Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Courts Games Your Rights Online

'CandySwipe' Crushed: When Game Development Turns Nasty 251

Nerval's Lobster writes "King, the gaming developer behind the monster hit Candy Crush Saga, has attracted a fair amount of criticism over the past few weeks over its attempt to trademark the word 'candy,' which isn't exactly an uncommon term. The company followed up that trademarking attempt by firing off takedown notices at other developers who use 'candy' in the titles of their apps. But things only got emotional in the past few days, when indie developer Albert Ransom published an open letter on his Website that excoriates King for what basically amounts to bullying. Ransom claims that he published CandySwipe in 2010, a full two years before Candy Crush Saga hit the market, and that the two games bear a number of similarities; after opposing King's attempts to register a trademark, Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark. Ransom claims he spent three years working on his game, and that King is basically robbing his livelihood. King was not effusive in its response. 'I would direct you to our stance on intellectual property,' a spokesperson for the company wrote in an email to Slashdot, which included a link to a letter posted online by King CEO Riccardo Zacconi. 'At this time, we do not have any comment to add beyond what is outlined in this letter.' Zacconi's various defenses in the letter seem a moot point in the context of CandySwipe, considering how Ransom has already abandoned the prospect of fighting to protect his intellectual property. But the two developers' letters help illustrate how downright nasty the casual-gaming industry has become over the past several quarters, as profits skyrocket and people attempt to capitalize on others' success."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'CandySwipe' Crushed: When Game Development Turns Nasty

Comments Filter:
  • Tango DropBox (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:36PM (#46239785)

    DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.

  • Re:Tango DropBox (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:48PM (#46239893)

    Tango DropBox was made YEARS before DropBox existed.

  • Re:Tango DropBox (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:53PM (#46239945) was founded in 2007
    TangoDropBox was written in 2005.

    DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

  • Re:Tango DropBox (Score:3, Informative)

    by roninmagus ( 721889 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @01:56PM (#46239975)
    Because the AC's are hidden, I'll elaborate that tangodropbox existed before dropbox. I'm afraid your comment is indicative of the perspective that candy crush fans will have.
  • Re:Dumbest thing is (Score:4, Informative)

    by similar_name ( 1164087 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @02:27PM (#46240211)
    Game mechanics can't be copyrighted [].
  • Re:Tango DropBox (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13, 2014 @02:38PM (#46240305)

    I learned the hard way about fighting larger companies with legal teams on staff. After about $5k in lawyer fees, we were left with no resolution to the conflict. I know this is 'Merica and the legal system is our crown-jewel, but it's not an environment where the "little guy" has a chance...

    DropBox literally has 14 people on-staff in their legal team, not to mention their main legal contact JOHN L. SLAFSKY is with "WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI" and is giant:

  • Re: No Such Thing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday February 13, 2014 @05:08PM (#46241387) Homepage Journal

    The controversy about the 2000 election isn't about popular vote totals. It's about the election results in Florida.

    This is the abridged version of events.

    1. Bush won the initial count but the margin was so slim, an automatic recount was triggered by Florida law.

    2. Bush won the recount but buy a slimmer margin.

    3. Al Gore's campaign requested another recount and Florida agreed.

    4. Bush won that recount, but by an even slimmer margin.

    5. The Gore campaign requested another recount.

    6. The state of Florida refused because the results of three counts of the vote confirmed that Bush won.

    7, The Gore campaign files suit to force recount, which a low court orders.

    8. Florida and the Bush campaign appeal and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case immediately.

    9. Supreme Court rules that the lower court didn't have the authority to force Florida to recount again.

    10. Florida certifies Bush as the winner, Bush gets the electoral votes and wins the election.

    11. Whiny little crybabies all over the world don't like that their guy lost and invent a false narrative about Bush being selected rather than elected.

    12. Idiots who are too lazy to look into the events for themselves repeat this false narrative.

    The votes in Florida were later counted again by journalists who confirmed that Bush won.

    In FOUR separate counts of the votes cast in Florida it was confirmed that Bush won. Get over it.


"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein