Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ogicse!mintaka!mit-eddie!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <57314@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 12 Jun 90 13:52:48 GMT
References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 16

EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes:

}   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.) 

Hmmm..  Either I'm misremembering it, or you have managed to get this
exactly backwards [and in fact this is a case *against* the point you
were trying to make]:  As I recall, some fellow in the US had developed
a Rubik's-like cube game using some kind of magnetic kludge to hold the
thing together.  The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a
TOTALLY different mechanism [and despite that the original mechanism
looked very much like it would NEVER really work], infringed on the
fellow's patent.

  /Bernie\