lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (06/12/90)
In <4091@milton.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: >In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes: > >> The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow >>this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code >>but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the >>rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their beneficiaries >>(the rest of us) the benefits of their code. > > Let's make this clear. SH is working on behalf of the original >author. Hold that thought. >> One hopes that SH got some code from ELORG, since if all they got was >>the game idea, they paid for something that cannot be protected, save by >>extra-legal bullying. Taking on Fred Fish, whose lack of deep pockets is >>fairly well known, and who doesn't want to be involved in such controversies, >>was a cheap hit. It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. > > Sorry, but SH >>MUST<< take on any and all distributors of >potential violators of their rights. Or else they lose them. ^^^^^ Contradiction? Whose rights are they protecting? > It was hardly a cheap hit; ... You call it what you want. I am inclined to agree with those who feel it was a cheap hit. Do you seriously believe that if Apple had put out a possibly infringing game, that SH would have chosen to go after them first? When you want to set a precedent, it pays to try to set it against someone you are pretty sure won't come back with a battery of lawyers to stomp you into the dirt. >>3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. > > Please be sure and send a copy to the author, as well. Why? If, as you stated at one point, SH is protecting their own rights, then the author is not really involved. If, on the other hand, they are protecting the author's rights, it's up to them to decide whether to keep the author informed. Nastygrams to the author would be in order if the author was doing the nasties. I was not on one side or the other in this, right up until I saw the letter from SH to Fred. In it, they stated that there were various key points which they felt were grounds for pursuing the PD versions. One, in particular struck me as odd, that being the number of different pieces. Since at least one of the versions attacked has more pieces, and since at least one has pieces that act differently, I feel that SH has overreacted by at least one step, knowing full well that it would not be contested _at all_ by Fred. That leaves me with a lot more respect for Fred than I have for SH. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com (06/12/90)
It appears fairly clear we have witnessed in the recent withdrawal
of Tetris variants by Fred Fish a case of (to this point) successful
legal bullying.
Let's get some issues clear. The idea for the tetris game can be
written down in a few lines, and ideas are not copyrightable. (This one
may also not pass muster as a useful invention for patent purposes, but
that's beside the point.) Here's a stab at this writing:
Tetrominoes fall into a rectangular container (less top) under
control of the player. Whenever the blocks making up the tetrominoes
form a complete row across the width of the container, the row is
removed. Object of the game: keep the container from filling as long as
possible.
The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow
this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code
but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the
rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their beneficiaries
(the rest of us) the benefits of their code.
The analogy with Rubik's Cube is instructive. Repainting one certainly
does not make a new or non-infringing cube. Replacing the guts with something
different, however, does. (This is also very nontrivial to do.)
Since SH cannot claim copyright infringement over the code, they are left
with the screen image. Their images have elaborate drawings as background,
which certainly make the totality copyrightable. However, the game board
part will if challenged in a technically competent forum certainly be seen
as too trivial to copyright. The relevant analogy is bitmaps of fonts. There
are after all only five tetrominoes, and these shapes have been around for
generations. SH has explicitly disclaimed that they regard color as
significant, so one is left with a board determined solely by the game idea,
which cannot be copyrighted. Their situation is much the same as if someone
copyrighted a drawing of a scene which included a 5x7 bitmap of an "M" and
then attempted to sue someone who used the same 5x7 bitmap of the "M".
One hopes that SH got some code from ELORG, since if all they got was
the game idea, they paid for something that cannot be protected, save by
extra-legal bullying. Taking on Fred Fish, whose lack of deep pockets is
fairly well known, and who doesn't want to be involved in such controversies,
was a cheap hit. It does not show the SH case holds any water at all.
I'm puzzled nobody seems to have asked whether the SH code plays
differently from the others. For example, is there some analysis built
into the SH engine which permits one to continue indefinitely with the
game which may be missing in the others? Or does this fall out of the
geometry of tiling an area with tetrominoes? (If the latter, a random
selection is adequate and one argues over the quality of random number
generators.)
As for what to do, it seems clear that several steps are in order.
1. Sources other than the Fish disks should not regard Fred's withdrawal
as having anything to say about SH's claims. The programs should
be kept in circulation, denying SH any advantage in using threats
to accomplish what it may not accomplish by valid legal protection.
They risk encountering someone with deep enough pockets to defend
their (and our) rights should they continue their tactics, and
cannot hope to succeed in their object in any case.
2. This should be considered as a relevant item when thinking of buying
anything from SH in the future, and the issue should be made known
to friends using other computer types. (There are many other Tetris
clones out there on other platforms.)
3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either.
Finally, one of the variants uses the name Tetris. If the word
Tetris is a coined one, that variant should be renamed. However, someone
who knows Greek might ask if "tetris" is the Greek word for "four". If
that is the case, the trademark may be invalid (like the one that's been
applied for on "HyperText"...see Dr. Dobb's Journal, latest edition).
I would urge that it be renamed in any case (not that many Americans
speak Greek). This represents the usual action for trademark infringements.
