Magic the Gathering, WotC Patent Question

try here:

http://www.bgdf.com/node/1042

I didn't realize how broad WoTC's "tapping" description was in their patent claim:

"Tapping" is an act of flagging the card to indicate to all players that the energy provided by the card is being used and is no longer available. This can be accomplished in various ways, including placing an object on the card, turning the card over or, more preferably, rotating the card counterclockwise approximately 90 degrees on the playing surface from an original orientation or position. Similarly, "untapping" means rotating the card 90 degrees in a clockwise direction to the original orientation or removing the flag symbol.

Full patent appears to be here.

Regardless, a lot of games use some sort of mechanic similar to tapping.

Or placing and object "next to" the card. Flipping the card over. Moving the card, without tapping, to a different position on the table or a different position in relation to some other card or object. Placing a card over top of another card. Placing the card onto top of an object instead of an object over top it. Having very specific "activation" or "used" counters to place next to or on top of (their placing an object on top of is pretty vague and broad, so something specific to the purpose and unique to the other game should work).

But yeah, lots of current games use some form of the tapping mechanic. They don't sue because they "know" just how broad reaching the patent text is. It would be challenging to have it tested in court. Its better to leave well enough alone and for it to be a feather in the Hasbro cap when showing off to potential investors, them being a public company and all.

Ryan S. Johnson
Guild of Blades Retail Group - http://www.gobretail.com
Guild of Blades Publishing Group - http://www.guildofblades.com
1483 Online - http://www.1483online.com

I was just being facetious, guys. That's what the little winkie face was supposed to imply. I guess it's a measure of how oppressive this particular patent is that even jokes are hushed less they wake the beast with the itchy trigger finger. :-/

"Tapping" is an act of flagging the card to indicate to all players that the energy provided by the card is being used and is no longer available.

So if you're modifying the card's physical state to indicate that the resource has been re-charged and is available to the player, that's not tapping? What if you're indicating a change in state that had no bearing on availability of resources?

For example: I'm making a game for a friend where you have to feed cats. Every turn, sated cats get hungry (go from being landscape style to portrait style) and hungry cats become famished (go from being face-up to face-down). The card state alteration is not to indicate loss of a resource, but a change in state of being.

(BTW: I'm not looking for validation of my use of state change in cards. I'm just making a semantic observation about this particular quote from the patent text. If depletion of a resource is a core component in the definition of tapping, that's interesting to note.)

I could see development fees being larger for a game mechanic that uses a specific toy or physical prop. You'd have prototyping fees, focus group and study fees, CIPSA compliance fees, and so on.

I agree that for your average game mechanic, justifying patenting as a means of recouping development costs is silly. For toys, and game with toy-like components, I think it's a little more justifiable.