Support NeoGAF

[TheYanger]

Wait..you mean bridging the gap between inconvenient and annoying to really fun and interesting ISN'T why every card game in the genre needs to go digital? What...? I'm aware that these mechanics don't exist in Magic because they are hard to pull off without requiring a lot of coins, paper and dice. That's why digital needs to exists.

And that is probably why Wizards would like to be able to claim that as their own, since this is essentially someone else just bringing their game to the PC .

 

[Shrennin]

Some of this type of stuff listed already exists in Magic, and almost all of it COULD be replicated, don't mistake 'doesn't have' with 'could not have'. Double faced cards are probably something people liked to bring up as 'could not have' existed in magic just a couple short years ago. Yet here we are. Plenty of random effects, plenty of bringing cards from outside of the game and putting them into your deck, all of that shit. Know why they don't do more of that? Because it's inconvenient and annoying, not because they can't. Big difference.

Lol ok. If you think that stuff has ANY chance of being replicated in Magic then I just don't know what to tell you. Wizards won't implement that stuff because it would make Magic incredibly annoying and incredibly inconvenient which would translate to an incredibly stupid game to play. Hex can do all that stuff with ease and while enhancing the player experience rather than hindering it. So, I'll say this, Magic can't implement that stuff because it would make Magic fail pretty hard.

 

[ultron87]

It's funny that a lot of these same arguments against Hex would, if used against video games, devastate the video game industry.

Even though I'm making those arguments I really do hope that this suit isn't successful, because it would be quite harmful to the creation of new stuff. People trying to argue that Hex isn't a Magic clone, when it so obviously is despite a few cool digital only mechanics, just boggles my mind.

 

[dmcAxle]

I agree that the rules of Hex are very close to that of Magic. I don't agree that it is a Magic clone to the level that any lawsuit should be able to succeed in damaging it.

 

[Haly]

There is literally no mechanic that can't be replicated or simulated in Magic in some form or another. This should not be a valid argument against the differences between the games that actually exist. Please stop citing this nebulous all-encompassing future Magic as an argument for the sameness of the two games.

 

[Hellsing321]

Some of this type of stuff listed already exists in Magic, and almost all of it COULD be replicated, don't mistake 'doesn't have' with 'could not have'. Double faced cards are probably something people liked to bring up as 'could not have' existed in magic just a couple short years ago. Yet here we are. Plenty of random effects, plenty of bringing cards from outside of the game and putting them into your deck, all of that shit. Know why they don't do more of that? Because it's inconvenient and annoying, not because they can't. Big difference.

And you just explained why Magic won't implement things like that in Paper Magic. It gets to be a book keeping nightmare. Not a problem though when the game is all digital.

 

[charlequin]

What's the difference between Hex having new cards, and me trying to sell a made-by-me Magic expansion?

If you were just trying to do an explicit expansion rather than a game with very close rules, you'd have more trouble avoiding the unique elements of creative expression (symbols, card frames, creature types, keyword names, etc.)

And I have yet to see a pro-Hex argument that isn't "Hey, it has different cards".

"It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense?

I want to quote the government's Copyright page:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

(Bolding mine.)

On a pure read of legal merits, it's harder to get much clearer than that.

If you accept that the courts will rule as suggested by this text, that mostly leaves the patent claim which WotC could well prevail on, but it's claim based on a patent I've thought was bogus since the 90s so I don't feel any particular qualm giving the moral high ground to someone challenging it.

 

[Shrennin]

Even though I'm making those arguments I really do hope that this suit isn't successful, because it would be quite harmful to the creation of new stuff. People trying to argue that Hex isn't a Magic clone, when it so obviously is despite a few cool digital only mechanics, just boggles my mind.

I don't care if people argue how similar Hex and MTG are at all -- it's obvious that they have their similarities. I still don't see how anyone can be in favor of this case, however. Hex is not actually breaking any sort of laws here, and this case could potentially have a much wider range of impact than I think people understand when they argue against Hex in this case. It won't just affect Hex potentially. This is not a case where Hex and MTG are literally the same game. It's different enough that the law protects it, and that's all that matters in this case.

If you accept that the courts will rule as suggested by this text, that mostly leaves the patent claim which WotC could well prevail on, but it's claim based on a patent I've thought was bogus since the 90s so I don't feel any particular qualm giving the moral high ground to someone challenging it.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that patent incredibly vague? So much so, that many other TCGs would be in violation of it?

 

[TheYanger]

And you just explained why Magic won't implement things like that in Paper Magic. It gets to be a book keeping nightmare. Not a problem though when the game is all digital.

