Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!mmdf
From: EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Date: 12 Jun 90 13:03:30 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 72

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 Everhart