M.A.Rahin@lut.ac.uk (Mohammad A. Rahin) (05/22/91)
Read in the june '91 issue of Atari St User (UK) : The original copyright holder of the Scrabble board game (Spears & co. ?) are taking legal action against a small PD software distribution library in Engalnd for distributing Scrabble clone STrabble (by Warwick Allison). Your views ? - Rahin
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.100201.1231@lut.ac.uk> M.A.Rahin@lut.ac.uk (Mohammad A. Rahin) writes: >Read in the june '91 issue of Atari St User (UK) : The original copyright >holder of the Scrabble board game (Spears & co. ?) are taking legal >action against a small PD software distribution library in Engalnd for >distributing Scrabble clone STrabble (by Warwick Allison). > >Your views ? Spears are quite right to pursue this. I believe there is already a licensed version of Scrabble from a company called Leisure Genius. PD versions would be direct competition. I did not like the way the ST User article started with biased comments like how big Spears are and how they make lots of money and the PD library was a non-profit pauper of an organisation. Bottom line. Spears have the copyright and if there is a demand for Scrabble in any shape or form then they have the last word on its distribution. I have seen a PD version of Monopoly on the ST and have also heard of Parker Brothers pursuing similar cases of duplication. For games that are not identical to the original, I suppose the 'look and feel' laws must creep onto the scene. >- Rahin +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! DISCLAIMER:Unless otherwise stated, the above comments are entirely my own ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh, Scotland, UK "That was never 5 double word scores!" ! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (05/24/91)
>Spears are quite right to pursue this. I believe there is already a licensed >version of Scrabble from a company called Leisure Genius. PD versions would >be direct competition. Can't have competition can we! >I did not like the way the ST User article started >with biased comments like how big Spears are and how they make lots of money >and the PD library was a non-profit pauper of an organisation. Why not? >Bottom line. Spears have the copyright and if there is a demand for Scrabble >in any shape or form then they have the last word on its distribution. So if all they want to produce is a wimpy piece of junk version, then that's all anyone can have? If that's right, then I feel strangled. >For games that are not identical to the original, I suppose the 'look and feel' >laws must creep onto the scene. As I posted, STrabble is very different from Scrabble the board game. If it is copying the Scrabble programs (eg. Leisure Genius') that is the problem, then every PD author is in trouble (esp. Shareware): * Hackman is better than any Pacman I've seen. * Cooltetris is better than any Tetris I've seen. I think PD authors (and Shareware authors - it's almost the same thing - but don't argue it) should be free to write whatever programs they want. Warwick. -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (05/24/91)
In article <1586@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>Spears are quite right to pursue this. I believe there is already a licensed >>version of Scrabble from a company called Leisure Genius. PD versions would >>be direct competition. > >Can't have competition can we! Competition. Of course! But think up your own idea. There are plenty of word games that are not like Scrabble. Parker Bros. Probe comes to mind. >>I did not like the way the ST User article started >>with biased comments like how big Spears are and how they make lots of money >>and the PD library was a non-profit pauper of an organisation. > >Why not? Because the biased reporting quite clearly showed where ST Abusers sympathy was and wanted you, the gentle reader, to feel the same. >>Bottom line. Spears have the copyright and if there is a demand for Scrabble >>in any shape or form then they have the last word on its distribution. > >So if all they want to produce is a wimpy piece of junk version, then that's >all anyone can have? If that's right, then I feel strangled. Have you seen the Leisure Genius version? Is it wimpy? I'm sorry if you feel strangled but the law is the law. If you invented the original game I suppose you'd be encouraging everyone to clone it. >>For games that are not identical to the original, I suppose the 'look and >>feel' laws must creep onto the scene. > >As I posted, STrabble is very different from Scrabble the board game. If it >is copying the Scrabble programs (eg. Leisure Genius') that is the problem, >then every PD author is in trouble (esp. Shareware): > > * Hackman is better than any Pacman I've seen. > * Cooltetris is better than any Tetris I've seen. Way back in the old days, Atari used to shoot the head of anyone who produced a Pacman lookalike. They did this mainly to non-Atari software houses. Since the split of Atari Games and Computer companies they have been less forceful. I'm surprised Dave gets off with Hacman 2. >I think PD authors (and Shareware authors - it's almost the same thing - but >don't argue it) should be free to write whatever programs they want. It would be nice but as stated earlier, by others, if PD stuff competed really strongly with commercial products then companies would go out of business. >Warwick. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ! DISCLAIMER:Unless otherwise stated, the above comments are entirely my own ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh, Scotland, UK "That was never 5 minutes!" ! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/24/91)
In article <1586@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>Spears are quite right to pursue this. I believe there is already a licensed >>version of Scrabble from a company called Leisure Genius. PD versions would >>be direct competition. > >Can't have competition can we! Well, sure you can. If you want to compete, you come up with your own game. It's the same as "competition" in the book writing field. Nobody is stopping you from writing your own book. You just can't photocopy Arthur C. Clarke's latest book and sell the copies to other people, and you can't just change the names of the characters and claim it's yours or take similar short cuts. You have to "write your own book." Hundreds of writers do it every year. > * Hackman is better than any Pacman I've seen. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) (05/25/91)
> >Can't have competition can we! > > Well, sure you can. If you want to compete, you come up > with your own game. It's the same as "competition" in the book > writing field. Nobody is stopping you from writing your own > book. You just can't photocopy Arthur C. Clarke's latest book > and sell the copies to other people, and you can't just change > the names of the characters and claim it's yours or take similar > short cuts. You have to "write your own book." Hundreds of > writers do it every year. As a side note, it has happened in the past that an author will take a story, change a few superficial details, and then re-release it. On the subject of "copying" the Scrabble game, there is a difference between a copy and an enhancement. If the first car company took the second car company to court because "they copied our idea", where would we be? Shameless copying of ideas should not be encouraged, but I don't see any problems with significant enhancements. Trivial things, like names, are not things I would consider to be enhancements. As another example, take the Xmodem protocol. Zmodem is far better than Xmodem, and has many significant enhancements, but it is still an error-preventing file transfer program. If these were commercial products, would you expect the maker of Xmodem to take the maker of Zmodem to court? Of course not. The point, I suppose, is that improving an idea significantly is acceptable, while copying it shamelessly is not... << ---------------------------------- >> << ersys!mforget@nro.cs.athabascau.ca >> << mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca >> << Michel Forget >> << ---------------------------------- >>
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (05/27/91)
>>>I did not like the way the ST User article started >>>with biased comments like how big Spears are and how they make lots of money >>>and the PD library was a non-profit pauper of an organisation. >> >>Why not? >Because the biased reporting quite clearly showed where ST Abusers sympathy >was and wanted you, the gentle reader, to feel the same. The fact the Spears has the money to tread on the PD library IS VERY RELEVANT. Even if the Laws are wrong, or the library's actions are legal, they may not receive justice, simply because of a lack of funds. >I'm surprised Dave gets off with Hacman 2. I'm GLAD. >>I think PD authors should be free to write whatever programs they want. >It would be nice but as stated earlier, by others, if PD stuff competed really >strongly with commercial products then companies would go out of business. So what? I think if someone is willing to give you something BETTER for FREE, then they shouldn't be punished. The problem is too many people like that poster have the attitude "It would be nice, but the Law doesn't allow it". I'm all for laws, but they are only laws, not statements of correctness. Laws can be wrong. Warwick. -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (05/27/91)
> If the first car company took the second car >company to court because "they copied our idea", where would we be? >Shameless copying of ideas should not be encouraged, but I don't see any >problems with significant enhancements. STrabble is to the Scrabble board game as a Motorcycle is to a Bus Sure, you can carry 6 people on a Motorcycle, but it's no fun. As for the commercial Computer Scrabble programs - my conscience is clear: STrabble was written before I even knew of their existence. Warwick. -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) (05/28/91)
In article <4cVH31w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) writes: >> >Can't have competition can we! >> ... > >As a side note, it has happened in the past that an author will take a >story, change a few superficial details, and then re-release it. On the A nice general statement without specific facts to back it up. Look, take this discussion to 'net.legal' or whatever it's called. You're not saying anything that's "special" to the Atari community, so you may as well talk to people who are more likely to be interested in the discussion than those in this group. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) (05/28/91)
Michel Forget writes: > >As a side note, it has happened in the past that an author will take a > >story, change a few superficial details, and then re-release it. On the Jim Omura writeS: > A nice general statement without specific facts to back it > up. Look, take this discussion to 'net.legal' or whatever it's > called. You're not saying anything that's "special" to the Atari > community, so you may as well talk to people who are more likely > to be interested in the discussion than those in this group. Fact: Taming Of The Shrew (Shakespear) is EXTREMELY similar to a play by another author called Taming Of The Grue (or some such{similar name). The comment had a lot to do with this discussion, when you consider the material following that you neglected to mention in your flame. This comment was meant to add a little humour, but it seems it failed. Only the following material was relavent. Just in case you are interested in the above fact, you could read the text before the play "Taming Of The Shrew". The Swan Edition, to be specific. << ---------------------------------- >> << ersys!mforget@nro.cs.athabascau.ca >> << mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca >> << Michel Forget >> << ---------------------------------- >>
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (05/28/91)
In article <1624@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Even if the Laws are wrong, or the library's actions are legal, they may not >receive justice, simply because of a lack of funds. True. In this case however Spears were justified, although a little heavy handed. >>I'm surprised Dave gets off with Hacman 2. > >I'm GLAD. Me too. >> ... if PD stuff competed really >>strongly with commercial products then companies would go out of business. > >So what? I think if someone is willing to give you something BETTER for >FREE, then they shouldn't be punished. The problem is too many people like >that poster have the attitude "It would be nice, but the Law doesn't allow >it". It could hurt some companies every bit as much as piracy, which is the illegal version of free software. Say a company comes out with a new and very innovative game for the ST in the UK. Some other group produce a clone, a BETTER clone and start distributing it via the net. Soon the world will have the PD version before some have even heard of the commercial one. When the commercial version turns up reviewers would be saying "Not as good as the PD version" and so no sale. Does that sound extreme? Maybe, but that is what worries companies and that is what they are trying to prevent. If a company lets things slip by then things can get out of hand. Look at NEOchrome from Atari. Lots of people got version 0.5 free with their ST way back. Despite the documentation clearly stating that it was a preview version and the fact that later versions were on sale, PD libraries see it as free. I have a letter from Atari saying that it is not. >Laws can be wrong. Ain't that the truth! Nuff said. >Warwick. >-- > _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au > / * <-- Computer Science Department, > \_.-._/ University of Queensland, > v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
brad@bcars241.bnr.ca (Brad Shapcott) (05/28/91)
In article <1991May27.210009.16927@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura) writes: >In article <4cVH31w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget) writes: >>As a side note, it has happened in the past that an author will take a >>story, change a few superficial details, and then re-release it. On the > > A nice general statement without specific facts to back it >up. Actually I was just reading a collection of essays by Isaac Asimov in which he refers to an incident in which a plagairized story was published in his maga- zine (or at least the one that bears his name) without the editor's knowledge. This sort of thing does happen quite often (well, compared to the frequency with which I would suspect that people would be stupid enough to think they can get away with it). >Look, take this discussion to 'net.legal' or whatever it's >called. You're not saying anything that's "special" to the Atari >community, so you may as well talk to people who are more likely >to be interested in the discussion than those in this group. I think the legal issues related to software have always been of particular interest to the Atari community, from piracy to copyright and so on. Because the Atari market is so heavily dependant on shareware, legal decisions regard- ing copyright status and licensing do have a special interest for us. For instance if a licence is held by a large software corporation for a part- icular application which has done quite well on other computers, yet the corporation has no intention of developing it on the Atari, to what extent would a piece of shareware which closely approximates that application be a copyright violation? And how close do you have to come before you are infringing on a copyright? Reverse engineered? File compatibility? Look- and-feel (see Unix Review, Vol. 8, No. 12 on that one)? I mean if it is obvious to the court that Scrabble is just a variant on crosswords, and while entitled to its particular format and graphics the company owning this game cannot extend its copyright to EVERY crossword variant (regardless of medium), then close duplicates would have legal grounds to refute the owning company's claims. So this particular issue does have a lot of relevance to Atarians, since it is a piece of software for their machine being jeopardized, and because these alternate distribution systems (shareware, etc) are so important to the Atari community. While I haven't generally been interested in playing computer games since high school, and so have never even seen STrabble, I AM interested in the legal results in this case. >Jim Omura brad
magna@crosfield.co.uk (john hartridge) (05/29/91)
In article <3089@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk> neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) writes: >In article <1624@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: > >>> ... if PD stuff competed really >>>strongly with commercial products then companies would go out of business. >> >>So what? I think if someone is willing to give you something BETTER for >>FREE, then they shouldn't be punished. The problem is too many people like > >It could hurt some companies every bit as much as piracy, which is the illegal >version of free software. Say a company comes out with a new and very >innovative game for the ST in the UK. Some other group produce a clone, >a BETTER clone and start distributing it via the net. Soon the world will have >the PD version before some have even heard of the commercial one. When the >commercial version turns up reviewers would be saying "Not as good as the PD >version" and so no sale. Does that sound extreme? Maybe, but that is what >worries companies and that is what they are trying to prevent. > Surely any company that tries to produce and sell software that is not as good as something an individual working on at home can produce and give away does not deserve to remain in business. A software company does not deserve to do well (ie make a lot of money) out of