Tetris Clones Pulled From Android Market 396
sbrubblesman writes "The Tetris Company, LLC has notified Google to remove all Tetris clones from Android Market. I am one of the developers of FallingBlocks, a game with the same gameplay concepts as Tetris. I have received an email warning that my game was suspended from Android Market due to a violation of the Developer Content Policy. When I received the email, I already imagined that it had something to do with it being a Tetris clone, but besides having the same gameplay as Tetris, which I believe cannot be copyrighted, the game uses its own name, graphics and sounds. There's no reference to 'Tetris' in our game. I have emailed Google asking what is the reason for the application removal. Google promptly answered that The Tetris Company, LLC notified them under the DMCA (PDF) to remove various Tetris clones from Android Market. My app was removed together with 35 other Tetris clones. I checked online at various sources, and all of them say that there's no copyright on gameplay. There could be some sort of patent. But even if they had one, it would last 20 years, so it would have been over in 2005. It's a shame that The Tetris Company, LLC uses its power to stop developers from creating good and free games for Android users. Without resources for a legal fight, our application and many others will cease to exist, even knowing that they are legit. Users will be forced to buy the paid, official version, which is worse than many of the ones available for free on the market. Users from other countries, such as Brazil in my case, won't even be able to play the official Tetris, since Google Checkout doesn't exist in Brazil; you can't buy paid applications from Android Market in these countries."
shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shame (Score:5, Informative)
Look under "Top Free" and then "Brain and Puzzle" catagory.
I don't know if Google already restored it or it never came down but it's definitely available.
Re:shame (Score:5, Informative)
Under DMCA all you need to do is submit a Document declaring your work does not infringe anything, and the item MUST be put back up
- If Google refuses, then you can sue them for breaking the law (the DMCA)
- If they put it back up, then everything should be good. The only thing you need to fear is being sued, directly, by the Tetris Company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Cause I just searched for it, found it, and downloaded it on my new Nexus One.
slashdot is ignorant (Score:2)
As usual, slashdot missed the other informative story about how the Tetris Company never paid the real inventor anything.
Yes, you should just contest the takedown with Google, they'll probably reinstate if you explain the situation clearly. And if "tetris" does not appear in you description, the Tetris company might never find you again.
Re:slashdot is ignorant (Score:5, Informative)
As usual, slashdot missed the other informative story about how the Tetris Company never paid the real inventor anything.
The Tetris Company *is* partly Alexey Pazhitnov's (i.e. the original inventor of Tetris). It was formed after he regained the rights to the game in the mid-1990s, long *after* the likes of Nintendo had released their uber-popular version of the game.
So, on the one hand you could argue that Pazhitnov had the right to some payback through them. On the other hand, they don't (to the best of my knowledge) have the rights to Tetris-style gameplay in itself, only the trademarks, and it's pretty contemptible that they're using bullying abuse of the legal process to shut out Tetris clones, whether or not you believe those have the right to exist.
It's also ironic that Pazhitnov invented a game was one whose appeal was its very simpleness, that isn't really enhanced by bells and whistles (which arguably detract from it), and that has little need for anything added beyond the archetypcal classic Game Boy version.... and yet the success of his Tetris Company depends on just that, i.e. selling endless new versions of that game which for the reasons given only ever end up being pointlessly bell-and-whistled bloatings of the original.
I wonder if you made a Pac-Man clone instead? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder if you made a Pac-Man clone instead? (Score:5, Informative)
Google actually has permission from Namco, the owners of Pac-man, for a permanent Google/Pac-man logo/diversion :)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20005577-52.html [cnet.com]
You can play that here:
http://www.google.com/pacman/ [google.com]
Fun extra: It actually works on mobile devices, including iPhones and Android :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I would stay away from it - blocks are one thing, but dreams with Pacman can get really weird [kyon.pl], I guess.
(BTW, should we ban or endorse LG [kyon.pl]?)
Put it back up (Score:2, Funny)
Reply to Google thanking them for policing the internet, but that your application does not violate any laws. Next thing you know the maker of the whoopie cushion will issue taken down notices for farting apps.
Re:Put it back up (Score:5, Funny)
Will the rest of your body be joining your head on its expedition?