Incidentally: the five tetrominoes (which those of you who read the
mathematical games section of Scientific American already should have
seen) are:
XXXX XXX XXX XX XX
X X XX XX
Glenn Everhartcosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/12/90)
EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes: } The analogy with Rubik's Cube is instructive. Repainting one certainly }does not make a new or non-infringing cube. Replacing the guts with something }different, however, does. (This is also very nontrivial to do.) Hmmm.. Either I'm misremembering it, or you have managed to get this exactly backwards [and in fact this is a case *against* the point you were trying to make]: As I recall, some fellow in the US had developed a Rubik's-like cube game using some kind of magnetic kludge to hold the thing together. The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a TOTALLY different mechanism [and despite that the original mechanism looked very much like it would NEVER really work], infringed on the fellow's patent. /Bernie\
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/12/90)
In article <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a >TOTALLY different mechanism >infringed on the >fellow's patent. > /Bernie\ Aye, but a patent is a patent and a copyright is a copyright. These are two totally different beasts. A copyright does not prevent me from reinventing something; a patent does (or at least it keeps me from selling it.) Has SH patented Tetris? -- Darren
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (06/12/90)
In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes: >It appears fairly clear we have witnessed in the recent withdrawal >of Tetris variants by Fred Fish a case of (to this point) successful >legal bullying. Politely, in a word, no. > Let's get some issues clear. The idea for the tetris game can be >written down in a few lines, and ideas are not copyrightable. So far, so good. > The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow >this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code >but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the >rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their beneficiaries >(the rest of us) the benefits of their code. Let's make this clear. SH is working on behalf of the original author. It's more accurate to say that the original author is working to deprive these clone authors of the benefits of the derived games. > One hopes that SH got some code from ELORG, since if all they got was >the game idea, they paid for something that cannot be protected, save by >extra-legal bullying. Taking on Fred Fish, whose lack of deep pockets is >fairly well known, and who doesn't want to be involved in such controversies, >was a cheap hit. It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. Sorry, but SH >>MUST<< take on any and all distributors of potential violators of their rights. Or else they lose them. It was hardly a cheap hit; it was a necessary step on behalf of the Russian author. If SH lets these go, then a commercial publisher can quite legally publish a game called Tetrix and profit from it, since SH made no effort to discourage distribution of similar games. Now, this line of reasoning is strongest against the straight ahead clones and Tetris-namealikes. Clearly, SH has the right to stop distribution of a play-alike shareware game calling itself Tetrix; it's not too hard to argue that it has the right to stop distribution of PD software calling itself Tetrix. They are not on such strong ethical ground on playalikes that do not call themselves by a similar sounding name. BUt, here, too, they are on stronger, legal ground; the vigor of their defense also protects them against rivals who would usurp the name. It's not a tactic I happen to be happy with, but it's one they have the right to pursue. > As for what to do, it seems clear that several steps are in order. >1. Sources other than the Fish disks should not regard Fred's withdrawal > as having anything to say about SH's claims. The programs should > be kept in circulation, denying SH any advantage in using threats > to accomplish what it may not accomplish by valid legal protection. > They risk encountering someone with deep enough pockets to defend > their (and our) rights should they continue their tactics, and > cannot hope to succeed in their object in any case. With Tetrix and other derivative names, they can hope and will probably succeed. >3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. Please be sure and send a copy to the author, as well. > Finally, one of the variants uses the name Tetris. If the word >Tetris is a coined one, that variant should be renamed. However, someone >who knows Greek might ask if "tetris" is the Greek word for "four". If >that is the case, the trademark may be invalid No, it is not, any more than Golf or Cougar is invalidated as a trademark for cars.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/13/90)
In article <21780@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >In article <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >>The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a >TOTALLY different mechanism >>infringed on the >fellow's patent. > /Bernie\ > >Aye, but a patent is a patent and a copyright is a copyright. >These are two totally different beasts. A copyright does not >prevent me from reinventing something; a patent does (or at least >it keeps me from selling it.) Has SH patented Tetris? -- Darren SH cannot patent tetris. They are a licensee, whose only required job is to make sure that the original copyright owners (ELROG and the russian guy) don't get their stuff in the public domain. Nintendo also owns a copyright on the modifications made to run Tetris on the Gameboy. As such, only the original owners of the copyright can "try" to patent Tetris, unless they want to sell that right (a patent or copyright is like any other asset that can be sold). -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/13/90)
In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>, rife with inaccuracies, and full of justifications for stealing intellectual property, EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes: >It appears fairly clear we have witnessed in the recent withdrawal >of Tetris variants by Fred Fish a case of (to this point) successful >legal bullying. Fred is quite familiar with the legal issues here, as this is at least the second go around on this issue for him (remember Ogre?) Protecting the intellectual roperty by means of which one earns a living is not "legal bullying", but simply an attempt at survival in a very hostile environment, the computer games market. > Let's get some issues clear. The idea for the tetris game can be >written down in a few lines, and ideas are not copyrightable. (This one >may also not pass muster as a useful invention for patent purposes, but >that's beside the point.) Here's a stab at this writing: > Tetrominoes fall into a rectangular container (less top) under >control of the player. Whenever the blocks making up the tetrominoes >form a complete row across the width of the container, the row is >removed. Object of the game: keep the container from filling as long as >possible. Not even close to a sufficient specification for the game. You haven't mentioned what controls are and are not available to the player. You haven't defined "full" for the container. You haven't mentioned the preview option. You have said nothing about scoring. You have said nothing about early dropping. You have said nothing about speeding up motion as the score increases. You have not identified the process of "chewing back down" to fill in holes. Tetris is an immensely subtle game; the millions of (wo)man hours being lost to productive use world wide due to Tetris play occur because of some excellent design choices, which