Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!new
From: new@udel.EDU (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <21780@estelle.udel.EDU>
Date: 12 Jun 90 14:44:25 GMT
References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> <57314@bbn.BBN.COM>
Reply-To: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 8

In article <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes:
>The court found that Rubik's cube, despite having a >TOTALLY different mechanism 
>infringed on the >fellow's patent.  >  /Bernie\

Aye, but a patent is a patent and a copyright is a copyright.
These are two totally different beasts.  A copyright does not 
prevent me from reinventing something; a patent does (or at least
it keeps me from selling it.) Has SH patented Tetris?    -- Darren