18 Aug, 2010, Fevenis wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Play nice =p.
18 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
That is the basic premise behind combat, but it's not a combat system. If you simplify it that far, the term becomes meaningless

Actually I could even expand it more, it would show how the only ( and I really mean it) thing that differenciates ANY combat system is when you decide the player can act.
So unless you copy everything including skills/spell name and their parameters, you are free to go.
Same way you cannot patent the use of a D20 to play a RPG game.
19 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
KaVir said:
That is the basic premise behind combat, but it's not a combat system. If you simplify it that far, the term becomes meaningless

Actually I could even expand it more, it would show how the only ( and I really mean it) thing that differenciates ANY combat system is when you decide the player can act.

Put simply: No. The expression "can't see the forest for the trees" springs to mind; you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Rarva.Riendf said:
So unless you copy everything including skills/spell name and their parameters, you are free to go.

First, "skill/spell names" would come under trademark law, which is a separate issue again.

Second, you don't need to "copy everything" to infringe a copyright. The issue is complex, but even a small amount of copying could potentially result in an infringement.

Finally, when we factor in patents, it goes beyond mere copying. You could infringe any number of patents without even knowing it - and indeed many people do.

Rarva.Riendf said:
Same way you cannot patent the use of a D20 to play a RPG game.

Games certainly can be patented - see Cluedo or Monopoly for example. Although of course roleplaying games and even the d20 have been around for a long time, there's no reason why you couldn't patent a particular roleplaying game if you wished.
19 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
So I went and read through the Copyright Act of 1976 because my macefighting code was starting to all blur together.

This is the quote that I suppose I am getting hung up on:

Quote
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.


What constitutes non-profit, educational, or personal use is something that I'm sure has been the subject of hundreds of cases. Its a distinction that's probably best left asking a lawyer to explain.

Maya/Rudha

[postscript]:

KaVir said:
Games certainly can be patented - see Cluedo or Monopoly for example. Although of course roleplaying games and even the d20 have been around for a long time, there's no reason why you couldn't patent a particular roleplaying game if you wished.


Im pretty sure patents can be challenged if it can be demonstrated there was prior art.
19 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
The replies were for the benefit of other readers. To me the only interesting part of your post was the part that was dead wrong.

Well then, if only the parenthetical remark bothered you, I can live with that. I take it that my explanations of why your reply was over-simplifying things didn't bother you because you contented yourself merely with a trite reply to the rest - another merely parenthetical remark. :)
19 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Put simply: No. The expression "can't see the forest for the trees" springs to mind; you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Actually I do, you are the one who only see the trees (meaning what is shown to the player).
You can patent the whole rulesand design, but you cannot patent so you cannot do any variations of your games, and that is what I am talking about.
You could create a money game where you need to buy stuff and makes people pay a rent, Monopoly could not say a fucking word about it.
The would of course, but they would not win unless you do not have a good enough lawyer.

This is the exact reason why everyone can have a fireball spell or magic missile or anything without having any problems.
Because no one have the exact same result of the spell, and non one use the 'exact' same skillset/spell/fight engine than DnD as an example.
You cannot patent the fact to roll dice and use a rule to deal damage depending on a spell.
Not patent how to show the player he needs to wait before taking any specific action.
Nor patent anything else of that kind.
The only thing you can patent is the whole package.
Make any variation of it and except if it is plagiarism (and plagiarism has nothing to do with patent) you are free to go.
19 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
KaVir said:
Put simply: No. The expression "can't see the forest for the trees" springs to mind; you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Actually I do, you are the one who only see the trees (meaning what is shown to the player).

I can see both perspectives. You can apparently see only one. This will make things difficult for you if you're planning to create a mud, as if you truly feel that "the only ( and I really mean it) thing that differenciates ANY combat system is when you decide the player can act" then you're going to have serious trouble designing an enjoyable combat system.

Rarva.Riendf said:
You can patent the whole rulesand design, but you cannot patent so you cannot do any variations of your games, and that is what I am talking about.

You're overgeneralising again. Monopoly and Cluedo variants would indeed fall under the original patents.

Rarva.Riendf said:
You could create a money game where you need to buy stuff and makes people pay a rent, Monopoly could not say a fucking word about it.

Once again it depends on the specifics. For example, Parker Brothers (the publisher of Monopoly) sued Milton Bradley for patent infringement when they introduced a similar game called Easy Money.

Rarva.Riendf said:
This is the exact reason why everyone can have a fireball spell or magic missile or anything without having any problems.

No, that's a completely unrelated reason: Names are protected by trademark law, not patent law. However you cannot have a "beholder", a "mind flayer" or an "umber hulk" in your mud, for example, because they are considered Product Identity by WotC.

Rarva.Riendf said:
The only thing you can patent is the whole package.

Make any variation of it and except if it is plagiarism (and plagiarism has nothing to do with patent) you are free to go.

