Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!jarthur!usc!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Tetris variants Message-ID: <1990Jun17.000358.29328@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 17 Jun 90 00:03:58 GMT References: <21774@snow-white.udel.EDU> <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 199 In article mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <1990Jun12.195107.5899@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: > [lots omitted; who cares? you've seen it twice if you're following this thread] > >(a spec can be copywritten; an idea can't) Ideas, however, are patentable, and a game design is in particular well established in law as a patentable idea. > 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. If you look at what I wrote above, "copyright" does not appear. An idea which is not "immediately evident to a knowledgable practitioner in the field" or words to that effect, is patentable, with some other stipulations about novelty and usefulness. The idea which is patentable is that spec that three of us have now attempted to write. That, given the spec, any competent programmer (even I) could write the game has no bearing on the patentability or defendability of the idea, any more than the fact that any plastics company could manufacture them invalidated the patent on the idea for the Hula Hoop. Like lots of others, I've reverse engineered games for my own amusement; that doesn't give me the right to distribute them. >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. It would, however, violate a patent. You're barking up the wrong tree. > 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. The code is defendable under the copyright laws, but it is unlikely in the extreme that the clones used the same code. That is not the issue here. The patentability of game design does not need to be "settled in the courts"; it is a legal principle of long standing. > >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. There is no religious argument involved, merely a legal question. That question does not have two equally correct sides. > 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. There is no question that the game design _can_ be legally protected; that is a given: game designs are patentable. I have not an iota of knowledge whether such a patent actually exists for Tetris, nor have I heard anyone else party to this discussion claim such knowledge. When you start saying "should be", that is when you slide into religious issues. It is a fact of law that every civilized nation protects the right of innovators to a fair return on their effort with a patent system. Without such protection, Commodore would have had no motivation to create the computer you are using to read this. Game designers are not second class citizens, and their rights to such protection are at least defendable; without it, why bother to design games for sale? > >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. Do you believe that you don't have the right to vote unless you go to court to prove it? It is about this point in your posting that you quit making sense at all; was it very late at night for you? Things further down are not merely wrong, they are in many cases not even comprehensible. > > 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. Well, if I had spelled it correctly it was, but I misused it in any case: "Misprision of felony (or treason); in common law, the offense of concealing knowledge of a felony (or treason) by one who has not participated or assisted in it." -- Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 2nd ed., Simon & Schuster, 1983, page 1150. The word I wanted was incitement rather than misprision. >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. "Look and feel" is not the issue, and confusing it with that issue, with all the attendant baggage from recent controversies over the Apple versus everybody on a design they stole from Xerox PARC in the first place, may be what brought on the flood of illogic from you that follows. > > 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. This makes no sense at all; the words are English, the sense is gibberish. Would you like to try again so we have some idea how you got from game design to software tools in one giant leap across an abyss of non-causality? > >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. Ditto, ditto, ditto. The issues are not in any way related. Are you well? > >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. And ditto again; look and feel is not the question, game design is. > >Glenn Everhart > > -- Enemy of the Amiga games market. > > Kent, the man from xanth. > > -- Enemey of all computer users. Really cheap shot from a mind in a blur; misspelled insults are hardly impressive. >