Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!apple!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!orc!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Tetris variants Message-ID: Date: 13 Jun 90 19:52:57 GMT References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 166 In-Reply-To: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG's message of 12 Jun 90 19:51:07 GMT In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > 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. (This one >may also not pass muster as a useful invention for patent purposes, but >that's beside the point.) Here's a stab at this writing: > Tetrominoes fall into a rectangular container (less top) under >control of the player. Whenever the blocks making up the tetrominoes >form a complete row across the width of the container, the row is >removed. Object of the game: keep the container from filling as long as >possible. Not even close to a sufficient specification for the game. You haven't mentioned what controls are and are not available to the player. You haven't defined "full" for the container. You haven't mentioned the preview option. You have said nothing about scoring. You have said nothing about early dropping. You have said nothing about speeding up motion as the score increases. You have not identified the process of "chewing back down" to fill in holes. Very little of that matters. As far as I can tell, he's missing two things for describing the idea of the game (a spec can be copywritten; an idea can't), and has some details he doesn't need. Let's try this: Tetrominoes enter a rectangular playing field at one edge, and move towards the other edge (game motion). The player is allowed to rotate the pieces in the plane and move them perpendicular to the game motion. When the blocks making up the tetrominoes fill the rectange from one perpendicular edge to the other, that line is removed and all lines towards the entry edge move to fill in the gap created. Object of the game: to keep the playing field from filling for as long as possible. Tetris is an immensely subtle game; the millions of (wo)man hours being lost to productive use world wide due to Tetris play occur because of some excellent design choices, which is what makes the game design a valuable (and legally defendable) intellectual property. The game design - at the "look & feel" level - may be copyrightable. The description at the "idea" level is not copyrightable. Many of the things you mention would be independently invented from that description by anyone knowledgeable in the field of computerized games, which will make defending a copyright difficult. For instance, the game getting faster; that's a common thing for arcade-style games to do. Likewise, determining "full" must include something at the open end of the rectangle, and exactly what that means will depend on how tetrominoes are introduced onto the screen (which wasn't mentioned, and doesn't need to be). I've already seen variations on scoring; the first version I saw didn't care how fast you put things down, but gave points for deleting rows, with bonuses for deleting more than one row at a time (let's see, I think it was 10 points/row, with an extra 10 points for every extra row deleted, so that a four-row deletion was 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 = 100 points). What hasn't been pointed out is that I could write a complete function spec of the SH product, including direction, scoring, controls, and anything else obvious to they eye (except "artwork"), and give that to someone who hasn't seen the product to implement. The result would _not_ be a copyright violation. At least, that's how the IBM BIOS clone(s?) done that way were ruled. > 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. The valuable intellectual property is indeed the game design; the clearly legally defendable property is the code. Whether the "look & feel" of the game is defendable is still being settled in the courts. If it is, that would go a long way to covering the game design. >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. You have the wrong end of the stick. Those authors were trying to deprive SH of a valuable intellectual property, and the rest of us of a viable game market. No, he has his end of the stick, and you have yours. Both statements are true. Which you see as worse is a religiouss argument. It is at this point worth mentioning that since you don't have a clue as to what is being stolen in this case, your analysis is all wet. The design of a game is a separate, legally protectable entity, and that means the _play_ design, not the colors on the game board or, in this case, the screen. What is being copied isn't the question - that's clear to anyone. The question is whether or not what is being copied is legally protected, and whether or not it _should_ be. >It does not show the SH case holds any water at all. SH doesn't have a "case", they have a property to which they have licensed the rights. SH doesn't have those rights until they get a court to state that they have those rights when someone contests them. Of course, if no one ever contests them, the do have them. > 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. I believe your statement comes under the heading of "misprison of a felony"; I sure wouldn't be sticking myself wallet first into this situation if I were you. Uh, "misprison" isn't a word. But it is valid to choose to contest SH's claim that their "look & feel" is copyrightable. And that is liable to be an expensive choice. > 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. Well, all of us with hopes of writing and distributing commercial software naturally wish SH all the best, since if they fail it may well foreshadow the end of the Amiga game/software market. And, just as naturally, those of us who wish for that the best tools be available wish anyone who would fight SH all the best, as their winning their rights could well foreshadow the end of the software/hardware clone market. >2. This should be considered as a relevant item when thinking of buying > anything from SH in the future, and the issue should be made known > to friends using other computer types. (There are many other Tetris > clones out there on other platforms.) True. Persons who value a strong Amiga games market, with lots of choices on the shelves, would be well advised to buy an SH game or two just to help them with the legal expenses needed to set a strong precedent here. And person who value a software market replete with lots of rapidly-improving tools would do well to avoid any SH games, and to purchase hardware & software from firm that is willing to market clones and fight attempts to kill that market. >3. Nastygrams to SH on the issue would not be inappropriate either. Flames to twits who think everything in life should be provided to them free of charge seem more appropriate. Yup. Especially those who think that just because they wrote the first piece of software with a specific look and feel, they should never have to face competition with that look and feel. >Glenn Everhart -- Enemy of the Amiga games market. Kent, the man from xanth. -- Enemey of all computer users.