Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <25261@usc.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 90 18:38:59 GMT
References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> <21780@estelle.udel.EDU>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 22

In article <21780@estelle.udel.EDU> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>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

SH cannot patent tetris. They are a licensee, whose only required job
is to make sure that the original copyright owners (ELROG and the russian
guy) don't get their stuff in the public domain.  Nintendo also owns
a copyright on the modifications made to run Tetris on the Gameboy.
As such, only the original owners of the copyright can "try" to patent
Tetris, unless they want to sell that right (a patent or copyright is 
like any other asset that can be sold).

-- Marco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=