It feels close, because it is close, but it is not an exact cousin of a sudoku. of cages), but this is not a region-based constraint and therefore not a sudoku. A calcu-doku has a third constraint (based on sums/products/. Without the third constraint - specifically a region-based third constraint - you do not have a sudoku in my opinion. A subset of Latin square puzzles, with a third unique group constraint based on regions, are Sudoku. That some take numbers and others letters is a problem if we are overly strict in how we classify things. Within this family, Kropki, Calcu-doku, Skyscrapers, even Easy as ABC puzzles belong. There are also symbol placement puzzles that have these unique group constraints, of which Latin square puzzles are the most common. Some of those puzzles would be things like word fill-ins and Fillomino that have different types of logical rules but no specific geometric uniqueness constraints. Within symbol placement puzzles are puzzles that literally just use symbols (like Star Battle) but also more meaningful symbols such as word and number-based subgenres. In the broad hierarchy of puzzles, there are puzzles that should be classified as symbol placement puzzles (as opposed to things like path/loop-forming puzzles, a similarly broad category that would get mazes and Slitherlink and Numberlink and such, or observational puzzles or manipulative puzzles and perhaps a few other groups). So the fact almost no other puzzle qualifies as a sudoku, but many puzzles can be turned into sudoku forms, seems missing here when the discussion turns to whether a thing (say Kropki) is a sudoku or not. While this is a convenient choice as sudoku is one of the most recognized (and misrecognized) logic puzzles these days - sudoku seems synonymous with puzzle in some circles - it is well zoomed in on the broad puzzle landscape already. &Itemid=31).įirst, all these discussions of where to put puzzles in a hierarchy strike me as failing by using sudoku as a touchstone. But I'm not sure if patents would even apply to pen-and-paper puzzles - it would be more likely to apply to something physical (. However getting a patent would be egregious (cost of a 10-year european-patent is estimated €32000), and you shouldn't distribute the puzzle in the public domain until after you had applied for the patent, in every region you wanted the patent to apply. I think perhaps you might be able to *patent* the idea of a puzzle. That's how I understand copyright law to work. So, as long as I rewrite your rules (BattleBarge) in my own terms (BattleStewart), that's fair game. However, the concept of the puzzle I don't think is copyrightable. And the design of an example puzzle would be under your copyright. You have automatic (free) copyright over anything you written - so a written version of the rules would be under your copyright. I think you can trademark a name, assuming certain conditions, and you have to apply for a trademark of the word you want to use - which has to not otherwise be used in the context of puzzles and the trademark is considered by a jury and as such has to be paid for.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |