Wildcat Sues Magic Online Devs Over Decade-Old Patent

[mooncalf]

I like how they can demand money for a particular sort of thing on a computer and yet pay nothing but lip service to those inventors of computing technologies. These are vultures squatting amongst the bones of titans.

 

[Omegatronacles]

When, if ever, was the last time a computer game based on the Magic: The Gathering card game actually featured a game mechanic that allowed you to trade virtual cards? Is it not the whole point of buying the computer game that you can whip up a virtual deck from pretty much any magic card that has ever been in print?

Does this latest troll seriously think that a person or company who first creates a collectable card game, and then goes on to publish an electronic version of that same card game owes them money?

Patent trolling should be a criminal offense punishable by death by fire.

Unfortunately MTGO is far more like the actual game than that. You buy boosters, trade cards, sell them, etc.

However, with my shaky, not qualified in any way, gained off the back of cereal packets legal knowledge, I'm pretty sure that one of the conditions for suing for infringement is to show that the infringement damaged profits or potential profits in some way. And unless someone can point me to the fantastic Wildcat OTCG that I've been missing, which has suffered a severe decline since MTGO was release, I don't think there's much of a case here.

But then again, I'm an office worker, not a lawyer.

 

[Jhereg42]

This will not end well for Wildcat.

http://patents.justia.com/1997/05662332.html

 

[kburns10]

Decade-old?

Last time I checked 1995 was a lot closer to being 20 years ago...

Don't say that! I still want to be young, damnit Also, haters gonna hate. They just want a piece of the profits Magic is bringing in.

 

[BaronIveagh]

One does not simply sue nintendo... who had electronic trading cards before there were electronic trading cards.

Actually, Nintendo was only the publisher. Hudson soft was the dev, and they're part of Konami now, not Nintendo.

This will not end well for Wildcat.

http://patents.justia.com/1997/05662332.html

Actually it might, as what WotC basically patented was their rules system, and it's quite specific.

"Provided herein is a novel method of game play and game components that inone embodiment are in the form of trading cards (10, 12, 40, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64). However, the game components may take other forms, such as a board game, or the game may be played in different media, such as electronic games, video games, computer games, and interactive network. In one version, the game components comprise energy or mana cards 40 and command or spell cards (10, 12, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64) having commands or spells associated therewith that utilize the energy to enable a player to attack, defend and modify the effect of other mana cards, spell cards, and the fundamental rules of play. The goal of the game is to reduce the life points of other players to a level below one. In this game of strategy and chance, players construct their own library of cards, preferably from trading cards, and play their library or deck of cards against the deck of cards of an opposing player. Cards may be obtained from retail outlets, trading with other players or collectors, and winning cards at games and tournaments. "

It recognizes that trading cards are basically a preexisting thing. Further, Mr Pepple applied right around the same time that WotC did. Worse, Konami, in their own patents for the Pokemon electronic card came, cites Pepple's patent, meaning that, of the 'infringers' Nintendo is actually in deep shit, as the devs of the game they published acknowledged in their own patent that they're using Mr Pepple's (the original inventor) idea.

What I think may have happened is that Pepple sold the patent rights to Wildcat, who is now sueing, but I can only speculate.

Edit: Wildcat apparently acquired this patent in conjunction with the IP for the online cardgame Unit Command: http://www.unitcommand.com/

Edit 2: Nope, Pepple is a partner in the company. Here's the filing papers for a suit filed last year over one of the associated patents:

http://news.priorsmart.com/wildcat-intellectual-property-holdings-v-4kids-entertainment-l4b8/#Complaint


Since EA is named as a defendant, is it wrong for me to want to see that patent holder win?

 

[gardian06]

One does not simply sue nintendo... who had electronic trading cards before there were electronic trading cards.

Actually, Nintendo was only the publisher. Hudson soft was the dev, and they're part of Konami now, not Nintendo.

This will not end well for Wildcat.

http://patents.justia.com/1997/05662332.html

Actually it might, as what WotC basically patented was their rules system, and it's quite specific.

"Provided herein is a novel method of game play and game components that inone embodiment are in the form of trading cards (10, 12, 40, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64). However, the game components may take other forms, such as a board game, or the game may be played in different media, such as electronic games, video games, computer games, and interactive network. In one version, the game components comprise energy or mana cards 40 and command or spell cards (10, 12, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64) having commands or spells associated therewith that utilize the energy to enable a player to attack, defend and modify the effect of other mana cards, spell cards, and the fundamental rules of play. The goal of the game is to reduce the life points of other players to a level below one. In this game of strategy and chance, players construct their own library of cards, preferably from trading cards, and play their library or deck of cards against the deck of cards of an opposing player. Cards may be obtained from retail outlets, trading with other players or collectors, and winning cards at games and tournaments. "

It recognizes that trading cards are basically a preexisting thing. Further, Mr Pepple applied right around the same time that WotC did. Worse, Konami, in their own patents for the Pokemon electronic card came, cites Pepple's patent, meaning that, of the 'infringers' Nintendo is actually in deep shit, as the devs of the game they published acknowledged in their own patent that they're using Mr Pepple's (the original inventor) idea.

What I think may have happened is that Pepple sold the patent rights to Wildcat, who is now sueing, but I can only speculate.

though Magic the Gathering has existed since 1996, and this patent was filed in 1997 meaning that by virtue of the thing the patent is being filed for already existing, or the large basis thereof the patent is null, and void. because by the abstract alone (which makes little to no reference to an electronic medium) that is MtG, so in all reality the patent has no merit to begin with

EDIT: MtG first released in 1993, and patent filed in 1995. still we know what came first

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Unfortunately MTGO is far more like the actual game than that. You buy boosters, trade cards, sell them, etc.

I know you're being deadly serious. Because that joke is almost profoundly unfunny.

 

[BaronIveagh]

EDIT: MtG first released in 1993, and patent filed in 1995. still we know what came first

Yeah, the reason for the WotC patent was actually to eliminate a lot of up and coming CCGs that were giving M:tG competition.

If you think about it, that means that this whole thing is actually patent troll on patent troll action.

 

[RonHiler]

Goddammit, how many times do we have to go through this before the government figures out the system is broken and fixes the patent laws on software.

I know the government is designed to move slowly and deliberately, but seriously, hasn't it been long enough yet?

 

[Jhereg42]

WotC filing date: Oct 17, 1995 / Issue date: Sep 2, 1997
Ref: http://www.google.com/patents/US5662332

Wildcat patent 6200216 Filed: March 6, 1995 Date of patent: March 13th 2001
Ref http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/6200216

This makes an interesting case really. Magic can be considered prior art easily enough, and though the Wildcat patent was filed earlier, it was not ISSUED until 2001 for some reason, 3 years after WotC completed a patent that allowed them to run their game as an on-line game. We would need a legal expert to weigh in on this to be sure, but I THINK the issue date takes priority in this case. WotC has been operating under a legally issued patent. I just don't see much of a case against them. The question then would become are they in violation of WotC's patent.

 

[deth2munkies]

Ahh, Texas, home of the free, brave, and patent trolls.