Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: WotC copyrights
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 18:45:44 -0500
At 05:28 PM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:47 AM 3/16/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>Other than monopolize the CCG market? And when I say monopolize, I mean
>>MONOPOLIZE. They patented the idea of a 'collectable-card game'. If you
>want to
>>produce a CCG, you have to license the idea - from them. For lots of money.
>
>So have FASA, and all the other companies printing CCGs licensed the idea
>from WotC? Frankly, I can't see that the idea is original enough to merit
>a patent. It's nothing about the physical game itself (cards are nothing
>new) and there've been card games of similar types before, the only aspect
>that's new (and they stole it from collectable sports cards) is the rarity
>and random-card purchase aspects. That doesn't merit a patent, that I can
>see...
>

I don't have the details in front of me right now, but apparently Wizards
of the Coast attempted to copyright "their" system of CCGs. Basically,
they claim that any CCG that resembles the basics of Magic: the Gathering
(the cards, the point based win/lose system) is their creation and therefor
they are due licensing fees. And they claim that nearly every CCG is based
on MtG and therefor those companies owe them money.

If I recall right, they sent legal notices to all the other major companies
with CCGs. As their deadline approached, I think only one company
capitulated and agreed to pay WotC. The makers of L5R and FASA, among
others, haven't agreed to play WotC's game.

It would be like TSR claiming that since they invented RPGs, every other
RPG company must license the idea of RPGing from them for their games.
They have attempted to copyright an general concept, which is something you
really can't do. They can copyright their version of how a CCG can be
played, but they can't prevent others from creating and selling their own
version of a CCG, even if there are some similarities. Ford might create a
new engine type, and patent it, but I guarantee that GM, Honda, BMW, etc.
will create their own version of the engine modified just enough so that
any legal challenge will be difficult.

The suit, from appearances, has no strong legal basis; it's more of the
type of thing that a large company does in order to intimidate smaller
companies.

Hope this helps.

Erik J.
Message no. 2
From: losthalo <losthalo@********.COM>
Subject: Re: WotC copyrights
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 19:35:14 -0500
At 06:45 PM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't have the details in front of me right now, but apparently Wizards
>of the Coast attempted to copyright "their" system of CCGs. Basically,
>they claim that any CCG that resembles the basics of Magic: the Gathering
>(the cards, the point based win/lose system) is their creation and therefor
>they are due licensing fees. And they claim that nearly every CCG is based
>on MtG and therefor those companies owe them money.

>If I recall right, they sent legal notices to all the other major companies
>with CCGs. As their deadline approached, I think only one company
>capitulated and agreed to pay WotC. The makers of L5R and FASA, among
>others, haven't agreed to play WotC's game.

If this is true, this does make them look pretty bad, to me. They want to
reap the benefits of others' work, after the fact. Why didn't they try
this before there were a bunch of other successful games? That's very dodgy.


losthalo@********.comwhileyouarelisteningyourwillingattentionismakingyoumore
andmoreintothepersonyouwanttobecome.




the damned."


TMBG
Message no. 3
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: WotC copyrights
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:12:27 -0500
At 07:35 PM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 06:45 PM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>I don't have the details in front of me right now, but apparently Wizards
>>of the Coast attempted to copyright "their" system of CCGs. Basically,
>>they claim that any CCG that resembles the basics of Magic: the Gathering
>>(the cards, the point based win/lose system) is their creation and therefor
>>they are due licensing fees. And they claim that nearly every CCG is based
>>on MtG and therefor those companies owe them money.
>
>>If I recall right, they sent legal notices to all the other major companies
>>with CCGs. As their deadline approached, I think only one company
>>capitulated and agreed to pay WotC. The makers of L5R and FASA, among
>>others, haven't agreed to play WotC's game.
>
>If this is true, this does make them look pretty bad, to me. They want to
>reap the benefits of others' work, after the fact. Why didn't they try
>this before there were a bunch of other successful games? That's very dodgy.
>

I can't confirm the exact nature of my post, since I'm at work and don't
have any gaming books/mags with me. So, despite my own feelings about
WotC, *it might not be true.* Let me try to dig up a magazine or two
tonight after my boxing class (where I beat the crap out of my fists and
scare the living hell out of prissy aerobics girls by pounding on a 80lb
heavy bag and grunting like Monica Seles or Andre Agassi...)

But your reply is basically how most of the industry are viewing WotC's
actions. It does seem very dodgy and is a big reason why a lot of other
companies are taking an adversarial stance against Wizards of the Coast.

Things in the gaming industry are starting to shape up like
high-tech...Sun&Netscape vs. Microsoft, everyone else vs. Wizards of the
Coast...

Erik J.
Message no. 4
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: WotC copyrights
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:19:53 -0800
> I don't have the details in front of me right now, but apparently Wizards
> of the Coast attempted to copyright "their" system of CCGs. Basically,
> they claim that any CCG that resembles the basics of Magic: the Gathering
> (the cards, the point based win/lose system) is their creation and therefor
> they are due licensing fees. And they claim that nearly every CCG is based
> on MtG and therefor those companies owe them money.

> If I recall right, they sent legal notices to all the other major companies
> with CCGs. As their deadline approached, I think only one company
> capitulated and agreed to pay WotC. The makers of L5R and FASA, among
> others, haven't agreed to play WotC's game.

L5% is owned by FRPG, which is owned by... WotC. In fact, L5R was
designed with the intent of eventually being sold to WotC.

There *have* been a few games which are quite obviously MtG knockoffs.
If I understand the patent law correctly, there are six basic 'claims'
in the MtG patent; to escape falling under the patent (and thus owing
WotC royalties), a company has to show that there's at least one element
of its game that doesn't fall under each claim.

It takes about two years for a patent to go through the cycle; in 2000,
then, we should see a flood of other CCG patents coming to surface.


-Matt

------------------------------------
Beware the man who casts two shadows.

GridSec: SRCard / Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about WotC copyrights, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!