Recently saw that Whizkids came out with a Star Trek game called Star Trek Attack Wing. When seeing this I saw that FFG licensed the FLIGHTPATH system to them, while thinking about it, I was curious to what exactly they own with this system. I see the Star Trek game has the same dice, dials, and over all templates. Though if I'm developing my own battle game that takes on the "constant motion" aspect, can I not include templates at all?

In the US, you can neither copyright nor patent a functional shape, nor a game mechanic. So there's nothing really stopping you from using templates as a game mechanic or even using templates of the exact same size and shape.

That's why you see so many board games that are the same but with 10,000 different themes (Love Letter is the most common example) because 'themes' is pretty much the only tabletop game thing that can be protected.

If you built a game where the players were plucky space miners extracting resources from hexagonal planets, building space routes between space stations...you'd be absolutely fine, except that there's Star Trek Catan that already has that theme, and then you're in violation.

Thanks @Achowat for reading and replying. What you said is more or less what I had assumed, but wasn't entirely sure on. So what do you think they "Licensed" to WhizKids? Was it the over all rules? They look like they play literally exactly the same with a few changes. Or did WhizKids just play it safe to avoid any unnecessary court time. Either way it was a good partnership, and makes alot of sense.

12 minutes ago, Achowat said:

That's why you see so many board games that are the same but with 10,000 different themes (Love Letter is the most common example) because 'themes' is pretty much the only tabletop game thing that can be protected.

Love Letter is a bad example (as is Risk, Monopoly, FLUXX) because all of the different versions of it are made by the same company.

IANAL, but I think that the claim that you can't copyright or patent a game mechanic is untrue.

@WWHSD Seems like something would have to be copyrighted or patent for some type of licensing to happen with Star Trek: Attack Wing. I wonder how strict a patent or copyright on the FLIGHTPATH system would have to be.

I just need to ask a lawyer really.

In re: game mechanics - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/273935/Texas_court_affirms_game_mechanics_not_protected_under_copyright_law.php

In re: Monopoly - There are literally thousands of unlicensed "-opolies" out there.

11 minutes ago, Achowat said:

In re: game mechanics - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/273935/Texas_court_affirms_game_mechanics_not_protected_under_copyright_law.php

In re: Monopoly - There are literally thousands of unlicensed "-opolies" out there.

That is citing a specific case where an individual game's mechanics were deemed not unique enough to warrant patent protection. Monopoly is an old enough game that it's patent protection has probably expired.

Here's a few classic board games that have patented mechanics .

This is a quick run down between the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights, and how they relate to games.

It's not Flight Path related but here is the Patent that FFG has filed for what looks like the Armada fighter squadron bases .

You are confusing copyright and patent. Game Mechanic can be patented but can't be copyright. Also copyright are artistic stuff and can be defended without buying anything, you just have to show that you were the first one to create it.

Patent must be bought and maintained and you must do so in every country you want to block other from using your concept.

The court ruling you linked have nothing to do with patent. This is what frustrate small developper, patent are costy to buy and defend, so they want to be included in copyright...

FFG have a patent on the flighpath system so they can ask other to pay for using it.

I think you would not be able to patent dice and wheel, these are too generic concept. But the wheel without the movement do not make sense.

Quote

That is citing a specific case where an individual game's mechanics were deemed not unique enough to warrant patent protection.

No, it did just not have a patent, they tried to claim copyright and lost because it was not expressive enough... because copyright are artistic related stuff....

7 minutes ago, muribundi said:

FFG have a patent on the flighpath system so they can ask other to pay for using it.

I think you would not be able to patent dice and wheel, these are too generic concept. But the wheel without the movement do not make sense.

The dice they use are custom dice, with specific symbols and color scheme, so that's why I was curious. The dials seem unique enough also to me, but I have no clue.

what if instead of a wheel, a game had a stack of cards, and they place one face down next to Miniatures. Then when it's that figures activation, they flip over the card revealing what move they want to happen, they then use a separate cardboard template related to whats on the card to move the figure.

^^^ Is that small of a change infringing on a patent that FFG owns for X-wing?

11 minutes ago, Crooked Fangs said:

The dice they use are custom dice, with specific symbols and color scheme, so that's why I was curious. The dials seem unique enough also to me, but I have no clue.

what if instead of a wheel, a game had a stack of cards, and they place one face down next to Miniatures. Then when it's that figures activation, they flip over the card revealing what move they want to happen, they then use a separate cardboard template related to whats on the card to move the figure.

^^^ Is that small of a change infringing on a patent that FFG owns for X-wing?

You'd have to find the patent to be sure. The patent may be as non-specific as "selecting a specific maneuver in secret that is revealed at the time of execution".

@WWHSD Have any idea where I could look for the details on that?

22 minutes ago, Crooked Fangs said:

@WWHSD Have any idea where I could look for the details on that?

Google has a patent search (and there are other patent search engines) but it might be kind of hard to find the specific patent for the Flight Path System without the patent number (or being good at searching for patents which is probably a decent paying job).

From what I've read in the past, game mechanics cannot be protected by much.

What can be protected is the rules text and artwork.

Here's a great post that describes how Copyright, Trademarks and Patents apply to board games: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/493249/mythbusting-game-design-and-copyright-trademarks-a

I can tell you what they didn't licence/patent/etc. :Quality miniatures. The ST:AW minis are just god awful. Scale, paint job, quality control; the whole kit and caboodle.

Good info in here, I'm also not a lawyer, but to give a bit of an overview so that everyone understands the terminology and what not...

there are 3 main types of intellectual property; copyright, trademark, and patent. While all 3 are called "intellectual property", each one is distinct and separate from the others and governed by different rules.

Copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Literally, having a copyright means you have the right to make copies of something. If you are not making copies, then copyright doesn't apply. So, for example, you can't retype a story word for word, but you can use your own words to tell a similar story. Just HOW similar it can be is a tricky subject and where a lot of people get into trouble. Certain really distinctive designs can be considered unique enough that anything similar could be argued to have been copied, but that is pretty rare.

Trademark is literally the mark by which you do trade. Most obviously names and logos of products. "X-Wing Miniatures Game" is a trademark and so no one else can produce a game called that, no matter how different it might be. Conversely, something that is very similar (but not a copy) of a product is just fine to produce as long as it doesn't use the same name. This is why, back in the day, you had a slew of RPG supplements "suitable for use with any fantasy role-playing game" that all used the stats Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, and so on. It was obvious what they were meant for, but as long as they didn't use the trademark "Dungeons and Dragons" to try and sell their product it was allowed. The recent GW/Chapterhouse case was primarily about trademarks, (though GW didn't know that and got spanked because of it). Chapterhouse Studios makes third party conversion bits that fit on GW miniatures, but originally they marketed their items as "Space Wolves Shoulder Pad" and so on, specifically calling their products by GW trademarks. Now, after the suit, they have to advertise those pieces as "compatible with Games workshop's Space Wolf miniatures" (or whatever).

Patents are meant to cover a new invention, typically a specific, physical device, though occasionally an idea can be patented. A patent is a specific protection that you apply (and pay) for and that gives you exclusive rights to control that invention for a period of time (up to 20 years, if you keep renewing). Patents in the gaming industry are incredibly rare, because there is very little that is truly "new" in gaming. Wizkids clickbase and Magic's "tapping" mechanic are the ones that come to mind.

@muribundi - you said that FFG has a patent on the flight path system, what is your source for that. I have never heard that they had a patent on it before, though it would certainly explain a lot that has been confusing me.

finally, a word of warning. With IP law, as with most legal matters in our modern world, there is precedent and rationale for almost any claim one would want to make and frequently the winner of an IP dispute is whoever can afford to pay their attorneys the longest. If someone claims you copied their work and you can't afford to hire a lawyer to defend yourself, you lose, even if you didn't copy anything. It sucks, but that is frequently how it is.

Quote

@muribundi - you said that FFG has a patent on the flight path system, what is your source for that. I have never heard that they had a patent on it before, though it would certainly explain a lot that has been confusing me.

I should have not said "they have"... but "they probably have". Because the only way you can license a mechanic is trough patent. They can't license it trough trademark or copyright because game mechanic are never covered by these.

They are also rare because Patent cost way more then Copyright. Copyright is there by default. You paint something, you show it to many people that can testify and then a big artist copy it and say it is his, you have a case, sure now to defend it you must get laywer but you now have a case. With Patent you can't. If you invent something and someone malicious patent it before you, you are screw, and of story.

There is copyright waver but by default you own the copyright of your art.

There's a thread about this on boardgame geek.

They seem to think licensing might not be required, but it prevents one party from burying the other in spurious legal bills. Like how TSR used to do, to fight D&D clones. They kept trying, and in the end they always ended up giving up and buying out the other publisher.

Someone there also says it might be a reciprocal agreement because FFG's dials might be closed Heroclix's click bases, so they agreed to let each other use their stuff, rather than have a courtroom fight.

It sounds like a reasonable opinion to me.