Wizards of the Coast Files Copyright Lawsuit Against Crypotozoic's HEX MMO

[Starke]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer to that, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, there are tons of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

TSR's Spellfire.

And believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Yeah, without looking at Hex, this is probably just because it was a near 1:1 conversion. When it comes to games, it has to be an almost exact copy to be actionable.

I've actually got an RPG on my shelf that's almost identical to the first edition White Wolf games, except that instead of rolling multiple D10s and checking for success, you roll a single D10 and try to go under your Attribute + Ability total. ...and the setting's less interesting, but, still. As far as I can tell, they were never sued, and just went under for being garbage.

 

[Shalok]

I'm not sure about the finer details but the systems in place in HEX are VERY similar to those of MtG. But i also think those systems are what defines the genre. I don't know the specific details but if they don't have some particular piece of patent or IP they think they can use i don't think they would sue. Many CCGs exist without legal action from WotC

That said this could come off a little like ID software suing someone for creating an FPS.

I'm reluctant to scream "frivolous" or make accusations of patent trolling because there have been other CCG games or those using mechanics based on them that have not been sued. This includes situations where physical CCGs have been directly linked to MMO gameplay, such as what "Star Wars Galaxy" had going with it's CCG for a while.

It also appears they are specifically going after the MMO, as opposed to the card game itself, which makes me think that they are claiming a lot of code was lifted specifically from their game.

I'm neither a big fan of WoTC or the MtG game, but nothing in this very, very, limited amount of information smacks as being a problem so far.

Hah HEX is way to stable a program to have lifted any code from MTGO....

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm not sure about the finer details but the systems in place in HEX are VERY similar to those of MtG. But i also think those systems are what defines the genre. I don't know the specific details but if they don't have some particular piece of patent or IP they think they can use i don't think they would sue. Many CCGs exist without legal action from WotC

That said this could come off a little like ID software suing someone for creating an FPS.

It's important to remember that they do own the concept of tapping, so that's at least one thing they can make a claim on.

 

[Baldr]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

 

[Starke]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

Trade dress only applies if they actually copied the card format, mana or tapping symbols.

This one ends up on the patent, and that one's iffy. I'm told, by people who've actually looked at them, that the patents might be invalid if someone could make the right prior art claims. IITC, they actually patented booster pack distribution and tapping.

 

[Baldr]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

Trade dress only applies if they actually copied the card format, mana or tapping symbols.

This one ends up on the patent, and that one's iffy. I'm told, by people who've actually looked at them, that the patents might be invalid if someone could make the right prior art claims. IITC, they actually patented booster pack distribution and tapping.

If they patented Booster Pack/Distribution or along those lines, they didn't do a very good job on enforcing that patent, and may not be eligible to have it protected. As for the tapping, a single game mechanic is not protected by copyright, trademark, nor patent.(although the game programming code may be.)

 

[Starke]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

Trade dress only applies if they actually copied the card format, mana or tapping symbols.

This one ends up on the patent, and that one's iffy. I'm told, by people who've actually looked at them, that the patents might be invalid if someone could make the right prior art claims. IITC, they actually patented booster pack distribution and tapping.

If they patented Booster Pack/Distribution or along those lines, they didn't do a very good job on enforcing that patent, and may not be eligible to have it protected. As for the tapping, a single game mechanic is not protected by copyright, trademark, nor patent.(although the game programming code may be.)

Assertion only needs to happen with trademark. Trademarks are not patents. Patents do not suffer from dilution. Copyrights do not suffer from dilution. Patents don't need to be litigated to remain in effect. Please try to remember, we are not talking about trademarks, or copyright; we are talking about patents.

Never mind that the patents are ridiculous on their face, and any half-competent patent attorney should immediately point to trading cards and baseball cards, and get the patent invalidated due to prior art.

 

[Something Amyss]

\By the time you get into games released in '95, the Magic clones were a lot rarer, and it wasn't because anyone was afraid that Wizards would come after them.

No, they were still all over the place. I mean, seriously, my FLCS was lousy with them, as were the malls. This was the period in which most of my friends actually got into the games, meaning a huge influx interest. I played about five billion magic clones, many of them produced right before the patent was announced.

