EA Sues Zynga For Copying Sims Game 197
Social game developer Zynga has been on the receiving end of complaints in the past for releasing games that look a bit too much like games from indie developers, and for other shady business practices. Now, they've run afoul of somebody with sharper teeth. Today Electronic Arts and Maxis filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Zynga claiming that The Ville is "blatant mimicry" of The Sims Social.
"'This is a case of principle,' says EA Maxis general manager Lucy Bradshaw. 'Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development.' In its complaint, EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social, the Facebook edition of the EA/Maxis franchise that released in August 2011. When Zynga released The Ville last June, consumers and the press immediately pointed out that the title resembled The Sims more than a little."
Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when could you copyright game rules?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Capcom sued SNK over World Heroes being a rip off of Street Fighter 2
Nintendo sued Data East for Karnov being a ripoff of Super Mario Bros, and also sued the makers of Gianna sisters.
Wizards of the Coast sue anybody and everybody in sight.
There's plenty of precedent.
Re:Rules (Score:5, Informative)
What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.
Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character. If there's too many examples where the character types are protrayed too similarly Zynga may find itself burned.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character
Just how far could they have strayed?
We are talking about a visual clue to a type of behavior. The wringing of the hands is very popular. A few others I can think of may be the western style villain playing with his mustache, or the exaggerated smile of the Grinch, or perhaps the head thrown back laughing. The last one could be misconstrued as mental instability without being a scoundrel though.
There are only so many ways to convey this type of information, in an appropriate time period and context, and
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rules (Score:4, Interesting)
Except Zynga only copies POPULAR games, so if you don't play the originals then they won't ever make a copy for you to play, so your argument falls flat. Plus in true Zynga fashion the copy will pretty much push you to spam your entire friendslist and pay real money for in-game advantages, something most other companies do much less heavy-handedly... As someone who used to be a facebook game junkie and enjoyed several games that then got Zyngafied, I've tried both sides of the coin... and in almost every case I went back to play the original. Except of course the few cases when the benefit of a massive developer house really shone through... Zynga's games might be rip-offs, but in some cases they actually play better/less buggy than the originals.
Does Zynga hurt the indie devs? Sure. It rapes them hard and heavy... AFTER they have gone popular. AFTER they have had a chance to build a name and fan-base and revenue stream. Still rape, but clever indie devs should be expecting such possibilities and have a plan to either compete with quality, sell out, or get out when the beast rolls along.
Tracing (Score:5, Interesting)
as long as they are writing their own implementation including creating their own artwork, they are legally entitled to do so
Based on the screenshots I saw in the legal filing, Zynga didn't create its own artwork from scratch as much as trace [encyclopediadramatica.se] that of EA and other developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well its easy to commiserate with diminutive autonomous developers, even they don't get to possess an idea.
Zynga may be duplicating "ideas" from everyone but provided they author their own realization including drawing their own pictures, they are lawfully allowed to do so. And "ethically" allowed to do so also - noone owns ideas, and the *SOLE* right reply to anyone who asserts that they do is "fucking die you valueless filthy leech".
BTW, autonomous devs have more to lose than large developers if ideas wer
Re: (Score:2)
What's this "we" you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
On those grounds the publishers of Doom should sue every other first person shooter that has a barrel that explodes.
The makers of Doom? They'd probably just send them some barrels by mail.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, you don't mess with EA. You piss them off, they'll ride a helicopter to your house and drop a bomb on it. EA gets pretty pissy about pretty stupid shit lol. Just search "EA" on slashdot to get a good idea how they react to just about anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.
haha - that's fucking classic !
where is zynga headquartered again ?
Re:Rules (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm they didn't just copy the rules. They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too. Go have a look at their various titles. It's not simply a case of copying the concept or the engine. It's basically trying to make a very close clone artwork and all. The Tetris ruling [gametrailers.com] should make it quite clear that they are in violation, and also that the rules aren't the copyrightable bit.
I hate EA and the copyright laws as much as the next person. But I hate Zynga more and I really hope they get their asses kicked for this.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too.
Definitely a no-no.
Zynga will lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as how the EA filing also references the other (non-EA) games zynga copied, I hope the indie devs finally get some justice too.
Why would anybody want to work at zynga? Would any other game company hire a guy that willingly worked at zynga? It seems like a career-killer to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The unemployment rate is 8.3%. Plus another 8% that no longer count as unemployed since they've been unemployed for too long. And some that retired or went on disability, so the unemployment rate is really 16-20%.
But that 16% isn't distributed evenly. Subprime mortgage lender? 100% unemployment rate. Silicon valley programmer? 0% unemployment rate. Ok, over 45, the unemployment rate jumps ... but Zynga isn't going to hire them either. If Zynga will hire you, someone else will hire you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the legal complaint (from the Ars link): http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final [scribd.com]
Looks like the Zynga game is a complete ripoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they try look & feel lawsuits in the 80's with little success? Why is it different with games?
The Tetris ruling is a pretty bad one. Allowing the Tetris Company to copyright the entire set of tetrominoes is idiotic.
I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.
Re:Rules (Score:5, Funny)
I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.
This is the thing, as an indy game developer myself I find it hard to decide which I hate more. I can imagine the anger I would feel if I had a popular game and it was ripped off and all my customers stolen by assholes like zynga who never contributed anything to the gaming world in their life.
On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree. It is clear to people who appreciate good games who is bringing new innovation to an old abandoned idea, and who is ripping off other people's ip to milk profit from it. But codifying that in law is not an easy task. The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks. I guess the ideal realistic outcome is that zynga wins the court case but the bad publicity damages their reputation to such a degree that they gradually fade away. I know that is also not very realistic, people who like zynga games are not usually smart enough to understand a complex issue like this.
Re: (Score:2)
The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks
This is the longest, loudest laugh out loud the internets have delivered to me in some time. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you need to worry about that at all unless you are taking dozens of screenshots of another game and copying them as best you can. This won't affect game developers (I'm one too) unless there some big shift in how these kinds of laws are interpreted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rules (Score:5, Informative)
If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law.
There is plenty of legal precedence in US law, which pertains as the case is being argued in US, that contradicts some of your statements:
Midway Mfg. Co., v. Dirkschneider et al. 543 F. Supp 466 (D. Neb. 1981)
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Elcon Industries, 564 F.Supp. 937 (E.D. Mich. 1982)
Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983)
Team Play, Inc. v. Boyer, 391 F.Supp.2d 695 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
William L Crawford II et al. v. Midway Games, Inc. et al. (W.D. Cal. 2007)
Capcom Co., Ltd. et. al. v. The MKR Group (N.D. Cal. 2008)
To elaborate a bit from those above cases, let alone others, to establish infringement a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and "copying" by the defendant. Because direct evidence of copying often is unavailable, copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work (Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 654 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1981)).
Some courts have expressed the test of substantial similarity in two parts: (1) whether the defendant copied from the plaintiff's work and (2) whether the copying, if proven, went so far as to constitute an improper appropriation (Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832, 88 S.Ct. 101, 19 L.Ed.2d 91 (1967)); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946); cf. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977) (extrinsic-intrinsic test)). In many cases, the courts focus on the second part of that test and the response of the "ordinary observer" (Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.), 360 F.2d 1021, 1023 n.2 (2d Cir. 1966)). Specifically, the test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectible expression by taking material of substance and value (Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164). Judge Learned Hand, in finding infringement, once stated that "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same" (Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960)). It has been said that this test does not involve "analytic dissection and expert testimony," Arnstein, 154 F.2d at 468, but depends on whether the accused work has captured the "total concept and feel" of the copyrighted work (Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970)).
While dissection is generally disfavored, the ordinary observer test, in application, must take into account that the copyright laws preclude appropriation of only those elements of the work that are protected by the copyright (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 913 (2d Cir. 1980); Clarke v. G. A. Kayser & Sons, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 481, 482 (W.D.Pa.1979), aff'd without op., 631 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1980)). "It is an axiom of copyright law that the protection granted to a copyrightable work extends only to the particular expression of an idea and never to the idea itself" (Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 492, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976)). "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself" (Mazer v. St
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to finish with:
"but IANAL"
or... maybe you ARE a lawyer. Quick get him guys!
