36-Hour Lemmings Port Gets Sony Cease and Desist 268
Zerocool3001 writes "The recently featured 36-hour port of the original Palm version of Lemmings to the iPhone and Palm Pre has received a cease and desist letter from Sony. Only one day after submitting the app for approval on the two app stores, the developer has put up a post stating that he 'did this as a tribute to the game — we can only hope that Sony actually does a conversion for platforms like iPhone and Palm Pre in the near future.' The text of the cease and desist letter is available from the developer's website."
Lemmings (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony still sells Lemmings across various platforms. He had to see this coming.
Besides directly calling it Lemmings was even more stupid move. Sony has to defend the Lemmings name too, and if the port is low quality it hurts the whole Lemmings brand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wasn't up to Sony's standards; no rootkit.
Re: (Score:2)
And doesn't the appstore on Apple force payment? Or have they allowed for free apps to be uploaded?
There are a bazillion free apps in the Apple AppStore.
What's the difference between a lemming and lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
What's the difference between a lemming and lawyer?
A lemming is less short-sighted: he must at least be able to follow another lemming.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point makes no sense, especially if we're talking about the game lemmings.
1) Lemmings do NOT follow each other. They move blindly, period.
2) Lawyers do seem to follow each other, or at least follow where the money is.
Re: (Score:2)
A lawyer that smells blood is like a vampire or leech.
A lemming doesn't care about blood.
Poor guy... (Score:2)
More on topic though, very honestly, what did he expect submitting it to the Apple and Android app stores? That Sony would just let that happen? Then again, with all the copies already downloaded (did anyone actually get to download it?) it'll be very hard for Sony to prevent this from spreading...
Re: (Score:2)
anonymous (Score:2, Funny)
allowing 36 hours to remove it instead of 48 hours would have shown at least a little bit of humor...
Hands Up (Score:5, Informative)
Hands up if you saw this as happening the minute you read the original story a few days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious to you too huh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He used the trademarked name and copyrighted graphics. He wanted to sell it in official app stores. What else was going to happen?
As much as I dislike Sony for this step, I have no pity for the developer. Fan games are dead. Don't touch them or you will get sued and your time and effort will be wasted.
There's a similar story every other month on slashdot. By now it should be common knowledge that you don't talk about IP of big corps and don't try to generate free publicity for them. Just don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hands Up (Score:5, Interesting)
But yeah, we are all used of the balance of rights like they are in Corporate America so yes, we saw that coming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sony can suck my Pingus (Score:4, Informative)
[Before Portal officially came to Mac OS X,] could people have legally cloned it, ripped off all the assets, and distributed it for free? I don't even think this is a slippery slope.
The drop-off point is when someone copied the . Under U.S. law, a Portal clone using original assets would fall under the exclusion of game operation methods [copyright.gov] in 17 USC 102(b) [copyright.gov], as would Pingus, a Lemmings clone using original assets [seul.org]. The Tetris Company appears not to understand this [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hands Up (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet that doing what he did is extremely clearly illegal in every Scandinavian country. He used original artwork, apparently copied the game mechanics to a T and even used the same name.
The "port theory" falls flat when you think of a situation where apps are used as differentiators between platforms: What if iPhone had been hugely succesful because they included Lemmings with their OS -- would it have been ok for Palm to rip them off and do the same thing?
This isn't about "corporate America", it's about copyright and trademark law as it is applied pretty much everywhere in the world. Could you (or the people who think you are Insightful) please explain how this could be legal in Scandinavia?
Re:Hands Up (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to miss the fact that he submitted it to an App Store! That's totally illegal in all countries which recognize copyright - even Scandinavian countries (where it might be permitted for personal use). You also don't take into account the fact that Sony might be intending to release it for that platform and that's the entire point of copyright - to allow you to do that without another company doing it before you and taking all your revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, I disagree on the point of copyright. The point of copyright is (was?) to help give a financial incentive to creative and cultural productions and to help the dissemination of cultural works, not to protect anyone's "reserved" revenue. Lemmings has been released two decades ago. Porting it is shown to be a straightforward 36-hours work that is not done probably for political or revenue reasons. Having it ported
Re: (Score:2)
Hands up if you saw this as happening the minute you read the original story a few days ago.