 

[Starke]

\By the time you get into games released in '95, the Magic clones were a lot rarer, and it wasn't because anyone was afraid that Wizards would come after them.

No, they were still all over the place. I mean, seriously, my FLCS was lousy with them, as were the malls. This was the period in which most of my friends actually got into the games, meaning a huge influx interest. I played about five billion magic clones, many of them produced right before the patent was announced.

At the risk of just being contrary: name them.

Now, I haven't played the five billion CCGs you have, and as I recall the 100th CCG was released in 2000, after the patent was announced, so I'm not sure where the other, slightly less than five billion games you played came from.

There were a few that were very similar with a few minor alterations. But, Magic clones were always in extreme minority after '94. Source: I played a fuckawful lot of CCGs back in the 90s.

I'll give you partial credit though. A lot of local shops held onto a lot of non-selling CCGs until the late 90s, so I ended up buying a ton of the Star of the Guardians cards for about 30 bucks in the late 90s. It was one of the early Magic clones with a few tweaks, but the game didn't move until much later. I suspect stuff like Wyvern was still kicking around and going on clearance around the same time for you. But... yeah, Magic clones died out fast, as actual game designers got involved.

 

[Tien Pham]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

Currently I am part of Hex's Closed Beta, and here's what I would list as some of the differences that's actually in the Closed Beta Client right now. Some of the things listed is "it is sort of different". Just to try to add to the list of things to consider.



Booster Packs:
Additional content - Comes with a "loot chest" (not yet able to be opened, suppose to contain PvE extras such as equipment for champions). Has a change of spawning a free all rare 15 card "primal" booster pack.


Champion:
Champion powers - Gain charges from playing resources/shard/mana, on player's turn spend X amount of charges to use ability. Different champion, different abilities. This is very similar to what's in WoWTCG.


Resource Mechanics:
Shard Threshold vs Resource Cost - Playing a basic shard/resource/mana gains the player a neutral resource and a shard of the type played. Colored cards have a requirement of X needed threshold of that type to play, and pay Y amount of the neutral resource. For example in Hex, a Murder quick action requires 1 Blood threshold and 3 resources to play. So to show the difference, in Hex you would be able to play 3 Murders with only playing out 1 Blood Shard and having 9 resources some other way.

Shard of Fate - Currently the only "non-basic" shard in the game. Playing it adds a resource and "searching your deck basic shard... gain that shard's threshold" or something like that.


Troop Affecting Abilities:
Permanent buffs/debuffs on Troops - For example, there are ways to give a troop +1/+1 and this buff persists on the troop when it is sent to graveyard, back in to deck, voided, etc. Also there are more advanced granted abilities such as "when this troop is destroyed, draw a card..."

Cards Transforming to Different Cards - For example, a card changing in to a different card.

Reverting buffs/debuffs on Troops - Changing a card back to it's original state.


Cards Interacting with Deck:
Add/creating new cards in to Decks - For example, create X and shuffle in to opponent's deck.

Drawing from opponent's Deck - For example something like draw from opponent's deck and change threshold requirement to Blood.

 

[Baldr]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

Trade dress only applies if they actually copied the card format, mana or tapping symbols.

This one ends up on the patent, and that one's iffy. I'm told, by people who've actually looked at them, that the patents might be invalid if someone could make the right prior art claims. IITC, they actually patented booster pack distribution and tapping.

If they patented Booster Pack/Distribution or along those lines, they didn't do a very good job on enforcing that patent, and may not be eligible to have it protected. As for the tapping, a single game mechanic is not protected by copyright, trademark, nor patent.(although the game programming code may be.)

Assertion only needs to happen with trademark. Trademarks are not patents. Patents do not suffer from dilution. Copyrights do not suffer from dilution. Patents don't need to be litigated to remain in effect. Please try to remember, we are not talking about trademarks, or copyright; we are talking about patents.

Never mind that the patents are ridiculous on their face, and any half-competent patent attorney should immediately point to trading cards and baseball cards, and get the patent invalidated due to prior art.

I only took law classes in copyright, trademark, negotiations, and 1st amendment. I hardly know anything about patent law.

