Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!kms From: kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Tetris Clones Message-ID: <1990May9.041230.841@uncecs.edu> Date: 9 May 90 04:12:30 GMT References: <279@estinc.UUCP> <1125@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> <280@estinc.UUCP> <103@fishpond.UUCP> Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service Lines: 33 In article <103@fishpond.UUCP>, fnf@fishpond.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > In article 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