Now put your hand down if you work for Sony.
It's sony's own fault (Score:3, Funny)
They forgot to rootkit the original release.
Sony: Like kids on the playground (Score:2)
From the C&D letter:
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe and its subsidiary Psygnosis (collectively "SCEE") have published or licensed "Lemmings" games...
Lemmings was developed by DMA Design, and published by Psygnosis:
The end of Psygnosis came when, in 1999, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) completely absorbed the company. Psygnosis' head office in Liverpool and studios in Stroud, Camden and Leeds were rebranded as Sony Studio Liverpool, Stroud, Camden and Leeds, with other studios being closed.
[ref] [spong.com]
I hate how they abuse their ownership over 'their' IP.
CAPTCHA: HOARDERS - hanging on to IP that wasn't even ours originally while we refuse to publish the titles
Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground (Score:4, Informative)
There's are versions of Lemmings for the PSP and PS3 on the PSN app store right now.
In other words, they do publish it, but only for their own consoles.
New versions of Lemmings became a system exclusive title as soon as Sony bought Psygnosis.
Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy? (Score:2)
Can I has the serial?
Re: (Score:2)
Your spelling is appalling - it's "Can I haz the serial?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For give me, I are Chiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia or Canada?
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada please.
Sony is in the right, here. (Score:4, Informative)
As much as I want to call Sony the villain here, they really aren't.
The person who ported it took everything from the original game and released it on a newer platform. That is like someone taking Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario bros and porting it over with all the same graphics, sounds, and design.
They're protecting their property from theft, here. Had he used his own art, sounds, etc, with the same gameplay then Sony wouldn't really have a leg to stand on, but he basically stole everything from the original and ported it over. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He shouldn't have assumed that he could take the assets without asking.
Re: (Score:2)
The real villain here
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't steal an idea just like you can't kill one it lives
my point of view (developer) (Score:5, Informative)
nice to get slashdotted twice in a week - the website still seems to be up this time around.
since i am on vacation (in egypt) for two weeks - i had to simply withdraw the submission and downloads from the application catalogs and own website, since sony gave a 48 hour window, i can deal with it in more detail when i am back from vacation. as for the intellectual property, no original code was uses (in fact, the palm os version was my own implementation) the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game. even the levels are redesigned in the event that they are not workable with one player mode and the limitations of the palm os platform
IANAL - but since no original files are used, in fact everything is re-created without reference to the original source code, the only infringing rights here are the use of the name "Lemmings". there have been a number of copyright cases dealing with the look and feel - so it can go either way, intellectual property rights come down to if a jury believes there is confusion between the original and the remake.
i will try to open discussions with SCEE (Sony Entertainment) about getting an official license for the game, in fact, we were looking for the original license holders back in 2001 when we did the palm os versions - but it was in flux between Take Two Interactive, Sony and no-one knew their ass from a hole in the ground. the good news is now SCEE are claiming ownership, so we can now talk to them - and we have proof of concepts made, so if they play nice, this title will officially come to these platforms, if not - then you can start saying how evil they are.
lets see how the discussions go!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
every lemmings clone that has used the original files or name and left alone every clone that has not.
we have NOT used the original files, in fact - if you read the blog, you will see how we actually generated the levels using bitmaps and text files for configuration, all built without the original lemmings DAT files (yes, you can use them - but we did not). right now, it comes down to the Lemmings trademark with video games and the look for feel issue.
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and the original, copyrighted, artwork...
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:4, Insightful)
as orkysoft says, this comment directly conflicts your earlier one. If you use the original "EGA" graphics files, even modified, it's a pretty clear copright violation.
You can't claim with a straight face that you didn't use the original files when your copy looks exactly like the original.
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:5, Insightful)
Word to the wise: your first words to SCEE should be "Sorry", followed by "Thank you".
It sounds like you think you didn't really do anything wrong. Uh, no. No, sir. You are guilty as original sin.
