Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Leaked Zynga Memo Justifies Copycat Strategy

Posted by timothy on from the nothing-new-under-the-sun dept.

bonch writes "After taking heat over allegations of copying hit indie game Tiny Tower, Zynga founder Mark Pincus wrote an internal memo justifying the company's strategy of cloning competing titles, citing the Google search engine and Apple iPod as successful products which weren't first in their markets. Pincus infamously told employees: 'I don't want f*cking innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers.'"

18 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. And that is what really stiffles innovation by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who wants to come up with the next great innovation, when you know damn well that the second you do, some big player with more resources is just going to swoop in and steal it?

    This is the kind of thing that copyright and patent laws were SUPPOSED to protect against. But, in reality, copyrights and patents are just something the big boys use as bludgeons against the little guys (and against each other). You think a little indie developer like Nimblebit has the money to hire even a single lawyer to go up against Zynga's *team* of high-priced lawyers? Good luck with that.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently the Zynga mission statement is, "Do Evil".

    2. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Revoking an abusive corporation's charter and putting its intellectual 'property' into the public domain would be much more effective. That's the kind of death penalty we should rally around.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Zynga didn't make a more appealing game. They made a better marketed game. You know something the little guy can't compete on since Zynga actually has a budget to do that with.

    4. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by countertrolling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We shouldn't allow such complex laws that we need lawyers.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is not the mere existence of lawyers, which really is a necessity. The problem is we have too many lawyers, and too many of them are involved in writing laws. The result is massive legal complexity, so that even the simplest laws require lawyers, and often specialized ones at that, merely to understand. This is necessary, in many cases, simply to give the lawyers jobs.

      In some cases, the entire system is designed so that the only ones who really end up profiting are the lawyers. The law is the fundamental problem, but as I said, the law ends up being written by lawyers, who somewhat understandably try to keep themselves as necessary as possible. The result is an expensive mess for anyone who isn't a lawyer.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a more reasonable direction to take, but part of the reason laws are so complex is because not every situation is the same. And you could have laws with a very broad scope with a lot left to judges to decide, that would harm one of the underlying principles of common law many people agree with, the equal protection provision.

      If person A commits a given action, and person B does the exact same, you don't want the judge to have leeway to execute A and give B a month's probation. This means that laws have to be specific about different cases and their distinctions. Complexity arises naturally from that.

      Basically, I'd need to see any proposed plan of simplification before I could ever agree to it. It's a nice idea though.

    7. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      walk into a lawyer's office or entry way. tons and tons of 'impressive' books, right?

      add to case law. add to this and that. no trimming; just adding.

      does this sound like a sensible design? from an engineering POV, does this sound sustainable and efficient? having so much stuff to sort thru to know what is 'right vs wrong' ?

      tons and tons of exceptions. lots of rules, but more and more exceptions. is that not broken, by design??

      I know why we allow it. those in the system who benefit from the system do not want to shake-up the system. its that simple.

      but its still very wrong. just like tax codes; ever-growing lists of things as rules and exceptions. how self-serving! not We The People serving, but so hard that few can file taxes without those dumb software programs we have to *buy* (again, those who benefit do not want the system changed.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by SirWhoopass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the law was only concerned with consequences then there would be no difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder. The outcome is the same: someone died. Action (or inaction, in the case of negligence) plus intent are a part of the law.

    9. Re:And that is what really stiffles innovation by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's quite possibly the stupidest fucking statement I've read today. "How many laws are there?"

      I tell you what, why don't I ask you how many scientific theories there are. Can't answer? Well, I guess that means that science is bad too.

  2. There is a good business oppertunity here by BondGamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone should start copying all Zynga mobile titles. They already have done the research and figured out what are the best games to copy. You copy their games, make what you think are the best improvements, and reap all the profits. Call it Dream Tower.

    1. Re:There is a good business oppertunity here by Stormthirst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The irony here is that:
      a) You'd probably make quite a profit
      b) You'd get sued by Zynga - and they'd win.

  3. Re:aaaah by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And that's why there are vast swathes of laws that basically act as a substitute for ethics. Because companies have none.

  4. Re:It worked for Microsoft by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference between say windows and macOS, and even macOS and xerox, android and IOS, is still they all had unique features to a much larger degree. Zynga tower, quite litterally is a new skin on tiny tower, as farmville is a new skin on farmtown. There is a big difference between taking a general concept and adding features to it, and taking something and slightly sharpening the graphics.

  5. But in what field? by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Zynga's field is 'scummy games for retards'. Does it really matter if innovation in that field is stifled?
    Perhaps the parasite will kill it's hosts.

  6. Re:oooooooh by JustSomeProgrammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You lost me. The big boy is copying the little guy. The little guy is the creator and has a game on market that the big boy just blantantly ripped off and marketed better to a wider area and with distribution channels the little guy cannot compete with. Removing the copyright would allow the little guy to... copy the game that the big guy copied from him?

    I could be missing something, but how is the situation better? Are you proposing that every living human on earth (7 billion little guys aka the population of the earth) will band together to take down the big boy when copyright is gone? Or are you saying that 7 billion people innovating separately will create more value than 3000 people teaming together (# of employees at Zynga)? That's of course assuming that people won't copy off of each other when there is no penalty to do so. I honestly don't think that something like the Pyramids, any building bigger than a hut, most games that require a diverse amount of skills to create, would be made without people teaming together. I'm pretty sure even in this case the game wasn't originally created by just one guy but by a small team of people with different skills coming together to make a better product. Some people are better creators than innovators. And innovators aren't always the greatest creators. And I have rarely seen someone with one of those skills being a great marketer.

  7. Re:It worked for Microsoft by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that Apple didn't actually say that. They'll tell you that they built the best versions of those things, not the first.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  8. Re:oooooooh by neonKow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely would not help. Copyrights allow little guys to get into a business. Without copyright, this wouldn't be a leaked memo; it'd be a public memo. There would be no reason for Zynga not to copy indie games if not for copyrights, and they would have the resources to market their product far better than most indie producers will.

    Removing patents and copyrights is not the solution to people exploiting a loophole in the patent/copyright system.