Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!pollux.usc.edu!papa
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris variants
Message-ID: <25279@usc.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 90 20:58:53 GMT
References: <57314@bbn.BBN.COM> <21780@estelle.udel.EDU> <9220@pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@usc.edu
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 33

In article <9220@pogo.WV.TEK.COM> bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) writes:
>Next possibility is trademark infrigement by the clones using Tetris like 
>names. This is a legitimate beef if Tetris is a legally registered trademark
>assigned to Spectrum Holobyte.  I was not able to determine this from my
>search. The illegal use of the Tetris name in similar sounding names is
>a very definate infringement of thier rights.

The Tetris trademark belongs to the soviet's ELORG.  Take a look at the
fine print at the bottom of the Nintendo Gameboy ads to find it all 
spelled out in grusom detail :-)

>Next comes copyright infringement.  The key here is independent derivation
>and the burden of proof is on Spectrum Holobyte.  You are allowed to 
>reinvent the wheel as long as you don't use the same spokes.  Spectrum
>Holobyte must prove that each author individually had access to and used
>portions of their code.

Not at all. One can claim "visual" copyright infringment and visuals can
be infringed with no access to source code.

>But the burden of
>proof is on Spectrum Holobyte and their beef is with the authors not Fred.

The beef is with ANY author AND distributor of infringing software.   If
you read all the various legal software contracts, "distributor" is used
all over the place.  A distributor that willingly continues to distribute
software that is later proved to be infringed IS liable. So, IMHO, Fred
had no choice.

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