3 ms·

Sometimes I fantasize about generating methods for creating copyrights, such that you can copyright the process of creating the copyright - for the commmunity,

Sometimes I fantasize about generating methods for creating copyrights, such that you can copyright the process of creating the copyright - for the commmunity, obviously. However, they explicitly forbid that, unfortunately. If only it worked, you could file a claim for anyone that created a copyright to your disliking, given that you probably make strong stance. While I'm at it, in a similar vein though entirely unrelated, i sometimes think of ways to create jurisprudence in your favor: You try to emulate a situation to your disliking - e.g. aggresive data hoarding - and file suit to yourself, try to argue the arguments that your target would probably file, but just crappy enough that you actually lose. Do this often and stealthy enough and voila, you might have generated enough jurisprudence to actually file your final claim based on your previous "lost" lawsuits. I do think that this actually does happen at times, though.

simonh 6y ago
You can't copyright a procedure or process, but you can copyright the text of the instructions for the procedure. That doesn't stop someone writing an original text of instructions for doing the same thing though. That's how come there are clones of Monopoly. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20311/horse-opoly https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20311/horse-opoly
- shagie 6y ago
  Board games are protected with patents. For example, with Khet ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game ) there is https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 which was upheld - https://www.generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-million-patent-infringement-lawsuit-over-board-games.html https://www.generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-m... The patent for Monopoly is https://patents.google.com/patent/US2026082A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US2026082A/en which expired in '52 There is also issues of trademark on the '-opoly' games... which was settled in '83 with https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law... > Finally, in 1983, the Supreme Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the word “Monopoly” had become generic, because purchasers associated the name with the product rather than with the source.7 Specifically, evidence showed that purchasers of Monopoly were motivated by their knowledge of the game, and not by its association with Parker Brothers. Directly as a result of this case, Congress amended § 14(c) of the Lanham Act, which addresses cancellation of a registered mark, later that year. Congress added language clarifying that a mark becomes generic only if its “primary significance . . . to the relevant public” is as the generic description of the particular goods or services, and that purchaser motivation is not used as the test. --- There are clones of Monopoly because the patent expired long ago and the trademark was lost in 83. ... Which is also why McDonalds did its Monopoly game in '87.
  - joombaga 6y ago
    > Which is also why McDonalds did its Monopoly game in '87. Are you saying McDonald's needed to wait for the trademark to expire? Or that they had to wait for a new trademark to be established? Wasn't the promotion collaborative? Looking at McDonald's Monopoly commercials from 87 [1] and 88 [2], there's a Parker Brothers TM in both years. [1] https://youtu.be/F737BVBKMCE?t=4 https://youtu.be/F737BVBKMCE?t=4 [2] https://youtu.be/KmV5O06McZk?t=14 https://youtu.be/KmV5O06McZk?t=14
    - shagie 6y ago
      The Parker Brother's trademark they had to license... probably to get specific imagery. However, the suffix "-opoly" as it refers to games was lost. McD's probably waited until the trademark on Monopoly was sufficiently weakened for them to go out, license the other parts of it (as it was Parker Brothers(TM). https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Aqpmmx2.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=100&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=Monopoly&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24FM&expr=PARA1+and+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Parker+Brothers&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&f=toc&state=4803%3Aqpmmx2.1.1&a_search=Submit+Query https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3A... In particular - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:qpmmx2.4.2 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:qp... is likely the one that they're referring to which covers the trademark on the board and game pieces - which is different than the game name. Also note that many of those (now dead) trademarks were all filed in '85 - '87... after they lost the trademark in '83.
Someone 6y ago
Humans create works, not copyrights. Copyrights spring into existence from nothing every time an original work is created. And IANAL, but I think that strategy could fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation.

simonh 6y ago

You can't copyright a procedure or process, but you can copyright the text of the instructions for the procedure. That doesn't stop someone writing an original text of instructions for doing the same thing though. That's how come there are clones of Monopoly. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20311/horse-opoly https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/20311/horse-opoly

shagie 6y ago
Board games are protected with patents. For example, with Khet ( https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/16991/khet-laser-game ) there is https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7264242 which was upheld - https://www.generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-million-patent-infringement-lawsuit-over-board-games.html https://www.generalpatent.com/professor-s-company-wins-1-6-m... The patent for Monopoly is https://patents.google.com/patent/US2026082A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US2026082A/en which expired in '52 There is also issues of trademark on the '-opoly' games... which was settled in '83 with https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law/publications/landslide/2014-15/march-april/not-playing-around-board-games-intellectual-property-law/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law... > Finally, in 1983, the Supreme Court let stand an appeals court ruling that the word “Monopoly” had become generic, because purchasers associated the name with the product rather than with the source.7 Specifically, evidence showed that purchasers of Monopoly were motivated by their knowledge of the game, and not by its association with Parker Brothers. Directly as a result of this case, Congress amended § 14(c) of the Lanham Act, which addresses cancellation of a registered mark, later that year. Congress added language clarifying that a mark becomes generic only if its “primary significance . . . to the relevant public” is as the generic description of the particular goods or services, and that purchaser motivation is not used as the test. --- There are clones of Monopoly because the patent expired long ago and the trademark was lost in 83. ... Which is also why McDonalds did its Monopoly game in '87.
- joombaga 6y ago
  > Which is also why McDonalds did its Monopoly game in '87. Are you saying McDonald's needed to wait for the trademark to expire? Or that they had to wait for a new trademark to be established? Wasn't the promotion collaborative? Looking at McDonald's Monopoly commercials from 87 [1] and 88 [2], there's a Parker Brothers TM in both years. [1] https://youtu.be/F737BVBKMCE?t=4 https://youtu.be/F737BVBKMCE?t=4 [2] https://youtu.be/KmV5O06McZk?t=14 https://youtu.be/KmV5O06McZk?t=14
  - shagie 6y ago
    The Parker Brother's trademark they had to license... probably to get specific imagery. However, the suffix "-opoly" as it refers to games was lost. McD's probably waited until the trademark on Monopoly was sufficiently weakened for them to go out, license the other parts of it (as it was Parker Brothers(TM). https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Aqpmmx2.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=100&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=Monopoly&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24FM&expr=PARA1+and+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Parker+Brothers&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&f=toc&state=4803%3Aqpmmx2.1.1&a_search=Submit+Query https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3A... In particular - https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:qpmmx2.4.2 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:qp... is likely the one that they're referring to which covers the trademark on the board and game pieces - which is different than the game name. Also note that many of those (now dead) trademarks were all filed in '85 - '87... after they lost the trademark in '83.

Someone 6y ago

Humans create works, not copyrights. Copyrights spring into existence from nothing every time an original work is created. And IANAL, but I think that strategy could fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation.