Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As above. Examples:

40k turn based Move-Psychic-Shoot-Assault-Morale mechanic..

The dropzone Commander mechan ic of alternating activation.

The bolt action dice pull system.

The XWing count up count down system.

Well, the first isn't a mechanic, in any sense.

But in general, in US law, no. There isn't any copywrite or patent involved. Prose expression of mechanics can be.

Though keep in mind that mind that some companies may present a legal challenge anyway, which small entities might find difficult to meet.

A couple precedents to look into on this matter:

Magic the gathering tried to claim 'tapping' cards (turning them 90 degrees) was theirs, but courts disagreed (though I don't believe other systems use the word 'tap')

In The d20 open game license (for dungeons an dragons 3rd edition) much of the game was open to others, but specific monsters (such as mind flayers and beholders) were not included, and neither was the specific experience point table. anyone using the OGL couldn't include specific monsters or the exact table, but could use variations and derivatives of the latter

All instructions or manuals (including for board games) are not eligible for copyright protection.
Phrasing is, though.
So you can copy those mechanics, but you can't copy the wording from other publications.

Magic the Gathering is one of the only games that I know that have patents on mechanics, titled "Trading card method of play".

https://patents.google.com/patent/USRE37957E1/en

Other than that you can't protect mechanics. You can label certain aspects and protect a system through trademarks but honestly it isn't needed.

As said above you can't trademark or copyright protect the actual mechanics of the game itself. You can copyright some of the terminology and you can also protect the rules as a complete entity.

So you couldn't just copy and paste the entire (word for word) rules of another game into your game.


One reason different developers use their own rules is because it give their game a unique style and appeal which can be important in securing their corner of the market. Different game designers will also focus on different aspects of the game depending on what kind of game they want to make, and on what they think will fit into what customers want to play with.

First off, let me say that I am not a patent, copyright, or IP lawyer. I'm not an expert on this, but I know a little bit.

Whenever you ask a question like this, make sure you understand the difference between a patent and a copyright. A patent, to over simplify, is the government recognizing that the holder created some new device or process (essentially an idea), and that they have exclusive rights to use the patented thing for a number of years. A copyright is the government recogznings that the holder created a specific work, be it song, prose, photography, etc. They then have exclusive rights to sell that work.

The OP is correct in some of his terminology. Game mechanics could be patented... they just usually aren't. Patents are also difficult and expensive to get and to defend. Bolt actions dice draw mechanic is a good example of something that might be patented. But it's so narrow, that any game that uses it will look like they're ripping off bolt action anyway.

M:TG does hold a patent, more or less on the idea of CCGs, as well as tapping. That clearly hasn't stopped other companies from releasing CCGs. WotC did sue Ninetendo over Pokemon, and that settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Even though nothing in 40k or other minis games is patented, that doesn't mean their rules aren't protected. You can't copy wholesale the text in a codex.

Thank you everyone. I am looking forward to creating a game that will sell at least 10 copies! Haha. I asked a general question with several examples but "dear Polonius" overheard me and rather than stabbing through the drapery I must admit. I really like the bolt action mechanic. I will be submitting updated rules to this thread at some point.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
All 10 copies will be to me I should add. Maybe Mr priestly will take pity on me....

As a general rule, mechanics are not going to be patentable. A patent requires something novel that hasn't been done before, and overwhelming majority of game mechanics are reworks of existing mechanics. There is almost nothing new under the sun that a knowledgeable game designer would recognize as patent-worthy. That said, most patent lawyers at the US PTO are not going to be expert in game mechanics, so it might be possible to sneak something through the system. But if the mechanics boil down to "roll a die/draw a card", "add/count", "compare results", etc. there isn't that much room to surprise a patent examiner. The other thing is "prior art", which means that an unpatented version of the same thing prevents a patented version of a nearly identical thing. Also, instructions aren't patentable - you can't patent a recipe to boil an egg for example. Neither are stats (being just numbers). So...

1. 40k's current turn sequence is unpatentable, due to prior art of previous editions and other games using a similar, unpatented version *and* being instructions.

2. alternating activation is "taking turns", which goes back to things like tic-tac-toe...

3. the concept behind random dice pull is merely drawing lots, which has a rich history in probability and statistics analysis going back to the earliest recorded history

And so on.

In general, the specific wording may be copyrightable, to the extent that it's not just numbers. In the case of instructions, if there are only a couple ways to describe something (e.g. "roll a 6-sided die"), then that won't be copyrightable, either.

That said, if you want a "proper" legal interpretation, you should, of course, consult with a lawyer.

The other thing is "prior art", which means that an unpatented version of the same thing prevents a patented version of a nearly identical thing. Also, instructions aren't patentable - you can't patent a recipe to boil an egg for example. Neither are stats (being just numbers).

Unless you can afford the sort of patent lawyers that Monsanto and the like can.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As a general rule, mechanics are not going to be patentable. A patent requires something novel that hasn't been done before, and overwhelming majority of game mechanics are reworks of existing mechanics. There is almost nothing new under the sun that a knowledgeable game designer would recognize as patent-worthy. That said, most patent lawyers at the US PTO are not going to be expert in game mechanics, so it might be possible to sneak something through the system. But if the mechanics boil down to "roll a die/draw a card", "add/count", "compare results", etc. there isn't that much room to surprise a patent examiner. The other thing is "prior art", which means that an unpatented version of the same thing prevents a patented version of a nearly identical thing. Also, instructions aren't patentable - you can't patent a recipe to boil an egg for example. Neither are stats (being just numbers). So...

1. 40k's current turn sequence is unpatentable, due to prior art of previous editions and other games using a similar, unpatented version *and* being instructions.

2. alternating activation is "taking turns", which goes back to things like tic-tac-toe...

3. the concept behind random dice pull is merely drawing lots, which has a rich history in probability and statistics analysis going back to the earliest recorded history

And so on.

In general, the specific wording may be copyrightable, to the extent that it's not just numbers. In the case of instructions, if there are only a couple ways to describe something (e.g. "roll a 6-sided die"), then that won't be copyrightable, either.

That said, if you want a "proper" legal interpretation, you should, of course, consult with a lawyer.

Your assessment of the US patent law is how it's SUPPOSED to be. But not how it is. Some time ago the Patent Office stopped being federally funded and became self funded. Which meant it became capitalist profit driven to keep it's own doors open. The number of accepted patents each year sky rocketed immediately and hasn't stopped growing yet. The end result is it doesn't actually matter if the idea is original, novel, and non-obvious. The Patent office accepts all patents because they basically sell patents now. It's up to us and the legal system to duke it out in court if the patent holds any weight. Which is why major corporations patent fething EVERYTHING. It takes someone with the money to fight the legal battles to wrest the bad patents out of their control.