Wizards of the Coast today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has awarded it a patent U.S. Patent No. 7,201,374 on game play design for constructible strategy games.

Wizards pioneered the constructible strategy game category five years ago. The invention, code named “Punch Bots”, combined Wizards’ original repeat-purchase business model and the excitement of trading card game combat to create strategically assembled – and disassembled – models. Wizards first filed for patent protection in October of 2002. The full text and images of the patent are available at www.uspto.gov.

A game, toy or article of manufacture includes a set of rules and at least one model. The model has multiple movable parts, where under the rules of play, the model begins in an assembled configuration. As the model loses points under the rules of play, at least some of the parts are removed from the model, or replaced with substitute parts. The model may be formed from a panel or other substantially planar member, with the individual pieces formed therein. Methods of game play, computer-implemented games, and other aspects of the invention are described herein. Many other options are possible, as described above.

Oh they're JUST "attention whoring" here, sort of like the "Paris Hilton" role model version, since there have been plenty of others that were around well before some of these folks had even been born, or is this "hatched"?, or perhaps "Hell-spawned" is more appropriate, for whatever the case may be. In fact, with what they've described, then Broadside shall meet the 'criterion' of that, and this is from 1962. Well, guess WHO "owns" the 'Milton Bradley' line now? As well as these 'dorques'? Yep, that's right, the dreaded and "damnable ggBORG"!

The credit goes to the the guys who invented Lego Wars.

Yes... but did they patent the idea? Probably not.

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a patentee (the inventor or assignee) for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable.

The claims of that patent can be found here:

http://v3.espacenet.com/textclam?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US2004084842&...

Claim 1 states for example:

"1. A game system, comprising:
at least one panel of planar, substantially rigid material, having formed therein first and second sets of components,
wherein the first set of components includes at least three toy components that may be manually removed from a balance of the panel and manually assembled into a toy without need for glue or external fasteners, and
wherein the second set of components includes at least two randomizer components that may be manually removed and manually assembled into an randomizer object without need for glue or external fasteners, wherein the randomizer object is configured to provide one of several random values when the randomizer object is actuated by a player;
at least one accessory that may be manually removed from the panel and removably attached to the assembled toy; and
a set of game rules;
wherein the randomizer object is associated with the accessory and is for use under the game rules, wherein the assembled toy may be employed in a game defined by the game rules, and wherein a predetermined value derived from actuation of the randomizer object by the player negatively affects an opponent toy associated with an opponent player so that one of multiple components of the opponent toy is removed."

I believe there was a recent Supreme Court ruling that curtailed the enforcement of these kinds of silly patents. But who's gonna fight a big corporation over a frivilous patent? Not many, and even if you do, there's no guarantee you'll win. Point being that patenting something isn't done because you actually have a good invention, but merely as a legal "tactic" if you will.

The deep pocket/best lawyers usually win. They can certainly inflict a lot of pain.

Is there any teaching in the prior art, as a whole, that would, not simply could, have prompted the skilled person, faced with the objective technical problem formulated when considering the technical features not disclosed by the closest prior art, to modify or adapt said closest prior art while taking account of that teaching [the teaching of the prior art, not just the teaching of the closest prior art], thereby arriving at something falling within the terms of the claims, and thus achieving what the invention achieves?

I was thinking the same thing...

...only in English.

5. The game method of claim 2, further comprising a set of self-adhesive labels for customizing the first or second toy bases.

So what?

They also have a patent on CCGs. Most companies don't heed it and as far as I know WotC has never challenged any game company producing CCGs with it.

I think they are just blowing smoke and trying to scare the upstarts who want to produce a CSG. They want to get royalties from such companies who plan to produce a CSG like they tried to do with their patent on CCGs but is anyone listening? I doubt it.