Slashdot Mirror
WizKids Sues Wizards of the Coast over Game Patent
An anonymous reader writes "WizKids Games (makers of the HeroClix games) is suing Wizards of the Coast (makers of Magic: the Gathering), seeking judgment that their Pirates game does not infringe on a recently granted patent. From the article: '[T]he suit claims that WOTC contacted WizKids via a letter in May 2004 concerning the filing of the patent, and that WOTC asserted that WizKids Pirates game fell squarely within many of the proposed claims of the pending patent application. WOTC warned that when the patent [was] issued, WOTC would have the right to sue WizKids for an injunction and damages. WOTC threatened that it would take legal action against WizKids if or when a patent was allowed if WizKids did not cease and desist selling its Pirates game.' The suit asks the judge to declare that the Pirates game does not infringe and seek to stop Wizards of the Coast from pursuing any legal action. The patent in question is for a 'Constructible Strategy Game,' where players build models from punch-out cards sold in booster packs. The Pirates game seems to fit the patent description perfectly."
It wasn't. Wizkids released the Pirate game in July of 2004, while WOTC filed their patent application in October 2003.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
2002 - Wizards files a patent application on constructible strategy games based on Punchbots
Fall 2003 - WOTC R&D Design Lead Mike Selinker leaves Wizards of the Coast and begins designign a new game for WizKids
March 2004 (GTS '04) - WizKids announces it is publishing a revolutionary new Mike Selinker game called "Pirates of the Spanish Main", the first in a "new" category called "constructible strategy games"
May 2004 - Wizards of the Coast sends a cease & desist letter to WizKids warning them not to publish POTSM
July 2004 - WizKids publishes POTSM
I remember when WOTC was satisfied to just make good games. Now it seems like all they do is try to keep anyone else from making games.
You have Hasbro to thank for that, of which Wizards is a wholly owned subsidiary. While generally considered a big payday for a company and/or salvation from bankruptcy (I don't recall how they were doing financially in 1999, other than the Wizards store nearby was open for like a whole 3 months before closing), it's a little like selling it's soul to the corporate giants.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Wizards' patent was filed in October 2003, not 2002. When exactly did Selinker leave Wizards?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Now slow down and look at the patent, which was linked to in the summary. Yes, there's some legalese, but that's because patents are both technical and legal documents. There are 15 claims, which are the heart of the matter. The claims cover a game using punched-out pieces that are assembled to make models for the game, weapon accessories, and a "random-value generator." The model that is assembled can be a vehicle or robot, and the models use the accessories to inflict damage to each other. Finally, the pieces are distributed in categories of common, uncommon, and rare. This is one of the better-written patents I've read, and it narrowly covers a definite physical invention.
Earlier posters have mentioned a couple more interesting facts: First, this patent was filed in 2003, while the pirate game was released in 2004. Second, Mike Selinker, the creator of WizKids' pirates game, worked for WotC when they were designing the game mentioned in WotC's US Patent 7,201,374, and later left to work for WizKids.
I'm not saying that Hasbro/WotC's patent can't be invalid. WizKids may be right. But this patent shouldn't be automatically dismissed.
In the United States, lawsuits to get a federal law ruled unconstitutional are filed against the sitting Attorney General in his official capacity, seeking an injunction against enforcement of the law. Examples include Eldred v. Ashcroft. Seeking clarification in ad less risky than breaking the law and then gambling with one's business or with one's freedom on whether or not it is overturned.