Yes, but suppose Wizards wants to make a digital version of magic as a supplement that goes beyond DotP or Magic Online? They MIGHT prefer it if 'Magic + digital' weren't already around from someone that isn't them.
Get it?

 

[Shrennin]

Yes, but suppose Wizards wants to make a digital version of magic as a supplement that goes beyond DotP or Magic Online? They MIGHT prefer it if 'Magic + digital' weren't already around from someone that isn't them.
Get it?

They didn't hit the market first then, so it's Wizard's fault. Get it?

Also, Magic's main revenue stream is still its paper TCG. That's what makes Wizard's money. The digital version is just a drop in the bucket for them. What you're arguing for is a digital only version of Magic -- and, potentially up till now, Wizards saw no need for such a thing. Also, Hex is being marketed as an MMOTCG -- the MMO aspect isn't even in the game yet as the beta is, well, legitimately a beta. It's more than just an all digital TCG. It's going that extra mile, and most of its features aren't even in the game yet.

 

[charlequin]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that patent incredibly vague? So much so, that many other TCGs would be in violation of it?

All TCGs would be in violation of it. After it was granted to them in 1997 they hit up the publishers of other TCGs in the marketplace for licensing fees, which some non-zero number paid to stay out of court. In 2003 they actually brought suit against Nintendo using that patent as a basis, but they settled out of court. No case involving this patent has actually made it to a trial.

Ironically, WotC themselves (along with a number of other companies) actually got sued in 2012 by a bullshit patent troll company who claimed that Magic Online was violating their "electronic TCG" patent.

 

[TheYanger]

They didn't hit the market first then, so it's Wizard's fault. Get it?

Also, Magic's main revenue stream is still its paper TCG. That's what makes Wizard's money. The digital version is just a drop in the bucket for them. What you're arguing for is a digital only version of Magic -- and, potentially up till now, Wizards saw no need for such a thing.

It's not their fault if they win this suit. I'm saying that's sure a reason for them to try though. Nobody can argue the games aren't EXTREMELY similar.

I would expect the same if I made a digital game called NOMOPOLY that played exactly like Monopoly but with a couple chance cards that utilize digital functions that you wouldn't easily replicate in real life. Yeah, it's a space I beat them to, but they'd be silly not to challenge it.

 

[Shrennin]

All TCGs would be in violation of it. After it was granted to them in 1997 they hit up the publishers of other TCGs in the marketplace for licensing fees, which some non-zero number paid to stay out of court. In 2003 they actually brought suit against Nintendo using that patent as a basis, but they settled out of court. No case involving this patent has actually made it to a trial.

Ironically, WotC themselves (along with a number of other companies) actually got sued in 2012 by a bullshit patent troll company who claimed that Magic Online was violating their "electronic TCG" patent.

Wow, that's stupid. I hope Wizards loses that patent somehow with this case. That would be one good thing to come out of it.

It's not their fault if they win this suit. I'm saying that's sure a reason for them to try though. Nobody can argue the games aren't EXTREMELY similar.

I would expect the same if I made a digital game called NOMOPOLY that played exactly like Monopoly but with a couple chance cards that utilize digital functions that you wouldn't easily replicate in real life. Yeah, it's a space I beat them to, but they'd be silly not to challenge it.

You're really oversimplifying the issue by equating Hex to a literal Chinese knock-off. It's not the same thing. No matter how much you try to equate it as such. It breaks no laws in this suit (except, of course, for the patent - but like charlequin said, EVERY TCG breaks that patent) -- that doesn't mean courts still won't rule against Hex. If that's the case, then the video game industry as a whole could be in for a rude awakening.

 

[TheYanger]

I'm not saying it's going to lose, I'm saying that's WHY WotC is afraid of it.

I also think it's completely ridiculous that people are trying to claim it's mechanically different - it's NOT. But whether that means it should/will win or lose? Who knows.

 

[Shrennin]

I also think it's completely ridiculous that people are trying to claim it's mechanically different - it's NOT. But whether that means it should/will win or lose? Who knows.

Mechanics can't be copyrighted, so that should mean Wizards will lose. Also, some mechanics in Hex are the same as Magic, but some are different (the whole PVE game is a completely different beast than anything Magic could dream to have).

 

[ultron87]

[Have they detailed the PVE stuff much? I remember enjoying the bonkers PVE cards they showed during the Kickstarter. Beyond that I've really just logged onto the beta and done some drafts and haven't really looked at many other sources for info.

I guess I'd just assumed it would be like a multiplayer version of the old Shandalar MTG PC game.

 

[Shrennin]

[Have they detailed the PVE stuff much? I remember enjoying the bonkers PVE cards they showed during the Kickstarter. Beyond that I've really just logged onto the beta and done some drafts and haven't really looked at many other sources for info.

