Patent - Should a single company own the rights to “Elimination round”?

S

S. Yama

Active Member
You tell me what you think.

First a primer.

You can get patent only on a material innovation. You can not patent an idea, no matter how bright it seems to be.

So, all things patentable need to be of utilitarian and material nature. Sometimes that’s easy, combine the idea with things, or patent a functional feature of it. Anything patentable needs to have aspects of novelty and “unobviousness”.
The latter often creates trouble as whatever you trying to patent has to meet criteria of being surprisingly new to an expert on the subject. This also means that nothing like it could ever existed before and it should not be revealed to general public, as it then becomes a public knowledge and nullifies rights for patentability.
Patents serve dual role - defensive, so others can’t copy you, and offensive, to block others from developing anything that would include your patent.
They are defined by claims – the heart of patents. As prospective patent owner you would like them to be as broad as possible (which weakens the patent) but specific enough to qualify for it.

There are also alternatives to patents.
You can apply for trademarks. We see them all the time. Good thing about trademark is that often times they are so characteristic that there is no problem with recognizing them and no problem with infringements.
You can also get copyrights, which mostly applies to things.. da.. written.
And with television shows, equivalent of patent is called format. Until very recently, there were very little protection for TV formats, and some unscrupulous productions got away with rip-offs, but lately there were some international courts decision trying to grant more protection against copy-cats shows.

As to the “elimination round”, we know that at one point of a session a player(s) will get eliminated.
Should only one company have the right to eliminate a player(s) in any (or a specific) round of session other than the very last round planed.
How about if two advance, but only three left and the third busts out on the x round.
How about if somebody is eliminated every single round from the very beginning? Every other round? When a random clock, card, etc., indicates it?
Do other sports or disciplines eliminate somebody at an equivalence of blackjack rounds? Blackjack then would be a novelty but wouldn’t it be “anticipated” innovation?

I don’t know.

S. Yama
 
Beer money for selling books

BP,

You mean you still have books to dust off? I found my Business Law class more interesting than most but the bookstore must have bought the text back. I do have my "Purcell" Calculus book but it got me through 13 hours at the Big U.

But back to the question. I must admit that when I first heard of the Multi-elimination round format I had a "why didn't I think of that" moment. But does that generate proprietary rights?
 
Last edited:
Business Model Patents

Yama,

I'm confused. It's my understanding that Design/Utiltity Patents, which have nothing to do with material innovations, are common in the gaming industry (hence, one company owns Three Card Stud, another SuperFun 21, etc.) and those patents are fiercely protected.

Harrah's has also laid claim to a "Business Model Patent" for the past five years or so regarding the way that they reward new Slot Club members.

Their model, in which a new player signs up for a card, plays a fixed minimum amount of time, loses a fixed maximum (say, $100) and then gets their money back on the next trip...has been successfully defended a number of times (the Stratosphere is one casino that I recall being slapped with an injunction) and other casino operators don't even think about treading on Harrah's hallowed ground.

Now, as to the question "Should a single company own the rights to "Elimination Round"?, my answer is not only "Yes," but "Hell, Yes."

As a creative type (or I like to think I am, anyway), I think that anyone who comes up with a way to make any game more exciting for the customer and more profitable for the operators should get more than the pittance normally offered (or simply stolen without some much as a thank you).

I think it's only fair that if anyone wants to play "Elimination Round" blackjack that they should pay dearly for the priviledge. If they don't want to pay a premium for a primo idea, then the tight ass shit weasels can invent something of their own.
 
Tourney Titles

All,

It is ironic that now we are seeing BJ tourneys named World Series of 21 and now "knockout" versus "elimination" plays. Shoot, what will casino's/companies call the "secret" bet, a "private" bet?

Hats off to the UBT for being innovative along with creating one kick-a$$ season 1 at Lake Las Vegas last fall (see Casino Player Mar 06). I'm not even affiliated with the UBT but what #SN did for WSO# III is what we call "bush league."

Sidekick
 
Last edited:
Exclusivity to elimination or UBT.

Welllll.......from the peanut gallery.

Yama certainly raises discussionable points and Mr. Max, whom I tend to agree with, especially from his "game" examples, states the case far clearer and concisely than I ever could.

