| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Update: Bejeweled replies to RockboxUpdate: Bejeweled replies to RockboxPosted Apr 18, 2006 19:37 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: Update: Bejeweled replies to Rockbox by stevenj Parent article: Rockbox gets cease-and-desisted
Well, copyright covers organization of elements of a work as well as the verbatim content. You can't paraphrase a book directly (that is, at a detail level - say paragraph-by-paragraph) without infringing (modulo fair use exceptions like parody), though you can write a description of the book (stating the ideas in your own words and your own logical organization) without infringing.
The law doesn't go to details; it would be up to a judge or jury to review the evidence and decide if the set of icons and the arrangements of the icons in the user interface of one game infringed the others. If anybody can cite case law on previous cases involving such similarities, that would be interesting. The "Anti-Monopoly" case apparently turned on the history of the game rather than details of what would constitute infringement; that might apply here, too, if some of the reports of earlier versions are close enough to the specifics of the current games.
(Log in to post comments)
Anti-Monopoly Posted Apr 18, 2006 20:16 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] This is interesting:http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/36/court.html http://www.antimonopoly.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly
The only thing I "knew" in regards to a Monopoly Monopoly was this classic from The Onion:
-Brock
Update: Source for case law Posted Apr 19, 2006 20:47 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] If you're interested, <http://www.patentarcade.com/> provides a bunch of summaries of decisions in the specific area of video games.
|
|
||||||||||||