Jimmy
http://bimat.terapad.com

That’s just a few of my ideas that other people also got but actually did something. More energy? time? money? brains? talent? gumption? luck? Some of each I suspect…

Maybe I should start working on my Turf Wars game again?

(1) Employment contracts and claims on the IP (Intellectual Property).
The employment contract is generally interpreted under the laws of the state where the employee is located, though there may be exceptions. Depending on the wording of the contract, the local law, and the pre-employment disclosure of IP by the employee, the company may have a legitimate claim, a bogus claim, or no claim at all. Speculation without this information is meaningless. Anyone joining a firm where IP is important should verify what laws apply to you before you sign the contract.

(2) Who came first?
The reason it matters is determined by whether the two games or their software are considered derivative work of the initial game played at Yale. There is a chain of intellectual property derivation for the game, the genre, and the GUI. Certainly, Risk was a precursor, but Risk had precursors of its own. If the two companies have significantly similar products, both derived from the online game, then the question should be who owned the rights to the original game. If someone filed with the USPTO to own the game, and if the filing contained the clauses necessary to claim rights against the derivative work, then there will be grounds for a nasty legal battle. However, if there was no original IP filing, then it is almost certainly in the public domain which would make the contest between the two games based on the similarity of unique characteristics of the derived games.
Obviously, no one involved in the reporting of this fluff cared enough to check. After all, it was only meant to be fluff reporting!

Finally,
(3) The important part of the story of two companies being formed around basically the same game is not the game but the fact that these two teams were able to build a business model that attracted investment! Online games is a very big, growing area that is gaining investment from the venture community. There is plenty of room for competitors. So I say, BRAVO to both of them.

Harrison Rose
The Online Social Games Company
Silicon Valley, CA

BTW, I really dislike #33’s type of businesses. They are essentially frauds or pyramid schemes.
P.S. Innovation in game development is just as important as innovation in pure technology. It is the application of technology for a specific purpose that generates economic value, while innovation my be honored by awards, praise, applause, pats on the back, and other less intrinsically valuable good feelings. Please don’t put down innovation on either front.

A game is only protectable by patents. I agree with @2 in that these types of games have been around for centuries. And there is probably nothing in Risk that was original enough to patent to begin with.

But even if Hasbro did have a patent it would have long expired. According to http://en.wikip....org/wiki/Risk_(game) the game was first released in 1957. Patents only last 20 years in the US, so it would have expired about 30 years ago. The general gameplay of Risk is public domain at this point.

The name Risk is protectable indefinitely by trademark (as long as somebody pays the fee.) The story and the characters are protectable for tens if not 100+ years by copyright. (I don’t remember when copyrights expire but it’s not indefinite either)

That’s different than the Scrabulous case where a bunch of newbies just cloned Scrabble (of which they have the right to do so since the game is public domain), but still called it so similar to Scrabble, a clear rip off of the Scrabble trademark. Let’s face reality, would anyone play scrabulous if it was call Awesome Word Challenge Thingy? I think I will create a quiz game in which people ask the questions and I’m going to call it Jeepardy.

As you can see the US created an IP system that balances individual rights with society’s rights. The whole point is to foster innovation to benefit all and give the next person something to build upon, while temporarily recognizing and rewarding generously the original innovator.
The system also tries to recognize that there are legitimate practical issues such as business naming rights and the need to avoid confusion and protect the consumer.

Re: DaveS
To clarify my point, Kirkland North can’t just flaunt Gabe about without raising expectations. With a Googler on their team, you’d expect them to be doing quite well by this point. GXC continues to bring a lot of innovations to this game, and they are on their 15th or 20th game now. Kirkland North is about to start their 4th game, but I’m looking forward to seeing what innovations they bring to it…

Huh? What kind of a logic is that? Your ex-Yale profs are weeping.

If you are going to write an article, please do some actual research. The sensationalized perspective of this article is absurd. There is no basis to your alleged “facts.” I don’t understand how you could accept quotes from Kirkland about the way GoCrossCampus is running. Obviously they will have a bias, and as you found out, they were complete fabrications and lies! And as far as the “update” goes, you should rewrite your article, libel is not rectified by an “update.” Next time take the time to actually research a topic and understand the sides before you run to your computer to write it.

Thanks for the info. The majors matter because (1) I want to know; (2) it would be interesting if the founders are both in the same major and same classes at Yale; and (3) Arrington writes “In a phone conversation, Van Vuuren said that the GoCrossCampus guys are not engineers…” so it would be good for Arrington to clarify what they are.

A couple corrections, Michael: “in a game that went on for over a month and involved over 3,300 Yale students (more than 25% of the student body).” The game was limited to undergraduates, of which there are about 5500 here, so that would be approximately 60% participation in the student body.

The original Old Campus Tree Risk was pretty good– nice, simple, minimalist interface. From what I could tell, it really took off more because of the intense “inter-residential college” rivalries here– think of it like intramurals– than the game mechanics.

The GXC version started almost a year ago, and besides Gabe, the Kirkland North guys weren’t around when GXC started. GXC signficantly improved the concept (and especially the user interface!), and even though I played in one of the first two games (the one with the “technical hiccups”), it was still absolutely fantastic. I’m sure the Kirkland North guys aren’t too far behind (Gabe’s a Googler now, so it’s gotta be good!) but GXC’s innovations took the game to a new level.

Re: Andy
Yeah, they’re all Yale students, that was implied. But why are their majors important? I mean, Brad’s a biology/economics double major as the NYT article states, but what does that really matter? I’m also a bio/econ double major, big deal… that really doesn’t say all that much about me, does it?

Re: Wowa
Lame? Please… It’s a good idea and a solid model, if you take the time to think about it.

I’m not sure that making a fuss over who invented the idea of taking a risk like game onine is the right thing- Look at the history of facebook vs. myspace vs. friendster etc… Startup success is about a good idea, but even more so about execution. What will be interesting is to follow which team executes better.

Brad, Sean, and Jeff are smart, hardworking guys and it’s great to see them getting momentum and enough attention to warrant your interest – keep up the great work guys!

Grow up. It’s a strategy game. No guns. No weapons.

I don’t think people should be putting war games on real-life maps.