Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!gwangung
From: gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <4091@milton.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 90 16:22:52 GMT
References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 76

In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com writes:
>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.

	Politely, in a word, no.

>   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.

	So far, so good.

>   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.

	Let's make this clear.  SH is working on behalf of the original
author.  It's more accurate to say that the original author is working to
deprive these clone authors of the benefits of the derived games. 


>   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.

	Sorry, but SH >>MUST<< take on any and all distributors of
potential violators of their rights.  Or else they lose them.  It was
hardly a cheap hit; it was a necessary step on behalf of the Russian author.
If SH lets these go, then a commercial publisher can quite legally publish
a game called Tetrix and profit from it, since SH made no effort to
discourage distribution of similar games.

	Now, this line of reasoning is strongest against the
straight ahead clones and Tetris-namealikes.  Clearly, SH has the right
to stop distribution of a play-alike shareware game calling itself
Tetrix; it's not too hard to argue that it has the right to stop distribution
of PD software calling itself Tetrix.

	They are not on such strong ethical ground on playalikes that
do not call themselves by a similar sounding name.  BUt, here, too, they
are on stronger, legal ground; the vigor of their defense also protects them
against rivals who would usurp the name.  It's not a tactic I happen to
be happy with, but it's one they have the right to pursue.




>   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.

	With Tetrix and other derivative names, they can hope and will
probably succeed.


>3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either.

	Please be sure and send a copy to the author, as well.


>	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

	No, it is not, any more than Golf or Cougar is invalidated as
a trademark for cars.