Slashdot Mirror
Zynga Sues Brazilian Dev For Copying Its Games
An anonymous reader writes "In what can only be described as a case of the pot calling the kettle black, Zynga has launched and settled a lawsuit against Brazilian game developer Vostu after accusing Vostu of copying their games. The settlement resulted in the loss of jobs for many Vostu employees. How Zynga managed to carry out such actions while keeping a straight face after dealing with similar allegations remains to be seen."
*sigh*.
Zynga has more money and better lawyers.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Did I miss the announcement of a contest offering a prize for the company that can be the biggest douche-bag? I must have. Between these guys, Apple, Microsoft, and a handful of others, they must be having some fun at our expense.
Does that mean every developer that has inspired Zynga can sue them for copying their games?
What a silly question. It's not about consistency, morality, or ethics. It's about what they can get away with, how far they can get away with it, and what happens if/when they get caught.
Gotta get with the times. There's no such thing as corporate responsibility. How the money is made, where it comes from, and what the consequences of making it are, are all problems left for everyone else to deal with. There's only quarterly earnings, year over year growth, and valuation. Get in, make a boatload, and pray to your local diety you get out before the whole system comes crashing down on the heads of all the less fortunate ones who couldn't get out in time.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Iron is delicious.
How could they possibly sue a brazilian devs? Surely that would be way too many for the court to handle at the same time.
I believe what you mean to type was: "It's like RAAAAAEEEEYYYAAAAAAAAAAAIIN... on your wedding day!"
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
There ARE businesses that do not behave like this and they will get my money.
I hate Zynga and their crap games anyway but this would just encourage me to avoid them.
Why would they need to keep a straight face? They can afford better lawyers than anyone they're likely to sue or be sued by. The kind of business Zynga is involved in has nothing to do with ethics or image. If it was they'd have been out of business long ago.
A predator kills and eats its prey while simultaneously doing everything within its power to make its own predators fail to kill and eat it. This is not hypocrisy.
If Zynga sees the illegality of its own practice of copying other people's games as a calculated risk of doing business, then suing others for doing to it exactly what it does to others is really no different than basic predator behavior (which is natural enough...humans are predators after all).
If you misinterpret Zynga's allegations to be some sort of political or moral statement about what kinds of business models/actions are not appropriate, then yeah I guess they are being hypocritical. But since when do large wealthy corporations bother with principles?
Claim 71 is the most interesting.
Zynga claims that Vostu replicated a "bug" that was in CityVille. This kind of claim has been successful in map making and directories to prove copying of works. I would suspect this is why Vostu settled.
Looking at the claims it would be very interesting to know if any source was actually lifted from Zynga by Vostu. But from a layperson or judge looking at it the conclusion may be the same.
Game rules are not subject to copyright, however the exact source code and images are. I can imagine a judge saying that this "bug/feature" while independently coded in a clean room - is the equivalent of a trap street on a map or fictitious entry in a directory.
I don't see what the issue is here. Yes, Zynga copies other people's games. Yes, this company was just doing the same thing. What you people are all apparently are missing though is that Zynga is simply applying simple, well know, and accepted legal practice of "I have more lawyers so fuck you because I said so". I really don't see how you can argue with that.
But lots of other parts are copyrightable. Such as some of the graphics and sounds.
The dream heights/tiny tower was an obvious copy of the gameplay. But the graphics were completely different. And you are alllowed to do that.
These ones look much closer to copying of elements like art, which you aren't allowed to do.
Of course once you introduce patents gameplay might end up protected - but I don't believe that's applicable in either of the cases.
and it smacks of a massively corrupt, medieval style social organization in which 'might makes right', and trial by combat was the norm. if we have 'trial by most lawyers', completely disregarding any principles of legal ethics or empiricism, we have not really advanced past the state described in the Viking Sagas of the 11th century .
...that don't have farmville, mafia wars or yoville accounts?
