Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Keywords: justifications for ripoffs all = greed
Message-ID: <25270@usc.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 90 04:46:00 GMT
References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 32

In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>
>In article <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU>, rife with inaccuracies, and full of
>justifications for stealing intellectual property, EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com
>writes:
[stuff deleted]
>>   The various games that have come out, some on the Fish disks, follow
>>this idea. They are however not duplicating Spectrum Holobyte's code
>
>The legally defendable item is not the game code; the valuable intellectual
>property is the game design.

Sorry Kent, but you're wrong on this one.  BOTH the game code and the game
design can be protected: the first by copyright, the second one by patent.
So far, ELROG, the Russian author and Nintendo have used only copyrights
for protection (though I would assume a patent is being sought).

>Not at all.  The game idea, not the picture on the screen, is what is a
>protectable object.

Wrong again. Both are protectable (one with patent, the other one with 
copyright).  Note also another mistake you make later in your message,
when you imply that ideas can be copyrighted. Not so:

	IDEAS CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED, THEY CAN ONLY BE PATENTED!

Just to fix a couple of inaccuraccies of an otherwise good response.

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