I guess I'd just assumed it would be like a multiplayer version of the old Shandalar MTG PC game.

There's plenty of details regarding how quests, dungeons, and raids work -- there are cards that specific bosses may use that aren't available anywhere else in the game, there's loot drops, there's the whole equipment system that modifies cards, if not outright changes them completely, and a whole bunch of other stuff that's not really been detailed. There's also the Keep system where players can try to get the treasure from another player's keep. There's actually more gameplay systems outside of the PVP than just the PVP. I think there's also been talk about players being dungeon masters themselves -- although I may be getting that confused with the Keep system. I think the Keep system is AI controlled versus the dungeon master talk that I've heard.

There's also this dungeon that's set up as a draft where you gain cards as you go (building your deck as you go). The dungeons and raids are what's really going to make Hex interesting, and the majority of the PVE stuff completely disregards the actual rules of the game.

There's not really much video of any of it though. It's the last thing to be implemented, and it likely won't even appear in this beta. The card mechanics (including bugs being ironed out) have to be perfected before the PVE can be implemented.

Also, one thing to note: the whole point of competition is that it makes companies keep improving. Once a company, who is at the top, decides to stay comfortable and just kinda stay there, then other competitors are likely gonna come in and come up with a better product. Most new products are not completely innovative or new, either. Richard Garfield even admitted that Magic itself was heavily inspired by a game before it. Had Hex had completely different mechanics, and had it tried to go away from a tried and true formula, in addition to adding all of this digital and MMO stuff then it would be taking a much larger risk than any digital TCG that has different mechanics. Hex is much more than just its PVP system, which is pretty much the only thing of target here when that's not even close to the full game.

 

[JustProgress]

[Have they detailed the PVE stuff much? I remember enjoying the bonkers PVE cards they showed during the Kickstarter. Beyond that I've really just logged onto the beta and done some drafts and haven't really looked at many other sources for info.

I guess I'd just assumed it would be like a multiplayer version of the old Shandalar MTG PC game.

They're keeping PvE incredibly close to their chest. Really annoying as a backer, but I guess its to keep it safe from people copying it (lel)

 

[Shrennin]

They're keeping PvE incredibly close to their chest. Really annoying as a backer, but I guess its to keep it safe from people copying it (lel)

They've explained certain dungeons (specific details as far as layouts), and gone into detail about how some mechanics work, but overall, I think you're right. I have a feeling the PVE is going to be one of those things where it can only be properly explained through video (or by actually playing it). Cory has gone on record to say that he is most excited about the PVE over anything else in Hex, too.

 

[thorsilver]

Mechanics can't be copyrighted, so that should mean Wizards will lose. Also, some mechanics in Hex are the same as Magic, but some are different (the whole PVE game is a completely different beast than anything Magic could dream to have).

Except that's far from the only point made in the lawsuit. Probably the most interesting claim is that Hex infringes on MTG's 'trade dress', the overall flow and look/feel of the game, which thus loses them customers. As I understand it, the argument there is essentially 'Hex copied MTG's look/feel/flow of play and is explicitly losing us customers as a result'.

Given that you don't have to go far to see Hex fans saying 'well I'm playing this because it's basically Magic and MTGO is bad', they may have an argument here IMO.

EDIT: OK maybe not, says this guy: http://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/05/understanding-the-wizards-v-hex-lawsuit-in-plain-english/

But he predicts a win on the patent front and has a good shot on the copyright front. More importantly, he points out that under IP law Wizards essentially HAS to sue over stuff like this or risk losing trademarks, etc. Companies who don't defend trademarks, trade dress, etc. lose them.

 

[Shrennin]

Except that's far from the only point made in the lawsuit. Probably the most interesting claim is that Hex infringes on MTG's 'trade dress', the overall flow and look/feel of the game, which thus loses them customers. As I understand it, the argument there is essentially 'Hex copied MTG's look/feel/flow of play and is explicitly losing us customers as a result'.

Given that you don't have to go far to see Hex fans saying 'well I'm playing this because it's basically Magic and MTGO is bad', they may have an argument here IMO.

EDIT: OK maybe not, says this guy: http://www.quietspeculation.com/2014/05/understanding-the-wizards-v-hex-lawsuit-in-plain-english/

But he predicts a win on the patent front and has a good shot on the copyright front. More importantly, he points out that under IP law Wizards essentially HAS to sue over stuff like this or risk losing trademarks, etc. Companies who don't defend trademarks, trade dress, etc. lose them.