Re: (Score:2)
Lemmings already has prior art on unspectacular pops.
However, combine 100 of these little unspectacular pops, and you get a fun noise :)
Re: (Score:2)
Evil in principle but good in practice, I could live with that.
Anyway, should I think of dreams with falling blocks as nightmares now? What if the Tetris company gets to know about them?...
And? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they didn't comply with the formal communication that states that the work is not infringing, then you could criticize Google for "policing the internet", but there is no evidence that there was a formal document refuting infringement.
Google was acting in compliance with a dumb law, so criticize the law, the lawmakers, and the copyright holders, but there is no reason here to criticize those forced to follow it.
How about replying? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about replying? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, essentially. The procedure for content at another Google division is explained here [google.com]. A similar procedure should apply.
In this case, the complaint seems to be primarily a trademark complaint which is probably easily addressed (you can say "Compare to Tetris(R)!" in a game description but you can't call your game "FreeTetris"). And a secondary, very vague claim that because the games are "similar" to the company's game that they use copyrighted material of the company. I don't know whether case law supports that or not, but according to what I've read in a quick Googling it probably doesn't.
According to Wikipedia, this is standard operating procedure for The Tetris Company [wikipedia.org] and they've done the same with Apple's App Store. Not clear that The Tetris Company has ever won a lawsuit on these copyright grounds, but use it to beat small developers up.
Additionally, they pressured a company Biosocia last year via lawsuit to take down their Blockles game. See the statement [tetris.com] on the outcome of that (it was settled, not litigated to conclusion - sounds like Biosocia got tired of spending money to fight the lawsuit and just agreed to take the damned game down while stating that they thought that Tetris Company was full of shit).
Re:How about replying? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be less critical of the DMCA if they had a penalty, $10,000 plus costs, for reckless or malicious take-down notices. You wouldn't get companies sending 25,000+ a day for 2 seconds of their content used in a fair use manner. This is what scares me so much about the MPEG 7 [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because they didn't do that with cease and desist letters before the DMCA existed? The threat of legal action on frivolous claims has always been a severe deterrent, even when the receiving party knows they have no merit. The reality is that the little
Re:How about replying? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Here's a good guide on what to do. [newmediarights.org]
Alternate repository ? (Score:2)
On the other hand, that's *Android* phones we're speaking about. Not *iPhones*, and I know that Google isn't actively preventing hobbyist from hacking their phones.
In case Google can't re-introduce the applications into the official apps Market, could the authors move their creation to some other place ?
I don't have an android phone so I have to ask :
- Is there anything similar to Palm Pre webOS's "PreWare" (a complete webos app which offers not only a nice interface to official repositories, but also to th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about replying? (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG!!!!
That is not how the DMCA works. The DMCA was partly designed to enable a rights holder to get content removed from the internet at a pace faster than the courts system can provide. The process is "complain to the host. host notifies the client. host removes content. client counter-claims. host restores content." Now the issue is between the client and the rights holder and the host has done his due diligence to avoid being sued directly.
Re: (Score:2)
>>The process is "complain to the host. host notifies the client. host removes content. client counter-claims. host restores content."
You're right about the process, except for the last step.
Re:How about replying? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Google might well restore the app if a counter-claim was filed. They work hard to avoid being painted as a big evil corporation and in this case, there's no risk to them if the counter-claim is filed, in fact, there's less risk. All the risk would be assumed by the developer of Falling Blocks, who would have to hope that the EFF would supply lawyers in the event of a law suit.
unflagged (Score:4, Interesting)
But based on my experience with Youtube (i.e. Google), they just ignore counter-claims
I've been able to get a Tetris-related video [youtube.com] restored on a counter-notice. It took significantly longer than the federally mandated 14 business days, and it took a follow-up e-mail to copyright at youtube.com, but at least it's back up.
17 USC 512(g) (Score:5, Informative)
however, the DMCA does not FORCE them to put it back up when you file a counter. They can choose not to put it back up
If the service provider doesn't put it back up within 14 business days after its designated agent receives the counter-notice from the subscriber, its immunity under 17 USC 512(g)(1) [copyright.gov] expires, and the subscriber can sue the service provider.
and since there is so little to gain by putting it back up.. no attorney would ever recommend that they do so.
