Re: Re: game idea = copyright or patent?

On 6/13/05, David Dailey <david.dailey[_at_]sru.edu> wrote:

>

Copyright does not prevent independent development. If your student develops a game independently and it happens that it is similar to the existing game out in the world, that is no problem. However, patent does not allow independent development. Using the same situation, if the game that your student develops independently is already covered by an active patent, your student could then commit patent infringement.

This is one way to tell the difference.

> I have generally assumed that the rules of a game are protectable (by
> copyright) sort of in the way that plot elements in a story might be --
> even if different words are used to spell out these rules. Rules define
> games in much the same way that words define a poem. What makes a game
> original is the juxtapositon and interrelation of rules and the way in
> which they constrain play.

I do not agree with your general assumption. The rules and plot elements are not protectable. What makes a game original is how the rules are expressed. If the expression is very simple that it is equivalent to rule, the expression itself is not copyrightable. This is known as Merger Doctrine.

> If this makes sense then one might not need to rely on patent to protect
> games. My argument may sound a bit like an attempt to protect look and
> feel, but I think the mathematical finiteness of rules allows for a tighter
> mensuration of the resultant domains of originality and expression than
> might be possible in the areas of look and feel (as perhaps separable from
> interface design, which again takes on a more Chomskyan grammatical
> flavor). If one could conclude that game A (as formulated by its rules) is
> mathematically equivalent to game B (as formulated by its rules) then would
> the words used in those formulations even matter?

But, there are many more ways to express the rules. Here is an example:

1. This game can be played by four people.
2. This game can be played by four latest, highly developed species in the evolution history.
3. This unholy board filled with money can be played by four followers of worldly things.

All of these three expressions are mathematically equivalent but there are 3 distinct way to express the same rule. First expression is uncopyrightable because it is too close to rule that it can satisfy the test of Merger Doctrine. The second and third expressions are more creative and therefore, can gain copyright.

A good analogy that I can think of is computer algorithms. Your students can express algorithms in many ways and the words that they select could be copyrightable. But, the algorithm itself is not copyrightable (but it can be patented).

Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>

Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,948

Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Tue Jun 14 2005 - 22:45:00 GMT