6 ms·
If they succeed, wouldn't it be essentially overturning 17 USC 102(b)? If none of the graphics, code, or names are stolen, wouldn't this fall under a method of
by Shenglong 15y ago
If they succeed, wouldn't it be essentially overturning 17 USC 102(b)? If none of the graphics, code, or names are stolen, wouldn't this fall under a method of operation?
- dangrossman 15y agoThe graphics are duplicated so closely... are they not derivative works? Only the copyright holder can creative derivative works.
- sehugg 15y agoCourts have found in the past that copying a game design closely enough is a violation of copyright (http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Atari_v._North_American_Philips http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Atari_v._North_American_Philips) and they've also found the opposite (http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Data_East_USA_v._EPYX http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Data_East_USA_v._EPYX). Also see this discussion on misc.misc, circa 1990, re: the Lotus 123 spreadsheet wars: If the plaintiff cannot show that the target customer audience is UNlikely to recognize that the defendant's product is not the same as the plaintiff's then recovery is barred. Mere similarity between plaintiff's and defendant's products is not sufficient to support a successful lawsuit. Zynga may have a case here if they can prove that there was intent to make users think these were Zynga's games. (i am not a lawyer, i just cut-and-paste from USENET)
- hnsmurf 15y agoThere's a trade dress issue here and I'd guess that's what Zynga's claiming. It seems rather clear that a consumer could confuse this company's products for one of Zynga's and that that is their intent. It's as if you made Cleanex Tissues and then copied the design of a Kleenex box.