Where do you draw that conclusion? From the statute, 512(g)(4): "A service provider's compliance with [the counter-notification procedure] shall not subject the service provider to liability for copyright infringement with respect to the material identified in the [original takedown] notice."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The service provider isn't required to put the material back up. Rather, they lose their immunity to lawsuits from the counter-claimant if the don't put the material back up subject to the counter-notice provisions. So you can't just sue the service provider for not putting the material back up; however, if you have a contract with the service provider to host that material, you could sue them for breach of contract if they don't put the material back up.
I'm not sure what kind of relationship people who hos
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A better way to make bogus dmca notices unprofitable is to sue them for damages. The EFF has had some success going after known dmca abusers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about the bully, dumbass. It's about the asshole who's paying the bully $1 a time for every kid punched.
Old news? (Score:2, Informative)
Tetris company doesn't like clones [arstechnica.com]
iPhone users hoping to download the free Tetris clone, Tris, had better do so quickly: the game is being pulled from the App Store on iTunes tomorrow due to pressure from both Apple and The Tetris Company, which owns the rights to Tetris.
- August 26, 2008
To the developers: pick a different game. Tetris has quite a litigious history [wikipedia.org]
Or, more to the point... if you're going to spend the time to make a game clone, couldn't you at least do a quick google for "[Game] lawsuits"?
Re:Old news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you work for The Tetris Company?
This is horrible advice and underlines everything (ok, maybe not everything) that is wrong with the DMCA. The company is being an unlawful bully and bowing to their pressure is not going to help anything.
From Russia with love ... (Score:2)
EFF, get together (Score:4, Insightful)
This might be a case where the EFF might be interested to help.
Also, banding all together, you are 35 people strong, considerably lowering expenses.
Markus
Apparently it's only a trademark problem (Score:2, Interesting)
After reading the document, the whole argument seems to hinge on the use of the Tetris registered name. (Many of the infringing applications were using the Tetris name in the application name)
There are at least two dimensions on which you can get it back up:
Re:Apparently it's only a trademark problem (Score:4, Informative)
But that's trademarks, not copyright, how they think that they can use the DMCA to enforce that is beyond me. The DMCA only applies to the copyright not trademark.
You justy try it buddy.... (Score:2)
... Pong clone.... and see how fast we'll pull it...
Magnavox had Pong before Atari did (Score:2)
... Pong clone.... and see how fast we'll pull it...
"We" referring to Atari or to Magnavox [wikipedia.org]?
Could be worse.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course with Android you always have the option of getting software from sources other than the main sanctioned market. Unlike a certain other smartphone OS I could mention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fully agreed.
Although the key to visibility is still in the main market.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
hank your deity that Google doesn't have the same draconian control over their store as Apple.
More fanboy trolls. Even Steve Jobs says that Google doesn't have the same "draconian control", leading him to the famous, "if you want porn, get an Android" comment. I can see why you posted this FUD as AC.
DMCA compliance (Score:5, Informative)
Google has to remove the items in question to be in safe waters with the DMCA.
You can choose to assert that you own the copyright for your app. Once you do that, Google must forward your information to The Tetris Company, LLC, and reinstate your app. It now becomes a matter between you and The Tetris Company, LLC, and Google cannot be held liable for damages.
Then if The Tetris Company, LLC chooses to do so, they can file a court case. That's probably the tricky bit, as you seem to indicate, that you're in Brazil and not the US, where they are likely to file.
But - ask a lawyer. I'm not one, the above is just how I understand the DMCA works.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you do that, Google must forward your information to The Tetris Company, LLC, ...
Correct.
...and reinstate your app.
Incorrect. They dont have to reinstate anything. The law does not force them to offer your product for download. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not force them to offer your product for download. Period.
As I understand the statute (17 USC 512(g) [copyright.gov]), fourteen days days after Google receives the counter-notice, any contract that Google might have already had with you requiring Google to offer your product for download is reinstated.
Still available in Canadian market. (Score:2)
Could it be that they only pulled it down from the US market due to DMCA pressure? Can't you file one of those counter-notice thingies?
