Wizard suing MtG clone for IP infringement

[Kaelik]

So what happens if someone 'accidentally' does whatever secret thing you did? Can you sue over that?

I'm pretty sure you can.
Patents are part of the public record, and there's even a form you can fill out for the USPO to see if what you made already has a patent.
Basically, you have a duty to make sure you're not infringing on someone else's work.

Except the whole point is that trade secrets are 99% things you can't patent or that patenting does no good because the copying is not infringement.

[ACOS]

Hmm.
Okay, I'm going to free-flow some thoughts here:

Processes are patented. The major point of reverse-engineering a patented product is to figure out if/how said product can be replicated via a different process.
Kodak fought over this with their Polaroid camera, and lost. AMD and Intel have fought each other over this concerning multi-core processors (though, I didn't keep up with the results).

So, I'm thinking that "trade secret" is only a really big deal when the exact process itself is a moot point. If it actually doesn't matter when/where in the process a particular ingredient is added (for example), then the process itself isn't important.

Also, don't patents expire? If Coca-Cola were able to protect their recipe through the legal bureaucracy, that would eventually expire. What does that do for their long-term business model and viability?

[TiaC]

So, do you think patent law will ever get bad enough that someone will be able to patent the process of acquiring a patent?

[ACOS]

So, do you think patent law will ever get bad enough that someone will be able to patent the process of acquiring a patent?

I think that the gov't already did that.

[TiaC]

So the patent fee is actually a licensing fee?

[mlangsdorf]

Hmm.
Okay, I'm going to free-flow some thoughts here:

Processes are patented. The major point of reverse-engineering a patented product is to figure out if/how said product can be replicated via a different process.
Kodak fought over this with their Polaroid camera, and lost. AMD and Intel have fought each other over this concerning multi-core processors (though, I didn't keep up with the results).

I worked at AMD from 1998 until 2011 and did engineering work on software for multi-core. I'm not aware of any legal issues over the multi-core processors, and I'd be surprised, since technical stuff like that is heavily cross licensed between the two companies.

AMD did renegotiate parts of the cross-license deal in the mid-aughts, and later won a lawsuit over unfair trade practices, but none of that involved patents as far as I know.

Hmm.

So, I'm thinking that "trade secret" is only a really big deal when the exact process itself is a moot point. If it actually doesn't matter when/where in the process a particular ingredient is added (for example), then the process itself isn't important.

Also, don't patents expire? If Coca-Cola were able to protect their recipe through the legal bureaucracy, that would eventually expire. What does that do for their long-term business model and viability?

Trade secrets are mostly things like sales figures and marketing plans. You don't want your competitor to see them and it's generally internal data that shouldn't leak out if you're careful. Using trade secrets law to protect a process is something of an outlier.

And as noted upstream by Frank, Coca-Cola's "secret" formula isn't secret and can be trivially determined by a college undergrad with access to a gas chromotograph/mass spectrometer. Coke's business model and long term viability depends on brand recognition, trade dress, and distribution contracts, and all of those are protected (to the extent they are protected) by different parts of the law.

[Pixels]

Trade secrets are mostly things like sales figures and marketing plans. You don't want your competitor to see them and it's generally internal data that shouldn't leak out if you're careful. Using trade secrets law to protect a process is something of an outlier.

Using trade secrets law to protect processes is common as dirt in the financial sector. If you are an investment firm, you absolutely do not want your competition to know your methodology, models, etc or you would shortly be out of business.

[ACOS]

I worked at AMD from 1998 until 2011 and did engineering work on software for multi-core. I'm not aware of any legal issues over the multi-core processors, and I'd be surprised, since technical stuff like that is heavily cross licensed between the two companies.

AMD did renegotiate parts of the cross-license deal in the mid-aughts, and later won a lawsuit over unfair trade practices, but none of that involved patents as far as I know.

I had thought that I remembered something about some tech litigation between the 2 in the early-to-mid aughts. Something along the lines of Intel reverse-engineering a piece of AMD tech, and AMD sued for patent infringement. The part that sticks out to me was that when AMD subpenaed Intel's out-look plan, the particular tech in question seemed completely tacked-on (and curiously so) and had not logical place in their overall plan.

But I'm really very foggy on the whole thing, so it very well may have been what you just described.
(and I'm inclined to take your word for it, for obvious reasons)

[Neurosis]

I just now noticed that the thread title says "Wizard suing" not "Wizards suing" making it look like the plaintiff is an actual wizard, not the company Wizards of the Coast.

Why yes, I AM easily amused.

[darkmaster]

Even if it said Wizards it could be a class action lawsuit.