djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) (05/02/90)
After reading Fred Fish's article, I BOUGHT a copy of Tetris for the Amiga. Wouldn't you -KNOW- that it won't run on an A-3000. So, I returned it. So, keep playin' them clones that do work! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dallas J. Hodgson | "This here's the wattle, | | Metaphor Computer Systems | It's the emblem of our land. | | Mountain View, Ca. | You can put it in a bottle, | | USENET : djh@metaphor.com | You can hold it in your hand." | +============================================================================+ | "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) (05/04/90)
In article <1125@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: > >After reading Fred Fish's article, I BOUGHT a copy of Tetris for the Amiga. >Wouldn't you -KNOW- that it won't run on an A-3000. >So, I returned it. So, keep playin' them clones that do work! BTW, just to keep the net informed, things are still on hold with regard to the status of disks 173, 221, 230, 238, 305, and 324. It appears at this point that I WILL have to issue a recall of these disks. The situation is that Spectrum Holobyte has reviewed the disks I sent them and rendered a verbal opinion that all of them infringe on their Tetris product. They claim to have absolute rights on the look and feel of their game, and that their contract with the Russian inventor requires that they vigorously pursue any infringers. Regardless of my personal opinions on the validity of their claim, which I won't state at this point, I will be forced to remove these disks from the library or most likely face some sort of legal fight, which I have neither the time, funds, or energy to pursue. I am currently awaiting written confirmation of their position before issuing a recall notice. I will post the contents of whatever confirmation I receive from them. -Fred -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!{nud,mcdphx}!estinc!fnf
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Denizen of Hell) (05/04/90)
In article <280@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >In article <1125@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson) writes: >The situation is that Spectrum Holobyte has reviewed the disks I sent them >and rendered a verbal opinion that all of them infringe on their Tetris >product. They claim to have absolute rights on the look and feel of their Well, Spectrum Holobyte just lost themselves a customer right here. And I hope many others follow. Maybe General Dynamics will sue SH over the look and feel of the F-16 1/10 :-) Can we retcon SH out of all the Amiga ads? Why publicize them? -- Rich Carreiro Denizen of Hell ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu Graduate Student UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr MIT BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu Physics Department
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (05/05/90)
Well, I guess I better get a copy of the better versions of PD "Tetris". Which disk has the best palying version? I have to move fast B4 Fred is forced to recall. Dana etc. PS - I won't be buying products from a company that makes its money from "vigorously pursuing possible infringers of 'look and feel'". To paraphrase someone famous: 'Let them sue to eat my cake.'
tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) (05/07/90)
In article <280@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > It appears at this point that I WILL have to issue a recall of these > disks. ...Spectrum Holobyte has reviewed the disks I sent them and > rendered a verbal opinion that all of them infringe on their Tetris > product. They claim to have absolute rights on the look and feel of > their game, and that their contract with the Russian inventor > requires that they vigorously pursue any infringers. I was under the impression that if something is free (ie, no profit) then the creator/distributor of the free code cannot be threatened like this... Am I wrong here? What's to keep people who already have those disks from distributing the tetris clones some other way (like comp.binaries.amiga or via BBSs)? In fact, two tetris clones have already appeared in comp.binaries.amiga; what of them? I'm offended not by Fred's actions, but by the mentality of SH thinking they can prevent people from making/distributing free software... ...tad
consp11@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Brett Kessler) (05/08/90)
Does anybody have the mailing address for Spectrum Holobyte? I'd like to give them a piece of my mind. (A small one - I haven't got much ;-) But honestly, just saying "well, I won't buy SH stuff anymore" isn't going to do diddley-squat - the company won't know why! So, I for one, am going to be sure that I tell them. +------///-+------------------| BRETT KESSLER |------------------+-\\\------+ | /// | consp11@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu | \\\ | | \\\/// | consp11@bingvaxa.BITNET | \\\/// | | \XX/ | (PeopleLink) B.KESSLER | \XX/ | +----------+-----------------------------------------------------+----------+
fnf@fishpond.UUCP (Fred Fish) (05/08/90)
In article <TADGUY.90May6151713@aelle.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: >I was under the impression that if something is free (ie, no profit) >then the creator/distributor of the free code cannot be threatened >like this... Not so according to my understanding of copyright law. Actual profit or profit motive has nothing to do with whether or not infringement has taken place and whether or not damages can or will be imposed by the court. -Fred (still waiting for something in writing from Spectrum Holobyte) -- # Fred Fish, 1835 E. Belmont Drive, Tempe, AZ 85284, USA # 1-602-491-0048 asuvax!mcdphx!fishpond!fnf
kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) (05/09/90)
In article <103@fishpond.UUCP>, fnf@fishpond.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > In article <TADGUY.90May6151713@aelle.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: > >I was under the impression that if something is free (ie, no profit) > >then the creator/distributor of the free code cannot be threatened > >like this... > > Not so according to my understanding of copyright law. Actual profit or > profit motive has nothing to do with whether or not infringement has taken > place and whether or not damages can or will be imposed by the court. > > -Fred (still waiting for something in writing from Spectrum Holobyte) What exactly is being infringed here according to Spectrum Holobyte? Is it some specific aspect (like too close a name) which all have in common? Or is it more vague, like "look and feel"? In the case of the latter, how could anyone escape such a charge? For example, California Dreams "BlockOut" certainly "reminds" me of Tetris--and its 3D aspect doesn't diminish that portion of its look-and-feel. Did Spectrum lose a sale from me to California Dreams? No, they both lost to DungeonMaster. Hey, it reminds me of another game. Argh! Will this look-and-feel plagiarism never end? :-) At least SH's 'Welltris' can't be accused of violating any look-and-feel or who's-first issues. :-) :-) :-) Ken -- Ken Steele Dept. of Psychology kms@ecsvax.bitnet Mars Hill College kms@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Mars Hill, NC 28754 {some big name site}!mcnc!ecsvax!kms
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (05/09/90)
kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) writes: }In article <103@fishpond.UUCP>, fnf@fishpond.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: }> In article <TADGUY.90May6151713@aelle.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: }> >I was under the impression that if something is free (ie, no profit) }> >then the creator/distributor of the free code cannot be threatened }> >like this... }> }> Not so according to my understanding of copyright law. Actual profit or }> profit motive has nothing to do with whether or not infringement has taken }> place and whether or not damages can or will be imposed by the court. }> }> -Fred (still waiting for something in writing from Spectrum Holobyte) }What exactly is being infringed here according to Spectrum Holobyte? }Is it some specific aspect (like too close a name) which all have }in common? Or is it more vague, like "look and feel"? }In the case of the latter, how could anyone escape such a charge? }For example, California Dreams "BlockOut" certainly "reminds" me }of Tetris--and its 3D aspect doesn't diminish that portion of its }look-and-feel. Either you're being disingenuous, or else remarkably non-observant. One can at least make a case that "blockout" represents a defensible expansion of SH's original. On the other hand, most of the programs of concern to Fred, and that SH is complaining about, are *clearly* little more than ripoffs. That the game is simple, elegant, and well-balanced is a testament to its creator [don't you wish *YOU* could come up with an idea that good... just once... I'm hoping I can manage it just once in my career, but I'm still waiting (and not getting any younger...:-))]; unfortunately, it is also virtually an engraved invitation to the copy-cats. It doesn't take a genius to *write* a tetris ripoff... the genius was in figuring it out in the first place. In fact, the simplicity of the program works against it, since any half-competent hacker can knock one out [on the other hand, games which might well embody _less_ creative genius, say the much-lauded DM or Falcon or the like, aren't beleaguered with ripoffs because they're too hard to program up. "security by complexity", in essence]. I can't comment on the legal merits of SH's case --- but I confess that I'm really quite sympathetic to their cause. I long to have the clarity of vision to be able to someday come up with something as elegant as Tetris; it pains me to realize, however, that if I do I can be assured that my 'market' will be flooded by hundreds of look-alikes. That the merit (and rewards) of a program are measured not by the beauty of its ideas, but by how hard it is to reimplement strikes me as pretty sad. /Bernie\
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (05/10/90)
In article <TADGUY.90May6151713@aelle.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes: |In article <280@estinc.UUCP> fnf@estinc.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: |> It appears at this point that I WILL have to issue a recall of these |> disks. ...Spectrum Holobyte has reviewed the disks I sent them and |> rendered a verbal opinion that all of them infringe on their Tetris |> product. They claim to have absolute rights on the look and feel of |> their game, and that their contract with the Russian inventor |> requires that they vigorously pursue any infringers. | |I was under the impression that if something is free (ie, no profit) |then the creator/distributor of the free code cannot be threatened |like this... | |Am I wrong here? What's to keep people who already have those disks |from distributing the tetris clones some other way (like |comp.binaries.amiga or via BBSs)? In fact, two tetris clones have |already appeared in comp.binaries.amiga; what of them? | |I'm offended not by Fred's actions, but by the mentality of SH |thinking they can prevent people from making/distributing free |software... Sadly, there's a difference between theory and practice that impinges in Fred's operation. If Spectrum Holobyte threatens to sue, they have a strong weapon - even if the suit has no basis in law, the time and money required to defend oneself is so relatively large that justice becomes theoretical; one must weigh the odds regardless of one's supposed rights. I think what Spectrum Holobyte has done is quite wrong - I'm going to suggest that a *lot* of pressure be put on them to reconsider their action. "Look and feel" issues are essentially bogus; the greed involved goes way beyond the natural right they have to protect their product. In addition, by threatening Fred Fish, I feel they are acting contrary to the spirit of the larger part of the Amiga Software community. I think they need to be told these things by those who agree; if necessary, we need to threaten a boycott of their products. I also urge people not to destroy copies of the Fish disks in question - don't ask Fred to supply them any more until this is resolved - but consider making them available to each other, as required. I'm sure other Amiga friends will have more to say on this subject, so I'll sign off for the moment... Cheers, -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
ab980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Carwil James) (06/14/90)
While all the fighting is going on about Tetris clones, this raises the question of whether it is legal to convert Arcade games which are NOT available for the Amiga to the Amiga format. Does anyone have a legal opinion? Virtually, -- |Carwil James-FreeNet BBS List Editor |InterNet: ab980@Cleveland.FreeNet.Edu| | / / Only Amiga First In CD-TV |Phone: (216)371-5729 | |\ \/ / Makes It First In Mulitasking|US Snail: 16057 Brewster Rd. | | \/\/ Possible. First In Expandablity| East Cleveland, OH 44112 |
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/14/90)
In article <9006131950.AA17221@cwns9.INS.CWRU.Edu> ab980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes: >While all the fighting is going on about Tetris clones, this raises the >question of whether it is legal to convert Arcade games which are NOT >available for the Amiga to the Amiga format. Does anyone have a legal opinion? >Virtually, Cloning a game for "another" machine is immaterial as far as infringment is concerned. If you make a game that infringes, it doesn't matter what machine it runs on. If I was able to make an exact clone of Marios Brothers and had it run on a Lynx instead of a Nintendo, I'd still be infringing. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) (06/15/90)
In article <9006131950.AA17221@cwns9.INS.CWRU.Edu> ab980@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes: > >While all the fighting is going on about Tetris clones, this raises the >question of whether it is legal to convert Arcade games ... For that matter -- what about adapting an existing *board* game to a computer format? Assume no trademark violation, a redrawn though logically identical board, and rewritten though logically identical rules. And assume no patent has been issued. Fair game, or what? There can't, at least, be any claim of "audio-visual work" copyright violation in such a case. Anyone know of a good example / precedent? I realize folks have gotten in trouble before for unauthorized computerization of board games, but the only examples I can think of were egregious trademark violations as well as copyright violations (of artwork). Could one carefully avoid these pitfalls and legally duplicate the full functionality of the game (plus extra stuff like automated opponents and player aids)? Marco? Cheers, Charles Poirier poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com
kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron) (06/15/90)
poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes: >>While all the fighting is going on about Tetris clones, this raises the >>question of whether it is legal to convert Arcade games ... >For that matter -- what about adapting an existing *board* game to a computer >format? >... Could one carefully >avoid these pitfalls and legally duplicate the full functionality of the >game (plus extra stuff like automated opponents and player aids)? Well, legal theory is nice to argue about, but let's put things in perspective: Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at all. The case will go before a judge (at least long enough to be thrown out if it's truly groundless) but the sued party will have to get a lawyer and show up. They don't have to sue you close to where you live, either. Want to travel to California to defend your case? Now, if Spectrum Holobyte or Electronic Arts or Milton Bradley or Avalon Hill sees your latest & greatest public domain or shareware game and decides you've violated some copyright/trademark/patent/whatever that they hold, whether they have a sound legal position or not, they can take you to court over it, and make you spend a few tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees defending your side. Given that these companies have more money than you do, they can afford better legal aid (and don't believe this won't make a difference). If you successfully defend yourself, the big company won't have to pay your legal bills (you can countersue on the grounds that it was a frivolous suit, but that rarely works). If you lose, you'll probably have to pay theirs, as well as whatever fines they can fly past the judge. In short, One of these companies could grind you into the dirt if they so chose, and it would all be perfectly legitimate because they're defending their rights against a perceived infringement. All of the above is simply a byproduct of the fact that it's expensive to go to court. Personally, I couldn't afford to defend myself in a copyright infringement suit, no matter how good I thought my case was. Now, if you want to split hairs about how different a game must be to be "safe," go to misc.legal, where copyright questions come up all the time. The short answer is, "different enough that the owner of the original's copyright doesn't mind." Kenneth Herron
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/15/90)
In article <1990Jun15.010843.23620@dg-rtp.dg.com> poirier@dg-rtp.dg.com ( Poirier local) writes: >For that matter -- what about adapting an existing *board* game to a computer >format? Assume no trademark violation, a redrawn though logically >identical board, and rewritten though logically identical rules. And >assume no patent has been issued. Fair game, or what? There can't, at least, >be any claim of "audio-visual work" copyright violation in such a case. >Anyone know of a good example / precedent? > <>I realize folks have gotten in trouble before for unauthorized computerization >of board games, but the only examples I can think of were egregious trademark >violations as well as copyright violations (of artwork). Could one carefully >avoid these pitfalls and legally duplicate the full functionality of the >game (plus extra stuff like automated opponents and player aids)? Marco? Hey, gee I'm no lawyer :-) Anyway, copying the "functionality" of a game is fair game :-) If you start with the above assumptions that you want to avoid trademark violation (by changing the name to something COMPLETELY different), that you want to avoid "visual copyright" infringment, by redrawing the board SUBSTANTIALLY different, while mantaining a similar set of rules (which are ideas and not copyrightable and unlikely patented), you should be OK. I'm glad to see that as a result of the discussion, quite a number of people have finally decided that it might be better to use one's originality a little bit more. Remember that if you do that it will really be YOUR game, then. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=