Now, I know patents can protect methodologies, procedures, etc. Any case law citations on whether a method qualifies as a concept and vice versa?
I've been assuming that rules are nothing more than diagrams, formatting, language, and concepts. If so, insofar as you can establish IP control over each in turn, you could PI a rule potentially.
Also, is patent law really considered "ownership" of the methods, procedures, etc. Or is it considered that you don't own them, but you merely have exclusive rights of use?
The phrase "ownership" and the PI'ability of "concepts" and things that seem definitely not own-able like poses makes me wonder hard about some of these issues.
I think if we could answer some of these questions in the abstract, then the PI'ability of rules, etc., even if you own a patent, would become MUCH clearer.
And it might be made manifest that such PI'ing of rules is either explicitly impossible (if "concepts" has a specific meaning in patent law) or possible, based on whether one can establish "ownership" over them.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
