This is indeed the case, and the patent on "tap" is what I'm referring to.
It's nice of you to list and summarieze the differences for the list. Note
that it is relatively unlikely that any of our OGL products will contain
much more than copyrighted material, though it's possible for those of us
with more zeal to pursue trademarks and even possibly patents.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lizard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 1:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] "Open" Debate
Mathew Gray wrote:
>
> Ask anyone who tries to "tap" a card in a non-WoTC CCG. :)
>
There are, roughly, three different means by which intellectual property
is protected:
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
They are NOT synonyms. Anyone interested in IP issues, which most people
on this list are, is well advised to have at least a rough grasp of the
differences. A single product (such as M:TG) can use all three in
different ways, for example:
The name 'Magic:The Gathering', and the distinctive 'look and feel'
(trade dress) of the cards, among other things, is trademarked. So are
terms like 'Urza' and 'Weatherlight'.
The art and text of the cards and rulebooks are copyrighted.
Certain of the game mechanics are patented.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