By your definition, both slapstick and knock-knock jokes qualify as irony.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The really ironic thing is, supposedly laws are to supposed to remove 'might makes right' from disputes in a civilized society, and move disagreements to a courtroom where they can be decided in a rational way without bloodshed. If we have gotten to a place as a society where having more money allows one to buy legal victories with more lawyers, then there really isn't any reason for the fiscal/legal 'little guys' to not just pull out a gun and kill someone they disagree. The whole non-violent method of solving disputes goes straight out the window.
Interestingly enough, that is how radical and terrorist groups are created: the disenfranchisement of a group from society because it feels it has no voice. With no stakes in a society, there isn't any reason not to kill anyone who looks at you cross eyed.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Google didn’t create the first search engine. Apple didn’t create the first mp3 player or tablet. And, Facebook didn’t create the first social network. But these companies have evolved products and categories in revolutionary ways. They are all internet treasures because they all have specific and broad missions to change the world.
It's one thing to post a rip-off game or a general concept. But Vostu did exact replicas. As in, side-by-side pictures look basically identical, game bugs were replicated, artwork is nearly identical. I think there is a line and that Vostu crossed it.
What are the comments here arguing? That exact copies of games should be allowed? That's obviously faulty. That no games with any similarity can come out? That doesn't seem right either. Obviously there has to be some compromise between these two extremes.
Really a lot of the comments here boil down to "I hate Zynga games," or "I hate lawyers."
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
I should point out that not all legal systems value precedent as much as the US system. A lot of countries (my native Belgium included) use law as written as a basis for guilt or innocence, setting much lower value on previous cases (although they can be used to give credibility to an interpretation of the law).
Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
china maybe?
Without this gem, the discussion is not really complete.
“I don’t f***ing want innovation. “You’re not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers.”
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
that Vostu agreed that it produced games very similar to those produced by Zynga, but said that Zynga could not sue as it had unclean hands and had done exactly the same with reference to its own products.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Bazynga!!!!!
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
those businesses will start behaving exactly like these, when one of companies like these come and start competing with them with these methods. they have no choice. otherwise they would go under.
allowing bad behavior, forces others to the same behavior.
Read radical news here
I don't play flash games. None of my friends play flash games.
Unfortunately, I've interviewed with Zynga for a security hardening job ... it was clearly a waste of my time.
They refused to do the main thing that I suggested to be more secure by simply saying that it wasn't possible. Security is less important than making money even with in-game money being stolen in huge amounts due to the lack of security measures.
I bet lots of normal people have never played any of their games.
I also bet lots of folks in rural areas, like East Texas don't.
Let's not forget it.
Hot Damn! Vostu might just get an intelligent jury.
Don't you know the law is only for big fish. That's why the FDA goes around in sting operations against Amish farmers who might sell the occasional court of raw milk.
But then turns a blind eye to Mosanto (no, no, no....don't let consumers decide. GMO warning labels might scare people. How about GMO Free, no, no, no...).
No, your arguments are trying to focus on a narrow view, try looking at the big picture and open you eyes.
Watch "Pump up the Volume"; then multiply it across many domains and perhaps you may get enlightened.
Personally, I have no problem with Patents, Copyright, or Trademarks; in fact, I do believe (as do most everyone here that I have ever read about) that these are necessary and serve a VERY important function in society. What I disagree with is a double standard; where one group of people can dictate/force anything they want on another group just "because".
Examples:
Lengthening of patents and copyrights to unrealistic lengths.
Allowing legal avenues to be bypassed for their own use.
Creating laws that punish but have no recompense for when the instigator are wrong.
Using the Legal system as a Club to terrify and control people.
Using "trickery" to make, what seems common sense, illegal:
-- You buy a DVD for your kids, then make a backup of it so they can use that and if it gets broken you can copy your original again, -- why is this "almost" illegal?
-- You want to put your movies onto your Media center -- same as above?
-- You want to copy your CD to your MP3 player (you use for running), your media system (for listening at home), and onto a bought CD for storing in your Car so the original will not be stolen (and acts as a backup) -- why should this be illegal if it's for your use only? Why should you be guilty if someone steals your car and then uses the CD's?
-- Using more than a 30 second clip of music in your home photos CD you want to send grandma to view?
-- Posting a video that just happens to have the TV on in the background. TV is "BROADCASTED!" so is idiotic (but not if the whole TV is the video (but this should be left up to a Judge to decide and at the very least should not go to trial unless an entire "show" is posted this way.... Again, why is this illegal (or laws being made to make it so)?
-- Why do these companies get away with making stuff that may NEVER enter the public domain? DRM, I know, I have games I CAN NOT LEGALLY (and possibly physically) play because of it and this is only after a few decades, what is the chance we'll have this stuff after a hundred years... Search for "lost movies" and you'll see how much those "producers" are losing because the stuff doesn't enter the public domain soon enough and they have NO WILL OR INTEREST in protecting it themselves since they see that as competition to themselves.
I can go on and on and on, but I hope this enlightens you a little bit about the real world and what people (especially here on Slashdot) are really looking for; and Yes, there are fringe groups that will always go overboard and want nothing but chaos and anarchy, but truthfully, we need these people for the simple fact that we need an opposite to the totalitarian views that we are fighting against as well. Only a good balance will work, and most people here are fed up with being treated like criminals and prevented from doing that which is common sense since we "WANT" to be legal and ethical. And that I believe is the real problem, a large fraction of people just DON'T care and do the above "common sense" stuff illegally and say "so what?" not realizing the pinchers are closing and if they manage to close all the way we could face a digital dark age as bad as the medieval one (a little hyperbole but not much if you follow the logic of these media conglomerates to their ultimate wet dream).
The Amish are still waiting for their class action status ruling against Zynga.
I8-D
Vostu is a Brazilian company, but the main workforce is in Argentina. Zynga came to the country first by spreading rumours that they were going to acquire a company. Zynga was, then, in the typical process of expanding it's assets and workforce to raise the value of their IPO or whole company value (The same way Playdom did before being sold to Disney, for example).
Vostu is very strong in South America, the strongest social game company here, so it was naturally the best target of aquisition by Zynga. However, Vostu execs asked for a much higher price than Zynga was willing to pay. In consequence, Zynga sued Vostu to attempt to drive their price down.
But in the end, the lawsuit carried for too long, and Zynga decided to go public anyway. Having no more reason to acquire Vostu, the lawsuit was settle briefly before the IPO.
So, not really pot calling the kettle black, just corporate bussiness as usual.
So, Mark Pincus said and I quote:
Companies have to respect each other’s legal and IP ownership rights in the form of copyrights and trademarks. In the case of Vostu, you can see for yourself that Vostu crossed the line and chose to use our copyrighted IP and artwork.
I looked at the video he linked when he made this claim and I just don't see it. I see different drawn characters with similar aesthetic choices and different UI elements while still looking pretty much like the same game, exactly what Zynga does with every single one of their games.
Zynga should not have won this.
Anyone who RTFA with games development experience would see that almost beyond reasonable doubt Vostu copied Zygna's actual game code/flash movies and "re-sprayed" the graphics. i.e. disassembling SWFs, reverse-engineering the network procotols, etc. Looking at the timeline of their clone launches (each just a few months after the zynga ones), it looks like exactly the right amount of time for a re-spray and nothing else.
This is not hard to do, and it's definitely illegal and immoral, regardless of anyone's feelings for Zynga
Yes, I see the irony in this and thought the same thing upon reading the summary.
However, we already know that game *elements* (e.g. rules) cannot be protected.
Point 4 in the Summary of the Case says:
Vostu has brazenly appropriated the copyright-protected aspects of Zyngaâ(TM)s games
So, it's at least partially a copyright issue, not just a "copy the gameplay itself, which is legally protected but some people think is slimy" issue.
(If you think copyrights themselves are bogus, then all bets are off.)