SCEE could have bitch-slapped you from here to breakfast, and they really should have done so in order to protect their trademark. Sure, all you have to do is to change the name and the graphics slightly to be fine, but you chose not to do so. As they noted, you chose wilfully to infringe on their trademarks (name, distinctive images) and their copyrights (the EGA graphics).
Don't get me wrong: as hobbyist game developer myself, I admire what you've done and I wish you the best of luck in getting it licensed. But as an ex-professional game developer, I can assure you that I won't view SCEE as being in the least bit evil for defending their rights.
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:4, Insightful)
The relevant rule is ASK FIRST, though, as always. The rights holders may be separated (i.e. one owns the graphics, one owns the name, one owns the historical versions of the software, one owns a certain port, one owns the sound, etc.) and impossible to trace - that doesn't give you the right to use anything at all. "Look and feel" is only relevant to similar but non-identical works, in general. You say yourself that you used the original EGA graphics - even if this meant you printed them out on paper, then traced the same pixels onto graph paper and then "digitised" them to pixel-values in your head, it's still a large, gaping legal hole to fall through. Check out the history on certain typefaces. Otherwise, I could scan in a photo, print it out enlarged on graph paper, hand-digitise it by guessing colour values and if I end up with a pixel-by-pixel identical file claim that it's now "my" copyright / right to distribute and not the original photographer's.
You were using the original works as reference, and your works are virtually pixel-for-pixel identical to the original graphics. You *definitely* infringed on any trademarks/brands/etc on the name Lemmings (would it have been difficult to call it something like "Gophers" or similar?) - that's clear-cut "passing-off" on its own. Someone owns the name. Someone owns the graphics. Someone owns each piece of that software/concept, and you have *no* idea who that was. Sometimes those things revert back to the original artists after a while, sometimes they stay with the company forever, sometimes they got lost in a legal limbo and nobody's quite sure who owns them.
It doesn't give you the right to basically rip them off. I appreciate that the original project was fun, entertaining, a good proof-of-concept, etc. but you went *too* close to the wire - calling the damn thing Lemmings and referring to it as that at all times (to be honest, I assumed you were part of the original development team / some sort of official coder when I first saw the article yesterday, and at least one person who posted a comment on here actually WAS), using substantially identical graphics that by your own admission are derived from the original data files (however that may have happened), and then trying to distribute your work (maybe for a fee, maybe not, I don't know).
All you had to do was call it a "Lemmings-clone", make the graphics yourself (come on - Lemmings was EGA resolution with about 5-10 pixel high graphics - you could do that in MS Paint), and then nobody would have cared. You really have no defence here and I'd be surprised if, now, anyone wants to negotiate with you at all in terms of licensing. If you'd asked *FIRST* they might have. Now they know it's possibly popular, and they have damning evidence against you, they'll be setting their licensing fees for you at the top end of the scale - if you can port Lemmings in 36 hours, they can do it in a lot less and take you to the cleaners too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Would you like to explain how "open sourcing the whole thing" would help the person who owned the trademark that you infringed, or the artwork that you ripped off, in any way? It's like me saying "Yeah, I copied the whole graphics from Red Alert, but hey... the company hasn't been selling it lately and I was going to give it (and other rights on it) away to thousands of people who haven't paid for Red Alert anyway." Despite what you might read on abandonware sites, this is still a blatant copyright violat
Re: (Score:2)
> no original files are used, in fact everything is re-created without reference to the original source code,
I don't know where you are, but in Europe that's irrelevant. It's not the source code that's copyrighted, it's the game itself (most software doesn't even ship with the source code - so source code it totally irrelevant when talking about software copyright). It's the design, function, and concept that's copyrighted in Europe and I'm pretty sure the same is true in most other countries that recog
Re:my point of view (developer) (Score:5, Funny)
>>the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game
Well, then.
I'm certain you'll be fine!
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you can't use a trademarked name.
Obviously you can't just take their artwork and redistribute it.
Hopefully you aren't wealthy enough for them to be able to tell you are, otherwsie have fun paying out all of it to sony for wilfull infringment.
Coral Cache...for the 2nd time (Score:2)
Here's the letter from Sony [nyud.net].
I gotta agree with what others have said: 2 slashdottings in such a short period of time seems almost cruel and unusual.
Note to the Editors: If by some chance you run another story linking to this guy's website, use Coral Cache. Please.
Turn into a parody (Score:2)
Turn the new one into a parody; the lemmings are now Lawyers, Protected speech. Done.
Sony properties and competing platforms (Score:2)
The likelihood of Sony allowing a new port of Lemmings to non-Sony platforms is exactly the same as Nintendo allowing a Mario Bros. port to the iPhone or Xbox: exactly zero. The name, trademark and visual art of Lemmings is a valuable asset, and by making it exclusive to Sony hardware, Sony can claim a minor marketing advantage when the iPhone is eating their lunch. (Granted, few people would buy a PS3 for Lemmings these days, but exclusive ports to new Sony Ericsson phones or the next iteration of the PSP
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was really looking forward to playing this port. Up yours Sony!
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, exactly. We issue them with monopoly powers, so they can continue to enrich our culture. What do they do? They sit on them, let them stagnate, and when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public, and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to, they shut him down.
So yes, screw Sony. They obtained their "intellectual property" under false pretences, and are now using it for the exact opposite of what it was intended for.
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why modern copyright is a complete failure. It is used today not as a tool to enrich both the copyright holder and the public through dissemination of ideas, but as a lock and key to prevent anyone else from using it by very intentionally not disseminating said idea..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
May I suggest some form of "Use it or Lose it" clause. I know this is probably wishful thinking, but it seems if you're not using your copyright to protect your financial interests, you should not be permitted to use it as a lock-down control like this.
Would Sony be losing money by allowing this to continue? No, not at all.
They don't use their copyright on the product on a regular basis to protect a version they have out there, and so they should no longer be allowed said copyright. Now if they had a versio
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:5, Informative)
They're still using the property. There have been recent releases of Lemmings for both the PSP and the PS3 in the past year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting idea. I wonder how effective it would be for developers such as Aaron Ardiri to "violate" copyright but pay the copyright holders royalties for using their intellectual property. That way Sony wouldn't have to spend the money developing the new software and independent developers wouldn't have to worry about new ideas falling flat.
What are the chances Aaron Ardiri would have paid royalties if Sony had asked him to?
What are the chances Sony would have accepted royalties as sufficient re
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is. Copyright is not intended as an incentive to create, it is intended as an incentive to publish. Society does not gain anything if you create the best ever novel but never let anyone read it. Society benefits greatly if you create this novel and then circulate it widely. Copyright is a bargain struck between creators and consumers - the consumers agree to grant a time-limited (in theory) monopoly to the creator, in exchange for the creator, in turn, publishing the work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The public is enriched by having seen the work. It is enriched further when it falls into the public domain, after the creator has had a chance to profit from his labors.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that Sony hadn't licenced versions for those platforms? After all Lemmings is on virtually every platform under the sun (including mobile phones) s
Re: (Score:2)
After all Lemmings is on virtually every platform under the sun (including mobile phones) so why is that so hard to believe?
If it's on mobile phones that are still sold, it's probably exclusive to Sony Ericsson mobile phones.
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:5, Insightful)
The popularity of the game led to development of numerous ports to other systems, including most recently ports to the PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3 in 2006 and 2007, and the creation of several sequels.
Source: Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
How do you or Mobile1UP know that Sony wasn't planning on porting Lemmings to iPhone/iPad/Android? Firstly, you don't. Secondly, it's irrelevant! It's not a condition of copyright, patent or trademark law that you have to make your work available on all platforms past, present and future. The intended purpose of patent and copyright systems is indeed to provide incentive to produce, and therefore advance the state of the art, or enrich culture. However, Lemmings on the Amiga did that. Job done. They (now Sony) have copyright in the original game. That's what they get for developing the game (or rather..buying the developer of the game).
