Slashdot Mirror
Hasbro And Game-Design Lawsuits
Athyra writes: "This is chilling news -- Inside Mac Games is reporting that Hasbro has been successful in their attempts to get a number of manufacturers of classic-style games ("taxman," "Missile Defender," etc), claiming that Hasbro owns the gameplay concepts used in these games. Considering how most games are built on just a few stepping stones, this could have a chilling effect -- will the designers of Gran Turismo be sued for ripping off Pole Position? Will Broderbund have to pay Myst's profits to the folks at Infocom and SAGA? And what happens if someone can prove ownership of 3D action games? No more Quake sequels?" Update: 04/20 12:23 by E : It should be pointed out that the companies settled out of court for money, and a promise to not sell the offending titles anymore - no legal precedent was set.
What I don't understand is why Hasbro decided to follow suit on these things. It's not as if Hasbro was attempting to sell these things currently. Like many have said this was ages ago.
If I develope a game and a month or two later somebody comes out with a near clone of my game then yeah I'll get pissed and probably take them to court. But come on, Pac Man is a legacy from nearly twenty years ago. Hasbro isn't loosing out on cash from the sales of these game packs.
What next, does some relative of some dead English Lord sue over PONG because it looks awfuly similar to Badmition or Tennis?
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Steven Wright
Come on. You market a game that looks just like Pac-Man, plays just like Pac-Man, and call it "Mac-Man". The original game is not only copyrighted, but Hasbro is still making money off it.
If not for legal reasons, then for common sense reasons, they deserved to be taken to court.
This isn't a matter of a game being inspired by a classic. Mac-Man and the like are games with no creative process to them.
Besides, there is no legal precedent when the case is settled. The outcome might encourage companys to sue though. If a software company wants to sue when they are being so blatantly hosed, more power to 'em.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
In 1982 (I think) Atari sued Sierra for the game jawbreaker, a Pacman clone. They lost when it was proved that the game was different and had different graphics. Also the suit isn't over yet, If what I read was correct they settled with two of the defendants. Story at: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2552 599,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01 Also see the Extreme Games LLC(one of the defendants) website at: http://www.xgames3d.com/ And one article by a game designer: http://www.gamedev.net/reference/business/features /hasbro1/ If this suit is upheld it could kill the game industry. John Carmack will go from just rich to filthy stinkin rich(if he lowers himself to that level). John if you read this please don't.
About a year ago, I took a creativity class at school (yes, I know, someone will argue you can't teach creativity. Not the point of this post). One of our assignments was to develop a game -- any sort of game, board, puzzle, card, what have you. Our instructor claimed to have come up with several games himself, and sold them to companies such Mattel, Hasbro, Parker Brothers, etc.
Now, obviously, how much our games could be like other games was a big issue. It's hard to come up with something new, as most of the posts in this thread recognize. Apparently, the rule that has been agreed on in the industry at large (not necessarily computer games) is that your game must be "25%" different. How you figure what % of a game is alike and different is something beyond me, but our instructor informed us that court cases have been decided over this rule. It also explains the state of things to some extent; there are a lot of games that are somewhat alike, but maybe changed 1/4 (there are also complete knock-offs, but I don't think you find them so much in the market at large).
If this is all true (and I don't have any documentation or references, sorry), then I wonder how much of this might go over into the computer game industry...
Tweet, tweet.
The people that made Wolfenstein 3D must be jumping for joy.
Yeah! They could sue the makers of Doom, and then the makers of Quake and make a fortune!
Boy, I wouldn't like to be in those rip-off merchants shoes right now!
Acknowledging Microsofts rights to crashes such as HEAD ON, SIDE SWIPE, MEMORY LEAK and BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH. "It's just a bunch of useless junk" said Joe of Joe's Salvage.
Joe's Salvage has agreed to cease and desist the use of crashed items based on these and other properties Microsoft owns or licenses.
___
1) A bunch of first person gun game clones like House of the Dead.
2) A bunch of street fighter clones.
3) A bunch of racing clones all of which date back to the original Pole Position.
4) An occasional pre-1987 game. It's usually Ms. Pacman.
Console gaming is in slightly better shape. At least you can find some original concepts in the epic role playing games like Final Fantasy or Star Ocean.
It's a shame that distributing those ROMs is illegal, though. We're in serious danger of losing a lot of those old classics from back when game developers were still creative. I'd love to be able to show my kids space invaders running under MAME but that's probably going to be impossible by the time I have kids. Thanks, Hasbro and way-outdated Copyright laws.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I cannot say exactly what the legal ramifications of a cash settlement plus an offer to stop selling the disputed software will do to the industry as a whole but we must remember this: The disputed games were complete rip offs of the Hasbro games with graphics changed. Look at MunchMan, Mac Man, and Missile Defender which are three of the disputed games. I am not so sure that this settlement will translate directly into lawsuits based on game genre.