A developer has told us that one of his company's games -- a title with similar gameplay concepts to popular puzzle game Tetris -- has been pulled from the Android Market. This dev received an email that said that their game was suspended from Android Market due to a violation of the Developer Content Policy. They note that there's no reference to "Tetris" in their game.
Wanting to get to the bottom of this, this developer contacted Google. Google promptly answered that The Tetris Company, LLC notified them under DMCA to remove various Tetris clones from Android Market.
Is there a copyright on the game play? I don't know. Maybe there's some kind of patent out there that this dev and the others that have made Tetris clones somehow missed.
Here's the developer's feelings on this matter:
It's a shame that The Tetris Company, LLC uses its power to stop developers from creating good and free games for Android users. Without resources for a legal fight, our application and many others will cease to exist, even knowing that they are legit. Users will be forced to buy the paid official version, which is worse than many of the one available for free on the market.
They go on to point out that other countries won't eve be able to play the official Tetris as Google Checkout doesn't exist in all territories, meaning that purchases can't be made there.
Wasn't there always Tetris clones? And can The Tetris Company legally lock down on this?
Dale North is Destructoid's Editor-In-Chief, a founding editor, and specialist in Japanese gaming. An accomplished musician, Dale was reporting from Japan during the earthquakes of 2011. Luckily, he got the fuck out alive and is home in America now with his wife and beloved corgi, Einstein. Dale is also a co-founder of Destructoid's sister anime site
Japanator. Likes Corgis, Sega Saturn, PSP, iPhone, Photographic tools.
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
25 comments | showing # 1 to 25
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
9:40 AM on 05.27.2010
| 
It's weird they chose the Android Market.
Seems to me that it's probably wrong for someone to make the exact same game as you and offer it for free, thereby kicking your sales in the balls. Though I don't think there's really any court precedence as of yet to go off of.
I mean, what if someone out there made a free and widely available version of something like Super Meat Boy and called it "Mega Beef Man?"
I like free stuff, but it does seem kind of wrong to me.
Clones lead to more clones lead to *barfs*.
But unfortunately you can patent gameplay mechanisms.
Gamasutra did a piece on it a few years ago.
<link>http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3562/the_designers_notebook_damn_all_.php</link>
The clone market is a big legal grey area because if you make your game look and feel exactly like another, advertise it similarly, and undercut their price, there is generally a shaky precedent for a trade dress infringement, under the Lanham Act, in the US.
The various "look and feel" cases have been resolved differently, but I don't think that clone makers automatically get a pass here, depending on what they've done.
I don't know enough about the DMCA to say how strong their complaint is, but come on devs, you're distributing through another company's channel so it doesn't even necessarily come to the legal stuff. It's google's call about what they'd want to allow on their service at the moment.
Tetris has a rather interesting ownership history. Yes, you can patent gameplay. You have to be very specific, and any tiny deviation is enough to get around it, but a clone's a clone. Puzzle games are way easier to determine infringement.
There are court precedents, they are fairly old. Pac Man and Frogger related stuff, IIRC.
Instead of asking the question whether or not this is legal or not, why not do some good old journalistic research, find out and write the article based on that.
http://www.blockboxgame.com/
Perhaps the point is anyone is able to do anything as long as they have the money for legal fees.
I agree with Corduroy Turtle: Make an original game if it bothers you.
"...whatever copyright there was in this twenty year old game should have now expired"
As someone who relies on my creative work for my livelihood, I certainly hope you or people with your sense of entitlement aren't ever dictating copyright law.
You can have trouble trying to copyright common tropes that form in a market: for example, falling blocks, or jumping from platform to platform, or shooting a gun from a first person view. But when you directly copy the mechanics, rules, and presentation then you're blatantly copying someone else's product. That's copyright violation, pure and simple.
The only reason it gets murky here is because the presentation is so simple that it's awefully difficult to differentiate between a clone and an original product using common mechanics.
You're right that there's not just "one maker of RPG's, fighting games, or FPS games". But there IS just one IP owner of Shining Force, Double Dragon, and Doom.
Also, shame on the rest of you for claiming undercutting with a similar product is somehow cheating. It's a competitive market. If two bakers make bread with identical taste without stealing each other's recipes, does that make the later one a cheater? If the later on decides to give his bread away for free, is that unlawful?
Fact of the matter is, the reason big companies make big bucks on games is because they're hard to make. Building a clone of Dragon Age would be perfectly legal as long as you used all original code and art - but it would take forever, and by the time you get it out to market there's something better already out. The same doesn't hold true for really old games like Tetris, which is a simple game even for its time. It's a matter of minutes to bang out something similar.
The reason you don't see any Tetris clones for SALE is twofold: One, the name is trademarked. Without the name, it isn't going to sell well. Two, why buy a clone when there's free ones out there? Really -good- free ones?
TTC serving the notice to Google is a cowardly move, in my opinion. It essentially states that they can't create a good enough product to compete legitimately, and have to resort to underhanded tactics that only work because the people making free alternatives don't want to spend money to run it through court.