reyn@trsvax.UUCP (07/06/90)
This seems to be in line with this groups interests, so here goes ... Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? The rules of a game could be considered to be the algorithm by which it is played. Algorithms, as such, are not patentable. Algorithms that have an application can be considered inventions and are patentable. Is a game a valid application in this sense? I've seen several computer games of late which are variants on the theme of "match the tiles". These games have different names and different icons, but their rules are identical. I've not seen one, but the same rules could be applied to a "board game". Are the programmers in any danger of lawsuits based on rule infringements? I know many will have an opinion on this topic, but I would appreciate hearing from those who have a legal basis for their opinions. John Reynolds
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (07/09/90)
In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: >This seems to be in line with this groups interests, so here goes ... >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? >The rules of a game could be considered to be the algorithm by which it is >played. Algorithms, as such, are not patentable. Unfortunately, the Patent Office seems to have forgotten this recently. The first example, I think, was the patent granted to Merill-Lynch for the way their "Cash Management Account" (a scheme for automatically sweeping money into interest-bearing accounts, etc.) worked. Another example may be the patent Apple has on the way their graphic "regions" work. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company (sm)]
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) (07/13/90)
In article <1990Jul9.164219.27369@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? >The rules of a game could be considered to be the algorithm by which it is >played. Algorithms, as such, are not patentable. Unfortunately, the Patent Office seems to have forgotten this recently. The first example, I think, was the patent granted to Merill-Lynch for the way their "Cash Management Account" (a scheme for automatically sweeping money into interest-bearing accounts, etc.) worked. Another example may be the patent Apple has on the way their graphic "regions" work. Well, yes and no. Algorithms, as such, are not exactly patentable. However, *processes* are patentable. It may be argued that an algorithm is an embodiment of a software process*. That way one can apply for (and sometimes get) a patent on such a process. [*I know - process has a specific meaning in software. What I mean here is "a series of steps used to accomplish something." Most process patents are on manufacturing processes.] -- --Alan Wexelblat Bull Worldwide Information Systems internet: wex@pws.bull.com phone: (508) 294-7485 (new #) Usenet: spdcc.com!know!wex "The aim of life, its only aim, is to be free. Free of what? Free to do what? Only to be free, that is all."
david@csource.oz.au (david nugent) (07/16/90)
In <WEX.90Jul13112527@sitting.pws.bull.com> wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >Algorithms, as such, are not exactly patentable. >However, *processes* are patentable. It may be argued that an algorithm is >an embodiment of a software process*. That way one can apply for (and >sometimes get) a patent on such a process. Shouldn't that be the other way around: a software process is an embodiment of an algorithm? -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Unique Computing Pty Ltd Melbourne Australia - Communications Specialists david@csource.oz.au 3:632/348@fidonet 28:4100/1@signet
wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) (07/18/90)
wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: >drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: > In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: > >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? The Rules, Paraphernalia, and concepts of the classic board game Monopoly were patented. I have read the patent, which is the usual collection of stacked claims, broad to narrow. I have just sent a request to my friend who has a copy for the # and date, and will post same when received, so you needn't ask for it. --bill -- /bill ricker/ wdr@wang.com a/k/a wricker@northeastern.edu *** Warning: This account not authorized to express opinions ***
oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (07/20/90)
In article <apxyxr.gmp@wang.com> wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) writes: >wex@sitting.pws.bull.com (Buckaroo Banzai) writes: > >>drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes: > >> In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: >> >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? > >The Rules, Paraphernalia, and concepts of the classic board game >Monopoly were patented. I have read the patent, which is the usual >collection of stacked claims, broad to narrow. I believe the patent by Charles B. Darrow is now expired, and thus the only protected parts of the game Monopoly [trademark of Parker Bros.] are those parts trademarked and copyrighted by Parker Brothers. There is supposed to be another board game called "anti-monopoly" with similar rules. oz --- Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks. | oz@nexus.yorku.ca Rob Pike | or (416) 736 5257
wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) (07/21/90)
I wrote: >> In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: >> >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? >The Rules, Paraphernalia, and concepts of the classic board game >Monopoly were patented. I have read the patent, which is the usual >collection of stacked claims, broad to narrow. I have just sent a >request to my friend who has a copy for the # and date, and will post >same when received, so you needn't ask for it. I received: Received: from office.wang.com by sununix.comm.wang.com with SMTP (5.61/25-eef) Subject: Monopoly Comments: Package Item - Monopoly To: <wdr@wang.wang.com> X-Office-To: USENET SMTP Bill, Charles B. Darrow of Philadelphia assignor to Parker Bros. Inc., Salem Mass, a corporation of Maine. "Board Game Apparatus", No. 2,026,082 Application filed Aug. 31, 1935, Patented Dec. 31, 1935. Nine claims. Jim [The miracles of modern translating Gateways. This message came from a Wang Office message from a friend who helped automate the patent office, which I forwarded as a Wang Office package to my Unix mail-box, and now post for the curious. --bill ] -- /bill ricker/ wdr@wang.com a/k/a wricker@northeastern.edu *** Warning: This account not authorized to express opinions ***
wdr@wang.com (William Ricker) (07/24/90)
>>> In <191100007@trsvax> reyn@trsvax.UUCP writes: >>> >Can the rules of a game be copyrighted or patented? I wrote >>The Rules, Paraphernalia, and concepts of the classic board game >>Monopoly were patented. I have read the patent, which is the usual >>collection of stacked claims, broad to narrow. and later posted the citation. oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes: >I believe the patent by Charles B. Darrow is now expired, and thus the >only protected parts of the game Monopoly [trademark of Parker Bros.] >are those parts trademarked and copyrighted by Parker Brothers. Certainly. I was answering the question whether one *could* patent a game by exhibiting with a game which "was patented". I used "was" in the sense of "had been" rather than the sense of "currently under protection of", which as Oz points out has long since expired. -- /bill ricker/ wdr@wang.com a/k/a wricker@northeastern.edu *** Warning: This account not authorized to express opinions ***