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA is a copyright law (Score:2)
DMCA is about copyright, not patents, so they shouldn't take down your application for presumed patent infringement. Tetris shouldn't be patentable anyway, but I wouldn't bet on what the USPTO would actually patent, whatever their policies are stating.
AFAIK, takedown notices are preemptive strikes that you can object to.
Write to Google that you own the copyright on your application and that The Tetris Company, LLC claims are illegitimate.
From the wikipedia :
Takedown notices targeting a competing business made up over half (57%) of the notices Google has received, the company said, and more than one-third (37%), "were not valid copyright claims."
The Tetris Company, LLC seems to simply abuse the
Re: (Score:2)
Where'd you get that? They're only talking about TM and copyright in the PDF... There's nothing in there about patents that I can see.
Not that games are actually copyrightable, at least in the US (which is where this was filed; DMCA and all)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but the DMCA doesn't cover Trademark infringement- and you can't copyright game mechanics the way The Tetris Company thinks it can.
It's a MISUSE of the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tetris Company has no copyright to the Tetris gameplay or even the name .... the do have a trademark ...which none of the clones infringe if not called "Tetris" (or a near variant)
DCMA abuse, clear and simple
Re: (Score:2)
There is some legislation that can let you easily and quickly stiffle small competitors due to potential legal expenses, and companies are mis-using it on things it doesn't apply to? Say it isn't so! I'm sure all of our governments (whichever nation we live in) will be livid when they find out, will side with the good of the populate who voted them in and will resolve the loopholes and abuses to show those nasty corporations where they stand.
And back in
Okay! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's some prior art to be found.
For once, you'd actually see the trolls pointing it out. So you're saying you want to force them to prove they understand the concept of prior art? Brilliant!
Questions questions (Score:2)
Falling Blocks is still available (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Falling Blocks is still available (Score:5, Funny)
Thief!!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think that's a different version, it has a space in the name!
If you try the link from http://mobplug.com/falling.html then it says it has been removed.
Re:Falling Blocks is still available (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA is copyright, but look also to patents (Score:2)
There's definitely much wrong with this situation. Google should allow you to put it back if you file a counter-claim. Also, before removing the alleged infringing content, shouldn't they have contacted you about it first? I'm no DMCA expert or anything, but I thought that the notice was supposed to give you an opportunity to counter-claim before the damage was done to the alleged.
Gameplay can't be copyrighted... not yet... it would still fall into the realm of patents since it's operational in nature.
And Android Tetris sucks (Score:2)
Sucks, but understand this (Score:2)
If you're writing an app for a phone that has a restricted "app store", you are completely at the mercy of whoever is running the app store. They can pull your game (and with it your revenue stream) at any time for any reason, legitimately or not. That's the market you put yourself in, and that means that regardless of moral justifications this sort of story is hardly surprising, and barely news.
You might have gotten into that game by thinking "I keep hearing about the people who are making hundreds of thou
post a link! (Score:2)
So people can install your FallingBlocks tetris clone without using Android Market. Android is not locked down to only being to install software from one place. You are even free to implement an AlternaMarket. (I don't know do any already exist?)
AT&T removes "unknown sources" (Score:2)
Android is not locked down to only being to install software from one place. You are even free to implement an AlternaMarket.
Unless your carrier has customized your phone's operating system to remove "Unknown sources" [pcworld.com].
Money talks (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh... (Score:2)
Get Microsoft to defend you (Score:2)
or use these pages for lawyer fodder:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/beginner/ff384126.aspx [microsoft.com]
http://smallbasic.com/program/?TETRIS [smallbasic.com]
Downloaded and installed it just now (Score:3, Insightful)
Falling Blocks by Red Tomato? (Score:2)
I'm downloading it to my HTC Desire as I type. Doesn't look pulled to me.
BitBlocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, I'm on the same boat. I also made a really awesome game of falling 4th order polyominoes (tetris style game) called BitBlocks. It was wildly successful, had much better ratings than even the official Tetris game by EA. My game was on the Android Market for 3 months, and became one of the top 5 games for the Android. On March 9th it got removed from the Android Market.
