Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!udel!mmdf
From: EVERHART@arisia.dnet.ge.com (Glenn Everhart 215 354 7610 (8*747 7610) GE Aerospace Technology)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <21907@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Date: 13 Jun 90 18:17:38 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 43

The short writing I attempted was intended to describe what I have
observed in several of the PD Tetris variants...not the SH game.
The details given recently indicate that there is significant variation
between the play of the SH game, which I have not seen, and the
variants which enjoy (?) rough similarity with it. 
   It is a principle of copyright law that expressions are copyrighted,
not ideas. Patents can protect ideas. (Incidentally, it turns out that
Rubik *LOST* a patent fight over the cube due to some prior patent on
a magnetically done cube. Surprised me!) The variants evidently used
only some of the game idea. That their results wound up looking similar
was a result of the geometry of tetrominoes and the nature of the
game idea. That should be sufficient to defeat any presumptions having
to do with similar appearance of the result. (How much of a clean room
does one require for a simple 2D drawing?) 
   In fact SH might well stress that its' game has properties that make
it a better playing game than a clone, and compete in that way. Rather,
it has chosen to use legal threats. Where legal threats are used to
remove independently developed programs from distribution, this bothers
me and creates what I regard as terrible precedents. (Note that there
are far less polite terms that could be used than 'legal threats' in
this case.) If a commercial offering can be replicated from a general
description of the idea in a few hours, I am also unbothered by the
notion that it will not long stand alone or survive. If the SH Tetris
game plays better than the variant tiling-with-tetrominoes games,
THAT is what they should stress. The visual appearance of the game
board is however too geometrically trivial. Any game built from my
crude description of the idea is going to look generally similar to it.
(This was the NEC defense in Intel vs. NEC if you recall.) 
   By the way, I do remember Ogre. When Fred withdrew disk 57, his
description of the affair was that that was HIS call; nobody hassled
him. Had he so chosen again, without hassling, this would not bother
me. As it is, I see yet another look 'n' feel issue, but the geometry
is so trivial that the point can be won for freedom of development.
   As for the names Tetris (and Tetrix possibly), the usual course
is to just rename something with a name that is causing trademark
grief. That's not what has been attempted. I see no point in regarding
SH's action towards Fred as a precedent on the issues, just as proving
that it can (alas) be done. Outfits like SH can be discouraged
from that sort of thing in one way: deny them any chance to make
money as a result of it.  Look 'n' feel lawsuits, and those who
threaten them or pursue them, are the enemies of cooperation and
progress in software. So, perhaps, are those who support them.
Glenn Everhart