This has already been argued over and over again, and I have no interest in just retreading arguments. I was specifically talking about mechanics and copyright because that's what I was replying to. I am very much familiar with all the claims that Wizards has (even the ones that are obviously bogus, like the plot being even remotely similar). Also, the prediction on the patent would essentially apply to every TCG ever. That patent needs to go.

 

[DragonSworne]

Except that's far from the only point made in the lawsuit. Probably the most interesting claim is that Hex infringes on MTG's 'trade dress', the overall flow and look/feel of the game, which thus loses them customers. As I understand it, the argument there is essentially 'Hex copied MTG's look/feel/flow of play and is explicitly losing us customers as a result'.

Coca Cola might as well sue Pepsi then...

 

[Brakara]

Coca Cola might as well sue Pepsi then...

They would if the bottles were similar.

 

[Minsc]

Given that you don't have to go far to see Hex fans saying 'well I'm playing this because it's basically Magic and MTGO is bad', they may have an argument here IMO.

Given charlequin's post (#507):

And I have yet to see a pro-Hex argument that isn't "Hey, it has different cards".

"It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense?

I want to quote the government's Copyright page:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

Material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container may be registrable.

(Bolding mine.)

On a pure read of legal merits, it's harder to get much clearer than that.

If you accept that the courts will rule as suggested by this text, that mostly leaves the patent claim which WotC could well prevail on, but it's claim based on a patent I've thought was bogus since the 90s so I don't feel any particular qualm giving the moral high ground to someone challenging it.

If indeed the mechanics are the same, and going by the above, that's perfectly legal, and one game is bad, and another is good/better (as you say in your post quoted above), why in the world would (all the) people ever want to stay with the bad one? Wouldn't it make perfect sense that the company in charge of the bad game would lose business to the better one? That sounds exactly like competition at its best to me?

Maybe, and I wouldn't be surprised, say Hex makes it through all this with minimal damages, what I wouldn't be surprised to see, is that if Hex is indeed a much deeper and better experience than MTGO (with the various MMO / Guild aspects, and better UI, and so on, and new cards from Set 2, 3, 4 and so on), and starts getting a little of MTGO's business (which honestly, does WotC even care about?), if they do care about it, then I think we'll see MTGO start evolving finally, to catch up with Hex, which would be a wonderful thing.

 

[mclem]

There is literally no mechanic that can't be replicated or simulated in Magic in some form or another. This should not be a valid argument against the differences between the games that actually exist. Please stop citing this nebulous all-encompassing future Magic as an argument for the sameness of the two games.

Should we be looking at the tale of Scrabulous to figure out where the courts might lie, here? That's another situation where there was demand for a digital version of a popular boardgame being fulfilled by a company that did not own the rights.

I don't play myself, but I'm given to understand that they made some significant changes to the rulebook in the version that exists now. So I guess the question should be: Are the differences between Hex and Magic as significant as the differences between modern Lexulous and Scrabble (Which I believe are: Different scoring scheme, rearranged board, eight vs seven tiles-in-hand), or are they closer to the differences between original Scrabulous and Scrabble (which was pretty much literally a direct clone)

 

[FieryBalrog]

There is literally no mechanic that can't be replicated or simulated in Magic in some form or another. This should not be a valid argument against the differences between the games that actually exist. Please stop citing this nebulous all-encompassing future Magic as an argument for the sameness of the two games.

Sure, when people stop citing the nebulous "future Hex" as grounds for dissimilarities between the games.

"It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense?

I want to quote the government's Copyright page:

If you accept that the courts will rule as suggested by this text, that mostly leaves the patent claim which WotC could well prevail on, but it's claim based on a patent I've thought was bogus since the 90s so I don't feel any particular qualm giving the moral high ground to someone challenging it.

If talking about the moral high ground, as opposed to the legal grounds, then the answer to: "It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense? is no, not much of one. If talking about the legal grounds, then the moral ground on patents isn't relevant.

All TCGs would be in violation of it. After it was granted to them in 1997 they hit up the publishers of other TCGs in the marketplace for licensing fees, which some non-zero number paid to stay out of court. In 2003 they actually brought suit against Nintendo using that patent as a basis, but they settled out of court. No case involving this patent has actually made it to a trial.

A company like Nintendo certainly had the resources to bring the patent claims to court if they thought they could prevail against it. Ditto Konami. This is, if anything, evidence that rival companies didn't treat the patent as easily invalidated.

 

[Costia]

A company like Nintendo certainly had the resources to bring the patent claims to court if they thought they could prevail against it. Ditto Konami. This is, if anything, evidence that rival companies didn't treat the patent as easily invalidated.