Your options are limited. You can't fight The Tetris Company because you can't afford the lawyer expenses. If you did have the money to fight The Tetris Company, you would surely win in court, but the court victory would be a loss for The Tetris Company as well as you because it would mean The Tetris Company no longer has any authority to stop people from making falling block games and there would be a flood of falling block games on the market, perhaps some even better than your game. (See Lotus vs Borland, in the end Borland won, but Lotus and Borland both lost when Microsoft came out with Excel)
What The Tetris Company is doing is anti-competitive. Under The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, monopolizing a trade using anti-competitive practices is a felony punishable by up to $10,000,000 fine and three year jail sentence. According to DOJ web site:
The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.
(http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm) -- that paragraph entirely describes what The Tetris Company is doing with falling block games.
I don't know if the DOJ will care or even lift a finger, but it's worth a try and if people on slashdot can create a big enough wave perhaps they will be swayed to investigate The Tetris Company. You can report antitrust concern here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm [justice.gov]
So I urge all slashdotters to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Show you care about tetris, file a complaint against The Tetris Company! It's time we put an end to their monopoly.
Re:Instead of whining educate yourself (Score:5, Informative)
You believe that gameplay can't be copyrighted. You cherry picked some unnamed and unknown sites that support your believe about gameplay and copyright.
One web search [google.com] shows as the first hit a nice page [copyright.gov] from the US Copyright Office that demonstrates he's right. And that's not specific to the US (left as a web search exercise to the reader).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you could copyright game play, I'd imagine the guys that wrote Wolfenstien3d would have more money than God right now.
Even without copyright on gameplay, John Carmack managed to get pretty close to that given that he has his own aerospace company [slashdot.org] :)
Re: (Score:2)
The "M" is actually for "Millennium". Digital copyrights and copyrights of printed materials actually differ in only a few ways. What is eligible for copyright in the first place is not one of them.
PDF about computer software copyrights [copyright.gov]
Educate yourself with these articles (Score:3, Informative)
If I'm not mistaken, that's an article about board games. Not sure how video games translate into that
More things to look up: idea and expression [wikipedia.org] (copyright), scenes a faire [wikipedia.org] (copyright), Lotus v. Borland [wikipedia.org] (copyright), functionality doctrine [wikipedia.org] (trademark), and Dastar v. Fox [wikipedia.org] (trademark).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm not mistaken, that's an article about board games.
The first paragraph on the linked page is about games in general. Every definition of copyrightable matter I've ever seen also always mention that only the *expression* and not the underlying idea can ever be copyrightable. It's simply one of the fundamental properties of copyright. There's also a UK Court of Appeals ruling [edri.org] confirming that specifically for computer games.
Not sure how video games translate into that, and how that interacts with the DMCA, which covers... Digital... Media... Copyrights...
The DMCA is about the enforcement of copyright. Afaik, it does not extend the scope of what is copyrightable. Computer programs (including
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wouldn't assume stuff I read on the Internet as legal fact. It's time to hire a lawyer. They can get to the bottom of what you allegedly did wrong and what to do about that. If you are in the clear legally, they can also write a letter on your behalf to Google and that tends to carry more weight than a letter you send yourself. If your game isn't worth the couple of hundred dollars it will cost to do this, then please do us all a favor and just leave it off the Android Market.
Instead of Whining, Create Something Original (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always amused by how the same geek crowd that will rip a film-maker or author to shreds over re-hashing some common plot device will support to the death a software developer demonstrating the same lack of unoriginality.
"Falling Blocks!" The guy made a Tetris clone and called it "Falling Blocks!"
Where's the pride?
Re: (Score:2)
edit: *lack of originality
but you got my point
Re:Instead of Whining, Create Something Original (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always amused by how the same geek crowd that will rip a film-maker or author to shreds over re-hashing some common plot device will support to the death a software developer demonstrating the same lack of unoriginality.
Citation, please. I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the same geek.
And anyway, no one shuts down the big movie company when they make a re-hash movie.
Re:Instead of Whining, Create Something Original (Score:5, Insightful)
By the same argument, developers ought to be ashamed for writing a Chess game (or crafting a real one, for that matter -- it's been done before, man!). Tetris is a staple game, it's a shame that the name is trademarked, and it's downright preposterous to send out notices to take down the clones which don't infringe on the trademark.