is what makes the game design a valuable (and legally defendable) intellectual property. > The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow >this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual property is the game design. >but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the >rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their beneficiaries >(the rest of us) the benefits of their code. You have the wrong end of the stick. Those authors were trying to deprive SH of a valuable intellectual property, and the rest of us of a viable game market. > The analogy with Rubik's Cube is instructive. Repainting one certainly >does not make a new or non-infringing cube. Replacing the guts with something >different, however, does. (This is also very nontrivial to do.) Rubik's cube has a mechanical design which is quite ingenious. However, the more valuable part of the design is the intellectual thrust of the game. I once wrote a "software Rubik's cube" for my Apple ][+; it shared none of the mechanical attributes of the cube, but all of its play aspects (except "Rubik's Wrist"); had I released my code, I would have been violating the intellectual property rights of Mr. Rubik. > Since SH cannot claim copyright infringement over the code, they are left >with the screen image. It is at this point worth mentioning that since you don't have a clue as to what is being stolen in this case, your analysis is all wet. The design of a game is a separate, legally protectable entity, and that means the _play_ design, not the colors on the game board or, in this case, the screen. >Their images have elaborate drawings as background, >which certainly make the totality copyrightable. However, the game board >part will if challenged in a technically competent forum certainly be seen >as too trivial to copyright. The relevant analogy is bitmaps of fonts. Totally immaterial. >There >are after all only five tetrominoes, and these shapes have been around for >generations. Irrelevant, and, since Tetris does not allow reflection, it has seven, not five, separate playing pieces. >SH has explicitly disclaimed that they regard color as >significant, so one is left with a board determined solely by the game idea, >which cannot be copyrighted. The "game idea" can in fact be patented, not just copyrighted. I have no idea whether SH did so, but that is within their rights. >Their situation is much the same as if someone >copyrighted a drawing of a scene which included a 5x7 bitmap of an "M" and >then attempted to sue someone who used the same 5x7 bitmap of the "M". Not at all. The game idea, not the picture on the screen, is what is a protectable object. > One hopes that SH got some code from ELORG, since if all they got was >the game idea, they paid for something that cannot be protected, save by >extra-legal bullying. The game idea is exactly what can be protected, by fully legal means well known and often used in the game design field. >Taking on Fred Fish, whose lack of deep pockets is >fairly well known, and who doesn't want to be involved in such controversies, >was a cheap hit. Since Fred has long ago expressed in the clearest terms an insistance on putting only legally distributable software into his much respected collection, and since he immediately, voluntarily, and without grumbling issued a recall notice when informed that the legal distributability of the Tetris clones was in question, "taking on Fred Fish" is a loaded phrase which has no relationship to the actual situation. Neither is it the case that protecting a valuable property is a "chaep hit"; it is a way, the only way, to stay in the software games publishing business. >It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. SH doesn't have a "case", they have a property to which they have licensed the rights. > I'm puzzled nobody seems to have asked whether the SH code plays >differently from the others. For example, is there some analysis built >into the SH engine which permits one to continue indefinitely with the >game which may be missing in the others? Or does this fall out of the >geometry of tiling an area with tetrominoes? (If the latter, a random >selection is adequate and one argues over the quality of random number >generators.) Such an analysis would be pretty useless unless it also took into account which play choices you had already made, in which case it would probably make the game too easy. > As for what to do, it seems clear that several steps are in order. >1. Sources other than the Fish disks should not regard Fred's withdrawal > as having anything to say about SH's claims. The programs should > be kept in circulation, denying SH any advantage in using threats > to accomplish what it may not accomplish by valid legal protection. I believe your statement comes under the heading of "misprison of a felony"; I sure wouldn't be sticking myself wallet first into this situation if I were you. > They risk encountering someone with deep enough pockets to defend > their (and our) rights should they continue their tactics, and > cannot hope to succeed in their object in any case. Well, all of us with hopes of writing and distributing commercial software naturally wish SH all the best, since if they fail it may well foreshadow the end of the Amiga game/software market. >2. This should be considered as a relevant item when thinking of buying > anything from SH in the future, and the issue should be made known > to friends using other computer types. (There are many other Tetris > clones out there on other platforms.) True. Persons who value a strong Amiga games market, with lots of choices on the shelves, would be well advised to buy an SH game or two just to help them with the legal expenses needed to set a strong precedent here. >3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. Flames to twits who think everything in life should be provided to them free of charge seem more appropriate. >Incidentally: the five tetrominoes (which those of you who read the >mathematical games section of Scientific American already should have >seen) are: > XXXX XXX XXX XX XX > X X XX XX > As noted above, the Tetris game uses seven, since pieces without reflective symmetry act as different pieces. >Glenn Everhart -- Enemy of the Amiga games market. Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> (suffering fools, as usual, not at all) -- in the distance a roasted cave newt screamed in agony -- Andrew Palfreyman
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/13/90)
In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > >In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>, rife with inaccuracies, and full of >justifications for stealing intellectual property, EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com >writes: [stuff deleted] >> The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow >>this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code > >The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual >property is the game design. Sorry Kent, but you're wrong on this one. BOTH the game code and the game design can be protected: the first by copyright, the second one by patent. So far, ELROG, the Russian author and Nintendo have used only copyrights for protection (though I would assume a patent is being sought). >Not at all. The game idea, not the picture on the screen, is what is a >protectable object. Wrong again. Both are protectable (one with patent, the other one with copyright). Note also another mistake you make later in your message, when you imply that ideas can be copyrighted. Not so: IDEAS CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED, THEY CAN ONLY BE PATENTED! Just to fix a couple of inaccuraccies of an otherwise good response. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) (06/13/90)
In article <21780@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >In article <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >>The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a >TOTALLY different mechanism >>infringed on the >fellow's patent. > /Bernie\ > >Aye, but a patent is a patent and a copyright is a copyright. >These are two totally different beasts. A copyright does not >prevent me from reinventing something; a patent does (or at least >it keeps me from selling it.) Has SH patented Tetris? -- Darren True, True. The Rubik's cube case was determined to be PATENT infringement because of the way the patent claim was written-> Means+Function. i.e. his patent covered any reasonable means to achive that functionality. The other fellows mechanism was striken down as eqivilant means. I have done a patent search and there are no US patents assigned to Spectrum Holobyte covering Tetris. Next possibility is trademark infrigement by the clones using Tetris like names. This is a legitimate beef if Tetris is a legally registered trademark assigned to Spectrum Holobyte. I was not able to determine this from my search. The illegal use of the Tetris name in similar sounding names is a very definate infringement of thier rights. Next comes copyright infringement. The key here is independent derivation and the burden of proof is on Spectrum Holobyte. You are allowed to reinvent the wheel as long as you don't use the same spokes. Spectrum Holobyte must prove that each author individually had access to and used portions of their code. This can include portions of disassembled code if they can prove that the author had their executable and a disassembler and they can find the code segment in the clone executable. But the burden of proof is on Spectrum Holobyte and their beef is with the authors not Fred. Bob Luneski bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM
schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) (06/13/90)
In article <1727@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >I was not on one side or the other in this, right up until I saw the letter >from SH to Fred. In it, they stated that there were various key points which >they felt were grounds for pursuing the PD versions. One, in particular struck >me as odd, that being the number of different pieces. Since at least one of the >versions attacked has more pieces, and since at least one has pieces that act >differently, I feel that SH has overreacted by at least one step, knowing full >well that it would not be contested _at all_ by Fred. That leaves me with a lot >more respect for Fred than I have for SH. If, as you say, Spectrum Holobyte is trampling on the non-infringing games, then surely it is up to the author of each game to contact Spectrum Holobyte and assert *their* rights. Note that Fred being the main visible distributor is the obvious target, but the games belong to the authors. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that even if Fred wanted to fight, he would need a lot of help from the authors. So, the bottom line is, urge your favorite author to contact Spectrum Holobyte and assert their rights. Surely the authors have more at stake (and is much more inclined) to arque that *their* game is non-infringing. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185 Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com (Glenn Everhart 215 354 7610 (8*747 7610) GE Aerospace Technology) (06/14/90)
The short writing I attempted was intended to describe what I have observed in several of the PD Tetris variants...not the SH game. The details given recently indicate that there is significant variation between the play of the SH game, which I have not seen, and the variants which enjoy (?) rough similarity with it. It is a principle of copyright law that expressions are copyrighted, not ideas. Patents can protect ideas. (Incidentally, it turns out that Rubik *LOST* a patent fight over the cube due to some prior patent on a magnetically done cube. Surprised me!) The variants evidently used only some of the game idea. That their results wound up looking similar was a result of the geometry of tetrominoes and the nature of the game idea. That should be sufficient to defeat any presumptions having to do with similar appearance of the result. (How much of a clean room does one require for a simple 2D drawing?) In fact SH might well stress that its' game has properties that make it a better playing game than a clone, and compete in that way. Rather, it has chosen to use legal threats. Where legal threats are used to remove independently developed programs from distribution, this bothers me and creates what I regard as terrible precedents. (Note that there are far less polite terms that could be used than 'legal threats' in this case.) If a commercial offering can be replicated from a general description of the idea in a few hours, I am also unbothered by the notion that it will not long stand alone or survive. If the SH Tetris game plays better than the variant tiling-with-tetrominoes games, THAT is what they should stress. The visual appearance of the game board is however too geometrically trivial. Any game built from my crude description of the idea is going to look generally similar to it. (This was the NEC defense in Intel vs. NEC if you recall.) By the way, I do remember Ogre. When Fred withdrew disk 57, his description of the affair was that that was HIS call; nobody hassled him. Had he so chosen again, without hassling, this would not bother me. As it is, I see yet another look 'n' feel issue, but the geometry is so trivial that the point can be won for freedom of development. As for the names Tetris (and Tetrix possibly), the usual course is to just rename something with a name that is causing trademark grief. That's not what has been attempted. I see no point in regarding SH's action towards Fred as a precedent on the issues, just as proving that it can (alas) be done. Outfits like SH can be discouraged from that sort of thing in one way: deny them any chance to make money as a result of it. Look 'n' feel lawsuits, and those who threaten them or pursue them, are the enemies of cooperation and progress in software. So, perhaps, are those who support them. Glenn Everhart
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/14/90)
In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > Let's get some issues clear. The idea for the tetris game can be >written down in a few lines, and ideas are not copyrightable. (This one >may also not pass muster as a useful invention for patent purposes, but >that's beside the point.) Here's a stab at this writing: > Tetrominoes fall into a rectangular container (less top) under >control of the player. Whenever the blocks making up the tetrominoes >form a complete row across the width of the container, the row is >removed. Object of the game: keep the container from filling as long as >possible. Not even close to a sufficient specification for the game. You haven't mentioned what controls are and are not available to the player. You haven't defined "full" for the container. You haven't mentioned the preview option. You have said nothing about scoring. You have said nothing about early dropping. You have said nothing about speeding up motion as the score increases. You have not identified the process of "chewing back down" to fill in holes. Very little of that matters. As far as I can tell, he's missing two things for describing the idea of the game (a spec can be copywritten; an idea can't), and has some details he doesn't need. Let's try this: Tetrominoes enter a rectangular playing field at one edge, and move towards the other edge (game motion). The player is allowed to rotate the pieces in the plane and move them perpendicular to the game motion. When the blocks making up the tetrominoes fill the rectange from one perpendicular edge to the other, that line is removed and