Settling out of court doesn't mean the paid anything. Nintendo could have shown that they are going to win and possibly invalidate the patent. So the settlement could have been nintendo not paying anything (which saves them time and the money they would have needed to pay the lawyers) while giving everyone else the impression that WotC "won". And in some cases it is cheaper to pay than to take it to trial and win.

 

[In Service]

I don't play myself, but I'm given to understand that they made some significant changes to the rulebook in the version that exists now. So I guess the question should be: Are the differences between Hex and Magic as significant as the differences between modern Lexulous and Scrabble (Which I believe are: Different scoring scheme, rearranged board, eight vs seven tiles-in-hand), or are they closer to the differences between original Scrabulous and Scrabble (which was pretty much literally a direct clone)

That's interesting.

In UK Copyright law the Court usually look to see what elements of the design have been copied and then disregard similarities which arise because they are commonplace, unoriginal, or consisted of general ideas. Then, if they find copying, they look to see if a substantial part of the design has been "taken".

If anyone's interested in these issues from the UK side I suggest they plough through this long Court of Appeal case.

There should be no protection for general ideas and the similarities, if at an abstract level, should be fine. One MTG example which I always rely upon is the "tapping" of cards to indicate use. I think that was a unique use of a mechanism that forms part of the "design" of the case. I haven't looked into Hex in any great detail but that is what the lawyers are paid to do and compare the similarities.

 

[Shrennin]

Sure, when people stop citing the nebulous "future Hex" as grounds for dissimilarities between the games.

So it doesn't matter that Hex isn't even a finished product, yet? Magic is. Hex is not, and it is in a true beta form with over half the game missing.

By the way, if you are talking about that, then that "future" Hex stuff is already announced and coming. When people were referring to "future" Magic, they were speculating completely on the realm of possibilities (drawing the conclusion, I might add, that a lot of stuff Magic could do to pull off card effects in Hex would still be inconvenient and annoying).

 

[Yeef]

So it doesn't matter that Hex isn't even a finished product, yet? Magic is. Hex is not, and it is in a true beta form with over half the game missing.

This is the incorrect use of the design term "beta." Beta typically implies feature-complete but under testing. Alpha implies feature-incomplete and under testing. [/nag]

 

[Discobird]

A company like Nintendo certainly had the resources to bring the patent claims to court if they thought they could prevail against it. Ditto Konami. This is, if anything, evidence that rival companies didn't treat the patent as easily invalidated.

When it comes to patent suits, settlements aren't a tacit admission that the patent is valid, or even not weak. Even smaller suits can cost millions of dollars to litigate and there's always a chance that a court could find for the plaintiff no matter how strong the arguments for invalidity, which could have disastrous results for the defendant. Defendants would often rather settle for a royalty or lump sum below their pain tolerance and make the problem go away, even if they think the patent is weak.

 

[Shrennin]

This is the incorrect use of the design term "beta." Beta typically implies feature-complete but under testing. Alpha implies feature-incomplete and under testing. [/nag]

I worded that weirdly, but I meant it was a true beta in the sense that it's not a public demo like most assume a beta is now. The second thought was focusing on how all the content isn't even there yet. Technically, the PVP beta is only released, but even the PVP isn't feature complete yet (no trading, auction house, I think some more tournament formats are coming, etc.) so I guess your comment still stands! =P

 

[Birgitte2004]

"It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense?

I am not arguing the current legality of it either. I am sure Hex will win or close enough that this will continue to exist.

However, I for one am sick of blatant ripoffs. I wish they were illegal. I don't want it to be so constrained that every FPS beyond the first is illegal, but I don't like seeing 35 cookie clicker clones on the android marketplace, especially since none of them are made by the actual creator of cookie clicker. And new card effects to me do not define a new game, or every Magic expansion would make a new game. Which they clearly don't.

Incidentally, cards with random effects do exist in Magic. They were added to Shandalar, a game from 1997.

 

[charlequin]

If talking about the moral high ground, as opposed to the legal grounds, then the answer to: "It is explicitly legal under the copyright laws of the United States" isn't a defense? is no, not much of one.

If you see copyright as absolute and believe it actually needs even more power than it already has, certainly.

I don't think it's that hard to construct a case for Crypto here. They're starting from a point that they would have been assured was legal; they're taking the rules structure they borrowed as a starting point to build out a game with some fairly unique elements (and a completely unique creative treatment); they're taking that and building a larger metagame (the PVE system) that has no real relation to anything Magic does or will do in the future. They're piggybacking on a familiar system (which, again, they are very clearly allowed to do) in order to ease people into the other structures they're building on top of it. That, to me, doesn't call out for moral indignation.