No, patents can be fairly broad. An obvious example would be the patent Tyche mentioned earlier, which covered all online multiplayer games. There was a similar patent filed in 1995 that appeared to cover all wireless multi-player games.
19 Aug, 2010, Kaz wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
So I went and read through the Copyright Act of 1976 because my macefighting code was starting to all blur together.


Why? This is about patents. Patents and copyrights are two different beasts.
19 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
No, patents can be fairly broad. An obvious example would be the patent Tyche mentioned earlier, which covered all online multiplayer games. There was a similar patent filed in 1995 that appeared to cover all wireless multi-player games.

They can so what ? As I said they only hold when you do not have a good enough lawer.
They are not valid. Oh and those patent basically only apply in the stupid country that allowed to patent business method as soon as they were used in a computer.
You name it.
19 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
They can so what ? As I said they only hold when you do not have a good enough lawer.
They are not valid.

Wrong, they are valid unless contested. And while someone could certainly contest the patent, as Bartle stated in the earlier quote, "It is likely to cost them several million dollars in lawyers' fees to break it".

Perhaps "several million dollars" is pocket money for you, but not everyone can afford to ignore legal fees like that, particularly not for a hobby.
19 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Kaz said:
Rudha said:
So I went and read through the Copyright Act of 1976 because my macefighting code was starting to all blur together.


Why? This is about patents. Patents and copyrights are two different beasts.


Fair Use is a doctrine that's been applied to both.

That said, this is getting a bit emotive and personal attack-y, so I'm out. My parting bit of advice is that if you think you have an issue with a patent or copyright or anything of that matter, talk to a lawyer.

Maya/Rudha
19 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Fair Use is a doctrine that's been applied to both.

No, it only applies to copyrights. The "fair use" doctrine is codified in section 107 of the copyright....
19 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, my understanding is also that fair use is only for copyright.

But you are also correct, Rudha, that talking to a real lawyer, if these questions actually matter to you, is a much safer bet than asking a bunch of armchair lawyers. :smile:
19 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
I prefer armchair lawyers.
19 Aug, 2010, Fevenis wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
I prefer armchair lawyers.


As do I =). Just kinda rough when things get personal. Though all in all, I think this thread will offer some good information to others in the future.
19 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Rarva.Riendf said:
They can so what ? As I said they only hold when you do not have a good enough lawer.
They are not valid.

Wrong, they are valid unless contested. And while someone could certainly contest the patent, as Bartle stated in the earlier quote, "It is likely to cost them several million dollars in lawyers' fees to break it".

Perhaps "several million dollars" is pocket money for you, but not everyone can afford to ignore legal fees like that, particularly not for a hobby.

No they are still invalid patent the patent office never should have accepted in the first place.
The fact you (and I as a matter of fact are too poor to prove it) does not make them right.
You really should not say 'they are right cause I am too poor to prove them wrong'
But really 'they are wrong but use their money to step on my rights'

You think it is the same since the end result is the same, but it is not at all the same.
In one case, if you are many to complain system change eventually, in the other case, since everyone shut up by themselves, it means there is no problem in the first place !
19 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
No they are still invalid patent the patent office never should have accepted in the first place.

Whether they should or shouldn't have accepted them is irrelevant. The fact is that the patents exist.

If you want to ignore them and get taken to court then that's your choice - you're the one who'll be paying the legal fees, after all. But you should not advise other people to knowingly infringe patents. That is really, really, really poor advice.
19 Aug, 2010, Runter wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
That's a good attitude to get you in legal trouble.

"the patent wasn't good cause its obvious it can be disputed in court."

Unless it turns out the patent is upheld. As these things have turned out since time imemmorial there will always be someone left believing they were wronged.
19 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes: the fact that the patents are terrible – assuming that they are, in fact, terrible – does not make them disappear until a challenge is successfully upheld in court. And in fact, even if you do go to court over the patents, if you somehow manage to lose, the terrible patent will still force you to pay licensing fees etc.

This is kind of similar to people saying that you should be able to do such-and-such because the law against it is wrong; well, what you "should" be able to do is irrelevant until the law forbidding it goes away.

This is not to say that the laws are just, shouldn't be changed, that people shouldn't take a stand against silly laws, and so forth; it is merely recognizing current reality.

In fact, making this statement isn't even saying that they're right because you can't afford to win the challenge – maybe they are stepping on your rights, etc., and the patent office did a terrible job, etc. The point is that that is irrelevant as far as the courts are concerned.
20 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
That's a good attitude to get you in legal trouble.
"the patent wasn't good cause its obvious it can be disputed in court.


No the patent is not good as is it obvious to anyone working in that field.
A patent should be innovation. the fact that the patent office is not doing its job and give a patent to someone saying hey look, if I use a wireless connection to do something, it is a total innovation over someone who use a linked one does not make the patent valid, it only makes it 'recorded'.
Basically you should not even inquire about those patent because you would not be able to do ANYTHING if you did.
And that is btw what advice a lawyer give.
Never EVER inquire about patent when doing something, because if you know a patent exists then you are screwed since you 'knowingly infrige' it.
20.0/157