Patent Number 4,856,787. Issued to Boris Itkis on Aug 15, 1989, with the original application on Feb 5, 1986. CONCURRENT GAME NETWORK Abstract: A distributed game network comprising a master game device and a number of slave game devices. The slave game device is capable of playing concurrently a number of menu selectable card and chance games, such as poker, bingo, blackjack, and keno. The slave game device receives commands and random data, such as bingo patterns and called bingo and keno numbers, from the master game device and sends the local game status and accounting information to the master game device. The slave game device is equipped with a touch screen display and a smart game card interface. The smart game card associated with the slave game device has an imbedded microprocessor keeping track of wagers and outcomes of the game. The touch screen display exhibits the status of the games being played in display windows and accepts player's commands including menu selections and bingo and keno card marks. Claims: 1. Game network comprising at least one master game device interconnected with at least one slave game device; said slave game device executing concurrently at least two different distinct and independent games; each of said different distinct and independent games comprising its own unique rules of play and unique random factors; said different distinct and independent games including bingo, keno, poker, blackjack, roulette, slots, gin, and sports book; said master game device providing data for playing said games; and at least one of said two different distinct and independent games being at least partially responsive to said data from said master game device. 2. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device incorporates a local data input and output means comprising a display means displaying simultaneously the current status of each of said two distinct and different independent games, a sound and voice data entry means, a sound and speech generating means, a touch responsive data entry means, a game card reading and writing means. 3. In combination, a smart game card and the combination of claim 2, wherein said smart game card incorporates an imbedded data storage and data processing means being accessible by and responsive to said game card reading and writing means. 4. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device incorporates a software and hardware means for controlling the degree of difficulty of playing at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 5. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device displays matches between data being transmitted by said master game device and the contents of at least one game card for playing at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 6. The combination of claim 1, wherein said slave game device transmits to said master game device accounting data and the current status of at least one of said two different distinct and independent games. 7. The combination of claim 1, wherein two or more of said slave game devices participate in a common game. Vern Blanchard, proprietor of American Multi-Systems, writes: In June 1991, I was contacted by a bingo hall operator who was disgruntled by the treatment Fortunet (my competitor and patent holder) had given him. He asked me if I could program a networked video bingo game which could be used at his bingo hall. I played the Fortunet game as a player and determined I could do a tremendously better job than they did. (As would most programmers I presume.) They were using EGA monitors and graphics that were circa 1988. I went to several bingo halls to learn the game and talked to customers as to what their likes and dislikes were with computer video bingo machines. I then started from scratch and wrote the AMS VIDEO BINGO system in Borland C++. I have all source code, along with where the ideas came from, how the structure and organization came about, etc. The only similarities between the systems are those dictated by the game of bingo itself, such as what the bingo cards look like, the flashboard (where called numbers are shown), etc. The patent covers systems that can play more than one game at once (see claim 1). My system doesn't do that. So, even if the patent is valid, it doesn't apply. But Fortunet is suing anyway. Why is this? I understand in talking with other people in the industry that Fortunet tries to bury any competition. They are a multimillion-dollar company and can easily afford to crush their competition. Although we haven't been sued yet, we expect it to happen any day now, because Fortunet has been telling all sorts of people they are going to sue. We plan to file for a temporary restraining order and ask for declaratory relief clearing us of any patent and/or copyright infringement. If their lawsuit is not blocked, the danger is that major customers won't deal with us as long as the suit continues--potentially many years. By the time it's over, it won't matter any more whether we win. (American Multi-Systems is a small business trust founded approx 7 years ago. The company consists only of immediate family members.) Now for some good news: it appears that the publicity that the LPF has brought to this case may have discouraged the patent holder from suing. Here's a letter that the patent holder sent to another company: January 10, 1992 International Gamco, Inc. 9355 North 48th Street Omaha, Nebraska 68152-1541 Att: Mr. Mark Stevens, Dir. Sales/Marketing Re: FORTUNET PATENTS Dear Mr. Stevens: Please be advised that I represent the inventor and owner of U.S. patents 4,455,025, 4,624,462, and 4,856,787. Copies of said patents are enclosed for your review. Based on information currently in my client's possession, it is my client's position that your pull tab game, which appears very similar to our patented network video pull tab game, may constitute an infringement of at least one claim of each of the above referenced patents, literally and/or in view of the Doctrine of Equivalents. Please note that Fortunet has long had a patented, fully developed, and marketable networking video pull tab game but has elected not to market such a game (despite numerous customer requests for said product) due to the questionable legal status of these types of games. Please submit our patents and your pull tab game to your attorney for an overview. My client suggests that they will confirm his belief that your product (pull tab game) infringes his patents. In order to further study your product in an effort to avoid any unnecessary legal recourse, my client requests that you forward any available information concerning said pull tab game, e.g. brochures, disclosures, etc., so he may study same. Be advised that we take the matter of patent infringement very seriously, and have filed numerous lawsuits to protect our patents. Several parties, including a major U.S. video pull tab vendor, have refrained from marketing video pull tab networks following our advising them of the risks of legal confrontation. We hope that you will follow their example in this matter. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so that we may discuss how to resolve this situation. My client's sincere desire is to reach an amicable resolution to this matter without any unnecessary judicial involvement. Please let your better business sense be your guide.