A company like Nintendo certainly had the resources to bring the patent claims to court if they thought they could prevail against it. Ditto Konami. This is, if anything, evidence that rival companies didn't treat the patent as easily invalidated.

That shows no one expected it to be trivially invalidated but doesn't speak to much more than that. For a large company, taking a predictable settlement as a hedge is usually a better choice than taking the risk of a verdict unless the necessary settlement size is overly large.

 

[nynt9]

So it doesn't matter that Hex isn't even a finished product, yet? Magic is. Hex is not, and it is in a true beta form with over half the game missing.

By the way, if you are talking about that, then that "future" Hex stuff is already announced and coming. When people were referring to "future" Magic, they were speculating completely on the realm of possibilities (drawing the conclusion, I might add, that a lot of stuff Magic could do to pull off card effects in Hex would still be inconvenient and annoying).

If you see copyright as absolute and believe it actually needs even more power than it already has, certainly.

I don't think it's that hard to construct a case for Crypto here. They're starting from a point that they would have been assured was legal; they're taking the rules structure they borrowed as a starting point to build out a game with some fairly unique elements (and a completely unique creative treatment); they're taking that and building a larger metagame (the PVE system) that has no real relation to anything Magic does or will do in the future. They're piggybacking on a familiar system (which, again, they are very clearly allowed to do) in order to ease people into the other structures they're building on top of it. That, to me, doesn't call out for moral indignation.



That shows no one expected it to be trivially invalidated but doesn't speak to much more than that. For a large company, taking a predictable settlement as a hedge is usually a better choice than taking the risk of a verdict unless the necessary settlement size is overly large.

One problem I noticed is, we're talking about future Hex here. As it stands right now Hex has none of these elements, and who's to say it will? Who's to say MTG won't come up with a product that has similar elements and releases it before Hex? Yes, this is kind of a silly argument but so is evaluating Hex for what it could be, not for what it is. There are 3-4 new Magic sets every year and a bunch of other side products, so Magic isn't a "finished" game either, it is always in flux. We can't judge anything based on where we think the game will be. Up until a few years ago, a mechanic like the Werewolf cards in MTG would have been unthinkable (and there was considerable controversy within the community because they were so unorthodox and against the core tenets of the game), yet it happened. Point is, we aren't guaranteed what's in store for either game. I don't think any lawsuit can be won (assuming they can be won based on these things, which they might not be, but if they're not this whole point brought up you two is invalid anyway) based on a vague promise of potential future feature.

Edit: what if CZE somehow win by showing their future PVE stuff is a significant difference, but never end up implementing it (many kickstarters have failed to deliver on promises post-funding-success), then what? I don't think "I promise I'll do this" is a strong legal argument.

 

[cdViking]

The use of mechanics might not be copyright infringement, but the presentation can be confusion a trademark violation.

 

[Dire]

I wonder how much this has to do with the recent Octane Fitness vs Icon Health and Fitness supreme court ruling : http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5665364/supreme-court-decision-makes-patent-fee-shifting-easier

In a nutshell it used to be a freeroll for companies to try to extort other companies with their patents. Even if the defendant won the case against the patent troll, they wouldn't be able to recoup fees (which can run in the millions) unless they could show the case was brought in bad faith with completely baseless claims which is all but impossible to do. This lead to a situation where a patent troll could extort $xxxx from a company and it would invariably be cheaper for the company to simply pay it even if they knew they could win the case in court.

The new ruling makes it much easier for defendants to recoup fees which means patent trolls stand to lose big if their claims don't hold up in court. Furthermore company's who feel they're being victimized can defend themselves much more actively against patent trolls without so much concern for the costs since if they win they are much more able to recoup the costs of their defense from the patent troll.

 

[nynt9]

I wonder how much this has to do with the recent Octane Fitness vs Icon Health and Fitness supreme court ruling : http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5665364/supreme-court-decision-makes-patent-fee-shifting-easier

In a nutshell it used to be a freeroll for companies to try to extort other companies with their patents. Even if the defendant won the case against the patent troll, they wouldn't be able to recoup fees (which can run in the millions) unless they could show the case was brought in bad faith with completely baseless claims which is all but impossible to do. This lead to a situation where a patent troll could extort $xxxx from a company and it would invariably be cheaper for the company to simply pay it even if they knew they could win the case in court.

The new ruling makes it much easier for defendants to recoup fees which means patent trolls stand to lose big if their claims don't hold up in court. Furthermore company's who feel they're being victimized can defend themselves much more actively against patent trolls without so much concern for the costs since if they win they are much more able to recoup the costs of their defense from the patent troll.

Probably not a lot, because as many others have pointed there isn't a lot of patent fighting going on here anyway.

 

[Abounder]

I'm a layman but I think this is more bullying than not because Cryptozoic was going to deliver a competitive product, and in that sense it reminds me of the lawsuit between Games Workshop (company that made Warhammer) versus Chapterhouse Studios (smaller company that sells add-on model kits that conveniently fit on Warhammer miniature models).

I believe it's still ongoing (appeals?) but you can find the 2013 verdict in the link below; and I believe Games Workshop more or less lost because the judge ruled what was fair and what wasn't fair for add-on kits (in other words GW wanted to get rid of them all but instead a blueprint was laid out for others to follow).

And on a side note I think some notable lawyers volunteered in defense of Chapterhouse Studios due to the copyright and trademark ramifications that could follow, if I recall correctly anyway.

While certain CHS products themselves may disappear from the Earth in the aftermath of this case, it looks like the verdict may have provided a clear blueprint for the 3rd party accessory bits market. One that allows legal use of certain GW trademarks and terms in a way that goes way beyond what Nottingham themselves ever wished to allow.

http://www.tabletopgamingnews.com/2013/06/18/74763/

Sorry for the tangent but it will be interesting to see what happens to the future of trading card games and miniatures. I also loved the kickstarter trailer that Cryptozoic made and it's hard not to like them after that.

 

[ZackieChan]

If you see copyright as absolute and believe it actually needs even more power than it already has, certainly.

I don't think it's that hard to construct a case for Crypto here. They're starting from a point that they would have been assured was legal; they're taking the rules structure they borrowed as a starting point to build out a game with some fairly unique elements (and a completely unique creative treatment); they're taking that and building a larger metagame (the PVE system) that has no real relation to anything Magic does or will do in the future. They're piggybacking on a familiar system (which, again, they are very clearly allowed to do) in order to ease people into the other structures they're building on top of it. That, to me, doesn't call out for moral indignation.



That shows no one expected it to be trivially invalidated but doesn't speak to much more than that. For a large company, taking a predictable settlement as a hedge is usually a better choice than taking the risk of a verdict unless the necessary settlement size is overly large.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but you seem to be concentrating solely on copyright law, when the complaint is actually alleging three causes of action. There is protection for the game mechanics, though I haven't read the MtG patent lately or know enough about how Hex works to know if it's infringing there.

 

[Discobird]

I wonder how much this has to do with the recent Octane Fitness vs Icon Health and Fitness supreme court ruling : http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/29/5665364/supreme-court-decision-makes-patent-fee-shifting-easier

Not a whole lot, fee shifting is still only going to happen in an "exceptional" case, which SCOTUS interprets to mean "one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." This is significantly easier to meet than the old standard, but that's because the old standard was nearly impossible. From what we know so far, it doesn't seem like this case would fall under the first prong of the Octane Fitness test (Crypto doesn't appear to have an overwhelmingly more powerful position on the patent claim) and it is too early to say anything about the second.

 

[Shrennin]

One problem I noticed is, we're talking about future Hex here. As it stands right now Hex has none of these elements, and who's to say it will? Who's to say MTG won't come up with a product that has similar elements and releases it before Hex? Yes, this is kind of a silly argument but so is evaluating Hex for what it could be, not for what it is. There are 3-4 new Magic sets every year and a bunch of other side products, so Magic isn't a "finished" game either, it is always in flux. We can't judge anything based on where we think the game will be. Up until a few years ago, a mechanic like the Werewolf cards in MTG would have been unthinkable (and there was considerable controversy within the community because they were so unorthodox and against the core tenets of the game), yet it happened. Point is, we aren't guaranteed what's in store for either game. I don't think any lawsuit can be won (assuming they can be won based on these things, which they might not be, but if they're not this whole point brought up you two is invalid anyway) based on a vague promise of potential future feature.

Edit: what if CZE somehow win by showing their future PVE stuff is a significant difference, but never end up implementing it (many kickstarters have failed to deliver on promises post-funding-success), then what? I don't think "I promise I'll do this" is a strong legal argument.

If courts could stop a game in a closed beta based on the UNFOUNDED suspect that it would never release the whole version and thus its current form is too similar to previous games then the video game industry would be dead. Absolutely dead. If you think Crypto losing this case based on that is good, then I think you might be in for a surprise. There's a fairly different basis between Hex and Magic -- Magic is a card game, Hex is more video game. It's in a closed beta where the majority of people cannot even access it.

Hex also raised 2 million dollars, which far exceeded its original goal which had the PVE and MMO aspects in it originally. Also, every penny of the KS money is going directly into the development of the game in addition to what Crypto has spent and will spend on it.