Except to say, if Bob Nesarian(sp) isn't available to file some sort of protection for the concept, or come up with a protective covenant, which is part of the format, then the only resource is a gaggle of Philadelphia Lawyer quacks to argue into eternity at $1,000 an hour whether intelectual property is protected in an of itself, through copywrite, trademark, patent(through initiation of physicality) or some new concept.

Short of that. If the concept gets balkanized and many competitive bankrolls are fighting for first or most popular format, I'd suggest going for "the high ground" in presentation.

After all, "Class" wins out in the long run.
 
P.S. "Dusting off Books"

British Petroleum! Didn't you retain anything? Dusting is normal maintainence, or "house cleaning."

Please! No disrespect intended. Far be it for me to attack an icon.
 
And I was worrying (just a bit) that there were no takers for the subject.
The subject seemed to me broad enough to attract all range of responses.
Perhaps a bit of legalise language I used scared people away. But there is no need for dusting off textbooks, mine were also sold off for booze long time ago (and it wasn’t Cristal).

The legal staff again, as much as I understand – don’t forget I am just a high-school dropout.
There are three different types of patents: utility, design, and plant. You wrote: ...Design/Utility Patents, which have nothing to do with material innovations” -- it looked as you treated it as one type. Any utility patent is as material as it gets. The design patent is usually of purely decorative nature, and is easyly distinguished from utility patents because if you remove it the functionality remains intact.

The matter is very complicated and I guarantee you that if you ask three real IP attorneys you get three different opinions. Perhaps “elimination round” qualifies for patent as a method of casino playing game.
But when it comes to Television program I am not so sure, based on previous and recent cases I would bet against it.

Some patent logic applies to Television’s rights. So, if there were programs which featured format that has a person/player (who receives/remains with the lowest score) being eliminated at a particular level/round, and with the onslaught of reality and game shows every other has it, -the novelty of elimination round is debatable.

With many other complicated legal issues, this should be perhaps left to professionally qualified people to decide.
What I really care is the growth of blackjack tournament community and boost to blackjack tournaments rewarding players who mastered the skills - subjects which I will try to address in the next post.

S. Yama
 
Location, Location, Location

noman said:
British Petroleum! Didn't you retain anything? Dusting is normal maintainence, or "house cleaning."

Please! No disrespect intended. Far be it for me to attack an icon.
Click to expand...


Noman,

I can see you are a man of business. A man who should be treated with respect. ;)

The books in question are stored in the basement of my parents home. I have yet to retrieve them or dust them off. Being in the basement, yes, I assume, they are dusty!

Bottom line on this issue for me is that there are those who are paid to secure the answers to such issues. I'm not one of them and I doubt that what I have to say about this will make a difference as to what will be regarding this issue. Those that already have, or may in the future, cross a leagl line that someone believes they have established, if callout on the issue, will be judged by the laws in place.
 
you're saying...

BP, I have always appreciated humor in your post.

But in your last post, what are you saying specifically?
That, ...it will make no difference as to what you have to say what will be (what will be what?) regarding this issue. Who have, who may in the future? What legal line? Was it crossed? Did somebody established it or believes so?
If callout on the issue... where, by whom, why, what for? What laws in place? How much do you know about these laws?
I wouldn't respond to many other messages like this, but I have to much respect for you to ignore it.
The other option would be to speak from your heart, we are not lawyers here (most of us are not), or at least speak out what you really think.

S. Yama
 
UBT Legality

One non-restrictive activity an individual can still participate, as long as their identity is intact and their skin is thick enough, is a forum.

Opinions stated. Agreement. Disagrement, And a concensus. Or more fragmentation to start the whole process all over again.

As far as UBT and imitations, or lifting of concepts, the bottom line will be which concept the majority choose to participate. (I just happen to believe the UBT concept was unique and should retain "rights" to its creativity.)

All the legal wrangling will go above the heads of the eventual participants. Once the dust settles, what will you as a participant, player, feel comfortable participating?

Do you want to be the "Main Attraction" in the Center Ring? Or do you prefer to be just one of the menagerie along the dimly, barely lit Side Show Alley.

Maybe there is more money in the side show.

Ultimately, each individual decides what's best for (him/her) and in today's world the majority(or the most boisterous) win out.
 
new kids

Nice post Noman,

No easy answers or at least they come with multifaceted caveats.
Let me make short comments to some of the subject matters you’ve brought up, starting with, where else but at the end.