Besides which...you can buy a Lemmings game on a current generation console! How is that letting the property stagnate? And how in the name of Zeus' butthole did you get modded insightful? To have the bare-faced cheek to rip off a game, which, with the exception of a single-screen disclaimer that it's not authorised by SCEE, is indistinguishable from the original Lemmings, and then to try and distribute it through the Apple App-Store is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever seen since Sony tried to install rootkits on their customer's machines. We all love to support "the little guy" against "evil corporations" but this was the single most obvious outcome since that guy [darwinawards.com] tried to play Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.
Nothing is stopping Mobile1UP from making their own version of a "Lemmings" game [wikipedia.org], with their own graphics resources/levels and their own music etc. Do you think they'd be happy if someone came along and made such an exact copy of one of their original games [mobile1up.com] and started distributing it through the App-Store?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they get for developing the game (or rather..buying the developer of the game).
Unless Sony owns Rockstar as well, it was the publisher they bought.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
numerous ports to other systems, including most recently ports to the PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3
Wow! And Microsoft is truly a master of portable software - after all, once you write the software, it runs on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7! Maybe even on the server editions! No complaints there whatsoever!
It's not a condition of copyright, patent or trademark law that you have to make your work available on all platforms past, present and future.
No, but it's a crappy business move: On short term, it displeases the potential customers who'd like to buy the game on platforms they own, and on longer term, it annoys retrogamers and game culture researchers who not only have to find the game, but also get the platform to run it on. If the
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that none of that stuff matters. Maybe they're restricting the platforms that they release it on because they think it will drive sales of the particular platforms where the game is available? That's their right.
It's interesting how Nintendo hasn't released any Mario games on the Xbox360. They most certainly could do it, they've easily got the resources to hire people to do the port, and they've had years and years of time in which they could have done it. And heck, they probably would've sold millions of copies that way. And yet they've chosen not to, because they'd rather use the games to drive sales of their hardware.
While you can certainly argue whether or not Sony restricting lemmings to their hardware is a good business move, it doesn't give you the authority to decide that their IP rights are suddenly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As a stockholder, you would have legal channels with which to pursue your complaints within Sony. But a company making business decisions that you disagree with does not give you permission to ignore their IP rights.
It's already legal to create clones of games, irregardless of when it was released. There are lemmings clones available already for many platforms. You just can't use the title and artwork straight from the game that you're copying.
In this particular case, you might say that it's obvious that So
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd guess though that the trademark, art, and sound assets were certainly in violation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Psygnosis is now Sony Studio Liverpool.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically this, if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure Pingus [seul.org] is legal.
If you saw the video, this guys used all the original graphics, and the trademarked name.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They said they'd give him 48 hours or they'd sue. How is that nice? They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially, they didn't offer to negotiate in order to allow distribution under their auspirces, it was a completely stock-standard C&D. The only way it could have been less "nice" was if they announced they were starting legal action against him immediately.
Do what we say, or we sue. You have 48 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially.
Completely irrelevant in the face of blatant rip-off of copyrighted works. I hate copyright law as much as the next slashdot reader, but this again is a good example of where copyright law is actually doing exactly what it was intended to do, protect the rights of the copyright owners. Lemmings is not a abandonware, lemmings is being currently sold on several platforms, no permission was sought to make a clone of the game, and all the original copyrighted artwork was copied.
This is extremely nice of Sony
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fuck you Sony!"
Means nothing if you still buy their products.
Re:May I be the first to say: (Score:5, Insightful)
The port also seemed to include a lot of the original artwork, which they definitely do have copyright on. This is much nicer than Sony needed to be - in the US they could claim massive statutory penalties for distributing the game knowing that it contained copyrighted materials that he did not have a license for.
Of course, now that he has complied, the best thing for Sony to do is offer to buy the code from him. He's demonstrated that there's a market for Lemmings on various mobile platforms and already done the hard work of making the code work on them. It would also give Sony some great PR, and they could treat the existing downloads as a promotional offer.
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, their claim rests on the fact that they published the Lemmings games, or licenced out the ability to publish them, and this is a port of one such licenced product. The trademark is within that context of video games. Even if they couldn't trademark it within that narrow context, that still leaves the first part of "he's created a port of a licenced product." The trademark infringement is a separate part of it.
