Gamasutra: Tetris' Legal Clone War Versus Blockles

[herc]

a Gamasutry Exclusive: Tetris' Legal Clone War Versus Blockles

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_i ... tory=22815 (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22815)

[Gamasutra has discovered that The Tetris Company, well known for protecting its property, has taken legal action against VC-funded social games portal OMGPOP, which it believes is infringing on its works. In an exclusive analysis, intellectual property attorney Jed Spencer examines the issue and its ramifications.]

Last week, Tetris owners Tetris Holding and The Tetris Company sued BioSocia, the owner of social games site OMGPOP, and Charles Forman over the game Blockles, claiming that Blockles infringes numerous intellectual property rights of its famous puzzle game.

The suit, made in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., claims that Blockles infringes numerous Tetris intellectual property rights, most notably copyright of the visual game displays and the Tetris trade dress.


(for more, open the link)

[K]

here we go again...

[tepples]

At least seven of the nine elements of alleged "distinctive trade dress" (other than 4-block pieces and possibly the hard drop trail) are present in Dr. Mario Online Rx.

I wonder how far Tetris will push this one given how quickly Quinn (http://www.simonhaertel.de/quinn) went back up after the web site was rewritten not to imply any connection to Tetris.

[Rosti LFC]

At least seven of the nine elements of alleged "distinctive trade dress" (other than 4-block pieces and possibly the hard drop trail) are present in Dr. Mario Online Rx.

Though the 4-block pieces would probably be the key element there.

Interesting if you could get away with clones though simply by making the well stupidly wide or removing hard drop trails though.

[iphys]

The distinctive trade dress made me laugh, because either everything is so general or so trivial, so you really do need to argue the package of everything together. Still, everyone makes clones of Tetris and they don't sue everyone, so they must suspect the software was copied. I wouldn't want to play Blockles because of the weird well dimensions and the way they have taken the guideline colours and swapped them to different pieces, so it seems like a waste of a lawsuit to me.

[Rosti LFC]

I think the general strategy for TTC seems to be that they'll file a lawsuit in the hope that the game simply gets removed without any sort of legal fight. Doesn't really matter with the sort of scare-tactics they're using whether the case has a real chance or not.

[muf]

Blockles has an inverse T-piece that's made out of I think 5 blocks though, so that argument doesn't hold.

[Zaphod77]

What they are claiming is that this is a very obvious clone of the korean online tetris, and they simply tried to "change just enough to make it non infringing".

They don't want that stunt to work. In fact, it probably offends them more than a quality clone that actually accurately represents the gameplay.

[lee n]

Blockles has an inverse T-piece that's made out of I think 5 blocks though
In that case, TTC should sue them for that! http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

[tepples]

The defense might be interested in these cases:
CA v. Altai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_Int._Inc._v._Altai_Inc.): Similarity of computer programs shall be determined by the AFC test: describing the programs at various levels of abstraction, filtering out uncopyrightable elements, and comparing what's left. Lotus v. Borland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int_2527l,_Inc.): User interface of a computer program is largely dictated by function and therefore has a thin copyright if any. Dastar v. Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar_Corp._v._Twentieth_Century_Fox_Film_Corp.): A trademark may not be used as an ersatz patent or copyright. Sega v. Accolade (http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade); Chamberlain v. Skylink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain_v._Skylink); Lexmark v. Static Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int_2527l_v._Static_Control_Components): A copyright may not be used as an ersatz patent. These are less directly relevant to Tetris v. BioSocia, but they do concur with Dastar v. Fox.

[iphys]

The defense won't be interested in the Munchkin Pac-Man rip-off though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(Videopac_game)

The funny thing is my family had Munch Man for the TI-99/4A, and I don't know why TI never got sued over it, because it basically ripped off Pac-Man and the name from Munchkin in one go. We also had TI Invaders, which was just a clone of Space Invaders. Heh, my parents were so cheap we never had name brand anything.

[Zaphod77]

The very argument used to by Atari to win that case could easily apply to this one. THat said i'm note sure they would have won if the case was re-tried today, as the gameplay is very different.

[orz]

obligatory "fuck ttc" post

[tepples]

I just tried Dr. Mario Online Rx (North American version), and it indeed has hard drop trails. That makes eight of nine.

I've got another experiment to try. Start with all rules of Nintendo's Dr. Mario, but make these changes: Make the well 20 percent bigger (10x20). Use the seven one-sided tetrominoes, one solid color for each shape, placed with their longest side down, instead of 2-color dominoes. Add a rule from Puyo Pop: Start with no viruses in the field. Add a rule reminiscent of Yoshi's Cookie: Clear a full row instead of 4 in any row or column. Disregard color in line clears. What is the result?

EDIT AGAIN: Capcom v. Data East appears to diminish the importance of the Munchkin case (Atari v. Philips).

[XeaL]

tetris~!!

oh wait was that sup[posed to be obvious? http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif

[Rosti LFC]

I've got another experiment to try. Start with all rules of Nintendo's Dr. Mario, but make these changes: Make the well 20 percent bigger (10x20). Use the seven one-sided tetrominoes, one solid color for each shape, placed with their longest side down, instead of 2-color dominoes. Add a rule from Puyo Pop: Start with no viruses in the field. Add a rule reminiscent of Yoshi's Cookie: Clear a full row instead of 4 in any row or column. Disregard color in line clears. What is the result?


