Weapon stats missing in german version

[jchurchill]

It's doubtful I had the rights to do the first thing in that list (but I didn't think anyone would mind assuming the user actually did have the product in question). It is clear to me that I don't have the right to reproduce other
=================================================
This raises an interesting question as under US copyright law formulas, equations, and procedures are are not subject to copyright. To the extent that large portions of game mechanics are formulas, rules, and equations these may not be protected by copyright law. Nor are they subject to trademark necessarily.

The copyright and trademark protected parts of Traveller or any other RPG reside mostly in the story and canon elements. That's what is classically protected in copyright law. Very slippery stuff. Not that D&D and Traveller both had to rename certain creatures or concepts because at some point these were drifting too close to infrininging on someone else's copyright.
[I vaguely recall some problems with "orcs" and the Tolkien estate. Elves and dwarves and dragons were all well established in the public domain]

I'm not advocating that people suddenly abuse mr. Miller's game and decide that anything is fair game to copy -- I'm just noting that some of Traveller has copyright protection and some of it may not.

 

[jchurchill]

It's doubtful I had the rights to do the first thing in that list (but I didn't think anyone would mind assuming the user actually did have the product in question). It is clear to me that I don't have the right to reproduce other
=================================================
This raises an interesting question as under US copyright law formulas, equations, and procedures are are not subject to copyright. To the extent that large portions of game mechanics are formulas, rules, and equations these may not be protected by copyright law. Nor are they subject to trademark necessarily.

The copyright and trademark protected parts of Traveller or any other RPG reside mostly in the story and canon elements. That's what is classically protected in copyright law. Very slippery stuff. Not that D&D and Traveller both had to rename certain creatures or concepts because at some point these were drifting too close to infrininging on someone else's copyright.
[I vaguely recall some problems with "orcs" and the Tolkien estate. Elves and dwarves and dragons were all well established in the public domain]

I'm not advocating that people suddenly abuse mr. Miller's game and decide that anything is fair game to copy -- I'm just noting that some of Traveller has copyright protection and some of it may not.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by secretagent:
This raises an interesting question as under US copyright law formulas, equations, and procedures are are not subject to copyright.

<snip>

I'm not advocating that people suddenly abuse mr. Miller's game and decide that anything is fair game to copy -- I'm just noting that some of Traveller has copyright protection and some of it may not.

You forgot the mandatory IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but in your case it might be IAALBTDNCLA (I am a lawyer, but this does not constitute legal advice).

You can, as the software industry has proven, patent (not copyright or trademark, as you point out) processes and algorithms (though IMO the latter should be invalid). Thus equations and such could be patented. Imagine the RPG that patented (and the USPTO would be just the bunch of gits to issue it) a process such as:

To determine the success or failure of the employment of a skill in a role playing game:
1. Get some dice
2. Roll those dice
3. Compare the dice to a difficulty number or rating
4. Determine success or failure

Then, once you've got this patented, sue Sue SUE! your way to financial magnificence!

<Sorry, this rant might get Herr Hunter wanting to point this at Random Static - point being I want to respect the intellectual property of QLI and MWM more than I want to respect the mechanics of the relevant laws.... I'll send the poster off-line the info on the assumption that he told me the straight skinny about the German version including Supplement 4.... that just seems appropos.... but I won't post the info here....>

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by secretagent:
This raises an interesting question as under US copyright law formulas, equations, and procedures are are not subject to copyright.

<snip>

I'm not advocating that people suddenly abuse mr. Miller's game and decide that anything is fair game to copy -- I'm just noting that some of Traveller has copyright protection and some of it may not.

You forgot the mandatory IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but in your case it might be IAALBTDNCLA (I am a lawyer, but this does not constitute legal advice).

You can, as the software industry has proven, patent (not copyright or trademark, as you point out) processes and algorithms (though IMO the latter should be invalid). Thus equations and such could be patented. Imagine the RPG that patented (and the USPTO would be just the bunch of gits to issue it) a process such as:

To determine the success or failure of the employment of a skill in a role playing game:
1. Get some dice
2. Roll those dice
3. Compare the dice to a difficulty number or rating
4. Determine success or failure

Then, once you've got this patented, sue Sue SUE! your way to financial magnificence!

<Sorry, this rant might get Herr Hunter wanting to point this at Random Static - point being I want to respect the intellectual property of QLI and MWM more than I want to respect the mechanics of the relevant laws.... I'll send the poster off-line the info on the assumption that he told me the straight skinny about the German version including Supplement 4.... that just seems appropos.... but I won't post the info here....>

 

[jchurchill]

You can, as the software industry has proven, patent (not copyright or trademark, as you point out) processes and algorithms (though IMO the latter should be invalid). Thus equations and such could be patented. Imagine the RPG that patented (and the USPTO would be just the bunch of gits to issue it) Then, once you've got this patented, sue Sue SUE! your way to financial magnificence!
================================================
Well, yes and no. I'm NOT a patent lawyer but I have some exp. of computer lawsuits and I think you will find those patents on very shaky ground if challenged. Just because the PTO issues a patent that won't keep a judge from later saying that patent was improperly granted. The prime ways that most people keep computer software protected is through copyright and trade secret.
the two choices are mutually exclusive in the sense that copyright requires that a percentage of the source code is revealed when it is filed for copyright. Using trade secret law, the source code is not revealed.

