I am absolutely not a lawyer; but, I don't believe game mechanics are patentable in the United States (this is Japan, so of course that doesn't matter); but there's a reason there's a lot of -opoly games that aren't Monopoly (and the -opoly, non-Monopoly games are not Hasbro games, in general).
> I am absolutely not a lawyer; but, I don't believe game mechanics are patentable in the United States (this is Japan, so of course that doesn't matter); but there's a reason there's a lot of -opoly games that aren't Monopoly (and the -opoly, non-Monopoly games are not Hasbro games, in general).
THE FILES OF PATENTS that have been granted are a fruitful hunting ground for forgotten games, although going through these files, as anyone who has ever been involved in a patent search well knows, is a time consuming job. Often the patented games are downright silly, such as a set of dominos made of rubber so that they can double as ink erasers (No. 729,489) or a sliding block puzzle with edible pieces so that a player who despairs of a solution can find consolation in gratifying his stomach (No. 1,274,294). Often the patents are repetitious: There are over a hundred variations of the well-known checkerboard and over a thousand different baseball games.
...
Preceding THE LANDLORD'S GAME by just under a year, on April 21, 1903, Patent No. 726,023 was granted to Henry Busch and Arthur Jaeger, also for a game board. Their game, called BLUE AND GRAY, made no lasting impression in the world of games which, I suppose, is understandable since it didn't have the innovative qualities of THE LANDLORD's GAME. Yet it was, and is, a delightful pastime, which should particularly appeal to the ChEckers fan who is looking for something different.
The name Blue and Gray, of course, refers to the uniforms of the South and the North in the Civil War and in the original game the playing pieces of the contestants were of those colors.
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to board type games played on a game board or surface, preferably a substantially orthogonally gridded, planar surface, and more particularly to a game which selectively diverts a beam (e.g. laser beam) by user-placed mirrored game pieces that are moved laterally or rotated during play.
2. Description of the Related Art
Many board games have been provided which use paths across their surface as part of the game. An example of such a game is chess. In addition, games exist that depend on the deflection or reflection of objects off of other objects to “score” points.
The following US Patents are examples of board games, each hereby incorporated herein by reference: U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,516,671; 5,145,182; and 6,702,286.
Going into the patent citations there are a number of other laser board games that it references that are different games with different claims as to what they patent. Here's a different board game with lasers that predates Khet - https://patents.google.com/patent/US5145182A/en
Is it different? Do they claim different things? Having something similar isn't necessarily legally similar.
Blue and Gray is a checkers game that is played on a checkers board with checkers pieces and is distinct enough to receive a patent.
Trademarks protect names. Copyrights protect that text or music or ... Patents protect that idea - the rules and mechanics of that game.
The game of the present invention generates a “beam” for each player, which can be a low-powered laser diodes to emit a beam of colored light. These beams are reflected and deflected around the playing field by mirrored surfaces of pieces, or stopped by non-mirrored surfaces of pieces.
The game is won by a player who strategically maneuvers pieces to reflect a laser beam so as to illuminate a key piece belonging to his opponent, e.g., a “Pharaoh” or “King” piece.
With each turn, a player may move one of his pieces to one of the potentially eight, unoccupied adjacent squares (front, back, left, right or diagonal) or may rotate (re-orient) one of his pieces.
After moving or rotating a piece, that player presses a fire button that triggers the emission of a beam above and parallel to the playing surface. If the beam hits a non-mirrored surface of a playing piece, that piece is removed from the board and eliminated from further play, unless it is the key piece, e.g., “King” or “Pharaoh” piece, in which case the game ends.
The pieces can vary in design and setup, with mirrors being located on multiple (e.g. one, two or more) sides or no sides.
And more specifically the claim about movement:
39. A method of playing a game by opposed players; said game comprising two sets of distinguishable playing pieces, each set having movable pieces with no mirrored surfaces, of which one is a key piece, and pieces with at least one mirrored surface, a game board consisting of a first end, a second end, and a plurality of rows and columns, intersecting to form a plurality of spaces, the method comprising the steps of:
placing each player's set of playing pieces on the game in a pre-determined starting configuration; and
alternating turns, each turn comprising moving, either a translation or a rotation, a piece followed by activation of a laser, said alternating moves continuing until one player illuminates the opposing player's key piece;
wherein moving a piece consists of a movement one space in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal direction to an unoccupied adjacent space.
Yes. Very much it does. It's been 35 years since I played Laser Chess, so perhaps there are some minor differences in the rules. But it describes a game so close to Laser Chess that it immediately brought the game to mind.
In laser chess, pieces have different movement rules.
You can move a piece 1 or 2 spaces in a single direction (1 east, or 2 east, but not 1 north east unless that was used as two moves). You could also rotate on your turn. Firing a laser was optional.
In Khet, you can move one piece 1 adjacent spot (any of the 8) or rotate (not both) and you always fired the laser.
The rules are different - and the rules are patented.
If you had different rules that weren't covered by the claims, it would be a different game.
It seems to me like taking chess, same pieces, same game board, same movement, same rules except you can't en passant in the A or H file. Then patenting it. It doesn't seem novel enough qualify for a patent when there is something so similar 20 years prior.
