'Laurens Holst' wrote about 'Re: [MSX] GURU LOGIC off-line' - Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 10:56:54PM CEST > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Dunno, maybe you should ask Jaleco who got their ass kicked in court by > >>Konami, just because they made a game involving musical instruments too. > >>^^; > > > >So, you mean that somehow Epic Games payed ID Software for making a Quake > >"clone" in Unreal? Or Duke Nukem payed for being another "copy" of Doom? I > >don't think so, and I wish this never happens... > > Those games are just in the same genre... > > I mean, a puzzle game in general wouldn't have anything to do with GLC. > Nor does a game involving shooting blocks into figures (Quarth, anyone? > :)). But when the game involves figures looking somewhat like chickens, > shooting blocks in rotating figures, well, like in GLC... Then you're > just copying someone else's idea, and afaik copyrights rest on that. > > Duke Nukem and Doom are both 3D first person shooters, but they have > different looks, different gameplay (even slightly) different goals and > objectives, etc. I admit it is a gray area, where is a game concept > similar to an existing one and where does it become a ripoff. How much > has to be different for it to become a different game. You'll have to > use common sense. But if something is clearly a copy of your idea, well...
Again, ideas are not copyrightable. They are patentable in some countries, which is bad enough. > I mean, otherwise how could there have been legal cases by amongst > others Konami and the Tetris Corporation, which they apparantly won... All for I know, they only were about the name 'Tetris'. If you make a Tetris-clone called 'spinning dropping blocks' there is as far as I know no way to sue you, except as 'bullying'. I doubt one can take copyright on such generic shapes as those from tetris. Joost _______________________________________________ MSX mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Info page: http://lists.stack.nl/mailman/listinfo/msx
