforceable. Prior art is a defense against patent litigation.

	▲	mort96 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		People without infinitely deep wallets must assume that all granted patents are enforceable when threatened by Nintendo's legal team.