David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > "Ian Edwards" <mendo666 at hotmail.com> writes: > >>> Wotc is one of the few table top game companies that has a patent, >>> they have >>> patented the idea of a 'collectible card game' >>> Which clearly is assinine, children made a game of trading cards >>> long before >>> obsure rules were added to the mix. >> >> Here's how rumors start. WotC did not patent 'collectible card >> games.' Richard Garfield, the creator of Magic: the Gathering (the >> first true CCG), got a patent on the act of 'tapping,' turning a >> card 90 degrees clockwise to act as a memory marker that it had been >> used. He 'gave' his patent to WotC, so they reap the benefits. Note >> that Dr. Garfield is no longer an employee at WotC: he's a freelance >> game designer. > > Unfortunately, that technique has been used for probably 50 years in > duplicate bridge play. I imagine the patent would be thrown out, if > anybody bothered to fight it. But that's horribly expensive, and the > presumption is that the patent is valid, the burden of proof is on the > other side. I feel the same way, patents do not undergo nearly enough scrutiny in the 'review'. I have no confidence that the patent office is granting patents ethically. Any not-for-profit entity, or person should be able to file a review once every so often, If enough people file a review it gets one, each of the points that the group says counter the resonablility of the patent should be have to be without a shadow of a doubt proved incorrect. But it doesn't work that way. It works like you said (someone with money files, you don't have money and that makes it abusive, not just.