all lines towards the entry edge move to fill in the gap created. Object of the game: to keep the playing field from filling for as long as possible. Tetris is an immensely subtle game; the millions of (wo)man hours being lost to productive use world wide due to Tetris play occur because of some excellent design choices, which is what makes the game design a valuable (and legally defendable) intellectual property. The game design - at the "look & feel" level - may be copyrightable. The description at the "idea" level is not copyrightable. Many of the things you mention would be independently invented from that description by anyone knowledgeable in the field of computerized games, which will make defending a copyright difficult. For instance, the game getting faster; that's a common thing for arcade-style games to do. Likewise, determining "full" must include something at the open end of the rectangle, and exactly what that means will depend on how tetrominoes are introduced onto the screen (which wasn't mentioned, and doesn't need to be). I've already seen variations on scoring; the first version I saw didn't care how fast you put things down, but gave points for deleting rows, with bonuses for deleting more than one row at a time (let's see, I think it was 10 points/row, with an extra 10 points for every extra row deleted, so that a four-row deletion was 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 = 100 points). What hasn't been pointed out is that I could write a complete function spec of the SH product, including direction, scoring, controls, and anything else obvious to they eye (except "artwork"), and give that to someone who hasn't seen the product to implement. The result would _not_ be a copyright violation. At least, that's how the IBM BIOS clone(s?) done that way were ruled. > The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow >this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual property is the game design. The valuable intellectual property is indeed the game design; the clearly legally defendable property is the code. Whether the "look & feel" of the game is defendable is still being settled in the courts. If it is, that would go a long way to covering the game design. >but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the >rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their beneficiaries >(the rest of us) the benefits of their code. You have the wrong end of the stick. Those authors were trying to deprive SH of a valuable intellectual property, and the rest of us of a viable game market. No, he has his end of the stick, and you have yours. Both statements are true. Which you see as worse is a religiouss argument. It is at this point worth mentioning that since you don't have a clue as to what is being stolen in this case, your analysis is all wet. The design of a game is a separate, legally protectable entity, and that means the _play_ design, not the colors on the game board or, in this case, the screen. What is being copied isn't the question - that's clear to anyone. The question is whether or not what is being copied is legally protected, and whether or not it _should_ be. >It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. SH doesn't have a "case", they have a property to which they have licensed the rights. SH doesn't have those rights until they get a court to state that they have those rights when someone contests them. Of course, if no one ever contests them, the do have them. > As for what to do, it seems clear that several steps are in order. >1. Sources other than the Fish disks should not regard Fred's withdrawal > as having anything to say about SH's claims. The programs should > be kept in circulation, denying SH any advantage in using threats > to accomplish what it may not accomplish by valid legal protection. I believe your statement comes under the heading of "misprison of a felony"; I sure wouldn't be sticking myself wallet first into this situation if I were you. Uh, "misprison" isn't a word. But it is valid to choose to contest SH's claim that their "look & feel" is copyrightable. And that is liable to be an expensive choice. > They risk encountering someone with deep enough pockets to defend > their (and our) rights should they continue their tactics, and > cannot hope to succeed in their object in any case. Well, all of us with hopes of writing and distributing commercial software naturally wish SH all the best, since if they fail it may well foreshadow the end of the Amiga game/software market. And, just as naturally, those of us who wish for that the best tools be available wish anyone who would fight SH all the best, as their winning their rights could well foreshadow the end of the software/hardware clone market. >2. This should be considered as a relevant item when thinking of buying > anything from SH in the future, and the issue should be made known > to friends using other computer types. (There are many other Tetris > clones out there on other platforms.) True. Persons who value a strong Amiga games market, with lots of choices on the shelves, would be well advised to buy an SH game or two just to help them with the legal expenses needed to set a strong precedent here. And person who value a software market replete with lots of rapidly-improving tools would do well to avoid any SH games, and to purchase hardware & software from firm that is willing to market clones and fight attempts to kill that market. >3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. Flames to twits who think everything in life should be provided to them free of charge seem more appropriate. Yup. Especially those who think that just because they wrote the first piece of software with a specific look and feel, they should never have to face competition with that look and feel. >Glenn Everhart -- Enemy of the Amiga games market. Kent, the man from xanth. -- Enemey of all computer users. <mike -- All around my hat, I will wear the green willow. Mike Meyer And all around my hat, for a twelve-month and a day. mwm@relay.pa.dec.com And if anyone should ask me, the reason why I'm wearing it, decwrl!mwm It's all for my true love, who's far far away.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/14/90)
In article <9220@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) writes: >Next possibility is trademark infrigement by the clones using Tetris like >names. This is a legitimate beef if Tetris is a legally registered trademark >assigned to Spectrum Holobyte. I was not able to determine this from my >search. The illegal use of the Tetris name in similar sounding names is >a very definate infringement of thier rights. The Tetris trademark belongs to the soviet's ELORG. Take a look at the fine print at the bottom of the Nintendo Gameboy ads to find it all spelled out in grusom detail :-) >Next comes copyright infringement. The key here is independent derivation >and the burden of proof is on Spectrum Holobyte. You are allowed to >reinvent the wheel as long as you don't use the same spokes. Spectrum >Holobyte must prove that each author individually had access to and used >portions of their code. Not at all. One can claim "visual" copyright infringment and visuals can be infringed with no access to source code. >But the burden of >proof is on Spectrum Holobyte and their beef is with the authors not Fred. The beef is with ANY author AND distributor of infringing software. If you read all the various legal software contracts, "distributor" is used all over the place. A distributor that willingly continues to distribute software that is later proved to be infringed IS liable. So, IMHO, Fred had no choice. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (06/14/90)
In article <25270@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> >>The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual >>property is the game design. > >Sorry Kent, but you're wrong on this one. BOTH the game code and the game >design can be protected: the first by copyright, the second one by patent. >So far, ELROG, the Russian author and Nintendo have used only copyrights >for protection (though I would assume a patent is being sought). That assumption doesn't seem to be addressed one way or the other by the available evidence. Let me quote the relevant portion of Fred's posting of Spectrum Holobyte's letter: >Below is a copy of the letter I received from Phillip Adams, president >of Spectrum Holobyte: >... >Tetris has never been a public domain product, and has never been put on >a bulletin board by the legal owners. While I understand that Tetris is a >simple game, it is quite a unique concept. The seven falling blocks (the >mind remembers 7 plus or minus 2) are a very essential part of the game. >We have a contractual obligation to protect the rights of ELORG (the >Soviet Licensor) as well as Alexey Pajitnov, to insure they are >compensated for this property. We did file suit against another software >company to block its 2-D version of a similar game and it was taken out >of their product. To change the colors of the blocks or have the >"Rubiks" cube made out of wood doesn't make it a different product either. That is the SH president and not (necessarily) a lawyer. I hope he's not a lawyer, because he has mingled arguments for copyright infringement with arguments for patent infringement, without even once mentioning the words "copyright" *or* "patent". He never states which rights he is trying to protect, nor which rights are claimed to exist. I get the impression, in fact, that Mr. Adams either doesn't know, doesn't care, or doesn't understand the difference. (Marco:) > IDEAS CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED, THEY CAN ONLY BE PATENTED! Exactly. Cheers, Charles Poirier poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (06/14/90)
RE More Tetris Nonsense You can neither copyright *nor patent* ideas. If you could patent ideas, we'd have some rich SF authors floating around. Bob Heinlen invented the waterbed, the waldo, and a few other goodies in his stories; Arthur C. Clarke invented geosynchronous satellites. I know a game designer who had to sit there and watch another company publish a game 99% similar to his design. His company could do NOTHING. In the case of a game, all that's protected is your EXACT, SPECIFIC implementation of the game. If it's something like a roleplaying game and the other guy bumps all your numbers by 10%, you're pretty much screwed. The specs for the game Tetris can't be protected. They can cover the trade- mark (Tetris) and keep other people from putting out versions with pictures in the background and Russian music (does the Spectrum Holobyte version have the music? I forget.) Honestly, the real problem here is that the Spectrum Holobyte version is a piece of crap. They can't sell it because it's a bad program, not because PD versions have destroyed their market. But they want to belive the latter, it seems. Dennis Francis Heffernan | "Remember the words of your teacher, dfrancis@tronsbox | your master: Evil moves fast, but ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis | Good moves faster!" Original text (c) 1990 | --Partners in Kryme, T-U-R-T-L-E Power!
rains@dms.UUCP (Lyle Rains) (06/14/90)
As someone within the games industry, I would like to add some other information to this discussion. As several people have pointed out, the copyright laws protect the expression of ideas, rather than the idea itself, but anyone close to a creative work knows the separation between the expression and the idea can be extremely hazy. At one extreme, the designer might argue that the "idea" is to "survive as long as you can and get as many points as you can within a set of rules," and claim that the rules themselves as well as most other aspects of the game are an expression of this basic idea. On the other extreme, a programmer implementing a PD copy of a game may feel justified that the general screen appearance and rules of a game are the idea and only the code is the expression (so as long as the code isn't copied, neither is the game). Although there has not been a large amount of case history in the area of games copyrights, there is enough to indicate that the courts are going to take a view between those extremes. The courts are willing to find that there is intellectual property in a game design beyond the source code. They will accept that the screen graphics are also protectable and that within fuzzy limits, the entire game may be protected as an audio-visual work like a motion picture or television program. And just as in these examples, the point where infringement begins can be quite hazy. If you made a weekly TV soap opera with good guys and bad guys and extra-marital affairs and numerous sub-sub-plots, you could probably be quite safe. But if the series centered around the Texas oil industry and the bad guy was slimely natural gas tycoon nicknamed J.J. who wore a black Stetson, and the show was called "Fort Worth," you'd likely run into problems. In an old case involving a PACMAN(tm)-like game which was sold for the Atari 2600(tm), the court found the the clone did indeed infringe, even though the playfield layout had been somewhat altered and the animated characters had been changed. The court recognized this copy as an attempt to copy the successful audio-visual work of the original PACMAN(tm) even though there was no direct copying of code or screen graphics. So within the industry, we consider a game to be protected by copyrights on its source code, its screen and character graphics, and as an entire audio-visual work. But this is a fairly young area of law, and definitive case law is scarce. It is quite possible that the courts may make new, conflicting decisions in the future which would change the precedent upon which our industry currently depends. Even though the PD copies of games may seem harmless to most readers, the industry has to protect their intellectual property, because if you end up in a jury trial with a commercial copier, and he shows the jury that you have not protected your property from the PD copiers, it can only hurt your case. The law doesn't see the income received by the copier as a basis for infringement (though it may affect the damages awarded to the owner). We regularly suffer from hardware/software/graphics copies of our arcade games which come from Korea, Spain, and occasionally Italy. The ability to invoke our copyrights allows us to work with U.S. Customs and the FBI to help keep flagrant copies out of the United States, but such protection is notoriously hard to come by in Europe. From Fred Fish's earlier postings, it sounded to me like his exchanges with Spectrum Holobyte had been professional, and that he understood their position (whether or not he agreed with it) and was willing to withdraw the PD Tetris' when SH gave him a clear written statement of their position. Such things can rarely be "friendly" since the "hammer" is legal action, but it didn't sound like brutal harassment by a big corporation over a little guy. And I do believe that SH was within their rights, and acted responsibly to object to the PD versions of a product they had licensed and paid for with royalties. -- /* Lyle Rains <-- Any stupid or offensive opinions above are all his. * Atari Games <-- We make arcade video games, not product announcements. * Milpitas, CA <-- OK, so maybe it's not Alviso. But it's home. */
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/14/90)
In article <1990Jun13.214238.15312@dg-rtp.dg.com> poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com ( Poirier local) writes: >In article <25270@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>> >>>The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual >>>property is the game design. >> >>Sorry Kent, but you're wrong on this one. BOTH the game code and the game >>design can be protected: the first by copyright, the second one by patent. >>So far, ELROG, the Russian author and Nintendo have used only copyrights >>for protection (though I would assume a patent is being sought). > >That assumption doesn't seem to be addressed one way or the other by the >available evidence. Let me quote the relevant portion of Fred's posting >of Spectrum Holobyte's letter: You must understand that Spectrum Holobyte is a VERY SMALL FISH in the now gigantic struggle for the Tetris money. There are already two lawsuits involving Nintendo and a company owned by ATARI (yea, they're everywhere:-) over the rights for Tetris. SH is just one of the now many licensees of Tetris. Everybody knows that there are big bucks to be made on Tetris, mostly because it is such an addictive game. But one thing is clear, companies today have no restraint to starting a lawsuit, if they have the minimal thought that some of their rights might have been infringed. As it was mentioned before, a god account of the Tetris affair was published in last Friday Wall Street Journal. You can find it at your local public library. When somebody asked me what I thought of the letter that the SH representative sent to Fred, I could only say that it was real "bogus" :-) The guy seemed to have little idea of the legal meaning of what he was talking about. And that is unfortunate. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/14/90)
In article <26765a47-21a9.3comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: > You can neither copyright *nor patent* ideas. If you could patent >ideas, we'd have some rich SF authors floating around. Tell that to Rivest, Shamir and Adleman :-) They'll tell you that you CAN patent ideas (i.e. inventions). [see the details on my other reply to a similar wrong assumptions by a fellow netter]. Get any recent book on patents: they'll list the most recent decision on patentability of inventions like the RSA crypto system, the Merril-Lynch Cash Management Program, the Russian-English translation program, among many others. > Bob Heinlen invented >the waterbed, the waldo, and a few other goodies in his stories; Arthur C. >Clarke invented geosynchronous satellites. I guess they were not interested in the often grusom, lenghty and COSTLY process of applying for a patent. All the items you mention certainly would qualify as "patentable". -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
giao@infmx.UUCP (Giao Tien Vu) (06/15/90)
In article <25282@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >You must understand that Spectrum Holobyte is a VERY SMALL FISH in the now >gigantic struggle for the Tetris money. There are already two lawsuits >involving Nintendo and a company owned by ATARI (yea, they're everywhere:-) ^^^^^ Atari Games, a different company >over the rights for Tetris. SH is just one of the now many licensees of Giao
ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) (06/15/90)
I won't argue about the exact issue. I have a view, but it is probably an uninformed one. Just like most people talking about it. Is anybody who has commented on this a qualified lawyer? I'd like to see the proportion of people talking that have legal training. I think that all these "experts" could easily fall flat on their faces. Some may argue different points, but basically, only a tested legal opinion wil do me. I haven't seen anybody take on SH yet, so I guess there won't be a test case. Ian Ian Rowlands | ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (main) Dept. of Electrical Engineering, | ianr@gondwana.ecr.mu.oz.au (including Computer Science) | ianr@munmurra.cs.mu.oz.au (to 7/90) University of Melbourne | (How can you have a funny quote in only 4 li
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (06/17/90)
gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: |>It appears fairly clear we have witnessed in the recent withdrawal |>of Tetris variants by Fred Fish a case of (to this point) successful |>legal bullying. | Politely, in a word, no. Even more politely, yes. | Let's make this clear. SH is working on behalf of the original |author. It's more accurate to say that the original author is working to |deprive these clone authors of the benefits of the derived games. Clear as mud. The games are not derived from the original. They are reinvented, using only the general idea of the original. Not one bit of code or artwork was copied and reworked from the original. | Sorry, but SH >>MUST<< take on any and all distributors of |potential violators of their rights. Or else they lose them. It was |hardly a cheap hit; it was a necessary step on behalf of the Russian author. It's a cheap hit if they try to protect rights they know they don't have. Trademark violation, definitely. Copyright violation, no way. |Clearly, SH has the right |to stop distribution of a play-alike shareware game calling itself |Tetrix; it's not too hard to argue that it has the right to stop distribution |of PD software calling itself Tetrix. Saying "Clearly, something is true" doesn't make me any more convinced one is speaking the truth. SH does not have a trademark on the game Tetrix, and thus haas no rights to protect. The name is "Tetris", not "Tetrix". Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/17/90)
In article <sean.645555738@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >Saying "Clearly, something is true" doesn't make me any more convinced >one is speaking the truth. SH does not have a trademark on the game Tetrix, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >and thus haas no rights to protect. The name is "Tetris", not "Tetrix". Sean, it is clear you absolutely know nothing about trademarks. Changing a letter doesn't make much difference, because trademark law ensures that you are not trying to USE somebody else's name. Clearly anybody reading the name Tetrix will "associate" with "tetris" and that is enough for trademark infringement. ELORG HAS a trademark on the name Tetris, and that can be enforced with ALL other "similar" names for products of the same kind (i.e. computer games). If Tetrix was the name of a lawnmower, that would be different, but Tetrix, xtetris, textrix, and so on, do infringe on the Tetris trademark when used to identify computer games. Trademarks protect the "public association with the product name". That is, whenever a name can be associated with a "trademarked" one, there is possible infringement. Tetrix can clearly be associated with Tetris, and that is enough for infringment. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/17/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun13125257@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > [lots omitted; who cares? you've seen it twice if you're following this thread] > >(a spec can be copywritten; an idea can't) Ideas, however, are patentable, and a game design is in particular well established in law as a patentable idea. > Tetris is an immensely subtle game; the millions of (wo)man hours being > lost to productive use world wide due to Tetris play occur because of > some excellent design choices, which is what makes the game design a > valuable (and legally defendable) intellectual property. > >The game design - at the "look & feel" level - may be copyrightable. >The description at the "idea" level is not copyrightable. Many of the >things you mention would be independently invented from that >description by anyone knowledgeable in the field of computerized >games, which will make defending a copyright difficult. If you look at what I wrote above, "copyright" does not appear. An idea which is not "immediately evident to a knowledgable practitioner in the field" or words to that effect, is patentable, with