Wizard suing MtG clone for IP infringement

[K]

Here is the articles.

Should be interesting when Wizards loses this case and opens the floodgates, though they might know that Hex can't afford to defend.

[Previn]

Besides Card layout being strikingly similar:

- Card types are Enchantment, land, Creature, instant, artifact, sorcery Constant, Resource, Troop, Quick Action, Artifact.
- 5 colors (red, blue, green, black, white) and artifacts
- 60 card decks, 7 cards on the draw, 20 life starting out.
- Draw 1 card at the start of your turn.
- Play 1 resource/land on your turn
- Creatures have 'summoning sickness' and can't be used the turn they put into play
- Creatures must attack players, defender can choose to block
- Turning a card sideways indicates it's been used
- Firststrike swift strike is there as a mechanic.

I would be very surprised if they didn't win. Hex's presentation is nice, and the interface and ideas not directly related to the game rules look good, but the rules...yeah, lawsuit all over that.

[Drolyt]

but the rules...yeah, lawsuit all over that.

If they win it is highly unlikely to be because of this. Rules can't be copyrighted. I believe Wizards has some patents on certain mechanics, but that is very unlikely to hold up in court.

[DSMatticus]

The brief WotC filed is floating around on the internet. It's... a hoot. They're claiming that Hex copied the "pleasing and ornamental layout of the functional features of Magic trading cards."

Title on top? Check.
Cost on top? Check.
Upper half is an image? Check.
Bottom half is a text plate? Check.
Text plate is headed with the type of card? Check.
Text plate contains rules text relevant to the card? Check.
Bottom border lists offensive and defensive stats if applicable? Check.

There can be no doubt. Yu-Gi-Oh has been ripping M;tG for almost two decades!

More seriously, most of it is just pointing out similarities between the two games' systems. You can't own gameplay systems or mechanics. That is not how it works. This is completely frivolous. This is the sort of lawsuit for which the filing lawyers and parties should be fined into oblivion. There is nothing here except a bold and transparent effort to bully a start-up with their fancy and expensive legal team.

[darkmaster]

Well, fortunately for wizards the Yu-Gi-Oh metagame is becoming more and more of goddamn mess as time goes by. So they don't even need to sue them.

Yeah this is stupid and if there is any justice they will be made to pay for wasting the court's time with this asinine law suit.

[Plague of Hats]

They turn cards sideways and have not-Enchantments and not-Creatures may seem frivolous, but in the complaint there's also Oracle Song and Wild Growth, which seem to fall less under "a differently named mechanic" and more under "that is the same god damn card." It would be nice if there were a more thorough comparison.

[RadiantPhoenix]

There is, in fact, a patent on various aspects of Magic, including tapping. It was issued in 1996, I think.

[Username17]

That legal brief is fucking hilarious. Most of it is literally just them copying a blog post explaining Hex to Magic players in terms of Magic. Their big list of similarities doesn't consistently use the correct terminology for either game. They refer to their own "land" as "resources" to make it sound like the "resources" of Hex are infringing on them. Then they claim that Hex calls turning cards sideways "tap," which they in fact don't (it's called "exhaust" like in the WoW card game or a hundred others).

Honestly, Hex is really blatantly based on M:tG. That's not even up for discussion. You "attack" and "block" in that game rather than "intercept" or "defend" or any of a dozen other synonyms that other games have used. However, by fixating on how similar the resources are to lands, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Because resources are actually very little like lands. They are not quite as different as Shadowfist's Feng Shui sites are, but they are a bit more different than L5R's Holdings are.

In HEX, we have streamlined the resource system so you don’t have to mess with resource cards at all after you play them from your hand. There’s no turning resources sideways, figuring out WHICH resources to turn sideways, any of that nonsense.

And of course, I never would have even looked up any of this information if WotC wasn't attempting to bully the Hex people with a poorly written legal brief.

-Username17

[Previn]

There is, in fact, a patent on various aspects of Magic, including tapping. It was issued in 1996, I think.

Yup.

Looking Plague of Hats's link over, I cannot see anything that Hex could reasonably try and contest. You can't copywrite game rules, but you can patent them, which WotC did. Trade Dress has also clearly been violated here, and is protected even without having to have a formal patent on file.

Yu-Gi-Oh I would suspect has negotiated use, which the Hex guys were approached about and refused to do.

[Username17]

WotC's patent is hilariously vague. However, Hex does not actually violate it. Here's the key point:

each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:

(a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game components available for play by taking the one or more game components from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a playing surface; and

(b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by:

(i) selecting one or more game components; and

(ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.

Holy balls is that vague. They patented "drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules." That is some serious bullshit, and probably why they've never tried to take anyone to court over it. But here's the thing: while bowing a holding in L5R is "rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation," the act of playing a resource card to increment an integer on your champion card is not.

You don't tap lands for mana in Hex. Fuck, you don't even "exhaust" "resources" for "threshold." You just don't. It's not the same thing.

Edit: They forgot to include "having a quantity of some form of account which can be reduced to pay costs required to put game elements into play or produce additional effects from game elements already in play." Really an oversight when you think about it. Also, they totally should have patented the number five.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

Yu-Gi-Oh I would suspect has negotiated use, which the Hex guys were approached about and refused to do.

I will eat my hat if Yugioh payed for the right to use a card form that every card game ever uses. Does Nintendo pay WotC too? Since they also have the exact same card format in pokemon.

[Username17]

Yu-Gi-Oh I would suspect has negotiated use, which the Hex guys were approached about and refused to do.

I will eat my hat if Yugioh payed for the right to use a card form that every card game ever uses. Does Nintendo pay WotC too? Since they also have the exact same card format in pokemon.

Nintendo actually did pay WotC a lump of money, but not for the format. They had licensed the rights to make the card game to WotC and then canceled the license so they could make it in-house and paid fees for continuing to use the cards and rules that WotC had produced.

Kind of a bad example, but basically yes.

-Username17

[TiaC]

Yu-Gi-Oh I would suspect has negotiated use, which the Hex guys were approached about and refused to do.

I will eat my hat if Yugioh payed for the right to use a card form that every card game ever uses. Does Nintendo pay WotC too? Since they also have the exact same card format in pokemon.

Remember that while many of these concepts seem obvious now, Magic did actually invent them. It is not surprising that they have a patent, as they do have a good claim to those ideas.

[Drolyt]

Looking Plague of Hats's link over, I cannot see anything that Hex could reasonably try and contest. You can't copywrite game rules, but you can patent them, which WotC did. Trade Dress has also clearly been violated here, and is protected even without having to have a formal patent on file.

Patents are notoriously full of shit and frequently (most of the time? I can't find stats at the moment) don't hold up in court. What actually happens is big companies like Hasbro collect them so they can bully their competition and stifle innovation. The legitimacy of their intellectual poverty rights isn't even relevant.

I can't any logic where Wizards should win this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

[zugschef]

Law is a whore.

[Kaelik]

Remember that while many of these concepts seem obvious now, Magic did actually invent them. It is not surprising that they have a patent, as they do have a good claim to those ideas.

Look, I don't dispute for now that Magic was the first every CCG to ever exist. It probably wasn't, but for the purposes of this conversation, I am not disputing that.

But for a patent to hold up, it can't just be something you did first, it has to be novel. Even if I am the first person to implement an RPG, I don't get to patent the formatting of the book. I can't sue people for beginning with a "what is an RPG" section, and having a table of contents, and having chapters which describe the rules.

WotC saying they have a patent on the idea of putting the name of the card at the top of the card, and the rules text and a picture on the same card is full of fucking shit.

It totally fucking matters if the concepts seem obvious now, because if they seem so obvious now that literally anyone making a CCG would have stumbled across them without ever having seen MTG, then even if that person did see MTG, and did copy MTG, that still isn't patent infringement, because the patent was never valid to begin with.

Patenting "Name of the card at the top" is the dumbest thing that could ever exist. And technically, what they claim to have patented is not "Name at the Top" but the specific combination of several very obvious things. That is still bullshit. If each individual thing is obvious, the combination does not become non obvious.

[codeGlaze]

Didn't apple win it's suit over their patent on sliding a lock from left to right to unlock your phone?

[TiaC]

I agree that parts of the patent are unenforceable, but there are still some pieces that are not so obvious. Summoning Sickness, the card types, the numbers used for life, deck, and hand size, even Tapping. So they will almost certainly lose some parts of the case, but they have a much better chance in others.

[Pixels]

There is, in fact, a patent on various aspects of Magic, including tapping. It was issued in 1996, I think.

IANAL, but my understanding is that game mechanics are generally considered to fall under the category of "abstract ideas" established by Bilski. How this is applied to patents issued before that ruling I do not know. There is a decent chance that it is invalid.

[DSMatticus]

Summoning sickness, card types, and tapping are unpatentable. They cannot be patented. No sane court would hold those patents, because they are 1) overly broad, 2) too simplistic to be meaningfully creative, and 3) functional. I mean, there's always the chance that the courts will expand the power of patents, because... that is something they seem to do all the time because lolfuckyouconsumers.

A card that takes actions has to take its first action either now or later. If you make a game where cards take actions and decide on later, then you can't own that. It's too simple to represent a meaningful creative effort, and it's a choice with a number of functional ramifications you cannot monopolize access to.

You cannot own the idea of card types. Ever hear of Hearts? Kind of already done. Similarly, wizards can't even own most of the specific card types they use. If you were making a game about wizards battling eachother (an idea you can't own, by the way), then casting spells, having minions, and modifying the board state were all things you might want them to do. Those are sorceries/instants, creatures, and enchantments/artifacts. You can't own that. It's far too incredibly broad. It's too simple and obvious to constitute a meaningful creative effort (yes, people would have stumbled across that one without magic).

Tapping is even more hilarious. They claim to own the idea of reorienting a card to denote a state change. There are very few ways to indicate a card state change. You either flip it, mark it, put a thing on it, or reorient it. Flip it hides info. Marking is destructive. That leaves two incredibly broad methods: put a thing on it or reorient it. You can't choose the latter and then claim you own it. That is, again, too fucking simplistic to denote a meaningful creative venture, and still an incredibly functional choice that you cannot monopolize access to.

The specific numbers being the same is sketchy, because it might suggest intent to the court. Not changing those was stupid. But the vast majority of M;tG is simply not patentable, and if a court upholds it it will be a sad day and a major expansion of IP law. This is some "Gygax claims to own roleplaying games" level shit.

Didn't apple win it's suit over their patent on sliding a lock from left to right to unlock your phone?

Unfortunately, yes. A court upheld the slide lock patent in the U.S., but in every other country Apple has tried to sue over it that patent has been dismissed without consideration - you see, Apple didn't actually invent the slide lock. Neonode did, and then Apple incrementally improved it and then patented the entire concept. Basically: our courts are fucking insane, and there is a nontrivial chance that in any given patent case they will blatantly violate our own laws and common-fucking-sense in favor of expanding IP law and sucking corporate cock. Partially because technology is confusing, and partially because IP special interests are a genuine source of bipartisan corruption - both blues and reds will come together to stifle innovation.

[Username17]

Remember: Magic the Gathering is pretty explicitly WizWar without the board. Magic can't claim to own seven card hands, mixtures of spell and resource cards, having running your opponent out of life points as a victory state, or the inability to attack on the first turn because WizWar already had all that in 1985.

An interesting historical note: Once, Richard Garfield mentioned that Tom Jolly introduced his Wiz-War to him. This game, among others, inspired him to create the best selling CCG, Magic: The Gathering.

That being said, WotC does unfortunately have a chance, even though they obviously don't have a case. Because US courts are completely insane when it comes to patent law and sucking corporate cock.

-Username17

[Koumei]

They're more likely to get what they want just by bullying them. So it's not that they have a case, they don't even need a good chance in court - all they need in order to win is for their target to be intimidated.

[Previn]

WotC saying they have a patent on the idea of putting the name of the card at the top of the card, and the rules text and a picture on the same card is full of fucking shit.

WotC is specifically not claiming to have a patent on the layout of the card. That's under Trade Dress. WotC is openly saying that the layout of a MtG card is not functional specifically so they can call out it's distinctiveness and use that as the crux of that section.

It totally fucking matters if the concepts seem obvious now, because if they seem so obvious now that literally anyone making a CCG would have stumbled across them without ever having seen MTG, then even if that person did see MTG, and did copy MTG, that still isn't patent infringement, because the patent was never valid to begin with.

Well, hindsight judgements are not permissible for obviousness of a patent. The fact that the magic card format for a CCG isn't even remotely the only one, nor obviously best, suggests that it is not necessarily obvious. I could see this going either way, if it wasn't for the fact that the Hex makers are copying so much from MtG with minor changes.

I am not sure what WotC claims to have a copywrite over, or if that's just part of header.

It does kind of suck that WotC is pulling out the legal guns, but really this is basically why we have all these inane laws over this stuff anyways. If what I've been reading regarding Cryptozoic changing corporate status to an LLC that could be 'sold' to a German company, escaping just such a lawsuit, the fact that they're refering to MtG when describing the rules a lot, and people on their podcasts actually being confused as to if this was MtG stuff or not, I find it hard to believe that Cryptozoic didn't know what it was doing and in fact actually planned knowing full well that what they were doing was legally questionable on a good day.

My biggest issue is that Cryptozoic is working in a digital environment. They could have made significant changes to the actual layout easily. Heck, the amount of pointless stuff they show that doesn't matter to the game, or could have come from a mouse over alone could have gotten them a big side step legally speaking and a lot of good will from a judge.

[Surgo]

Time to see if the absurdities of patent law in the software realm will translate to the other realms.

[Dogbert]

WotC doesn't need to -win- the lawsuit, they just need to -threaten- with a lawsuit. Startups usually can't afford a legal defense, and when threatened to be slapped with a suit, the reflexive response is closing.

Standard, despicable WotC modus operandi. Say, how feasible is that small-time publishers formed a mafia an allied group with pooled resources to defend themselves against this kind of mafia tactics?