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:4, Interesting)
And even if you strike down trademark on the common word "Lemmings" (very doable if expensive), there's still the matter of all the artwork he ripped straight from the original. It's definitely non-trivial, and the answer how he managed to port it all in such a short time is that he copied the artwork and levels verbatim, porting only game engine but retaining (pirating) original game data.
One could say he could continue by releasing his ports stripped of all said data, but with some extraction tool, and allow people with legal PC copies of Lemmings to extract the game assets and use them with the engine. Like Doom for Amiga - you still had to purchase the PC original for the .WAD file - actual content of the game, while the (platform-specific) game engine was purely 3rd party without ID Software involvement or license.
Re: (Score:2)
>Heh. Don't be so sure about that - the fact that something is a common word doesn't mean it can't be a trademark, too. Or why do you think we've still got things like Windows and Apple computers?
Because trademarks are given out by retards. No, a trademark can't be a common word, except the process of granting one is cheap, quick, easy and dirty (and invalid trademarks are granted left and right) and the process of challenging it is long, expensive and usually beyond reach of small fishes.
Please recall t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If he created a port, from scratch (including graphics) he would be able to distribute it - except for the name.
All they control here is the name and the graphics he copied. And maps if those are included.
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if you then try and sell it to a shit load of people in a shop, no.
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps for your own use and enjoyment, but making a port (copy of original gameplay) and then putting it in apps-stores? how is that not a trademark/copyright violation? If sony owns the rights to lemmings, they alone should be allowed to port it to the iphone for common distribution.
Now i realize in this case it kind of sucks since the intrepid geeky developer acting alone and (at least partially) out of passion and fanaticism for games/programming gets beaten back by the big soul-sucking mega-corp, but this works both ways, these laws also prevent sony from taken this guys' original games and shamelessly putting them on the PSP without paying him.
From a geek/nerd point of view, the whole '36 hours to port to several platforms' action was cool and all, but in all other aspects, pretty stupid, especially if the guy knew he was gonna violate sony's rights
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if someone made a port of Halo (using the same name, which also happens to be a common word) for the PS3, I'm sure Microsoft would kill them in court. Notice that people CAN legally play Lemmings on recent [blogspot.com] hardware [blogspot.com], so availability isn't an issue and the brand isn't dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Do tell. I've always seen it as Lindows getting beat senseless by a huge corporation. I mean, Lindows changed its name. Microsoft didn't seem to do much at all. Even if they gave Lindows money, it probably made little to them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft use the "Windows" trademark for their operating system, and they claimed "Lindows" was similar enough to cause confusion in the market. I believe Microsoft were correct in this belief.
Lindows, however, counter-claimed that; within the IT industry the term "window(s)" was a generic term, used well before and apart from Microsoft's usage of it as a product name. I believe also that Lindows were correct in this belief.
The two sides were then looking at the trademark dispute being decided in court, wh
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:5, Insightful)
Also...seriously...how often do you use "lemmings" in everyday conversation? I honestly can't remember the last time I used it in the context of referring to the animal, or in the context of describing herd mentality. (Sheep fit much better once you know the truth about lemmings). In fact the last time I even heard the word "lemming" (outside of the context of the video-game) was on the show QI [wikipedia.org].
What I find most amusing is that he states:
DISCLAIMER: "iPhone" and "iPod Touch" are registered trademarks of Apple, Inc.
as if Apple are going to try and sue him for mentioning their products, yet all the while he flagrantly copies/reproduces SCEE's IP.
Re:"Lemmings is a common word" (Score:4, Insightful)
Doom is a common word. So is quake, and civilisation. Half life is a common scientific phrase.
But when they are used as the name of a computer game, they become distinctive in the context of computer games.
Do you really think you could release computer games called Doom, Quake, Civilisation, and Half Life, without being accused (correctly) of trying to "pass off" your work as being related to the original, simply because the words are common? Really? Trademarks Do Not Work That Way.
Re:So what did he expect.. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Much as I welcome any opportunity to highlight what a generally crappy corporation Sony is, and how little regard it has for its customers, I have to say there can't be anyone who didn't see this coming. But then if the point of the process was to get a little self promotion going then he's achieved that, he can comply with the cease and desist and for the sake of 36 hours of his time he's got the kind of publicity big companies pay big agencies big monies to attract, so depending on his motivation, maybe he fully expected this outcome but for him it's still a win.
