17 Aug, 2010, Fevenis wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I was hoping to use a combat system similar to the Active time battle system that finaly fantasy 4-9 uses, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fanta....

The problem I am worried about is, there is a patent on the Active time battle idea:
Quote
Square Co filed a Japanese patent application related to the ATB system on July 16, 1991 and a corresponding US application on March 16, 1992. One Japanese patent (JP2794230) and two US patents (US5390937 and US5649862) were granted based on these applications.


I'm no legal guru at all. Would making a similar system go agaisn't these patents? How closely can you use similar ideas? Would love some advise on this. Maybe the end answer is to rethink a completely different combat system.

Discussion of the system is in this thread:
http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2750-49507...
17 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
The system has been used in a lot of non-square related stuff, so I wouldn't worry about it. Just look at all their fan-based stuff, and knockoff RPGs. Square doesn't really flex their legal muscles unless they either look bad or will lose out on money.

Now if only they'd stop smoking crack so I could get my RPG fix.
18 Aug, 2010, Fevenis wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I dunno… Aside from play made RPG maker scripts, I'm not seeing other games out there not owned by Square-Enix that use this system.
18 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
There's a ton of knock-off "japaneese" RPGs (made in america of course) that do. That does NOT however speak to its legality. The best advice I can get is if it really is something you want to do commercially, talk to a lawyer. If you're doing it for free, Fair Use Laws tip the scales in favour of allowing personal or academic projects that may otherwise be infringing on intellectual property.

Maya/Rudha
18 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
If you're doing it for free, Fair Use Laws tip the scales in favour of allowing personal or academic projects that may otherwise be infringing on intellectual property.

Not really. Reproducing somebody's patented work for free doesn't put the law on your side; in fact, it should be rather obvious how this can be very harmful to the patent-holder. Fair use is something else; an academic project might qualify for using certain excerpts of copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary, but a whole reproduction is likely to not be acceptable.

What would be more interesting to consider is that certain things like game mechanics cannot in fact be copyrighted (and therefore, I believe, are not patentable either). What you can and cannot patent can sometimes be complex; for example, yes, you do see patents for those "game mechanics". But what you are actually seeing is a patent for the implementation of that idea, not the idea itself. If you go read the patent, you will see that it is extremely specific on implementation details, to the point of providing flow-charts about the logic and in-game menu structure. So, in principle, you could reimplement the idea as long as you used a different implementation.
18 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I am actually paraphrasing a quote from american copyright law there. :)

You're half right - simply doing it for free isnt what makes it acceptable under Fair Use - its that it is in most circumstances that makes it a non-commercial use.
18 Aug, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Non-commercial isn't always good enough. Copyright isn't just about protecting profits, it's also about retaining control. If I hold a copyright on something, I have the right to restrict distribution of that thing, regardless of the commercial status of your attempted use of it.

I'm not sure if patents work the same way, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. My patented method of doing something reserves me the right to be the only person able to do that thing in exactly that way. You doing it for free dilutes my potential market, and also dilutes the value (both monetary and reputation) of my name.

In short, you probably won't have any issues if you make a *similar* system to the one the Final Fantasy series uses. However, if you mimic their system verbatum, you open yourself to litigation regardless of your intent to profit (or not).
18 Aug, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Im not a Lawyer, but Im 100% sure the Fair Use clauses dont really make a distinction between it as you think it does. Should it? Id actually say it probably should. I cant say I know the specifics of the newer DMCA or how it changes anything, however.

Your bottom line is the important thing though! Making something similar is okay legally, but theres a line between making something similar, and simply duplicating it.

If you have to ask yourself if youve crossed that line, chances are you have.

Maya/Rudha
18 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Rudha said:
Im not a Lawyer, but Im 100% sure the Fair Use clauses dont really make a distinction between it as you think it does.

The fair use doctrine is not clearly defined, but it's primarily intended for things like commentary, research and news reporting, not for using other people's work in a competing product.

More importantly, it's a copyright limitation, while the OP is concerned with a patent.
18 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
You're half right - simply doing it for free isnt what makes it acceptable under Fair Use - its that it is in most circumstances that makes it a non-commercial use.

You are correct that there is usually a correlation between distributing something for free and doing something non-commercially. However, you are incorrect that doing something for free or non-commercially automatically tilts the law in your favor. The "bottom line" is not a determining factor. But even so, it's pretty clear that somebody distributing your work for free can really hurt your bottom line, ne?

In this instance, using an entire system wholesale is most certainly not "fair use", regardless of the fact that the MUD is non-commercial.

You'd be better off investigating whether or not the idea itself is copyrightable/patentable. It turns out that the "copyrightability" of game designs is fairly well studied (just google "copyright game design"). My understanding is that many of the same criteria apply for patents, such as not being able to patent abstract ideas but rather implementations or machines.
18 Aug, 2010, Fevenis wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Appreciate all the input. Those are the answers I was looking for!

If you want to help brain storm unique battle ideas, you're welcome to join me in my other thread =).

http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2750-49507...
18 Aug, 2010, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
There is no 'unique' battle system anyway, one way or another it is :player A inflict damage to player B, then the other way around..
At the computer level it is turned based anyway only the timer used change.
The very fact a patent is granted on such obvious algorithm is beyond me.
It is like amazon one click patent. Only hold till you are wealthy enough to invalidate it.
18 Aug, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
There is no 'unique' battle system anyway, one way or another it is :player
A inflict damage to player B, then the other way around..

That is the basic premise behind combat, but it's not a combat system. If you simplify it that far, the term becomes meaningless (in fact it rather reminds me of this old thread). You might as well argue that there are no unique computer games at all, because they're all just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

No feature is designed in a vacuum, but that doesn't mean you can't create your own unique blend of concepts, or put your own unique spin on an older idea. Combat consist of so many factors that it's unlikely you'd ever accidentally create something identical to an existing combat system.

Rarva.Riendf said:
At the computer level it is turned based anyway only the timer used change.

The term "turn-based" is a game concept, not a programming concept. It doesn't matter how you've implemented it, only what the players see.
18 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
What would be more interesting to consider is that certain things like game mechanics cannot in fact be copyrighted…

Correct up to this point.
Quote
(and therefore, I believe, are not patentable either). What you can and cannot patent can sometimes be complex; for example, yes, you do see patents for those "game mechanics". But what you are actually seeing is a patent for the implementation of that idea, not the idea itself. If you go read the patent, you will see that it is extremely specific on implementation details, to the point of providing flow-charts about the logic and in-game menu structure. So, in principle, you could reimplement the idea as long as you used a different implementation.

This is not. Ideas, game mechanics, systems, concepts are indeed the subject of patents. Patent is wider than protecting a specific "implementation", it guards against all other implementations of the system or ideas described in the patent.

Another example is the "Magic: The gathering" trading card game. There are dozens of similar card games, all different implementations or expressions of the same basic concept. All them fall under Hasbro's (formerly WoTC) one patent.

BTW, the whole idea of using computers to play multiplayer networked games was patented in the 70's. While Richard Bartle doesn't talk about it in his book, I do recall him talking about on the mud-dev list. The owner of the patent contacted and did collect royalties from some of the early commercial muds, but left free muds alone. The patent expired in the mid 90's.
18 Aug, 2010, Ssolvarain wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
The patent expired in the mid 90's.


So, should it have continued another 15 or so years, he could be claiming a fairly insane amount of royalty moolah? And do you think it would apply to consoles (or mini-computers, as they are now…)?
18 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Ideas, game mechanics, systems, concepts are indeed the subject of patents. Patent is wider than protecting a specific "implementation", it guards against all other implementations of the system or ideas described in the patent.

What's your reference for this? Many people (based off of a quick google search) disagree with you, but nobody seems willing to actually provide a hard reference.

If we go to the US PTO, we see that there are three types of patents: utility, design, and plant.

Plant patents can be ruled out pretty obviously.

Design patents also seem to not apply here:
US PTO said:
A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.


Utility patents are what might apply (from the front page):
Quote
Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;




Quote
Another example is the "Magic: The gathering" trading card game.

They're still not patenting an idea; if you go read the patent they're really quite specific about a number of implementation elements. So like I said, you could implement the idea as long as the details of implementation are different.

Note that implementation does not (only) mean the pictures and text you put on the cards. You can express the exact same implementation with different pictures on top. For instance, the WotC patent is rather explicit about "tapping" as it refers to switching cards 90 degrees. You could presumably "consume" your card by turning it upside down or something like that, and therefore not be violating the patent, while still implementing the same idea.

Furthermore, they did not patent the general idea of using certain energy elements to control other offensive elements; they were again rather specific about the context in which all of that occurs. In fact, they go so far as to give the game rules, much as you might expect to find in a rule book. So you could not use those exact rules (the implementation of the idea) but something following the same general concept (read: idea…) should be ok.

There's another interesting question to be asked, namely whether or not such a patent would actually hold up in court if challenged. But of course challenging a WotC/Hasbro/SquareEnix patent is not a reasonable prospect for a hobbyist MUD developer…
18 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
Tyche said:
The patent expired in the mid 90's.


So, should it have continued another 15 or so years, he could be claiming a fairly insane amount of royalty moolah? And do you think it would apply to consoles (or mini-computers, as they are now…)?


I found the message, the patent was quite a bit later than I thought.
Quote
I guess this means you haven't heard about the Sitrick patent,
US patent number 4,572,509, awarded 25th February 1986? Here's Sitrick's
abstract:

"A system of distributed video game apparatus are capable of
exhibiting an interactive single identity game. In one embodiment
there is provided a distributed game apparatus, selectively
interlinkable to form a homogenous single identity game or as a
peer game in the single identity system. The function of each
video game apparatus can be defined at the start of game play.
Each video game apparatus has a user input device, and can have
its own video display, or a master video display can be provided
for the whole system. As a single identity game system, each
display, or the master display, can display the composite display
resulting from the totality of peer game interaction. Alternatively,
the display can provide individual peer game information.
Individual peer game information can be communicated either globally
or individually to and from selected one of the peer games. The
system can provide for generating global and individual peer game
displays to the selected display device. A communications
manager can provide for interaction of remotely located
individual game apparatus."

Sitrick (who is himself now a patent lawyer, I understand) asserts this
patent in the case of online games. Many companies pay him licence fees, but
at least one has decided that he can't be allowed to get away with it.
It is likely to cost them several million dollars in lawyers' fees to break
it.
US patent lawyers inform me that any "prior art" which might affect
the patent's validity must have existed prior to one year before the patent
application was received. In the case of the Sitrick patent, this is
something like September 1981. Furthermore, proof of existence is only
valid for existence in the USA; for existence in the rest of the world,
actual publication is required.
So far from worrying that the likes of Electronic Arts, Sony and
Nintendo might pull a patent out of the bag and stymie all online games
development, you might instead worry that if you already so much as make a
bean from online games yourself you could receive a letter from Sitrick's
lawyers spelling out his licence terms.

Richard
18 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

It should be clear from reading that, that ideas, game mechanics, systems, concepts are indeed the subject of patents. It should also be obvious that not ALL ideas, mechanics, systems nor concepts are patentable either.
18 Aug, 2010, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
One wonders if you read the whole posts, instead of stopping at a particular point. The interesting part of the post was not the parenthetical remark – in fact, the mere fact that it was parenthetical should have been a clue…
18 Aug, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
One wonders if you read the whole posts, instead of stopping at a particular point. The interesting part of the post was not the parenthetical remark – in fact, the mere fact that it was parenthetical should have been a clue…


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.
0.0/157