Who Invented Risk?
More naievete from the Web2.0 press about game design and “ownership”; this time, from MA & Techcrunch about who invented college “Risk” first.
Let’s get a couple of things straight:
- You cannot patent a game design.
- You can trademark many elements of a game (like the board and the name).
- The provenance of most game designs is murky at best.
- Like most art, game designs build on past work, and are - by definition - somewhat derivative. This doesn’t mean that there’s no originality (far from it), but it does mean that there are few purely original game designs that don’t rely - somewhat - on the work of others.
- There are many amazing game designs and game designers. Really good ones rarely resent the work of others, in my experience.
- Time and time again, the games industry has proven that first-mover in game design usually benefits the company in question.
The questions of intellectual property rights and respect in the games industry are profound, complicated and evolving. It’s all too easy to turn this important issue into a “who slept with whom” fluff-piece (sorry, but true!) about some college entrepreneurs laying claim to the design of an ancient war game.
Let’s make this discussion more meaningful. While I work on a new article, you can read these (informative!) articles about games and intellectual property. Or, you can just skip the chaff and go directly to Valleywag. You know you want to. 
IGDA IP Rights SIG (Check out their whitepaper)
Game Matters Blog (an oldie but a goodie)
Hey That’s My Game - Gamasutra
Myths about Game Patents
Patent Arcade
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Gabe-
I fundamentally agree with the points you’ve made in this post. However, I just wanted to point out that saying “You cannot patent a game design.” is not strictly true. People DO patent game designs on a regular basis. Now, whether these patents are defensible is another question altogether, but simply having been granted a patent would probably represent some value for the holder, at least in the eyes of potential investors/acquirers, some of whom may have the legal firepower to at least make life very uncomfortable for other entrepreneurs who they feel might be violating said patent.
cheers!
Wade
May 26th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Wade - thanks for the note. I think this is a somewhat semantic argument, and there’s a lot of “proof” and enforceability questions that are raised. I think there are patents that have been issued for game design elements, but rarely for a complete game design itself. Not sure if that’s a reflection of the lack of possibility (imagination? greed? interest?) or what, but it does beg a series of interesting questions.
Your post got me digging around a bit further about game patents, and I’ve updated the original post with a couple more links of interest!