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."

Comments

Re:umm... prior art anyone?

[Rob T Firefly]

It wasn't. Wizkids released the Pirate game in July of 2004, while WOTC filed their patent application in October 2003.

Another

[teflaime]

bad patent. Big surprise there. There have been games based on punch out models for decades.

Re:Another

[geekoid]

Bad patent? It is a perfectly good patent. There is nothing wrong with it.

Patent Troll with 3D8 Battle Axe

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Too bad WOTC (you may know them as Hasbro) don't choose to focus on their core competency. You know: "making games", instead of these lame ass lawyer tricks.

"No Sir, It's a $25 fine for reversing over a patent troll in a supermarket car park. Just mail it in. "

Re:Patent Troll with 3D8 Battle Axe

[Phanatic1a]

Too bad WOTC (you may know them as Hasbro) don't choose to focus on their core competency. You know: "making games", instead of these lame ass lawyer tricks.

TSR's downfall coincided tightly with their choosing to focus on lameass lawyer tricks instead of making games.

And with publishing ridiculous amounts of totally crap paperback novels.

Timeline from the comments of original article

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the comments of the article you'll see someone posted a timeline.I suspect there's a little more involved here than a patent dispute.

2002 - Wizards designs, but never releases, a game called "Punchbots"

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

Re:Sad

[Applekid]

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.

Insane Patents

[Murrdox]

Why even FILE patents like this? I'm increasingly disgusted that everything creative has to be patented so that someone can make money off of it. Whatever happened to sharing a great idea, and making new and better things with it?

If I filed a patent for a "Rulebook about roleplaying games. This rulebook would contain all rules necessary to play said game. Additional rulebook supplements would also be referenced" and made sure no one else could make any RPGs besides MINE, what the heck would the RPG market be like?

So WizKids made a punchcard pirate game. Big deal. Wizards, if you want to make a punchcard game that comes in booster packs... go ahead and make one. If it's a GOOD game, it'll do better than the WizKids game. Why do you have to SUE over it?

*Answer: Because you're hoping that WizKids can't afford a lawsuit, and will eventually be forced to sell you the licenses to Shadowrun and Battletech, that's why.

Re:Insane Patents

[geekoid]

Except rule books do exist, have existed forever. So no, you could not patent that; however, pumch-out contruction pieces decribed in the patent have not. AFAIK. They're certianly simple, but not obvious. I distinction that is often lost on slashdot.

Actually answer:
Because it is their idea and they have the privledge to control it until the patent expires.
All patent cases are more complex then they seem on slashdot, but if they were told about the pending patent, and sent description of the patent, and still violated it, then they get whats coming to them.

quit

[theTrueMikeBrown]

I remember back when Wizards made engaging games that didn't cost too much. Now-a-days a booster pack of 15 cards cost $5.00. Perhaps this frivolous lawsuit is because the company's sales are declining. If so, they aught to consider lowering prices instead of shenanigans like this. I quit playing because of insanity such as this.

Re:quit

[MBGMorden]

I was in the same boat. Back when I started (I was in high school so we're talking 9-10+ years ago) the latest and greatest expansion was "Homelands". I remember those being around $2.50 per pack, and indeed, Fallen Empires were anywhere from $0.75 to $1.50. I bought LOADS of those cards. Not all of them really sucked too bad. :).

Problem is, I live(d) in a rural area. There were only 4-5 of us that played, and our parents became convinced that the game was "satanic" and we were all forced to quit playing (most of the other guys ended up being given an alternative Christian CCG to play instead). I was the only one who wasn't forced to also destroy or sell their cards, so I still have all of my collection from back then. These days with the $4-$5 per pack prices I buy a booster pack every other month or so for artwork. Haven't played in years.

Correction

[Rob T Firefly]

Wizards' patent was filed in October 2003, not 2002. When exactly did Selinker leave Wizards?

Whiz Kids are suing?....

[Dogtanian]

...I always wondered what happened to them after their 80s TV show finished.

Re:umm... prior art anyone?

[kebes]

Just thinking out loud here... but it seems to me that the patent system seems to forget the "fundamental point", which is that patents are supposed to do some good for society at large. The patent system has (theoretically) requirements about "prior art" and "obviousness." But to me, even this is not enough. Patents should also be judged based on whether they have "value added" (as compared to not giving out the patent).