Japanese legal system is... well... not good by Western standards. Remember it's a place where you can be sued for defamation even if you say verifiably true things.
I would like to know about the laws of the United States,
We all have secrets that we don't want people to know.
Is it illegal in the U.S. or in the West to outing someone else if you have the logic that it is a fact?
I am Japanese, but I am very surprised.
Of course, accusations of public value to society are not libel in Japan. Everything is judged on a case by case basis.
As is obvious in the case of a company, it is illegal to disclose a trade secret, even if it is true,
If it is judged by a court to have a positive impact on society, such as by leaking information about illegal activities, it becomes legal.
I don't think this is particularly strange in Japan, but is it different in the U.S. or the West?
However, in recent years, it has become routine in Japan to identify and punish employees who have leaked wrongdoings.
In the evening news this evening, a government employee leaked information about a fraud, and the elected governor identified and pressured the employee, and the employee committed suicide.
Public opinion is overwhelmingly blaming the governor, but the police and other authorities show no signs of acting.
Despite this current situation, anyway, it is legally true that “even the truth can be sued,” and is this different in the US or in the West?
IANAL, but I'm going to chime in as someone familiar with one significant aspect of how the Japanese patent system is used.
It is very common in Japan for large companies like Nintendo to file and hold patents for smaller companies, this is especially prominent in the video game industry. This is a tradition borne out of, ironically, refusal to use the patent system at first.
For those that don't know, a lot of Japanese society operates on the honor system. You are expected to be truthful and honorable in your business dealings and in general. Patents were initially shunned because Japanese people didn't see a need, you don't need a rights protection system if everyone already respects them. That notion went straight out the window once Japan had to compete on the world stage: Suddenly, westerners saw Japanese ideas that weren't protected by patents and patented them and Japanese companies subsequently got sued and lost.
This led to a critical reassessment of how Japanese values are applied, and the result was that larger companies with sufficient financial strength would register and hold patents for smaller companies (not necessarily affiliated, by the way) who don't have the money to pay for all that, and in exchange those patents would be shared as a Japanese industry-wide good.
Nintendo is one such custodian of patents for the wider Japanese video game industry at large.
I am going to presume that Nintendo is suing Palworld for reasons beyond just its own interests in Pokemon. I haven't played Palworld nor have I looked at the details of this lawsuit, so I can't make an in-depth comment; but this probably isn't Nintendo acting like a copyright draconian as they are commonly seen in the west, rather they are likely doing this for the sake of the entire Japanese video game industry at large.
A few years ago, Nintendo sued (and won) a fellow Japanese video game developer, COLOPL, for infringing on mechanics patents that Nintendo was holding as custodian for the industry. Why? Because COLOPL broke the gentlemen's agreement and filed their own patent for the mechanic.
> A few years ago, Nintendo sued (and won) a fellow Japanese video game developer, COLOPL, for infringing on mechanics patents that Nintendo was holding as custodian for the industry. Why? Because COLOPL broke the gentlemen's agreement and filed their own patent for the mechanic.
I saw a video about this on YouTube the other day.
About 17 minutes long.
Titled “The Nintendo lawsuit you’ve never heard about”.
It was an interesting video. I recommend watching it. (To people here on HN in general, I mean.)
The original game was covered by two patents. Parker Brothers bought them from the creator after finding out that Charles Darrow had lied when he claimed that Monopoly was his own invention.
Aren't patents of video game mechanics protect the technical implementation of a feature and not the feature itself?
I've always been under assumption that one can avoid patent infringing if the underlying implementation is different enough.
For example, one of more famous patents is Sega's yellow arrow on top of the screen, showing player where is the next objective. In your game you can still use that feature of "showing player in which direction the objective is", you just have to be more creative about it, here are some immediate ideas I got:
- small red hand pops up from side of screen when you're stuck for a minute and points to objective
- player character himself points with hand to your goal
- make sun, moon or other celestial body appear on the sky in the direction where the objective is.
Each of these provides the very similar feature without infringing on Sega's patent.
Monopoly was patented-- in 1935. So that's long-expired.
And many of the non-Hasbro -opoly games (that use that as part of their name) actually are licensed. Hasbro's been known to go after unauthorized users of the name for trademark infringement.
I've built games in the US where we specifically avoided certain features(if I recall correctly around minigames on loading screens) because of those concerns. We never got to find out if they were enforceable but they certainly impacted how we build the title(which never really had a material outcome, the game was doomed for other reasons).
You can't just patent any random game mechanics you might be able to think of, but nothing in patent law categorically precludes patenting them. I don't recall the details, but Wizards of the Coast infamously had a patent on a specific combination of mechanics in Magic: The Gathering, which led to several card games carefully constructed to not infringe the patent in question. This typically took the form of all cards in the game being included in a single box instead of random packs, but in at least one case a company produced a pointed parody in which the instructions told players to not to assemble decks from randomly allocated cards and then "tap" them for resources because that would be patent infringement.
Gains from enforcing them likely are not great. And games in general are massive pit of potential prior-art... I would guess that if any of the big publishers attacked someone else people would willingly point out something prior-art just to spite those big companies.