In today’s world the majority wins out.
Unfortunately yes, and in most cases it is not a democracy at helm but dumbing down and catering to mediocrity. What may be best to an individual acquisitively could be a personal defeat and a selloff otherwise. Only if we could make Don Kichote rich, loved, and even more famous.

Do you want to be the "Main Attraction" and Maybe there is more money in the side show.
Every dog has his day. But aslo, the world is changing and the usual suspect: casinos - the originator and organizer of blackjack tournaments become more often just facilitators of the tourneys. The new big kids on the block seem to be Television (perhaps supported by the Internet gaming) and the Internet Gam(bl)ing Sites (perhaps supported by mass media, including the Television).
That brings new subjects: intent and motivation, planing and execution, integrity and conformism, short and long term strategy - different for all parties involved, producers, audience, leisure and business approach players, etc. Which creates all kinds of affiliations, cooperations, but also, polarizations, rivalization and antagonism. Hopefully nobody gets killed. Just kidding.
Ohh! I forgot. Money! Real money, big money, possible money, promised money and lost money.
The new kids I mentioned above are strictly business. Many straightforward, passionate tournament players should just hope to get a ride along with the new well greased machines (businesses) doing what they need to do.
It seems there is also a bunch of entrepreneurial people who try new venues on peripheries of blackjack tournaments – and I wish them best of luck.

All the legal wrangling will go above the heads of the eventual participants.
Though I agree that UBT used the idea of elimination hand during particular hands, its legal protection is to be determined by lawyers, and to the extend I could guess it, it is arguable. You may want to do more research on the Internet but here is one quote by Ben Challis, Industry Lawyer and Senior Lecturer in Law, Buckinghamshire University:
A format consists of a combination of unprotected elements ... An infringement can only be involved if a similar selection of several of these elements have been copied in an identifiable way. If all the elements have been copied, there is no doubt. In that case copyright infringement is involved. If only one (unprotected) element has been copied, the situation is also clear: in that case no infringement is involved. A general answer to the question of how many elements must have been copied for infringement to be involved cannot be given; this depends on the circumstances of the case.

Opinions stated. Agreement. Disagrement, And a concensus.
What consensus? Are you kiddin’? Yeah, more fragmentation and “fractalization”.
The truth to be told, the elimination hand may help a lot, it is a good idea but it will not "make it or break it" for the show.
At this point in TV’s blackjack popularization any nonabhorrent buzz, noise, or preferably music, should only help the cause and should be welcomed. So, there is no need for rivalry, at least not yet.
And as far as opinions go, I am treasuring skills in blackjack tournaments. The edge experienced players have is relatively small, just barely worth serious pursuit with current not-so-high-as-in-poker prizes. The elimination hand (three of them! in one session) make blackjack tournament more of a crap shoot, at a premium that it is more interesting to watch on Television. It is help for average players and those that are just slightly better than the average.
I am absolutely willing to accept a temporary setback for skillful players keeping in mind and hoping for a chance to popularize the game -so many of us on this board love.

S. Yama
 
UBT-New Age BJ Tourneys:

S. Yama:
Forgive this quick reply. I'm scrambling to catch a flight. Your response deserves review. Perhaps if your at IP, we can discuss in person.

I have one overriding personal perspective, regardless of the direction and final legal rulings of tourneys.

Unfortunately, that perspective is one that I have quibbled with Cerritos.

In the short run of it, I feel, he is correct. And as you stated the big money is TV.

But even though my 18-year-old mind fights the preception of what a lifetime of bad decisions has molded my appearance, (Important for TV), my mind does recognize that not only am I past the ooooo,uggghhhhh stage and not only, not TV'able, but certainly, not HD'able.

And as much as I admired Jerry's spunk and self confidence, even for me, HE was painful to watch on KOV.

Regardless of what the Michigan State Porn Star was, is, did, (perhaps,he'll become A PLAYER) he was viewable. Cerritos has knowledge in both important areas, for TV. So the younger viewable crowd will get the best opportunities for the big money.

Ah! Youth is wasted on the young.
 
I see Yama

"All the legal wrangling will go above the heads of the eventual participants.
Though I agree that UBT used the idea of elimination hand during particular hands, its legal protection is to be determined by lawyers, and to the extend I could guess it, it is arguable."


That on this we do agree. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top