I've got one too: Take Half-Life 2. Remove all instances of guns and all enemies aside from head crabs. Instead of head crabs, have tetrominoes. Instead of first person shooter gameplay, have Tetris gameplay.
What do you get? http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif

[lgb]

Capcom v. Data East appears to diminish the importance of the Munchkin case (Atari v. Philips).
What about Data East v. Face? I think that went to court, but I can't remember.

[tepples]

The defense won't be interested in the Munchkin Pac-Man rip-off though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(Videopac_game)
I think I figured out the key difference between the decision in Atari v. Philips and Capcom v. Data East, and it appears to work in the favor of cloners, but incidentally not in the favor of reskinners like Rich Nagel. Philips had designed the Munchkin character to look too much like Pac-Man, including the animation of the mouth opening and closing even when the character isn't near a pill. That went beyond the expression necessary to convey the idea of moving in four directions through a maze, collecting all game pieces, and evading enemies while not powered up, and was thus not covered under the "merger" or "scenes a faire" doctrine.

More Data East: Data East v. Epyx (http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/454139), 9 U.S.P.Q.2d 1322; 862 F.2d 204; 1989 Copr.L.Dec. P 26. The judge quoted Krofft Television v. McDonalds, 562 F.2d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir.1977): "When idea and expression coincide, there will be protection against nothing other than identical copying."

[Xkeeper]

I've got one too: Take Half-Life 2. Remove all instances of guns and all enemies aside from head crabs. Instead of head crabs, have tetrominoes. Instead of first person shooter gameplay, have Tetris gameplay.
What do you get? http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif
Portal, with Weighted Storage Tetrominoes? http://alekwasframed.com/green_tea/emot-awesome.gif


Speaking of, I need to play Half-Life.

[tepples]

I've got one too: [Make a Tetris clone using the Half-Life engine.]

What do you get? http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif
Portal, with Weighted Storage Tetrominoes? http://alekwasframed.com/green_tea/emot-awesome.gif
Either that or the puzzle game made in Little Big Planet (http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170164), which we appear to have discussed (http://www.tetrisconcept.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27096#p27096).

[PetitPrince]

Also, Nevertris (http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Scripts.Detail&id=2978), Tetris on Neverwinter Nights (Bioware's one, not AOL's).

[necrosaro]

Looked into this case a bit. Here is the intro paragraph to the answer filed by BioSocia, Inc. back in April:

Defendants BioSocia, Inc. (“BioSocia”) and Charles Forman (collectively,
“Defendants”) operate an online social gaming site at OMGPop.com, where computer users
can visit and play various computer games. By this lawsuit, Plaintiffs Tetris Holding, LLC
and The Tetris Company, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) improperly seek to prevent OMGPop.com from
continuing to offer “Blockles,” a popular multi-player electronic falling block game
introduced in late 2007. The lawsuit is nothing more than a heavy-handed attempt to stomp
out competition with “Tetris,” an unpatented electronic game based on the decades-old and
fundamentally unprotectable idea of arranging falling blocks or block-shaped pieces on a
rectangular playing service. The law does not permit those who market Tetris, or any other
game, to assert a monopoly over the simple notion of an online falling block puzzle game,
whether or not configured for simultaneous multi-player competition, nor can they claim any
legal protection for the functional geometric game pieces or playing surface (called the
“matrix”) necessary for the game to be challenging and fun to play. Plaintiffs’ anticompetitive
attempt to assert copyright and trade dress protection for the rules, nondistinctive
features, functional aspects, basic characteristics, and nondescript playing surface
of Tetris completely lacks merit. The copyright and trademark laws of the United States
simply do not protect ideas or the non-distinctive, functional and generic expression of those
ideas. The remaining claims under state law are all preempted and should be dismissed.
Defendants are and should remain free to offer “Blockles,” and visitors to OMGPop.com are
and should remain free to play it.

Also, here's the case schedule filed in May:

(1) Amend the pleadings by August 14, 2009.
(2) Joinder of additional parties by August 14, 2009.
(3) All fact discovery to be completed by September 25, 2009.
(4) Expert disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) shall be served by Oct. 23, 2009.
(5) Rebuttal reports under Rule 26(a)(2) shall be served by November 23, 2009.
(6) Expert discovery shall be completed by January 29, 2010.
(7) Dispositive motions shall be filed and served by March 5, 2010.

The parties have not yet engaged in substantive discussions about the possibility or prospects of reaching a resolution of this dispute that would avoid the need for further proceedings, but have no reason to believe that such discussions would be fruitful at this time.

Does this mean this case might actually end up making it to trial? :eek:

[herc]

its getting very interesting!! might it be that TTC might actually loose this conflict ?

[goofer]

We should patent sensitivity (DAS) a.s.a.p ! then TTC cant improve their crap =d

[awake]

update: the old blockles is replaced by a completely different game. did omgpop reach an out of court resolution with TTC?

a few blockles users have migrated to blockbox :)

[goofer]

Most likely, cuz i tried looking for information and theres like nothing to find, so prolly at the finally stage they pulled away

[Zaphod77]

roflcopter, now they have puyo puyo... with items...

omg, they have NO originality whatsoever!

[tepples]

TTC officially announced the settlement.

And it appears Blockbox could be next in the firing line.

[orz]

ttc status: owned

[Deniax]

And it appears Blockbox could be next in the firing line.We already got a nice letter from TTC :wub: