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."

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.

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.