My take...
At 7:36 PM 02/09/0, Paul Hart wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Clay Halliwell wrote:
>> Only as far as the view angle was concerned. A choice of perspective does
>> not a copyright make.
>But are the litigious companies suing over copyright violation or
>trademark infringement? I doubt that the so-called "clone" games contain
>any of Atari's original code (copyright violation) so Hasbro would have to
>be suing over the "dilution of the distinctive elements of their games"
>(trademark infringement) or some other equally specious claim.
It may very well be possible that they're trying to claim trademark
dilution, but these cases (known as "look-and-feel") almost always seem
to be considered copyright cases.
Software is a bit confusing, as what is the main part of the copyright is
the actual source code, and on the surface it would seem that if you wrote
an exact clone in another language, it wouldn't violate any copyrights.
Obviously, this isn't very satisfying to software companies...
Unlike the text in books, or the music & lyrics in songs, software has to
borrow from art somewhat in that the presentation is also important to the
copyright. However, how to determine a violation of copyright when it comes
to the look and feel is not clearly defined at all.
>I'm sorry but imitation or "cloning" (creating a product from scratch that
>mimics an existing product) has long been held as legal in the technology
>field (provided that some ground rules are followed)...
Actually, I think by "ground rules" you're really talking about reverse
engineering, but I think you're right when you say that cloning (on some
level) is usually upheld as legal. Usually the courts rule against
persecution because "sort-of-copying" often leads to innovation in the
quest to make the copy stand out (esp. with patents). Sadly, this is
not always the case with software, but still, most clones are fair game,
to pardon an unintentional pun. The only exception I can think of off-
hand is KC Munchkin.
>Making a game that resembles or plays like one of the Hasbro/Atari games
>is not "making games based on properties they don't own or control" as the
>article reads.
On the other hand, some clones really ARE clones -- they are nearly
identical and bring nothing new to the table. I think we may see Hasbro
succeed if they press certain titles, but many who might be able to
afford to fight back will probably have the courts back them up, not
Hasbro.
>I think that Hasbro/Atari should stop their bullying ways.
This is, to a LARGE extent, what I believe. Releasing a Pac-Man clone
doesn't hurt sales of Pac-Man World, no matter what Hasbro would have
you believe. They're different games. And trademark dilution? My
arse -- either the different game that is Pac-Man World is actually a
dilution of the original Pac-Man, or the clone only adds to the mystique.
What Hasbro is REALLY concerned about is that with all the clones around,
people will forget that the game is theirs, and they may lose money.
This may indeed happen, but only if Hasbro lets the game CHARACTERS get
away from them, and you'll note that most clones carefully change the
characters. No dilution there either.
Plus, I think that some of the old games, as simple as they were, are
good programming exercises for young/new programmers and should be
forgiven in that spirit alone.
//*================================================================++
|| Russ Perry Jr 2175 S Tonne Dr #105 Arlington Hts IL 60005 ||
|| 847-952-9729 slapdash@xxxxxxxxxxxx VIDEOGAME COLLECTOR! ||
++================================================================*//
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
