Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mephisto!ukma!kherron
From: kherron@ms.uky.edu (Kenneth Herron)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Tetris Clones
Message-ID: <kherron.645426414@s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 90 05:06:54 GMT
References: <9006131950.AA17221@cwns9.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1990Jun15.010843.23620@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Organization: U of Ky, Math. Sciences, Lexington KY
Lines: 47

poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes:

>>While all the fighting is going on about Tetris clones, this raises the
>>question of whether it is legal to convert Arcade games ...

>For that matter -- what about adapting an existing *board* game to a computer
>format?  

>... Could one carefully
>avoid these pitfalls and legally duplicate the full functionality of the
>game (plus extra stuff like automated opponents and player aids)? 

Well, legal theory is nice to argue about, but let's put things
in perspective:

Anyone can sue anyone else for any reason at all.  The case will go before
a judge (at least long enough to be thrown out if it's truly groundless)
but the sued party will have to get a lawyer and show up.  They don't 
have to sue you close to where you live, either.  Want to travel to
California to defend your case?

Now, if Spectrum Holobyte or Electronic Arts or Milton Bradley or
Avalon Hill sees your latest & greatest public domain or shareware game
and decides you've violated some copyright/trademark/patent/whatever that
they hold, whether they have a sound legal position or not, they can take 
you to court over it, and make you spend a few tens of thousands of dollars
on legal fees defending your side.  Given that these companies have more
money than you do, they can afford better legal aid (and don't believe
this won't make a difference).  If you successfully defend yourself, the 
big company won't have to pay your legal bills (you can countersue on the
grounds that it was a frivolous suit, but that rarely works).  If you lose, 
you'll probably have to pay theirs, as well as whatever fines they can fly
past the judge.

In short, One of these companies could grind you into the dirt if they
so chose, and it would all be perfectly legitimate because they're 
defending their rights against a perceived infringement.  All of the above
is simply a byproduct of the fact that it's expensive to go to court.
Personally, I couldn't afford to defend myself in a copyright infringement
suit, no matter how good I thought my case was.

Now, if you want to split hairs about how different a game must be to
be "safe," go to misc.legal, where copyright questions come up all the
time.  The short answer is, "different enough that the owner of the
original's copyright doesn't mind."

Kenneth Herron