some other stipulations about novelty and usefulness. The idea which is patentable is that spec that three of us have now attempted to write. That, given the spec, any competent programmer (even I) could write the game has no bearing on the patentability or defendability of the idea, any more than the fact that any plastics company could manufacture them invalidated the patent on the idea for the Hula Hoop. Like lots of others, I've reverse engineered games for my own amusement; that doesn't give me the right to distribute them. >What hasn't been pointed out is that I could write a complete function >spec of the SH product, including direction, scoring, controls, and >anything else obvious to they eye (except "artwork"), and give that to >someone who hasn't seen the product to implement. The result would >_not_ be a copyright violation. At least, that's how the IBM BIOS >clone(s?) done that way were ruled. It would, however, violate a patent. You're barking up the wrong tree. > The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual > property is the game design. >The valuable intellectual property is indeed the game design; the >clearly legally defendable property is the code. Whether the "look & >feel" of the game is defendable is still being settled in the courts. >If it is, that would go a long way to covering the game design. The code is defendable under the copyright laws, but it is unlikely in the extreme that the clones used the same code. That is not the issue here. The patentability of game design does not need to be "settled in the courts"; it is a legal principle of long standing. > >but are original works belonging to their authors and released to the > >rest of us. SH is attempting to deprive these authors and their > >beneficiaries > >(the rest of us) the benefits of their code. > > You have the wrong end of the stick. Those authors were trying to deprive > SH of a valuable intellectual property, and the rest of us of a viable game > market. > >No, he has his end of the stick, and you have yours. Both statements >are true. Which you see as worse is a religiouss argument. There is no religious argument involved, merely a legal question. That question does not have two equally correct sides. > It is at this point worth mentioning that since you don't have a clue as to > what is being stolen in this case, your analysis is all wet. The design of > a game is a separate, legally protectable entity, and that means the _play_ > design, not the colors on the game board or, in this case, the screen. > >What is being copied isn't the question - that's clear to anyone. The >question is whether or not what is being copied is legally protected, >and whether or not it _should_ be. There is no question that the game design _can_ be legally protected; that is a given: game designs are patentable. I have not an iota of knowledge whether such a patent actually exists for Tetris, nor have I heard anyone else party to this discussion claim such knowledge. When you start saying "should be", that is when you slide into religious issues. It is a fact of law that every civilized nation protects the right of innovators to a fair return on their effort with a patent system. Without such protection, Commodore would have had no motivation to create the computer you are using to read this. Game designers are not second class citizens, and their rights to such protection are at least defendable; without it, why bother to design games for sale? > >It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. > > SH doesn't have a "case", they have a property to which they have licensed > the rights. >SH doesn't have those rights until they get a court to state that they >have those rights when someone contests them. Of course, if no one >ever contests them, the do have them. Do you believe that you don't have the right to vote unless you go to court to prove it? It is about this point in your posting that you quit making sense at all; was it very late at night for you? Things further down are not merely wrong, they are in many cases not even comprehensible. > > As for what to do, it seems clear that several steps are in order. > >1. Sources other than the Fish disks should not regard Fred's withdrawal > > as having anything to say about SH's claims. The programs should > > be kept in circulation, denying SH any advantage in using threats > > to accomplish what it may not accomplish by valid legal protection. > > I believe your statement comes under the heading of "misprison of a felony"; > I sure wouldn't be sticking myself wallet first into this situation if I > were you. >Uh, "misprison" isn't a word. Well, if I had spelled it correctly it was, but I misused it in any case: "Misprision of felony (or treason); in common law, the offense of concealing knowledge of a felony (or treason) by one who has not participated or assisted in it." -- Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., Simon & Schuster, 1983, page 1150. The word I wanted was incitement rather than misprision. >But it is valid to choose to contest >SH's claim that their "look & feel" is copyrightable. And that is >liable to be an expensive choice. "Look and feel" is not the issue, and confusing it with that issue, with all the attendant baggage from recent controversies over the Apple versus everybody on a design they stole from Xerox PARC in the first place, may be what brought on the flood of illogic from you that follows. > > They risk encountering someone with deep enough pockets to defend > > their (and our) rights should they continue their tactics, and > > cannot hope to succeed in their object in any case. > > Well, all of us with hopes of writing and distributing commercial software > naturally wish SH all the best, since if they fail it may well foreshadow > the end of the Amiga game/software market. >And, just as naturally, those of us who wish for that the best tools >be available wish anyone who would fight SH all the best, as their >winning their rights could well foreshadow the end of the >software/hardware clone market. This makes no sense at all; the words are English, the sense is gibberish. Would you like to try again so we have some idea how you got from game design to software tools in one giant leap across an abyss of non-causality? > >2. This should be considered as a relevant item when thinking of buying > > anything from SH in the future, and the issue should be made known > > to friends using other computer types. (There are many other Tetris > > clones out there on other platforms.) > > True. Persons who value a strong Amiga games market, with lots of choices > on the shelves, would be well advised to buy an SH game or two just to help > them with the legal expenses needed to set a strong precedent here. > >And person who value a software market replete with lots of >rapidly-improving tools would do well to avoid any SH games, and to >purchase hardware & software from firm that is willing to market >clones and fight attempts to kill that market. Ditto, ditto, ditto. The issues are not in any way related. Are you well? > >3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. > > Flames to twits who think everything in life should be provided to them > free of charge seem more appropriate. > >Yup. Especially those who think that just because they wrote the first >piece of software with a specific look and feel, they should never >have to face competition with that look and feel. And ditto again; look and feel is not the question, game design is. > >Glenn Everhart > > -- Enemy of the Amiga games market. > > Kent, the man from xanth. > > -- Enemey of all computer users. Really cheap shot from a mind in a blur; misspelled insults are hardly impressive. > <mike Who has certainly had better days. Better luck next time, Mike. Try some coffee. ;-) Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>