The comparison the books and movies is flawed: I don't watch the same movie two evenings in a row, and I might now want to watch two extremely similar movies in terms of characters and plot on two evenings in a row. Playing a game of skill such as Tetris five times in a row isn't such a problem though. The two are at opposite ends of the interactivity scale, with plot-heavy games in the middle.
Re:Instead of Whining, Create Something Original (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Instead of whining educate yourself (Score:5, Informative)
You believe that gameplay can't be copyrighted. You cherry picked some unnamed and unknown sites that support your believe about gameplay and copyright.
Gameplay cannot be copyrighted. There are solid cases in international copyright case history to support this claim, the first that comes to my mind is the one involving Scrabble and the Italian variant Scarabeo. Mattel went after EG, and lost the case because the game mechanics were not protectable under any form (copyright, trademark, patent).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes, (Score:5, Funny)
I guess you're typing this on your original IBM branded PC, right?
(To everyone else: I hope to God he's not using a Mac, coz if he is, my flippant remark will be blown out of the water and then buried under a veritable Mt Everest of smug)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pfft!!! Create something original? That's just crazy talk!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, an irrelevant AND smug comment!
How original! (yes I get the irony)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you find joy in driving a new shiny Ferrari?
Do you find joy in driving a new shiny Ferrari bought with money from sales of a game that uses the same ancient concept reused thousands times any less?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I write code (Ansi C) and design hardware for Atmel/PICs/PSoC devices almost exclusively in work. I have however been wanting to write games, in my own time, because it has always interested me. However the idea for a game i have is quite complex, though not graphically intensive, and im not entirely certain where to start.
However, that would not be the first game a write. I would write tick tack toe, tetris or pong. Why? The game rules are simple and I know how they are handled. It would be a nice intro in
Re: (Score:2)
Software isn't art. It's not even a machine.
There are a lot of programming fools out there. Lots of them. They start with "hello world" and grow from there. You can bet every programmer has written things that have been written before just to get a sense of how things work and even get a sense of satisfaction of being able to reproduce it. People have painted thousands of copies of the mona lisa. Guitarists play the same and similar songs to old favorites and will always do so. Duplication and replic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Sometimes the joy of development is just creating something that you set your mind to. Sure, the big picture creative part is great, but it's satisfying either way. And of course developing constantly involves creativity in coming up with solutions to problems, even if the macroscopic game design is a set goal from the start. It's also a really good way to learn, since you know where you want to end up and can initially spend all of your energy getting there.
Compare this to crafting a physical item (lik
Re:All in all.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For me this seems fairly similar to claiming that Doom, Quake and a number of other FPS games should not exist because they're clones of Wolf3D.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We own the trademark
It's not called Tetris, and the functionality doctrine [wikipedia.org] shoots down any other trademark claims.
and have a patent on the game play
Tetris was invented more than 20 years ago. Any patent will have expired.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA isn't about Patents- it's about Copyrights and as such, you can't Copyright the gameplay concepts. More to the point, even if this WERE about Patents, any relevant Patents would be over 20 years old. YOU do the math there. At most, you're talking Trademark- which can't be enforced with a DMCA takedown (Law doesn't cover, the ISP doing it can get sued for breach of contract/agreement...the Trademark holder has to be suing and file for an Injunction at that point that gets granted...) and is only an issue if you use the name "Tetris" within your own.
This is about misusing the DMCA to "protect" a game that literally CAN'T be protected under law at this point except for Trademark protection.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you can patent gameplay. You can't copyright it. In fact, games ranging from Monopoly to Magic: The Gathering have been patented. A prior collectible card game patent was issued in 1904. There really is nothing new under the sun. Random citations:
Monopoly [about.com]
Magic [wikipedia.org]
However, Tetris isn't patented so the whole patent issue is moot. Besides, trademarks and patents aren't enforced by the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Three things:
1) So you are claiming you are an expert? I asked a question, that sort of was answered in the OP, but considering the source was the guy who wrote the rip-off of Tetris, I was wondering if his summary was accurate.
2) If a larger company did something like this, people would react differently, I suspect.
3) I love people like you, mouthing off on the internet, saying someone is a total retard because they may not understand the ins and outs of "IP protections". I'm not a programmer. I don't k