And of course, once the code is in the wild it pretty much doesn't matter that it's removed from the original source, Sony's lawyers might be busy playing Whac-a-mole for years to come.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course, once the code is in the wild it pretty much doesn't matter that it's removed from the original source, Sony's lawyers might be busy playing Whac-a-mole for years to come.
And they have every legal right to.
Whac-A-Mole was invented in 1971 by Aaron Fechter of Creative Engineering, Inc. [citation needed] Fechter designed the first Whac-a-Mole and was persuaded to sell it outright to a carnival operator who, in turn, sold it to Bob's Space Racers. Fechter did not patent the invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole [wikipedia.org]
Re:only infringing if... (Score:4, Informative)
Eh, it is a PORT (Score:4, Informative)
Look at what he produced, it is a straight port of the game. Everything is the same.
There is no WAY this would fly especially as the Lemmings games are still sold for various platforms commercially. SOME companies TOLERATE old material being used freely but that is only if they don't see any future potential in it.
Lemmings still has potential.
Now you could start a discussion about copyright reform and such, but for now, making a blatant PORT (this is far further then a copy of the idea, it is the same idea) is illegal.
And Sony was nice enough about it, they have given him 48 hours to clean the stuff up and are not even pressuring him to destroy all the distrubuted copies. Basically they are saying, "Well we don't like it but if you don't do it anymore we won't hold you responsible for the damages caused so far".
Frankly, if I were him I would thank Sony on his bare knees. For a stunt he should NEVER have distributed the ports and for a "software should be free" he should never have signed his name.
You CAN make a Ufo: Enemy unknown game is you wished, you could even use enemies with the same capabilties (I doubt the makers would want a lawsuit over the *cough* Alien *cough* that impregnates your soldiers only for another *cough* Alien *cough* to burst out from them to go to court.) but a direct port? Nope.
Nice project kid, great way to get your name out there. Now take the extremely nice offer of Sony to clean it all up.
Re: (Score:2)
I just received a sound system from them as a present. For its price range, it had plenty of features, and good sound quality. Not shitty at all.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I was told it was "cheap", and it doesn't sound "cheap".
Re: (Score:2)
couldn't they get "hacked" and have it "leaked" to some well known torrent sites?
Unfortunately they would be responsible even if they were hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Confidentiality is generally something that *two* parties have agreed to (i.e. one party and a confidante). Besides, legal communication is rarely sealed, except on a judge's explicit order, and this is a legal communication to the person who publicised it. You can't sue someone for them choosing to publish their own mail online, unless you have sent them something REALLY secret, obviously not to be disseminated and/or sent accidentally.
Otherwise you get ridiculous situation where someone sends you threat
Re: (Score:2)
Now Sony can also sue him because he published the email's content. See the disclaimer on the bottom: "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. " :-)
That doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means. He is the entity that the contents et al were addressed to. He's making use of those contents by sharing them with others. That's entirely fine.
That idiotic boilerplate is pointlessly applied to tonnes of corporate e-mail under the crazy thought that if it's sent to the wrong person (as in the sender gets the address wrong), the incorrect recipient legally isn't allowed to act upon anything they've learned. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty convinced that
Re:What are the damages? (Score:4, Insightful)
The value of their trademark is being diluted. If these ports crash, or contain rootkits, or brick your handset, that harms Sony. They enjoy the right to be protected from that possibility.
They also enjoy the right to bring their own ports to those platforms at a time of their choosing. What makes you think they're not "planning" to do so?
The punitive damages in this case don't have to be huge, they just need to be large enough to punish the wilful infringement that's occurred here.
For once, I'm entirely with Sony. They've been quite restrained in their actions, but if they choose to bitch slap the developer into the poor house, I'll cheer them on, and anyone who produces (or "plans" to produce) anything themselves should too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah come on, does none of the mods ever played lemmings, saw he screwed up and pressed the nuke button?