Comparing future Magic and future Hex is absolutely bogus too. Magic is a released product, Hex is not. There's clearly a huge difference between the two. You seem to be taking me quite literal on the term "finished" but you can't argue against Magic being a released product (with defined expectations) while Hex is not.

The PVE element is not a "vague promise" either. It's already up and running for the developers internally AND there is video (albeit not much) of it. Also, the CEO of Cryptozoic has gone on record in saying that the PVE aspect is what he is most excited about in Hex. It's a huge, huge, HUGE part of the game, and if it did not release then Hex would essentially be dead on arrival anyway. That's how important that little PVE aspect is.

 

[charlequin]

One problem I noticed is, we're talking about future Hex here. As it stands right now Hex has none of these elements, and who's to say it will?

Well, if it doesn't ship these promised features, all the Kickstarter backers will be pissed. (It's just a question of whose fault it is that'll determine who they're pissed at.)

I don't think any lawsuit can be won (assuming they can be won based on these things, which they might not be, but if they're not this whole point brought up you two is invalid anyway) based on a vague promise of potential future feature.

It doesn't have to be, Hex is legally in the clear on the mechanics even if they don't implement those other distinguishing features, and the elements WotC are more likely to win on aren't affected at all by whether the PvE stuff and so on gets implemented.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but you seem to be concentrating solely on copyright law, when the complaint is actually alleging three causes of action.

In the post you're quoting here I'm just talking about moral culpability. I think WotC's patent is bullshit (and have since they first got it) and the trademark claim is just there as a second approach on the same moral claim (that Hex is wrongfully copying their product) so I don't really feel the need to take a separate stance on it.

I would agree (and have upthread) that the patent and trademark arguments have a significant chance of coming out in WotC's favor, legally speaking.

 

[Ryuukan]

CZE files motion to dismiss

Plaintiff does not identify any specific instance of infringement. Instead, Plaintiff relies on blog posts and online forum comments from anonymous third parties to support its infringement allegations.

 

[Remembrance]

Interesting that there are barely any arguments about the patent and trade dress claims.

They only have a substantial response to the copyright claim. Granted, a lot of people seemed to focus on that... but this is for the court, not for the public debate.

 

[cdash]

This is not a defense for the claims, this is merely a procedural argument. They do mention the patent claim briefly but only in so far as to say procedurally there can be no injunction because the patent is now expired even if they could still owe damages for when the patent was in effect. An injunction is used to prevent future damage but since it is expired there can be none.

 

[bigkrev]

https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/wawdce-200735-wizards-of-the-coast-v-cryptozoic-entertainment#simple1
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2042983/wawdce-200735-1.pdf

WOTC has responded, and documented 107 cards it feels infringe on copyrights, with pictures and comparisons

 

[ultron87]

While some of those comparisons are a little loose there are a pretty silly number of exact same mana cost copies as well.

 

[Kyuur]

Not sure if anyone else has been keeping track of this, but mach on the Hex forums has been posting updates on the lawsuit. You can them from here evidently, if you register for free (I haven't confirmed):

https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/wawdce-200735

Stolen from here: http://forums.cryptozoic.com/showthread.php?t=38174

Today's document is the Joint Status Report. The two sides had a conference (by phone) on September 4th. This document is the result of that. Basically, the two sides are agreeing to a general schedule/plan for the next phase of the process - discovery. Basically, discovery is where each side has to turn over relevant information to the other.

This is a process document, rather than a content one. It's about how they are going to do things, not about the actual content of the case. Here are interesting/notable points from the document:

• Both parties agree that this is a "highly complex case." Discovery will be extensive (which means it will be time-consuming and expensive).
• Topics of discovery: "claim construction, infringement, and validity of the patent-in-suit, actual dilution and confusion or likelihood of confusion as to trade dress, and to access and copying issues relative to the copyrights, as well as damages."
• Discovery will last a long time. There is a deadline or other important date nearly every month up until December 14, 2015, which is the last day to file dispositive motions.
• The trial is expected to last 12 court days.
• The parties disagree as to whether there should be one trial or two. WotC wants one trial. CZE wants separate trials for liability and damages.
• They should be ready for trial by Spring 2016.
• Both parties agree to video recording. Yay!

Looks like it will be a long one.

 

[ZackieChan]

There's an opinion in a different case that might have some insight for the copyright portion of this one. Not a final decision, but it's an opinion on a motion that seems in line with what other circuits have decided as far as clone games go. It's in Texas, however, where this is in Washington. However, this case is in the same court as the Triple Town/Yeti Town case, so it may not look great for Crypto. We shall see (in 2016?)...

I'll link to my blog post, which has all the relevant links. Hope that's okay.