4 ms·

Do they need to be? They told the developer why it wasn't allowed - it violates the Copycat clause of the ToS. At that point, the developer is just attempting t

Do they need to be? They told the developer why it wasn't allowed - it violates the Copycat clause of the ToS. At that point, the developer is just attempting to make minimal changes to differentiate it enough to bypass that restriction and then resubmitting over and over. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that this isn't a Wordle copycat. Even the author knows it.

Apocryphon 5y ago
It doesn't allow the developer any actionable feedback. They could have included screenshots highlighting the exact ways this app is a copycat. What if the developer changed the UX differently- would it then no longer be a copycat? It also downplays the which the app isn't a copycat, namely that it uses a different language. As it stands, just calling something a copycat is not substantiative, you actually need to provide justification. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
- dkonofalski 5y ago
  What actionable feedback could there be? The author is copying Wordle. The very nature of the project is to copy a copyrighted application/website.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    Is the inherent game mechanic being the same the problem, or could that be alleviated if the screens looked more distinct? And it is in a different language, after all. Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted?
    - dkonofalski 5y ago
      Yes. Apparently, it was one of the first things the NY Times did when they purchased it. Edit: It was trademarked only. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30378491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30378491
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        In other languages as well? And then why isn't the Times DMCA'ing all of the more straightforward English Wordle clones out there right now? Based on the screenshots, it also looks like this whole app rejection process took place prior to the NYT purchase.
        dkonofalski 5y ago
        I would imagine that it's unique to Wordle right now because of recency. There were probably a deluge of Wordle-clones that were submitted to the App Store recently to capitalize and take advantage of both the buzz and the name.
    - Anthony-G 5y ago
      > Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted? My understanding of intellectual property is that not only are the game mechanics not copyrighted, they aren’t even copyrightable. The code and assets that are used to implement the game mechanics are automatically protected by copyright but not the gameplay itself. Bringing copyright into this discussion is an irrelevant distraction. Edit: as both Apple and the NY Times are based in the US, I thought I’d double-check what the US legal situation is (in case American rules differ from the Berne convention). It turns out there’s a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to this subject¹: > There is a long established Copyright principle called the idea–expression distinction, where Copyright is meant to protect a creator’s unique expression, without giving anyone a monopoly on a broader idea. The US Copyright Office specifically states that “Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.” Also: A Stack Exchange answer² provided a reference for the quotation cited in the Wikipedia article. The original US Copyright Office URL is now a 404 but here’s the archived version of their article: https://web.archive.org/web/20160403041628/http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160403041628/http://www.copyri... ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti... ² https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4653 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4653

Apocryphon 5y ago

It doesn't allow the developer any actionable feedback. They could have included screenshots highlighting the exact ways this app is a copycat. What if the developer changed the UX differently- would it then no longer be a copycat? It also downplays the which the app isn't a copycat, namely that it uses a different language. As it stands, just calling something a copycat is not substantiative, you actually need to provide justification. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

dkonofalski 5y ago
What actionable feedback could there be? The author is copying Wordle. The very nature of the project is to copy a copyrighted application/website.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  Is the inherent game mechanic being the same the problem, or could that be alleviated if the screens looked more distinct? And it is in a different language, after all. Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted?
  - dkonofalski 5y ago
    Yes. Apparently, it was one of the first things the NY Times did when they purchased it. Edit: It was trademarked only. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30378491 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30378491
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      In other languages as well? And then why isn't the Times DMCA'ing all of the more straightforward English Wordle clones out there right now? Based on the screenshots, it also looks like this whole app rejection process took place prior to the NYT purchase.
      - dkonofalski 5y ago
        I would imagine that it's unique to Wordle right now because of recency. There were probably a deluge of Wordle-clones that were submitted to the App Store recently to capitalize and take advantage of both the buzz and the name.
  - Anthony-G 5y ago
    > Are Wordle's mechanics even copyrighted? My understanding of intellectual property is that not only are the game mechanics not copyrighted, they aren’t even copyrightable. The code and assets that are used to implement the game mechanics are automatically protected by copyright but not the gameplay itself. Bringing copyright into this discussion is an irrelevant distraction. Edit: as both Apple and the NY Times are based in the US, I thought I’d double-check what the US legal situation is (in case American rules differ from the Berne convention). It turns out there’s a whole Wikipedia article dedicated to this subject¹: > There is a long established Copyright principle called the idea–expression distinction, where Copyright is meant to protect a creator’s unique expression, without giving anyone a monopoly on a broader idea. The US Copyright Office specifically states that “Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.” Also: A Stack Exchange answer² provided a reference for the quotation cited in the Wikipedia article. The original US Copyright Office URL is now a 404 but here’s the archived version of their article: https://web.archive.org/web/20160403041628/http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160403041628/http://www.copyri... ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protection_of_video_games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_protecti... ² https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4653 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4653