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean Zynga that copied EA's actual art files and exactly reproduced their interface design, correct?
A cursory review of the two games, side-by-side, reveals that this is not the case. Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.
Your hate^H^H^H^H hyperbole has made you powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you must be a hoot at parties! I bet you also are one of those that responds to annoyed friends with "that's not what I said..." and follows with a pedantic description of the technical and semantic nuances between words.
So the images are not binary equivalent--do you really think that's what a court will consider?
dZ.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Rules (Score:4)
Hey look guys. I'm planning a party in Auckland NZ tonight, and the three of you (parent, GP, and GGP) sound like great fun, I hope you can all come.
If you can't I'll probably cancel, because it's not going to be the same without your awesome debating skills.
Re: (Score:2)
And then we can all go for a Swim at Kim's. Oh wait, if the argument's about copyright Kim would probably go for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kim Dotcom isn't Korean, he's German.
(Auckland NZ is where he lives, but I assume you knew that. About 10KM from my house, actually).
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool. I do that too. But, I'd rather be right on the Internet than hang out with a bunch of imprecise idiots and their stupid boobs.
Re:Rules (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'll recall NimbleBit's whine (http://is.gd/rJwkR7 ), to Zynga about Tiny Tower vs Dream Heights? The response (http://i.imgur.com/ajaYt.jpg ) was to show how NimbleBit had seemingly copied Corporation Inc, which looks itself to be a rip-off Sim Tower, and so on.
Except that Dream Heights is clearly a copy of Tiny Tower in ways that Tiny Tower isn't a copy of Corporation Inc. The building in Corporation Inc is a very different shape, the kinds of things you can put in the building are different, the user interface layout is very different, the goals of the game and scoring mechanics are completely different... All those things and more are basically identical between Dream Heights and Tiny Tower - really, just compare the original Nimblebit comparison with the one you linked above. As Tiny Tower and Corporation Inc demonstrate, there are many possible ways to create a game that involves building a towering empire of some kind from the ground up, you really don't have to copy your competitors.
Similarly, if you read EA's complaint which was linked further up, what they're actually suing over isn't the fact that Zynga launched another game which allowed you to create a character based on yourself and have them socialize with your friends' characters, it's that Zynga copied every last detail right down to the height of the walls and the RGB values of the skin tone options.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.
... which in every prior case has been found to be an infringement of copyright.
But really by all means go make a game called Munchkin. It can look like Pacman with absolutely no copying of the original code or graphics. Change the name of the characters and change the gameplay slightly. Pacman can be called Munchkin, the ghosts can be called Munchers, and Artari won't be able to sue you and win.
Oh wait [wikia.com]
Hard to call it hyperbole when it's based on many actual court decisions isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rules (Score:5, Informative)
Why hate Zynga. They wrote their own code, didn't they? Is the artwork a pixel-for-pixel copy, or a stylistic imitation?
Two words...Mark Pincus [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. EA basically ripped off the abilities in SWTOR from WoW (e.g. http://forum.gamebreaker.tv/viewtopic.php?id=3508).
You can't completely copy a game though. In effect it's a similar problem to cover bands, design patents on square corners, and Corporate brands, they all hit on a similar problem from different directions. You can be inspired by, but you can't blatantly copy someone else or their brand features without their permission. Whether this rises to that level I don't know. But Zynga p
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA. zynga has gone through quite some effort to try and replicate EA's Sims Social to a point where the two might as well share the same code.
This goes far betond merely using similar game rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cadbury trademarked the fucking colour purple, so yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be a bad thing?
Oh, and likely Chillingo as well.
Only the start (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Only the start (Score:4, Interesting)
You joke, but I seem to recall that has already happened in the past, with one arm of EA suing another arm.... I believe EA Legal arrived at a quick settlement with themselves (they had recently bought a company that they were in a suit with IIRC).
