Page 83 of 130 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1296

Thread: Hex sued by MTG

  1. #821
    Quote Originally Posted by mach View Post
    How is that sensible? It would make it totally impossible to prosecute these kind of cases, since the defendant could always claim "sure it's identical now, but it will be completely different when it's done."

    If it's finished enough to be sold, it's finished enough to be judged.
    No, I'm sorry. That's just not how it works. It's still in beta, my friend.

  2. #822
    Quote Originally Posted by mach View Post
    How is that sensible? It would make it totally impossible to prosecute these kind of cases, since the defendant could always claim "sure it's identical now, but it will be completely different when it's done."

    If it's finished enough to be sold, it's finished enough to be judged.
    The game is not availible to the public. When everybody can get in, then it is the time to judge. If you could sue somebody for things that are missing before project is finished that would be pretty messed up.
    Collector Tier

  3. #823
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRGamer View Post
    Not what he's saying. He's saying the game should be judged as the final product, not just by what's complete now before the whole game is finished.
    I don't agree with this. I have never seen a case that distinguished between developmental stages of a product, and I would doubt the law would stand for that. Anyone could then say "oh, we plan to add X, Y, and Z," and then claim it was different. Unreleased, internal builds play no roll because they are not out in the marketplace for consumers. From WotC's point of view, they are currently profiting off of their IP so why do they give a shit if they are going to add PvE? No ETA, remember?

  4. #824
    Quote Originally Posted by Karstaag View Post
    The game is not availible to the public. When everybody can get in, then it is the time to judge. If you could sue somebody for things that are missing before project is finished that would be pretty messed up.
    No it isn't. Hex is currently taking in money based on what WotC alleges violates their IP. They could keep the game in beta forever under your logic, continue to rake in purchases, and then WotC would be screwed.

  5. #825
    Quote Originally Posted by GatticusFinch View Post
    I don't agree with this. I have never seen a case that distinguished between developmental stages of a product, and I would doubt the law would stand for that. Anyone could then say "oh, we plan to add X, Y, and Z," and then claim it was different. Unreleased, internal builds play no roll because they are not out in the marketplace for consumers. From WotC's point of view, they are currently profiting off of their IP so why do they give a shit if they are going to add PvE? No ETA, remember?
    I beieve he's speaking about future damages/injunctions, not past damages.

    If it is found that Hex infringes, WotC gets damages back to the point that it has been monetized, but it will be judged on the final product put to the public.

  6. #826
    Quote Originally Posted by FeelNFine View Post
    Have you heard of Watch It Played?
    Even better, I play the game.


    Quote Originally Posted by FeelNFine View Post
    They did an episode on Marvel Dice Masters, and I'd describe it as a mash up of Magic and Quariors. It may use dice, but the stats and combat resolution are very much Magic.
    As I said previously, you have the opinion that it is very much like Magic. Having health, attack and defense is nothing new by far, no matter in which way it is represented (btw, there is an excellent argument to be made that Magic is a derivative of D&D, like so many other things).

    And that is essentially the crux of this whole issue. People having an opinion that something is like something else. We'll have to wait and see what the result of this whole issue will be. But I would find it an extremely sad day if Hasbro/WotC would win this case (or would even get a settlement). It is time that the dinosaur dies out and makes place for a new and better generation (yeah, also an opinion of course).

  7. #827
    One thing that annoys me is that in their complaint they straight up lie about the differences in the game and the counter statement will have to waste time correcting them.

    For example they state that we call resources "Mana" and we call the deck "Library" even though we don't. There is many more like that in the side by side comparison. It's not just them saving time by copying the same thing from right to left. Sometimes they think it's worth making the distinction and actually typing up what we use for the term and sometimes they don't hoping that the HEX team doesn't notice or something. The whole complaint looks really poorly done though. Makes you wonder how much effort they actually put into it since half of it is just copypaste and another half is stolen from Threshold.
    Last edited by Axle; 05-17-2014 at 07:23 AM.

  8. #828
    Quote Originally Posted by bootlace View Post
    Ive read most of the articles and speculation surrounding this Magic vs Hex lawsuit but there are some specific points that haven’t really been addressed. Some clarification would be appreciated from those qualified to answer:

    1) How can Hex be sued when its been in Alpha until a month ago? Even now we’re in closed Beta. Everything in the game is subject to change so how can a game not finished or released yet be accused of something like trade dress copying. Everybody knows already that the current UI is temporary.. A lot of the cards mentioned in the lawsuit are not even the current state of the cards!

    2) Until a month ago the game hadn’t generated any revenue – KS funds can probably be considered donations/investment. Did Hex put itself in more danger by starting the paid beta a month ago (despite already being aware they were in Hasbro’s crosshair)?