"Sorry, this rant might get Herr Hunter wanting to point this at Random Static - point being I want to respect the intellectual property of QLI and MWM more than I want to respect the mechanics of the relevant laws...."

It would not be the firat time that was suggested for a discussion I'm involved in. Also no one...NO ONE...should take my casual observation as an invitation to disrespect the intellectual property rights of MWM or QLI. I happen to believe strongly in copyright -- and the internet did not magically create a waiver of those rights. Just ask the RIAA. I only mentioned that not every aspect of Traveller or any RPG is 100% covered by copyright or trademark. Where ot draw that line is very difficult and the best thing to do is give MWM, QLI and alll other game designers the benefit of the doubt and respect their rights in their creations.

I'll stop right there as we have wandered off topic and another wrist slap will be forthcoming.

 

[jchurchill]

You can, as the software industry has proven, patent (not copyright or trademark, as you point out) processes and algorithms (though IMO the latter should be invalid). Thus equations and such could be patented. Imagine the RPG that patented (and the USPTO would be just the bunch of gits to issue it) Then, once you've got this patented, sue Sue SUE! your way to financial magnificence!
================================================
Well, yes and no. I'm NOT a patent lawyer but I have some exp. of computer lawsuits and I think you will find those patents on very shaky ground if challenged. Just because the PTO issues a patent that won't keep a judge from later saying that patent was improperly granted. The prime ways that most people keep computer software protected is through copyright and trade secret.
the two choices are mutually exclusive in the sense that copyright requires that a percentage of the source code is revealed when it is filed for copyright. Using trade secret law, the source code is not revealed.

"Sorry, this rant might get Herr Hunter wanting to point this at Random Static - point being I want to respect the intellectual property of QLI and MWM more than I want to respect the mechanics of the relevant laws...."

It would not be the firat time that was suggested for a discussion I'm involved in. Also no one...NO ONE...should take my casual observation as an invitation to disrespect the intellectual property rights of MWM or QLI. I happen to believe strongly in copyright -- and the internet did not magically create a waiver of those rights. Just ask the RIAA. I only mentioned that not every aspect of Traveller or any RPG is 100% covered by copyright or trademark. Where ot draw that line is very difficult and the best thing to do is give MWM, QLI and alll other game designers the benefit of the doubt and respect their rights in their creations.

I'll stop right there as we have wandered off topic and another wrist slap will be forthcoming.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by secretagent:
The prime ways that most people keep computer software protected is through copyright and trade secret.
the two choices are mutually exclusive in the sense that copyright requires that a percentage of the source code is revealed when it is filed for copyright.

There is no requirement to file for copyright. Trade secret and patent are incompatible, trade secret and copyright are not.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by secretagent:
The prime ways that most people keep computer software protected is through copyright and trade secret.
the two choices are mutually exclusive in the sense that copyright requires that a percentage of the source code is revealed when it is filed for copyright.

There is no requirement to file for copyright. Trade secret and patent are incompatible, trade secret and copyright are not.

 

[jchurchill]

"There is no requirement to file for copyright."

No, it is true that one can have copyright rights without filing for them BUT in order to bring a case the plaintiff has to file with the copyright office. In any event, it is usually safer to file to protect your copyrighted material. prior to the Berne Convention one HAD to file with the copyright office to ensure that your copyright would be enforceable.

"Trade secret and patent are incompatible"

To the extent that patent application requires disclosure or to the subject matter involved?
If #1 then yes. If the second then "not necessarily" as some trade secrets are patentable and some are not.

"trade secret and copyright are not."

Yes they are to the extent that many trade secrets are not subject to copyright -- they are not things that can be copyrighted. [formulas, process, methods, etc etc].

Re disclosure issues -- yes one could have a copyright in a computer program and try to protect it as a trade secret but a trade secret requires that no disclosure occur. With a copyright, if one intends to enforce it then at some point filing some of the source code comes into play...the first 50 and last 50 lines of the source code but that is still partial disclosure.

[Anthony, I went back and see that my "mutual exclusive" generalization was the root of your post and yes that statement was perhaps too sweeping but it is one that you see judges making in cases.]

Anyway...if you want to continue this discussion open a thread on Random Static or the powers that be will hit me on the head again.

 

[jchurchill]

"There is no requirement to file for copyright."

No, it is true that one can have copyright rights without filing for them BUT in order to bring a case the plaintiff has to file with the copyright office. In any event, it is usually safer to file to protect your copyrighted material. prior to the Berne Convention one HAD to file with the copyright office to ensure that your copyright would be enforceable.

"Trade secret and patent are incompatible"

To the extent that patent application requires disclosure or to the subject matter involved?
If #1 then yes. If the second then "not necessarily" as some trade secrets are patentable and some are not.

"trade secret and copyright are not."

Yes they are to the extent that many trade secrets are not subject to copyright -- they are not things that can be copyrighted. [formulas, process, methods, etc etc].

Re disclosure issues -- yes one could have a copyright in a computer program and try to protect it as a trade secret but a trade secret requires that no disclosure occur. With a copyright, if one intends to enforce it then at some point filing some of the source code comes into play...the first 50 and last 50 lines of the source code but that is still partial disclosure.

[Anthony, I went back and see that my "mutual exclusive" generalization was the root of your post and yes that statement was perhaps too sweeping but it is one that you see judges making in cases.]

Anyway...if you want to continue this discussion open a thread on Random Static or the powers that be will hit me on the head again.