I tried.
Really, I tried. I thought about it for hours. Days. But in the end, there's really only one thing this column could possibly be about. Still, I'll keep this short.
On Sept. 7 1997, a patent on trading card games was granted to Richard Garfield for his invention of Magic: The Gathering. The full text of the patent can be read The issue of this patent created quite the hubbub. Some question whether the patent should have been granted at all. Magic, after all, was not the first game to incorporate trading or playing for ante— sports cards were used for such games decades earlier. Wizards of the Coast has its share of detractors, and many were quick to brand the company as a greedy empire flexing its muscles in preparation for strong-arm tactics to run the little guys out of town. WotC itself is partially to blame for this reaction. When the patent was awarded, Wizards announced a licensing scheme designed to encourage compliance before the first of the year, under threat of harsher terms to follow. Many in the industry were— and still are— unclear about the company's intentions. They already have the most successful trading card game on the market. Now, the rantings went, the company was looking to squeeze out even more money and control competition in the process. Worse, the scope of the patent seems to cover games which, on the surface, owe little to Garfield's invention. The Very Clever Pipe Game, for example, has players drawing from their own little decks built from the common pool of pipe cards. Technically, this infringes on WotC's patent.
Patents are awarded in the technology sector all the time. We're used to thinking of them as scientific in focus. A patent on a game system may seem odd to many. Would we award Poe a patent for devising the first mystery story? Should we? He was the first to conceive of the mystery story, spawning an enormous multi-million dollar industry. Nobody would argue that Poe's characters and storyline should be protected. But what of the underlying concept? Should the concept of a mystery story be in the public domain, or should Poe have a claim on subsequent mysteries written by others?
The concept of a mystery is just the springboard from which a story is launched. It's the details of the implementation— the plot, characters, setting, writing— which make a story unique. The same can be said about games. Fundamental mechanics are merely the tools for assembling a game. It's how they're used— the rules of the game— which make it unique. Will patenting those tools help foster more good games or stifle their creation? Should that even make a difference?
The fact is that patents have been granted on games, game components, and game mechanics for decades. There's nothing unusual in what Wizards of the Coast has done in acquiring this patent. What's unusual is the patent's high profile.
Richard Garfield revitalized the gaming industry with his invention of Magic, single-handedly creating an entirely new genre. He and WotC deserve to be recognized and rewarded for that. And, one could argue, they have. WotC's growth since Magic has been explosive, their success a model of the American Dream. Do they really need more? The answer is irrelevant. Legally, they're entitled to more. It strikes me as hypocritical to champion one entity's right to profit from another's work, yet decry the other's desire for a share of that profit. WotC doesn't want to kill the very market it created. Remember, there wouldn't be any other CCGs if it weren't for WotC. Other companies may not like paying royalties on their CCGs, but if their products are good they'll still prosper.
The real question is whether they should have acted on that desire. I'm sure it's been a headache for the public relations department. But in the long run, the flap over this issue will fade and WotC will continue to collect on this new revenue stream, which means a healthier bottom line for their stockholders and more games for the public. o