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a city which once actually brought a lawsuit against itself - they had forgotten to obtain consent for a building, and decided to prosecute themselves to prove that noone is above the law. They ended up paying a hefty fine to themselves, and the lawyers walked off with a cool $6 million.
The irony is that EA copies games all the time! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they're successful.
Shame you can't copyright ideas . . . (Score:3)
EA is pretty reckless with this. iD could sue everyone for copying the idea of 1st person shooters with the guns popping out the bottom of the screen, et al.
Of course, they can't WIN such a suit. I hope the judge dismisses with prejudice. This is a potentially patent-troll-esque precedent case.
this is absurd! (Score:2)
Zynga would never copy other peoples' games! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah true.
The actual complaint is here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final [scribd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Accessible here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Accusations_of_intellectual_property_theft [wikipedia.org]
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zynga&oldid=505514523#Replication_of_existing_games [wikipedia.org]
Frivolous. (Score:2)
This bullshit is Lotus 1-2-3 versus VP Planner all over again. Or Apple versus Microsoft over Windows. Apple lost that one. Lotus lost when they went after Borland over Quattro Pro. Some people don't learn from history.
Actually Lotus had a stronger case, if anything, because the software they were fighting could read and work with Lotus files.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read some history then, because the examples you mentioned are a lot more nuanced than what you are suggesting.
In the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, they didn't lose because "look and feel" is not protectable, they lost because they had given an overly permissive license to Microsoft, and the latter successfully argued that it covered most of the claims. And even that is just a small part of the outcome.
dZ.
Fed up with all this... (Score:2)
Imagi
Re: (Score:3)
"Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."
In all of the discussions about copyright and patents, the ranters all seem to assume that ideas float freely and all anyone needs to do is fire up the machines to produce the widgets or code it up. They neglect the fact that someone had to spend (usually a lot) of time (and often money) to conceive, test, refine and _then_ produce the book, game, widget, etc. And with all of that investmen
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html [ted.com]
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm [ucla.edu]
Intellectual property: Patent [economist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Calculating sympathy... (Score:3)
Calculating sympathy for Zynga.........Done.
Sympathy calculated: 0
Once they started acquiring every half decent game and ruining them with more ads, bloat and cross promotion for their other crap, I started to despise them. I never even played a Zynga game intentionally, they were just thrust on me when Words with Friends and Draw Something were bought out.
Ugh, DIAF, Zynga. Please.
Words with friends... (Score:2)
...is fun. But how the hell is it legal? Can you really take a game like Scrabble or Monopoly and give it a new name? And what is it about social networks that makes them ooze slime?
To hell with them both (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we declare that they both lose and remove both their apps? They're not games, they're psychological tricks to extract credit card numbers.
"...copied ideas..." (Score:2)
Ideas are not protected by USA copyright.
Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga (Score:5, Informative)
"I don't fucking want innovation," the ex-employee recalls Pincus saying. "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod this up if you had a link.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it that hard to search? [forbes.com]
This is NOT about "copyrighting ideas" (Score:5, Informative)
It's about copying the art and the exact interface of the game. Take a brief look at the complaint to see lots of comparison pictures [scribd.com].
For example, SimsSocial has 8 possible skin tones for characters, and Zynga copied them down to the exact RGB values (!!). Items such as refrigerators, TVs, etc. are so similar that their outlines match up almost completely when they're overlaid on top of each other. I hate EA as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is pretty compelling stuff.
And as with most things (Score:2)
It isn't an absolute in the law. There isn't a "You can go precisely this far in copying," sort of thing. It depends on a number of factors. So ya, you can copy a general game style. It isn't like if one person makes a game (like an FPS or RTS or whatever) nobody can make anything at all remotely like it. However you can't go can clone a game pixel for pixel, even if all your work is "original" meaning you had a person do the copying. Well in between those two extremes lies what is acceptable.
Zynga is all a
Blizzard is next (Score:2)
take a look at this game, Order and Chaos,
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/order-chaos-online/id414664715?mt=8 [apple.com]
it's a near perfect version of World of Warcraft running on iOS and Android. the look, feel, and mechanics are near copies of WoW, but the content is different- the quests, bosses, maps, items, and so on.
if Blizzard can't sue for this, then EA and everyone else doesn't have a prayer in going after copycats.
BTW, OaC is quite a good game.
Re: (Score:2)
if the content is different then mechanics are probably a bit different too. there's a bunch of mmo's blizzard could sue if they could sue gameloft.
ea is arguing that the _content_ is copy in the ville too. if you had retraced all the wow maps then of course blizzard would sue.
fyi, gameloft only does copies too, but they usually do some aspect just "wrong". for example asphalt gt's have been quite popular car games on mobiles, the graphics engines been ok on many iterations.. but, here's the big but: they s
Terrible Precedent (Score:2)
copyright does not cover ideas (Score:2)
Copyright doesn't cover ideas.
Zynga are, IMO, scum but they're not in the wrong here. EA are being arses by claiming to own an idea....EA are, IMO, scum too.
that's EXACTLY what's wrong with the system (Score:2)
"isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it."
If you don't have "the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it", then you're shit out of luck. Justice is blind but she expects payment.
EA Hypocrisy (Score:2)
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
For EA to be upset about Zynga copying its games is pure hypocrisy. It wasn't upset when Zynga copied Tiny Tower... in fact, it followed suit with its own clone [tuaw.com] called Monopoly Hotels. I mistakenly downloaded the game on my iPad thinking it was some new variant of Monopoly... it turned out to be the unholy love child of Farmville and Tiny
Re: (Score:2)
3 people like this; 37 people b*tchslapped you
Cowboyneal and 102,082 other people like this
Re: (Score:2)
unholy love child of farmville and tiny tower is still a new product.
seemingly zynga didn't bother with such twist. they had gotten away with 1:1 clones for so long that they forgot they're copying masters of evil.
Re:I Hate Zynga, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not in trouble for copying the idea. They are mainly in trouble for copying the expression of that idea. I.e. the games look identical. The artwork is similar, the character graphics are similar, everything about the game is designed to be as close as possible to the original. At least their tiny tower game looked very different graphically to the original, however this one almost looks identical to the original. This is indeed copyrightable [gametrailers.com] according to the Tetris ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The Tetris ruling is ridiculous. For instance, showing the next piece, is considered above the line, (which other games like super puzzle fighter have, so it's not like that feature has to come from Tetris). likewise for: Changing the color of the active piece when dropped -- human eyes react to more light, you make the active one brighter. The shapes used? Tetrominos are part of geometry, arrange any four same sized squares orthogonally touching in every combination and you get the 7 Tetromin
Re: (Score:2)
look at the filing, the games. they went out of their way to copy. it was zyngas design methodology to practically have the original open in the same editor...
there's cases where a clone is just a legit clone, rewrite. this is clone as "make a direct port of it".
sorta-done is something different than make a rewrite that can't be said even to be 2.0. had they even added classes or removed them.. but nah, such decisions are hard and nobody at zynga was allowed to make creative choices when cloning the game.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Check out the complaint document and then think again about what you posted:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final [scribd.com]
It's amazing how similar everything is. Wall to floor proportions. The exact same 8 RGB values for character skin tones. The exact same set of character roles, with different names. The exact same character poses in the artwork for these roles. Same contents in starter home. Etc...
Just check out that document.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I Hate Zynga, But... (Score:5, Interesting)
Tolkien's writing of the Lord of the Rings does not prevent anyone else from writing fantasy with orcs and goblins themselves.
That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone? They go to Riverdale and meet up with Borowmor (from Gander), Gelmi, and the elf Lagelos, go through the mines of Moira, travel through Fangrow Forest, meet the riders of Rahon, etc? Can I call that my own work and publish it? I haven't played either game, but have you seen the screenshots? A lot more than "the idea" was copied, specific implementation details were copied (such as personality types with different names, character animations, etc). The creativity that Zynga put in was what I did, thinking up new descriptions for the same exact things.
Re:I Hate Zynga, But... (Score:5, Funny)
Your story sounds vaguely familiar... Are there also Nizguls and Ring Wreaths, and a damned creature called Goellum? Because I think I've read it!
Re: (Score:3)
Right, the one with the elf queen, Chlamydia.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone want the publishing rights to my new 7 book fantasy series:
1. Henry Peters and The Philanthropist's Stain
2. Henry Peters and The Hamper of Secretions
3. Henry Peters and The Pensioner of Azerbajan
4. Henry Peters and The Goblin of Fear
5. Henry Peters and The Ordinance of Galaxians
6. Henry Peters and The Half Footprints
7. Henry Peters and The Deadly Heroes
Bored of the Rings with Dildo Bugger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, why not - and you can call your book "The Sword of Shannara" [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're confusing patent and copyright. Prior art is a concept relevant to patent law, but not copyright (which is the sort of claim EA is bringing). In essence, a copyright claim requires an infringing work to be substantially similar to an original.
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
EA can't claim to be the originator of online People/Life Simulations because of these programs released in the mid-80s (on Commodore 64):
home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Computer_People [wikipedia.org] Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game) [wikipedia.org] Sequel: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=habitat+club+caribe [bing.com]
You sneaky jerk! Now I can no longer honestly say I've never used Bing.
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean 5 restores?
From tape?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not.
It's claiming that Villie is a specific rip off of their sims social product (where they've copied as much as possible the style of basically the entire game at every level, abilities, characters, character behaviours etc.). Not inspired by, but essentially a copy. You can be inspired by a previous work and build on it, (if you couldn't EA would be in very serious trouble with every FPS they've ever released for example), but you can't reproduce the game under a different name and try and sell it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is copyright, not patent. Prior art is irrelevant.
Prior art certainly is relevant to show EA is guilty of the very thing they are accusing Zynga of. Or will I suddenly get sued if I write a book involving a young unknown who finds he has mysterious powers and in fact is the son of some very nasty people, gets involved in an epic war and... wait, am I talking about Star Wars or some Greek play? Copyright is just that - you cannot copy the work. Heck if you're a good painter you're more than welcome to paint a very very similar painting to say, the Mona L
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the same thing at all. EA is suing not because of the game idea of a life simulator itself but that the look, feel, and function of the game is virtually identical to their own. The art assets are almost indistinguishable. The characters have basically the same animations, some of the characters look nearly identical, the same colors for things like skin tones (down to exact RGB values), and the list goes on. It's probably Zynga's most blatantly copied game to date. A life simulator can still work if it doesn't look and work identically to EA's game. It would be like rewriting Lord of the Rings, but replacing the names of the main characters and keeping 95% of the story intact. It's like Tetris clones which has been tested in court as copyright infringement even if the graphics aren't identical.
I do think EA has a case but I don't know what they'll really be able to get out of it. Zynga may have gone too far this time. We'll know seen enough.
Re: (Score:2)
This is copyright, not patent. Prior art is irrelevant.
To what extent is "scenes a faire" relevant?
Re: (Score:3)
Taken individually, you're right. But you may be able to make a claim on a game that shows an isometric projection of a 3 walled house, has 6 basic personality types for people (athletes, artists, romantics, socialites, businessmen, villains), uses different traits and animations for the different personalities, has various interactions between different characters, etc. Yeah, you can't really make a claim on any of those. Tetris can't claim that no one else can create a game that has falling blocks. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Look-and-feel lawsuits are less than a crapshoot. Apple lost theirs against Microsoft, for example.
This is a look-and-feel lawsuit, and when it comes to games, look-and-feel is even harder to enforce than the look-and-feel of a spreadsheet program, for example.
To repeat what Hatta posted up there:
Re: (Score:2)
Dude copyrighting game rules is a no-no. They are like, functional not creative. I mean like you can copyright the "presentation" of that bunch of rules, but you can't copyright the rules themselves. &tc
The difference here is that you copy pasted, I didn't.
Re: (Score:2)