    3) Assuming the copyright/trade-dress claims are dismissed which by many professional accounts it seems like it will be and all that’s left is that broad patent. IF that broad patent is considered valid, would Hex be given the chance to make the appropriate changes before releasing their game? From a non legal perspective it seems incredible harsh to not give a game a chance to ‘make things right’ considering that probably hundreds of games (including ones by CZE) also are violating said patents and have ‘gotten away with it’.

    4) I keep hearing this patent will expire very very shortly. How does that impact the case? If the patent is already expired by the time this goes to court, is it no longer an issue? Or does the patent only need to be valid at the date the lawsuit is submitted?

    5) If CZE end up winning the case, are they eligible under any circumstance to demand Hasbro to pay their legal fees and perhaps go for a counter suit seeking damages for the time and resources they’ve incurred?
    1. Think of it this way--if I made a straight up direct clone of Hex, called it an Alpha, but started profiting off of it, shouldn't CZE be able to sue me? What difference does it make that I might, someday, maybe put in these other features? "No ETA," remember? I would be profiting off of their IP now, so allowing me to just slap a beta label on it and defeat all claims would let infringement run wild.

    2. More danger, yes, but not much more than they were already in. Calling Kickstarter funds a "donation" in this context is just fiction. That is money CZE brought in by showing/providing a product that allegedly infringes on WotC's IP. That's income. They probably put themselves in more danger because the parts of the game that are the most transformative are nowhere to be seen and have not been released. They are just "no ETA" promises.

    3. Don't assume the copyright or trade dress claims will just be dismissed. The games are visually similar enough that a judge could easily say this is a question of fact and let it go to the jury. If they violate the patent, sure, they could change it to not violate it anymore, but that would be after WotC gets whatever award they do, including a permanent injunction against Hex. They might have to come out with a different game, pay a licensing fee, etc. There is no "gotten away with it" in patent law--patents can be selectively enforced. That is, WotC can pick and choose which violations they want to sue over.

    4. Not a patent lawyer, don't know.

    5. Highly unlikely. The case is not frivolous by any stretch of the imagination and I cannot think of any other statutory recourse for the recovery of attorney's fees that would apply (you don't get your attorney's fees paid in our legal system just because you win).

  9. #829
    Quote Originally Posted by Axle View Post
    For example they state that we call resources "Mana" and we call the deck "Library" even though we don't.
    Yeah, I don't see how something like that could even be used in court. So what if people do refer to something by unofficial lingo, if those aren't the official terms used by HEX in their game. Are they going to send lawyers after everyone that has played HEX to see if we admit to using M:tG terminology and sue us if we do? It's pretty obvious there are some not so insignificant similarities between the games, but it's also pretty obvious that they didn't just create a clone of M:tG, slap a coat of paint on it and rebrand it.

    The legal system is seems to be as screwed up as the economy though, and I'm sure everyone has heard "juries are unpredictable". So even if I think the game passes the test of whether or not it's different enough from M:tG to stand on it's own, doesn't mean the court will.

  10. #830
    Quote Originally Posted by GatticusFinch View Post
    1. Think of it this way--if I made a straight up direct clone of Hex, called it an Alpha, but started profiting off of it, shouldn't CZE be able to sue me? What difference does it make that I might, someday, maybe put in these other features? "No ETA," remember? I would be profiting off of their IP now, so allowing me to just slap a beta label on it and defeat all claims would let infringement run wild.

    2. More danger, yes, but not much more than they were already in. Calling Kickstarter funds a "donation" in this context is just fiction. That is money CZE brought in by showing/providing a product that allegedly infringes on WotC's IP. That's income. They probably put themselves in more danger because the parts of the game that are the most transformative are nowhere to be seen and have not been released. They are just "no ETA" promises.

    3. Don't assume the copyright or trade dress claims will just be dismissed. The games are visually similar enough that a judge could easily say this is a question of fact and let it go to the jury. If they violate the patent, sure, they could change it to not violate it anymore, but that would be after WotC gets whatever award they do, including a permanent injunction against Hex. They might have to come out with a different game, pay a licensing fee, etc. There is no "gotten away with it" in patent law--patents can be selectively enforced. That is, WotC can pick and choose which violations they want to sue over.

    4. Not a patent lawyer, don't know.

    5. Highly unlikely. The case is not frivolous by any stretch of the imagination and I cannot think of any other statutory recourse for the recovery of attorney's fees that would apply (you don't get your attorney's fees paid in our legal system just because you win).
    Thanks, appreciate the response.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •