Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris Clones
Message-ID: <55935@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 9 May 90 12:22:43 GMT
References: <279@estinc.UUCP> <1125@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> <280@estinc.UUCP> <103@fishpond.UUCP> <1990May9.041230.841@uncecs.edu>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 52

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\