There must be some net benefit to the rest of society to warrant the grant of a IP right. So if you want to encourage more creativity and innovation in methods and procedures, you offer some IP protection so that the people who come up with them have an easier time profiting from them.As with all legislation, the purpose of IP legislation is, in the end, to provide utility to society. And with it, the incentive for that innovation and creation is likewise reduced. If there is no IP protection, then the opportunity to profit from innovation and creation is greatly reduced. It adds incentive to innovation and creation. Well that answer is easy the same reason we need IP protection for anything else.
One effect of this is (IMO) that such frivolous law-suits are less (even much less) common here than in the US. As a side note (and a personal reflection), in Europe the looser has to pay all legal fees. It's unfortunate, but it is possible to use economic power to force your will upon others - even if you are 100% wrong and the weaker party is 100% right. That there still is a possibility that someone sues for copyright infringement is a completely different matter. But as mrgray points out you could still be sued and depending on the jurisdiction you might find it very expensive to win the case - even if you're 100% right.īut the fact remains that copyright do not protect the methods of playing a game (or any other method or procedure for that matter) but only someones original description of those methods. As long as you don't copy another authors description (or expression) of a given set of game mechanics you're safe. I could produce a game that used the exact mechanics from GURPS, and as long as I never use any name, trademark or logo of GURPS or Steve Jackson Games, I have no obligation to pay them anything. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the same is not true of game mechanics.
GURPS 3RD EDITION CHARACTER CREATION LICENSE
If you produce a soft drink from the Pepsi formula and advertise it "Pepsi", you need a license from PepsiCo to use their trademarks as well as an arrangement (I think also called a license) to use their patented formula (this example is ignoring the possibility that the formula for Pepsi has passed into public domain through time, which is a separate issue). That is different than licensing the game mechanics themselves. You could say that the risk-management "profit" is the consideration.But in that case you are licensing the rights to use the name, trademark or logo of the game (or its designers) for marketing and advertising purposes. In such cases you are going to need a license to avoid law suits (not based on IP-law but on unfair competition law). None, but most computer games that make use of a specific set of game mechanics targets the people who play that game, Neverwinter Nights is a good example. You could say that the risk-management "profit" is the consideration. When you run a commercial project it's wise to minimize your risks. The avoided risk might well be worth the license fee. If you are only using the underlying game mechanics but plan to use marketing activities, that mentions the ruleset you are using, then it still might (depending on the jurisdiction) make sense to seek a license to avoid the risk of legal problems - even if that risk is small and even if your case is very good.
But for what? If the game mechanics are not property (which, without IP protection, they are not), and you are not using any name or trademark of SJG or GURPS, then what exactly is the subject of the license? What is the consideration for the licensee if they are not granted something to which they are not already entitled for free?None, but most computer games that make use of a specific set of game mechanics targets the people who play that game, Neverwinter Nights is a good example.
0 kommentar(er)