 

[The Great JT]

Some day WotC and Games Workshop are going to get into a lawsuit war. And it will be glorious.

 

[Starke]

looking at the comparison make them seem quite similar, id like to see a list of differences as well

When I first read some of Hex's cards, I immediately thought it was another of Wizards of the Coast's jokes,Space: The Convergence [http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/feature/391] being the first. Space: The Convergence was essentially Magic: The Gathering, but in space. The rules were exactly the same; the only thing they changed was the flavor (science fiction instead of fantasy).

Hex appears to offer a large amount customization for individual cards, which to my knowledge, no TCG has ever done before. However, the core mechanics (and the cards) are almost entirely the same as MtG's; every single Hex card I looked at resembled a reflavored Magic card, in exactly the same way a Space: The Convergence card did. And as cool as the RPG elements look, it's as much a clone of MtG as StC was, only with a few extra peripherals.

i see...

heres a thing i just thought, this doesnt happen often in video games, can you imagine if activision tried to sue every other modern military shooter?

this industry is based on making slight adjustments to existing formulas, sometimes games may only differ on story and levels while keeping pretty much the exact same mechanics

why is this not an issue when it comes to video games but it is when it comes to TCG?, even if Hex was blatantly copying MtG, it is trying to add its flavor to the formula

I'm afraid I don't really have an answer that isn't mostly speculation, as I have next to no knowledge of how copyright law, and most laws in general, operate.

However, I'm assuming that Hasbro could theoretically sue anyone they want, but there's no way they're going to win every single one of those lawsuits. So, instead, they only file lawsuits they think they'll win.

But believe me when I say that Hex is incredibly similar to Magic: The Gathering. Like, you could literally pit a Magic: The Gathering deck against a Hex deck (without any of that extra stuff) using either games' rules and have next to no rules-hiccups. You'd have to translate a few game terms, but as the post on the Hex Podcast website proves, they're practically 1:1 translations.

So I think most people will agree that this is a lawsuit Hasbro has a good chance of winning, which probably wouldn't be the case for a lot of other TCGs.

Also, as has been mentioned before in this thread, there are lots of TCGs that are in many ways similar to MtG (which is inevitable, given that it pioneered the entire TCG genre), and none of them have been hit with lawsuits, so it's not like this happens often with TCGs either.

Actually this will probably be a uphill battle for Hasbro. First lets start with the copyright claim. It is absolute impossible to win for Hasbro, unless Hex blatantly copied exact card art or text from Magic the Gathering. Next lets look at the patent dispute, it pretty much comes down to how much the court is willing to look at what Hasbro can actually patent, which is not a lot, if the ruling is made off of Stare Decisis(previous rulings of similar cases.) The last is actually the best case Hasbro has; Trade Dress deals with how much Hex is advertised and looks like Magic: The Gathering. I'm not familiar enough with Trade Dress law to tell any how much of a case Hasbro has, but if anything, this is where they are going to put most of the resources to prove their case.

Trade dress only applies if they actually copied the card format, mana or tapping symbols.

This one ends up on the patent, and that one's iffy. I'm told, by people who've actually looked at them, that the patents might be invalid if someone could make the right prior art claims. IITC, they actually patented booster pack distribution and tapping.

If they patented Booster Pack/Distribution or along those lines, they didn't do a very good job on enforcing that patent, and may not be eligible to have it protected. As for the tapping, a single game mechanic is not protected by copyright, trademark, nor patent.(although the game programming code may be.)

Assertion only needs to happen with trademark. Trademarks are not patents. Patents do not suffer from dilution. Copyrights do not suffer from dilution. Patents don't need to be litigated to remain in effect. Please try to remember, we are not talking about trademarks, or copyright; we are talking about patents.

Never mind that the patents are ridiculous on their face, and any half-competent patent attorney should immediately point to trading cards and baseball cards, and get the patent invalidated due to prior art.

I only took law classes in copyright, trademark, negotiations, and 1st amendment. I hardly know anything about patent law.

You lived until you've tried to brief International Bankruptcy cases. Or, you know, haven't plead for the mercy of not living. Either way.

Also, in case it wasn't clear already, IP law is an oxymoron.