what must be a very inferior product. Although I have not personally seen the STrabble game in question, it does not sound like a particularly difficult game to code (more difficult getting the dictionary together I would have thought), and yet it is being sold for the same price as some of the more complex games (anything involving a lot of high speed graphics, say). I therefore see the PD world as not only providing the "little" utilities that are not worth writing yourself, and not worth paying money for, but also for keeping the "Big" software houses "on their toes" and ensure that their latest "masterpiece" is actually worth the money that they are asking for it. (What a rant !!!! Sorry about that) -- ***************************************************************************** * John Hartridge Crosfield Electronics Ltd Hemel Hempstead UK * * Ext 3402 Tel:- (0442) 230000 Fax:- (0442) 232301 * *****************************************************************************
dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (05/30/91)
In article <10107@suns4.crosfield.co.uk> magna@crosfield.co.uk (john hartridge) writes: >In article <3089@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk> neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) writes: >>In article <1624@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> warwick@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>>So what? I think if someone is willing to give you something BETTER for >>>FREE, then they shouldn't be punished. [...] >> >>It could hurt some companies every bit as much as piracy, which is the illegal >>version of free software. [...] > >Surely any company that tries to produce and sell software that is not as >good as something an individual working on at home can produce and give >away does not deserve to remain in business. A software company does not >deserve to do well (ie make a lot of money) out of what must be a very >inferior product. The more that games programming moves into the realm of higher level languages and away from the realm of arcane assembly language voodoo (heh-heh), the more you will see "individuals working at home" producing games that give the professional houses a run for their money. I strongly suspect that in the next few years we will see many more games written by former "mere hobbyists" that are of professional or near-professional quality. The main thing that separates commercial games from those done by amateurs at this point is art. If you get two friends working together for fun on a PD game, one a programmer and one an artist, you can get amazing results that rival the professional games in quality. Don't think for a minute that algorithms to move shapes around the screen quickly are "secrets." There are already several examples of Shareware and PD games for the ST that "have the technology." Have a look at LLamatron or Nova. Of course the professional houses will always have the edge in extremely complex games like flight simulators, Ultima N+1, etc. simply because games like that require huge amounts of data. But games in the "shoot everything that moves" and "ninja chop-socky warriors part 19: revenge of Foo" genres come down to basic straight-ahead game mechanics and glitzy art. >Although I have not personally seen the STrabble game in question, it >does not sound like a particularly difficult game to code (more difficult >getting the dictionary together I would have thought), and yet it is being >sold for the same price as some of the more complex games (anything involving >a lot of high speed graphics, say). Scrabble is QUITE difficult to do well. Not as hard as chess or go perhaps, but then there's quite a bit of literature written on those. Making an intelligent Scrabble opponent has been the subject of at least one PhD dissertation. Add to that the difficulty of just getting the dictionary of words into the program in a space-efficient manner, and you've got quite a challenging project. >I therefore see the PD world as not only providing the "little" utilities >that are not worth writing yourself, and not worth paying money for, but >also for keeping the "Big" software houses "on their toes" and ensure >that their latest "masterpiece" is actually worth the money that they are >asking for it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing a game that rivals professional games in quality. The problem comes when you cause the professional software houses to lose sales on their own products because you copied them. That's the main issue here -- that STrabble performs all the functions of a commercial Scrabble playing program (and quite brilliantly, I might add) and therefore steals sales from the people who bought the rights to produce the official version. If STrabble were a game only _similar_ to Scrabble, then Spears would just be out of luck, but then STrabble probably wouldn't hurt Spears' sales if it weren't an implementation of the famous board game. Like Neil, I think that Spears have every legal right to ask Warwick to stop distributing the game. (Note that I said _legal_ right.) However, it IS an unfortunate trend. It makes me unhappy to see someone who is just trying to provide quality software to the ST community essentially for free getting raked over the coals for it. On the other hand, however, if I were Spears and saw that my sales were being hurt after I'd shelled out the bucks to write the legitimate version, I'd probably feel that trying to stop distribution of the shareware version were my only recourse. If Scrabble were a game no one cared about any more (like Pacman), I'm sure this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem comes when a shareware author copies a game that still has sales potential. The big bombshell in this area is of course Tetris. It's a simple concept that is unbelievably easy to implement. Easier, even, than Pacman. Since it's so easy, it's been copied all across creation. But this does indeed affect sales of the official versions, and sure enough, Spectrum Holobyte (supposedly) attempted to kill all the shareware versions of Tetris for the Amiga. (Perhaps an Amiga owner will correct me if it wasn't Spectrum Holobyte.) To see things from the other side, ponder this: How would you feel if you'd come up with the idea for Tetris, written the game and put it out there (commercially), only to come across equally good PD rip-offs of YOUR game idea? Copyrights and patents are intended to protect intellectual property. The fact that the laws are only severely enforced when someone else is getting hurt by an infringement is a virtue that allows people to have an ancient (but fun) game like Pacman or Robotron on their ST's even after there's no commercial potential for it. Who would write Pacman for the ST if it could only be released commercially? It just wouldn't sell. This whole legal mess should be taken VERY seriously by PD/Shareware authors. Whereas shareware and PD started out as a vehicle for hobbyists to release anything they wanted to, it has now become a threat to big business. Shareware authors should realize they're now walking through a legal mine field when they infringe on others' copyrights. Dave Baggett dmb@wam.umd.edu
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.195434.16735@wam.umd.edu> dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: ... >If Scrabble were a game no one cared about any more (like Pacman), I'm >sure this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem comes when a >shareware author copies a game that still has sales potential. The big >bombshell in this area is of course Tetris. It's a simple concept that >is unbelievably easy to implement. Easier, even, than Pacman. Since >it's so easy, it's been copied all across creation. But this does >indeed affect sales of the official versions, and sure enough, Spectrum >Holobyte (supposedly) attempted to kill all the shareware versions of >Tetris for the Amiga. (Perhaps an Amiga owner will correct me if it >wasn't Spectrum Holobyte.) > >To see things from the other side, ponder this: How would you feel if >you'd come up with the idea for Tetris, written the game and put it out >there (commercially), only to come across equally good PD rip-offs of >YOUR game idea? ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original Tetris WAS PD, and the folks that have been making money on high-quality professional implementations don't deserve a copyright on the original innovation. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.212157.27603@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Van Snyder) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original Tetris WAS PD, and the >folks that have been making money on high-quality professional implementations >don't deserve a copyright on the original innovation. As usual, you're wrong. I'd be happy to tell you in email, but you don't seem to like receiving email from people who tell you you're wrong. Freedom of stupidity, I guess. Your loss. The rights to Tetris are owned by a Russian company who sells it to various other companies. I recall a court case recently in which Nintendo forced Tengen (a subsid. of Atari Games, which isn't related to Atari Corporation anymore) to stop selling a Tetris game. Nintendo had licensed it directly from the Rusians, while Tengen had sub-licensed it from a British company who owned the "home computer" rights.
steveh@tharr.UUCP (Steve Hebditch) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May28.140645.2069@bigsur.uucp> brad@bcars362.UUCP (Brad Shapcott) writes: >I mean if it is obvious to the court that Scrabble is just a variant on >crosswords, and while entitled to its particular format and graphics the >company owning this game cannot extend its copyright to EVERY crossword variant >(regardless of medium), then close duplicates would have legal grounds to >refute the owning company's claims. No doubt a major part of the problem was that the name "STrabble" would almost certainly be considered an infringement of Spear's trademark. Had the game been called something else then the company would probably not have taken an interest. In court they'd simply have to show the product was "passing off" rather than get into the intricacies of copyright that Brad mentioned.
) (05/30/91)
As an aside: I play the PD Tetris and Arkanoid games rather than the commercial ones. Why? Because I have a monochrome monitor. If the software companies are so lazy that they won't make their games run on my computer, well, I'll just have to use the superior PD programs. I think (no guarantees) that the commercial Scrabble game is colour-only. It certainly looks that way from the box. mathew
warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison) (05/31/91)
In <uiLR324w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (CNEWS MUST DIE!) writes: >As an aside: >I play the PD Tetris and Arkanoid games rather than the commercial ones. >Why? >Because I have a monochrome monitor. >If the software companies are so lazy that they won't make their games run on >my computer, well, I'll just have to use the superior PD programs. >I think (no guarantees) that the commercial Scrabble game is colour-only. It >certainly looks that way from the box. I wouldn't be suprised - the IBM version only uses CGA (the lowest of the lows). This does show how poor the implementation is. I wrote STrabble in mono first, then spent 2 days converting it to colour. It can only be described as poor programming not to be so flexible. Hey, and get this: The IBM version had music and beeps! I was soooooo impressed :-). Ciao, Warwick. -- _-_|\ warwick@cs.uq.oz.au / * <-- Computer Science Department, \_.-._/ University of Queensland, v Brisbane, AUSTRALIA.
robin@castle.ed.ac.uk (R C Smith) (05/31/91)
>The rights to Tetris are owned by a Russian company who sells it to >various other companies. I thought that there was no copyright laws in the Soviet Union? Therefore anything they have we can copy? :-)