In many ways, the original purpose of patents was to prevent trade secrets. So the idea is that we (society) will give a limited time monopoly in exchange for implementation details, which might otherwise have been hidden from us. But what "implementation detail" is being hidden from us in a "1-click" patent or even a "constructible card game" patent? The answer is: nothing. So why should society bother giving out a monopoly? The "first mover" advantage in most cases is enough for you to make money off of your idea. Only in the case of a really subtle and complex idea is it "worth it" for society to trade a monopoly in exchange for implementation details--because otherwise there is nothing society really gains.

I know another aspect of patents is to encourage people to invest time, effort and energy into an idea/research (e.g. drug companies). I would say that's fine too--there again there is a tangible "value add" for society.

I don't really have an answer for how to implement this, but I think that somehow patents should be judged not merely on "obviousness" and "prior art", but also on "is this a good deal?" The current system assumes that if you have an idea, you get a patent. Instead perhaps it should be a contract system, where each patent application states: (1) what they want from society (a monopoly), and (2) what they are giving back to society (implementation details, etc.). If it's a bad deal, the application is rejected (even if the idea is good).

Done in this way, perhaps patents for things like drugs could be granted ahead-of-time. So basically a contract between a drug company and the government that says: "The government agrees to provide patent protection to the results of the proposed research, since the research is deemed to be of value to society and unlikely to be undertaken without patent protection."

Yes, there are problems with individually-negotiated patents, such as creating yet another system prone to bribes and manipulation. Just thinking out loud; suggestions welcome.

Calm down! Don't hastily dismiss this patent!

[gtmaneki]

I'm getting tired of seeing most of the posters on /. assume all patents are like software patents, and therefore an evil that must be eradicated. Because /. is tech-oriented, most of the patent disputes on here are over software patents, but non-software patents can be a totally different story.

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.

Re:Calm down! Don't hastily dismiss this patent!

[gtmaneki]

And while I'm at it, I should also take you up on the "patents prevent innovation" rant. The way I see it, this patent could be circumvented by doing some of the following:

* Don't use robots or vehicles
* Ditch the whole collectible aspect
* Ditch the random aspect

For example, I am reading patent literature and come upon this one. I think, "A game from punch-out models! That's a good idea!" To avoid WotC's patent, my game:

* Is non-collectible. There are no rare or common pieces. You buy a base set, and if you want any accessories, you buy them in bubble packs that let you see everything you're getting.
* Involves castles. You and your opponent build castles and try to knock the walls down.
* There's no random factor. This is purely engineering. The best defense is by building the sturdiest castle out of the base set and accessories. The offense involves firing projectiles (I'll think of safety measures later; I can only brainstorm so much on a lunch break) at your opponent's castle. The offensive strategy is to find your opponent's weak points and hammer them.

There! I have a new game, and I wouldn't have thought of it today without running across this patent. Now this is the kind of idea propagation patents were designed for. While the current system has flaws, innovation isn't as stifled as you seem to think.

Another example -- WotC has a patent on collectible card games. That didn't stop everyone and his brother from making CCGs. Was innovation really stifled?

Re:Calm down! Don't hastily dismiss this patent!

[Herkum01]

your punch-out toy versus my punch-out toy

Warhammer 40K plastic models. You were give pieces that could be put together not just for different poses but different weapons.

Punch-out toy is vehicle or robot
Punch-out toy can be customized with accessories that help it in its battles

40K models also had different kits for putting together stuff like dreadnoughts and there were a ton of vehicles too.

There are definite, codified rules -- not something where we build models on our own and decide to battle them

Warhammer and Warhammer 40K

The model kits and/or accessories are distributed in packs randomly
These toys existed before 2003

I fail to see how randomly distributing accessories constitute a new concept that provides patent protection. This is more of a marketing gimmick that has nothing to do with the game itself. You want random, how about the toys that McDonald's give out in their kids meals. Does THAT deserve patent protection? Hell Cracker Jack has been that for decades.

This deserves as much patent protection as the eraser on he end of a pencil.

Compare "v. Attorney General" suits

[tepples]

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.