![]() ![]() More noticeable than I expected, honestly. The things that are different, though, do change things enough to be noticeable. The shards are doing roughly the same things as the MtG color pie. The Hex shards can be mapped pretty closely to MtG colors, including both having the same/similar color, and having many functionally equivalent cards in those colors. The stages of the turn are essentially the same, the priority system / stack is mostly the same. I think there are significant differences between Hex and MtG, but there are also quite a few (most) basic game mechanics that are exactly the same. I guess we'll see where things go from here. Then I came here and read about the lawsuit. Ended up coming in 2nd in the draft and having a pretty good time. I finally had a chance to draft yesterday and everything went pretty smoothly. his articles probably have the information I'm thinking of though). Considering that he's the head of R&D for MtG though. yeah (although Rosewater talks about it often, so he probably knows. Of course, I don't know the details of that, and the best person to ask would be Garfield, so. Mainly, I suspect that formal contracts to restrict the information were not used (it's among friends!), which could allow Cryptozoic's lawyers to argue that the game's playtesting constituted its first public appearance sufficiently before its release to invalidate the patent. It may be possible to argue that this means the first public knowledge was before June 1993, which would (if I'm understanding the law correctly) make the patent invalid as MtG would be prior art. As I recall, the game's initial testing was very informal and basically among friends. (The game released August 1993 - meaning that an application after August 1994 would be invalid as the game would be prior art to the patent on the game)Īctually, this may be a productive line of attack on the patent. because the patent was filed just two months before the grace period expired. I'm hoping now that one of the lawyers tries to get an expiration later than June this year by playing games. I've heard a saying to the effect of "if you're guilty you want a jury, if you're innocent you want a judge" for criminal cases, and I'd say (federal circuit aside) the same applies to patent cases - if your claim is bullshit get a jury to bamboozle, if your claim is solid get a judge. you may as well throw dice, because jury trials are really, really screwy on that). Even with Federal Circuit goosery, Cryptozoic is at worst going to have to put Hex on hold for a couple months (plus damages, which. The important thing he notes is that the patent in question expires this year. I doubt Cryptozoic can afford to fight this all the way to SCOTUS (assuming they get certiorari), which means Hasbro wins. and then got shot down by a unanimous SCOTUS ruling - that's more or less par for the course at the moment, to where even the most business-friendly justices won't side with them). That said, I suspect Hasbro will win on patents, but not on the merits - if they lose, they appeal to the Federal Circuit, which will almost certainly approve of the patent (this is the court that decided "perform a test and apply the results" was not abstract. then makes no analysis of it and just calls it for Hasbro. He correctly notes that the decision will probably hinge on patent validity. The patents probably read on Hex - how could they not, when some of the claims are essentially "playing a game involving drawing cards at the start of a turn, playing cards, resolving effects, and then performing end of turn cleanup". It strikes me as odd - based on what he's written the correct choice would seem to be calling it a toss-up. Random internet lawyer, I guess, but probably an interesting read to most folks on the subject.Ģ)He acknowledges that the claims are vulnerableģ)He then confidently predicts a patent win This appears to be a more informed person who, during his evaluation, appears to use arguments that have been made by both sides of the thread here:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |