Gurps 3rd Edition.

[ShotGun Jolly]

Hello All,

Anyone out here have the GURPS 3rd edition ruleset?

Or is the 4th edition ruleset the only thing out there now?

[Claybor]

I don't believe that there's been any attempt at a 3rd ed. ruleset, at least not that I have heard of.

[unerwünscht]

Its been a LONG time since I have played GURPS, but if I remember correctly it was only rules that changed from 3 to 4. The character sheet itself still has all the same information. So it wouldn't be very difficult to adapt the 4th ed ruleset for 3rd ed, if the coder doesnt mind.

[Spyke]

Its been a LONG time since I have played GURPS, but if I remember correctly it was only rules that changed from 3 to 4. The character sheet itself still has all the same information. So it wouldn't be very difficult to adapt the 4th ed ruleset for 3rd ed, if the coder doesnt mind.Interesting point.

Yes, the GURPS 4e ruleset doesn't actually calculate anything on the character sheet, it just adds up the points that you enter, so it would almost entirely work as a 3e sheet. You could easily use it as is without any change to the code.

These would be the things that wouldn't be quite right:

Character Sheet

HP and FP are shown next to ST and HT respectively - 3e has them the other way round. Not a problem in play, just calculate them as you would under 3e but remember they're in a different place to the official 3e sheet.

Will and Per are not specifically indicated on the character sheet in 3e. Either set these to match IQ, or adjust according to your advantages/disadvantages as you prefer.

3e's Passive Defense was removed in 4e. Record this in some spare space on the main page of the sheet (e.g. in the reaction or language box).

Languages are skills, so just ignore the language box.

Cultural Familiarity was introduced in 4e so ignore this box.

Skills - simply ignore the Type and Relative Level columns.

Ranged weapons - there's no concept of Snapshot under 4e; I suggest you put this in the Bulk column (which isn't used in 3e).

Ranged weapons - put half damage and max damage ranges together in the Range column, e.g. 3/8 for a knife.

NPC sheet

Same issues as above, but some don't apply as the NPC sheet is deliberately cut down for ease of play. Just add missing things like Passive Defense to one of the notes fields. (If you have a detailed NPC you can use a player sheet.)

Combat Tracker

Again, passive defense is the only field that's missing. You could use the SM box. This is the only part of the ruleset that won't work properly in play, as when you drag PCs and NPCs to the tracker the passive defense won't come across.

It wouldn't be a huge amount of work for me to adapt the 4e ruleset for 3e play, I'll add it to my list of things to do when I get the time!

3e vs 4e GURPS

(I'm aware that you're a regular on the SJG boards, ShotGun, but a comparison of 3e to 4e seems appropriate as part of this post.)

GURPS 3e was a fine and very playable set of rules that stood up well for 15 years, but it had some inconsistencies that really bugged the hardcore fans. I was a very happy and satisfied player of 3e for all that time and wasn't really aware of any issues. But when 4e was released it was a revelation. Things I hadn't realised needed fixing were fixed and the whole set of rules felt far more solid and consistent throughout.

There are very few people who don't think 4e is a big improvement on 3e, at least as far as the Steve Jackson Games forums are concerned. However, there are plenty of people still playing 3e for various reasons:

Support for specific game worlds - you may not want to go to the trouble of updating your campaign if your work or the specific game book you're using was written in 3e.

Familiarity - 4e is still very recognisably GURPS, but you still need to get your head round all the little changes.

Cheap stuff! - Lots of the GURPS 3e material is now available at a low cost as pdfs from e23 (https://e23.sjgames.com/search.html?gsys=GURPS%203rd%20Ed.).

Spyke (aka Graham on the SJG boards)

[ShotGun Jolly]

...

(I'm aware that you're a regular on the SJG boards, ShotGun, but a comparison of 3e to 4e seems appropriate as part of this post.) ...



Thanks Spyke, and yup thats me.

I had a good read on what you said, and I do see some of the smaller changes, that make a big difference to the ruleset from 3e to 4e.

I looked (bought) at the two compendiums and then looked at the 4e core books and can see how the compendiums was the step into creating the streamlined core rules of 4th.

I do plan on making the switch to 4e over the next little while, and hope that fantasy grounds is the catalyst that does it.

Thanks for your input.. it will help me out over the next few weeks.

[King Joey]

Just wondering if the 3rd Edition ruleset was still on Spyke's "to-do" list . . . [fingers crossed]?

[johniba]

off-topic but.
Spike, what are the odds on SJG giving you permission to automate the dice rolls on Gurps ruleset?

I mean, it is not like asking to put copyrighted material in the ruleset, and it would be really cool to have something automated.

I love how dnd4_jpg is automated, and thinking about it, WoTC is a lot more cranky than SJG as a company, maybe they would allow it

[Spyke]

King Joey: yes, but I've not got much time at the moment. I started work, then realised I couldn't remember 3e as well as I assumed I could!

Johniba: very slight, though I haven't asked. I was going to wait until I'd got the 4e ruleset to v1, which I could probably do now, simply by renumbering it; v0.94's stable and has most of the features I'd originally planned.

The automation of the dice rolls is one of the key things ruled out by the online policy. Some years ago I produced a fully automated GURPS 3e character sheet for GRiP, and when I approached SJG I was asked to remove it from distribution, precisely because it automated the dice rolls.

The one thing here that does irk me though, is that automated dice rolls are available from fans as add-ins for Klooge, MapTool, BRPG, Screen Monkey and OpenRPG, all in clear contravention of the online policy.

What I hope to do (eventually) is send SJG a presentation showing FG in action for GURPS, together with a request for various levels of automation. The online policy suggests that I could build in a little more character generation, such as automatically calculating secondary attributes for NPCs, and they may be comfortable with including trait and skill descriptions, as some of the character generators do this, or even the whole of GURPS Lite. After that comes automating rolls from attributes and skills, and damage rolls.

What would be useful would be to increase the amount of comment about playing GURPS in FG on the SJG boards, to raise awareness. And I guess we've come full circle, as if I supported 3e as well there'd be more players!

Spyke

[King Joey]

Well, I've never played 4e, but with the amount of reference material I have for 3e, and the number of years my friends and I have been playing it, I can't see myself converting to 4e anytime soon.
(New bad. Different bad. Change bad. Zog go play with rock now.)

[Spyke]

As you say, GURPS 3e certainly isn't dead and gone. It's still the default system for GURPS Traveller in the Third Imperium, 'Reign of Steel', 'GURPS In Nomine', 'GURPS Deadlands', etc., and for those who don't want to do conversions in Transhuman Space. And not only is there a huge amount of 3e material out there, it's now very cheap if you get the pdfs from e23.

I agree it's definitely still worth getting a 3e ruleset written for Fantasy Grounds. I'll bump it up my mental to do list.

Having said that, I was very happy moving my group from 3e to 4e. A great system got even better: more consistent, and simpler to play.

Spyke

[peterb]

The one thing here that does irk me though, is that automated dice rolls are available from fans as add-ins for Klooge, MapTool, BRPG, Screen Monkey and OpenRPG, all in clear contravention of the online policy.

Well, I can't find any specific statements in their online policy (https://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html) that would rule out automated dice rolls. In fact, like so many RPG companies (unfortunately), their policy actually make claims regarding their rights that aren't true (even though - it must be said - that SJGs policy is not the worst of the lot in any way). The most striking "error" is their trademark claims. Non-commercial and nominative (speaking about a trademark) use are considered fair use of trademarks (or even falls outside the scope of trademark rights) in most jurisdictions, including the U.S.

Thus, creating a private non-commercial webpage about the game GURPS, is quite OK. The same would go for automating a ruleset for use with FG. Restating the rules of a game in source code is not a derivative work. The source code derives from the rules as such, but the game mechanics are not copyright protected. The source code is not a derivative of the textual description of the game mechanics, but of the ideas on which the description is based.

[Spyke]

Well, I can't find any specific statements in their online policy (https://www.sjgames.com/general/online_policy.html) that would rule out automated dice rolls.
It's this section:


Run a game of GURPS, Toon or In Nomine on an online chat system, with a Game Master?

Yes; as we see it now, that's really no different from running a game for your friends in your living room. Anything more than a character creation game aid is a problem, because at that point it's not just like a game in your living room; it's more like a "computer game."

Character Generation is largely OK, but having the game aid make calculations based on the rules during play is not. This was emphasised to me during my conversations with them regarding GRiP.

Whether or not it could be argued in court that the restrictions in the online policy are legal or not is not relevant, to me at least. I like SJG and I don't want to go against the spirit of their policy.

Spyke

[Spyke]

... Restating the rules of a game in source code is not a derivative work. The source code derives from the rules as such, but the game mechanics are not copyright protected. The source code is not a derivative of the textual description of the game mechanics, but of the ideas on which the description is based.
Didn't SJG prevent the makers of Fallout using the GURPS mechanics in their computer game, when Steve Jackson objected to its content?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(computer_game)

That suggests that there is a precedent against being allowed to reproduce someone else's game system without licence in your source code, though I'm not sure this was tested in court.

Spyke

[drahkar]

You are absolutely right. The game mechanics are 100% copyrightable. Not to mention that even if they were in a legal grey area, SJG wants them to be. I know from experience that its good to stay on the good side of these groups. Not to mention the fact that we are all fans of the products. That's one of the reasons behind SmiteWorks getting the contracts. At that point its all black and white and everyone is on bored. No hard feelings, everyone is happy and we can go from there.

[Spyke]

The best way to take this forward would probably be for Doug to contact SJG. There are various levels of this:

1. A little more automation in the ruleset.
2. Inclusion of GURPS Lite.
3. A lot more automation.
4. Inclusion of the Basic Set.
5. Supplements and adventures.

I can see agreement for 1 & 2 being arranged with the ruleset still being a free download. I suspect 3 to 5 would require a proper contract covered by SJG quality control and a project to develop a commercial version of the ruleset. Given how little spare time they have at SJG, I can't see 3 to 5 happening any time soon, but you never know...

Spyke

[johniba]

Another idea, maybe Spyke could make some kind of a deal to develop a comercial version of his ruleset, with SJG?

There are already some really nice rulesets on sale here, i even purchased them and was amazed at the quality and content.

I could see several possibilities, either free or comercial.

It would be awsome to have a somewhat automated rolls with your ruleset, maybe some modules (I would DEFINITELLY buy modules)

Imagine if SJG allowed Spyke to develop some comercial modules? I see SJG making money here...

From what I can see of the comercial rulesets I purchased, even having the complete content of rule books on the modules, I definitelly think I will purchase the books.

Afterall having a book to read is much more comfortable. Having the rules available inside FG is good to consult while playing, but the book complements it...

So maybe this could be used as one of the arguments for a possible comercial version...

In any case, I hope SJG agrees on at least allowing for some automatization.

And Spyke, thanks for the ruleset, it rocks!

[peterb]

Didn't SJG prevent the makers of Fallout using the GURPS mechanics in their computer game, when Steve Jackson objected to its content?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_(computer_game)

That suggests that there is a precedent against being allowed to reproduce someone else's game system without licence in your source code, though I'm not sure this was tested in court.

Spyke

Nope. That was because of contractual issues. See: https://uk.retro.ign.com/articles/948/948937p3.html

[peterb]

You are absolutely right. The game mechanics are 100% copyrightable. Not to mention that even if they were in a legal grey area, SJG wants them to be. I know from experience that its good to stay on the good side of these groups. Not to mention the fact that we are all fans of the products. That's one of the reasons behind SmiteWorks getting the contracts. At that point its all black and white and everyone is on bored. No hard feelings, everyone is happy and we can go from there.

Game mechanics (as such) are 100% not copyrightable. This is not a gray area. There's no reason to allow anyone to abuse IP laws, wheter it's a "good" company or not.

[Spyke]

Imagine if SJG allowed Spyke to develop some comercial modules? I see SJG making money here...
I put modules last on my list, as unfortunately I think it's the least likely ever to get a green light. SJG have historically been opposed to licensing third parties to produce adventures and supplements. They have a very keen eye to quality control of products appearing under the GURPS name, and want to maintain house review over this, which limits the output. After all, why would they use a line editor's time to review a third party product with a percentage return rather than an in-house one where they would get all the profit?

The only third party supplements I can think of which use the GURPS rules are GURPS Prime Directive (the Star Trek clone) and the BITS Traveller adventures.

As far as a commercial ruleset making SJG money is concerned, maybe, maybe not. I think they'd need to take a good hard look at it. They would have to put some internal resource time into preparing the contracts, reviewing the quality, preparing the marketing, etc. That same resource could be used preparing more supplements for e23. It's not so obviously a money-spinner that they'd leap at it, so it would be likely to sit on a back-burner until someone had some time...

If Doug manages to get more of the big players on board, and can show that the return is worthwhile, then perhaps it will swing SJG in our favour. But historically they are a cautious company, and nearly 30 years on, they're still in business...

The other consideration with regard to Fantasy Grounds and SJG, of course, is that SJG is an unashamedly Mac house. Steve's also in it at least partly for the fun. Why would he choose a VT platform that doesn't support the Mac natively, when cross-platform solutions exist?

Spyke

[Spyke]

Nope. That was because of contractual issues. See: https://uk.retro.ign.com/articles/948/948937p3.html
But that's my point. If the Fallout team's legal people believed they had the right to use the GURPS mechanics regardless of what SJG thought, why would they need to reprogram the game when SJG removed their support?

Spyke

[peterb]

But that's my point. If the Fallout team's legal people believed they had the right to use the GURPS mechanics regardless of what SJG thought, why would they need to reprogram the game when SJG removed their support?

Spyke

Because it was a contractual issue... If you sign a contract in which you agree to license the game mechanics you cannot use those same mechanics outside the contact, that would be disloyal toward your previous business partner. And you may be sued for being disloyal...

My point is that the Fallout case doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not game mechanics are copyrightable. It's was 100% a contractual matter.

[johniba]

The other consideration with regard to Fantasy Grounds and SJG, of course, is that SJG is an unashamedly Mac house. Steve's also in it at least partly for the fun. Why would he choose a VT platform that doesn't support the Mac natively, when cross-platform solutions exist?

Spyke


Well, I dont know, but their fantastic Gurps Character Assistant is Windows...there is hope :)

[Spyke]

My point is that the Fallout case doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not game mechanics are copyrightable. It's was 100% a contractual matter.
OK, I understand now. Point taken.


Well, I dont know, but their fantastic Gurps Character Assistant is Windows...there is hope :)
True. :)

Spyke

[King Joey]

Because it was a contractual issue... If you sign a contract in which you agree to license the game mechanics you cannot use those same mechanics outside the contact, that would be disloyal toward your previous business partner. And you may be sued for being disloyal...

My point is that the Fallout case doesn't have a thing to do with whether or not game mechanics are copyrightable. It's was 100% a contractual matter.

If the game mechanics are not copyrightable, why would they contract to license the game mechanics rather than just include them?

[mrgrey]

They can't be copyrighted, but they can be patented. It's a very subtle difference that essentially means the same thing; if they patent their mechanics, they can refuse permission to anyone who wishes to use them for whatever reason. That's why you can get sued for creating a MUD or MUSH that runs using GURPS.

[peterb]

If the game mechanics are not copyrightable, why would they contract to license the game mechanics rather than just include them?

To avoid any possibility of trouble for a starter. For example, GURPS is a trademark and usage of the trademark in the context of business would require a license. Free riding on the good name of SJG, GURPS and GURPS game mechanics might (again in the context of business) get you sued for unlawful competition, at least in the US. So even if the game mechanics as such lacks copyright protection it's a good business practice to avoid trouble and seek a license.

Note that I'm taking care to point out the context. Outside the context of business, in a private non-commercial context, there is no (and should be no) need for such licenses.

[peterb]

They can't be copyrighted, but they can be patented. It's a very subtle difference that essentially means the same thing; if they patent their mechanics, they can refuse permission to anyone who wishes to use them for whatever reason. That's why you can get sued for creating a MUD or MUSH that runs using GURPS.

Game mechanics can only be patented in the US. In Europe they are explicitly excluded from any patent protection. AFAIK very few companies have gone through the trouble of patenting any game mechanics, so I doubt that GURPS is protected by any patents.

[King Joey]

They can't be copyrighted, but they can be patented. It's a very subtle difference that essentially means the same thing; if they patent their mechanics, they can refuse permission to anyone who wishes to use them for whatever reason. That's why you can get sued for creating a MUD or MUSH that runs using GURPS.

Okay, gotcha. I knew there had to be some IP protection available for the game mechanics. Odd that it would fall under patent instead of copyright, however. Does published mathematical research fall under patents instead of copyright as well?

[King Joey]

To avoid any possibility of trouble for a starter. For example, GURPS is a trademark and usage of the trademark in the context of business would require a license. Free riding on the good name of SJG, GURPS and GURPS game mechanics might (again in the context of business) get you sued for unlawful competition, at least in the US.

But that would only come into play if you billed them as GURPS mechanics usign the GURPS or SJG name, logo, trademark, etc. If the game mechanics have no IP protection, then simply duplicating then in your game environment would carry none of those hazards.


So even if the game mechanics as such lacks copyright protection it's a good business practice to avoid trouble and seek a license.

But for what? If the game mechanics are not property (which, without IP protection, they are not), and you are not using any name or trademark of SJG or GURPS, then what exactly is the subject of the license? What is the consideration for the licensee if they are not granted something to which they are not already entitled for free?

[peterb]

Does published mathematical research fall under patents instead of copyright as well?

No. Patents can only protect the technical and industrial implementation of scientific "discoveries". A copyright can protect the way you explain a theory but never the research data or the theory it self.

[peterb]

But for what? If the game mechanics are not property (which, without IP protection, they are not), and you are not using any name or trademark of SJG or GURPS, then what exactly is the subject of the license? What is the consideration for the licensee if they are not granted something to which they are not already entitled for free?

None, but most computer games that make use of a specific set of game mechanics targets the people who play that game, Neverwinter Nights is a good example. In such cases you are going to need a license to avoid law suits (not based on IP-law but on unfair competition law).

If you are only using the underlying game mechanics but plan to use marketing activities, that mentions the ruleset you are using, then it still might (depending on the jurisdiction) make sense to seek a license to avoid the risk of legal problems - even if that risk is small and even if your case is very good. The avoided risk might well be worth the license fee. When you run a commercial project it's wise to minimize your risks.

You could say that the risk-management "profit" is the consideration.

[peterb]

Okay, gotcha. I knew there had to be some IP protection available for the game mechanics. Odd that it would fall under patent instead of copyright, however. Does published mathematical research fall under patents instead of copyright as well?

Why would we, that is society as such, need IP-protection of methods and procedures? We don't. Such IP rights only create problems for society. They are very useful for their owners but that doesn't make up for our troubles. Which, btw, is why we in Europe don't offer any protection for methods or procedures (such as game mechanics).

[King Joey]

Why would we, that is society as such, need IP-protection of methods and procedures? We don't.

Well that answer is easy; the same reason we need IP protection for anything else. It adds incentive to innovation and creation. If there is no IP protection, then the opportunity to profit from innovation and creation is greatly reduced. And with it, the incentive for that innovation and creation is likewise reduced. So if you want to encourage more creativity and innovation in methods and procedures, you offer some IP protection so that the people who come up with them have an easier time profiting from them.


Such IP rights only create problems for society. They are very useful for their owners but that doesn't make up for our troubles.

No more so than IP rights for anything else like art, literature, invention, etc. IP rights help creators profit from their creations. It's just as true in gaming design as anywhere else.


Which, btw, is why we in Europe don't offer any protection for methods or procedures (such as game mechanics).

I have no knowledge of European IP law, but it seems an arbitrary distinction to offer IP protection for one form of creative invention (literature) and not for another (game mechanics). There could be some very good reasons for the distinction, but on the face it seems very arbitrary (not that any jurisdiction has ever been immune from arbitrary legislation).

[King Joey]

None, but most computer games that make use of a specific set of game mechanics targets the people who play that game, Neverwinter Nights is a good example. In such cases you are going to need a license to avoid law suits (not based on IP-law but on unfair competition law).

If you are only using the underlying game mechanics but plan to use marketing activities, that mentions the ruleset you are using, then it still might (depending on the jurisdiction) make sense to seek a license to avoid the risk of legal problems - even if that risk is small and even if your case is very good. The avoided risk might well be worth the license fee. When you run a commercial project it's wise to minimize your risks.

You could say that the risk-management "profit" is the consideration.

But in that case you are licensing the rights to use the name, trademark or logo of the game (or its designers) for marketing and advertising purposes. That is different than licensing the game mechanics themselves.

If you produce a soft drink from the Pepsi formula and advertise it "Pepsi", you need a license from PepsiCo to use their trademarks as well as an arrangement (I think also called a license) to use their patented formula (this example is ignoring the possibility that the formula for Pepsi has passed into public domain through time, which is a separate issue).

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the same is not true of game mechanics. I could produce a game that used the exact mechanics from GURPS, and as long as I never use any name, trademark or logo of GURPS or Steve Jackson Games, I have no obligation to pay them anything. Is that what you are saying?

