Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cunews!bcars8!bnrgate!bigsur!bnr-rsc!bcarh185!schow
From: schow@bcarh185.bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <3184@bnr-rsc.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jun 90 16:13:18 GMT
References: <1727@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: news@bnr-rsc.UUCP
Reply-To: bcarh185!schow@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 26
Summary:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <1727@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>I was not on one side or the other in this, right up until I saw the letter
>from SH to Fred. In it, they stated that there were various key points which
>they felt were grounds for pursuing the PD versions. One, in particular struck
>me as odd, that being the number of different pieces. Since at least one of the
>versions attacked has more pieces, and since at least one has pieces that act
>differently, I feel that SH has overreacted by at least one step, knowing full
>well that it would not be contested _at all_ by Fred. That leaves me with a lot
>more respect for Fred than I have for SH.

If, as you say, Spectrum Holobyte is trampling on the non-infringing games,
then surely it is up to the author of each game to contact Spectrum Holobyte 
and assert *their* rights. Note that Fred being the main visible distributor
is the obvious target, but the games belong to the authors. I am no lawyer,
but it seems to me that even if Fred wanted to fight, he would need a lot of
help from the authors.

So, the bottom line is, urge your favorite author to contact Spectrum Holobyte
and assert their rights. Surely the authors have more at stake (and is much
more inclined) to arque that *their* game is non-infringing.


Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-rsc!schow%bcarh185
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.