[mrgrey]

That would depend on which country you're in; if you're in America, or if you release the game there, then I suspect it would be easier to take you to court over it than if you live here in the UK. Besides which, court cases are expensive and messy; if you have less money than Steve Jackson Games, then it would probably cost you less to get a license than "winning" the case would cost in legal fees.

[peterb]

If I understand what you are saying correctly, the same is not true of game mechanics. I could produce a game that used the exact mechanics from GURPS, and as long as I never use any name, trademark or logo of GURPS or Steve Jackson Games, I have no obligation to pay them anything. Is that what you are saying?

Yes. As long as you don't copy another authors description (or expression) of a given set of game mechanics you're safe. But as mrgray points out you could still be sued and depending on the jurisdiction you might find it very expensive to win the case - even if you're 100% right.

But the fact remains that copyright do not protect the methods of playing a game (or any other method or procedure for that matter) but only someones original description of those methods. That there still is a possibility that someone sues for copyright infringement is a completely different matter. It's unfortunate, but it is possible to use economic power to force your will upon others - even if you are 100% wrong and the weaker party is 100% right. As a side note (and a personal reflection), in Europe the looser has to pay all legal fees. One effect of this is (IMO) that such frivolous law-suits are less (even much less) common here than in the US.

[peterb]

Well that answer is easy; the same reason we need IP protection for anything else. It adds incentive to innovation and creation. If there is no IP protection, then the opportunity to profit from innovation and creation is greatly reduced. And with it, the incentive for that innovation and creation is likewise reduced. So if you want to encourage more creativity and innovation in methods and procedures, you offer some IP protection so that the people who come up with them have an easier time profiting from them.

As with all legislation, the purpose of IP legislation is, in the end, to provide utility to society. There must be some net benefit to the rest of society to warrant the grant of a IP right. If we would grant unlimited rights (in scope and time) the burdens would undo any benefits of having a IPR legislation. This is why we limit the rights and also why we demand some level of creativity or inventiveness before granting any rights.

The problem with methods and procedures from a copyright perspective is that they are basically just ideas and concepts. And we have, with very good reason, decided not to offer any protection to ideas as such.

Patents are granted (in Europe) "for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step." The following has been excluded from patent protection because they, per se, either do not qualify as inventions and/or they create unacceptable burdens for society and/or they can be protected in other ways:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

(b) aesthetic creations;

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

(d) presentations of information.

There is nothing really arbitrary about this list. It represents an informed balancing of conflicting interests by the legislator. And the legislator has put the interests of society first.

[King Joey]

There is nothing really arbitrary about this list. It represents an informed balancing of conflicting interests by the legislator. And the legislator has put the interests of society first.

The balancing was between two different interests of society: the interest of society in offering IP protections (which were deemed greater in the cases of art, invention, etc.) and the interest of society in denying IP protections (which was deemed greater in the case of methods and procedures). But in all cases, there are societal interests served by a rule going either way. The legislator decided (as is their obligation) which societal interest should prevail. The fact that society benefits through a benefit to an individual should not be confused for a case where society does not benefit. There can be no benefit to society without a benefit to some individual. Indeed, the denying of IP protections clearly benefits individuals, namely those who seek to profit from someone else's ingenuity by copying methods and procedures developed by others for their own commercial gain.

But the legislators have apparently concluded that the societal benefits from those individuals' profiting is greater than the societal benefits from the original creators' profiting.

[peterb]

.. snip ..

But the legislators have apparently concluded that the societal benefits from those individuals' profiting is greater than the societal benefits from the original creators' profiting.

I would say that it's more a case of preventing a potential conflict between those who would like to exploit IP Rights in methods and procedures and Competition Law. That is, IP rights to methods and procedures would have the potential to seriously undermine competition. And the potential cost to society, both from "unnecessary" monopolies and costs related to legal conflicts, makes IP rights to methods and procedures uneconomical.

[King Joey]

That is, IP rights to methods and procedures would have the potential to seriously undermine competition.

More so than identical protections of inventions, works of art, etc.? If I create a new carpet cleaner and you create a new method of generating simulations, why is protecting your invention going to undermine competition in a way that protecting mine is not?

What I'm asking is if you are aware of the rationale used by the legislators to distinguish between the various types of intellectual pursuits to decide which ones bear protecting and which one do not?