EA Sues Zynga For Copying Sims Game

Social game developer Zynga has been on the receiving end of complaints in the past for releasing games that look a bit too much like games from indie developers, and for other shady business practices. Now, they've run afoul of somebody with sharper teeth. Today Electronic Arts and Maxis filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Zynga claiming that The Ville is "blatant mimicry" of The Sims Social. "'This is a case of principle,' says EA Maxis general manager Lucy Bradshaw. 'Maxis isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it. Infringing a developer's copyright is not an acceptable practice in game development.' In its complaint, EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social, the Facebook edition of the EA/Maxis franchise that released in August 2011. When Zynga released The Ville last June, consumers and the press immediately pointed out that the title resembled The Sims more than a little."

Comments

Rules

[Hatta]

Since when could you copyright game rules?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Capcom sued SNK over World Heroes being a rip off of Street Fighter 2

Nintendo sued Data East for Karnov being a ripoff of Super Mario Bros, and also sued the makers of Gianna sisters.

Wizards of the Coast sue anybody and everybody in sight.

There's plenty of precedent.

Re:Rules

[LordLimecat]

Karnov was nothing like Mario Bros, and TBQH was a better game.

Re:Rules

[thegarbz]

Erm they didn't just copy the rules. They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too. Go have a look at their various titles. It's not simply a case of copying the concept or the engine. It's basically trying to make a very close clone artwork and all. The Tetris ruling should make it quite clear that they are in violation, and also that the rules aren't the copyrightable bit.

I hate EA and the copyright laws as much as the next person. But I hate Zynga more and I really hope they get their asses kicked for this.

Re:Rules

[Hatta]

What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.

Re:Rules

[cpu6502]

>>>They blatantly ripped off the interface design and artwork too.

Definitely a no-no.
Zynga will lose.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the legal complaint (from the Ars link): http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final

Looks like the Zynga game is a complete ripoff.

Re:Rules

[Hatta]

Didn't they try look & feel lawsuits in the 80's with little success? Why is it different with games?

The Tetris ruling is a pretty bad one. Allowing the Tetris Company to copyright the entire set of tetrominoes is idiotic.

I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.

Re:Rules

[CmdrEdem]

If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law. But since it's an American court that will judge this I have even less idea of what will happen.

Re:Rules

[Sir_Sri]

They aren't. EA basically ripped off the abilities in SWTOR from WoW (e.g. http://forum.gamebreaker.tv/viewtopic.php?id=3508).

You can't completely copy a game though. In effect it's a similar problem to cover bands, design patents on square corners, and Corporate brands, they all hit on a similar problem from different directions. You can be inspired by, but you can't blatantly copy someone else or their brand features without their permission. Whether this rises to that level I don't know. But Zynga pushes that line as its business model.

Re:Rules

[ackthpt]

What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.

Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character. If there's too many examples where the character types are protrayed too similarly Zynga may find itself burned.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Wizards of the Coast sue anybody and everybody in sight.

There's plenty of precedent.

Since when?

Sure, they've sued people who made copies of their Magic Cards (as in meant to appear to be Magic Cards), they've sued people who distributed their copyrighted D&D books, they've even sued people who leaked their internal information...but no, just stick with your unfounded claims.

Re:Rules

[Kaz Kylheku]

Why hate Zynga. They wrote their own code, didn't they? Is the artwork a pixel-for-pixel copy, or a stylistic imitation?

Re:Rules

[Splodgey]

If Zynga loses for stealing ideas then Gameloft are in deep sh..

Re:Rules

[mwvdlee]

RTFA. zynga has gone through quite some effort to try and replicate EA's Sims Social to a point where the two might as well share the same code.
This goes far betond merely using similar game rules.

Re:Rules

[Internetuser1248]

I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.

This is the thing, as an indy game developer myself I find it hard to decide which I hate more. I can imagine the anger I would feel if I had a popular game and it was ripped off and all my customers stolen by assholes like zynga who never contributed anything to the gaming world in their life.
On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree. It is clear to people who appreciate good games who is bringing new innovation to an old abandoned idea, and who is ripping off other people's ip to milk profit from it. But codifying that in law is not an easy task. The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks. I guess the ideal realistic outcome is that zynga wins the court case but the bad publicity damages their reputation to such a degree that they gradually fade away. I know that is also not very realistic, people who like zynga games are not usually smart enough to understand a complex issue like this.

Re:Rules

[mwvdlee]

Seeing as how the EA filing also references the other (non-EA) games zynga copied, I hope the indie devs finally get some justice too.

Why would anybody want to work at zynga? Would any other game company hire a guy that willingly worked at zynga? It seems like a career-killer to me.

Re:Rules

[Maxmin]

So you mean Zynga that copied EA's actual art files and exactly reproduced their interface design, correct?

A cursory review of the two games, side-by-side, reveals that this is not the case. Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.

Your hate^H^H^H^H hyperbole has made you powerful.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Zynga game is a complete ripoff.

I'm shocked! To which of many original Zynga titles are you referring to?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe the US standard is "substantially similar to the ordinary observer", so no it does not need to be a direct copy to infringe.

Re:Rules

[ArhcAngel]

Why hate Zynga. They wrote their own code, didn't they? Is the artwork a pixel-for-pixel copy, or a stylistic imitation?

Two words...Mark Pincus

Re:Rules

[EdIII]

Yeah, but the example on one of the links definitely looks like they didn't stray very far when copying the villain/scoundrel character

Just how far could they have strayed?

We are talking about a visual clue to a type of behavior. The wringing of the hands is very popular. A few others I can think of may be the western style villain playing with his mustache, or the exaggerated smile of the Grinch, or perhaps the head thrown back laughing. The last one could be misconstrued as mental instability without being a scoundrel though.

There are only so many ways to convey this type of information, in an appropriate time period and context, and I would argue that you should not be able to copyright someone wringing their hands. It's too fundamental to human communication to be allowed exclusivity.

I think copyrights have gone too far as it is and the last thing we need is precedent like this. To have such a thing would truly stifle innovation and raise the barrier to entry to high that only mega corporations could dare play the game.

Re:Rules

[dzfoo]

Oh, you must be a hoot at parties! I bet you also are one of those that responds to annoyed friends with "that's not what I said..." and follows with a pedantic description of the technical and semantic nuances between words.

So the images are not binary equivalent--do you really think that's what a court will consider?

          dZ.

Re:Rules

[Dunbal]

On those grounds the publishers of Doom should sue every other first person shooter that has a barrel that explodes. I believe such a lawsuit was even attempted. I can't remember if it was thrown out of court or not.

Re:Rules

[Dunbal]

Nah he doesn't get invited to parties. But then again, neither do you.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

On those grounds the publishers of Doom should sue every other first person shooter that has a barrel that explodes. I believe such a lawsuit was even attempted. I can't remember if it was thrown out of court or not.

Any citations for this? I've been searching google and have found no mention of such a lawsuit.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when could you copyright game rules?

Is that you, Zuckerberg?

Re:Rules

[K. S. Kyosuke]

On those grounds the publishers of Doom should sue every other first person shooter that has a barrel that explodes.

The makers of Doom? They'd probably just send them some barrels by mail.

Re:Rules

[drinkypoo]

The ideal outcome in my opinion is that EA and zynga both put each other out of business with massive legal costs, and then all simultaneously drop dead from heart attacks

This is the longest, loudest laugh out loud the internets have delivered to me in some time. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

Re:Rules

[docmordin]

If they remade the assets and did not copy directly the files it's not copyright infringement in international law. Same thing with game mechanics. If Zynga did not copy/paste the code or texts from EA them there's no ground in international copyright law.

There is plenty of legal precedence in US law, which pertains as the case is being argued in US, that contradicts some of your statements:

Midway Mfg. Co., v. Dirkschneider et al. 543 F. Supp 466 (D. Neb. 1981)
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Elcon Industries, 564 F.Supp. 937 (E.D. Mich. 1982)
Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 999 (N.D. Ill. 1982)
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009 (7th Cir. 1983)
Team Play, Inc. v. Boyer, 391 F.Supp.2d 695 (N.D. Ill. 2005)
William L Crawford II et al. v. Midway Games, Inc. et al. (W.D. Cal. 2007)
Capcom Co., Ltd. et. al. v. The MKR Group (N.D. Cal. 2008)

To elaborate a bit from those above cases, let alone others, to establish infringement a plaintiff must prove ownership of a valid copyright and "copying" by the defendant. Because direct evidence of copying often is unavailable, copying may be inferred where the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and the accused work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work (Warner Brothers, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 654 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1981)).

Some courts have expressed the test of substantial similarity in two parts: (1) whether the defendant copied from the plaintiff's work and (2) whether the copying, if proven, went so far as to constitute an improper appropriation (Scott v. WKJG, Inc., 376 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 832, 88 S.Ct. 101, 19 L.Ed.2d 91 (1967)); Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 468 (2d Cir. 1946); cf. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977) (extrinsic-intrinsic test)). In many cases, the courts focus on the second part of that test and the response of the "ordinary observer" (Ideal Toy Corp. v. Fab-Lu Ltd. (Inc.), 360 F.2d 1021, 1023 n.2 (2d Cir. 1966)). Specifically, the test is whether the accused work is so similar to the plaintiff's work that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the plaintiff's protectible expression by taking material of substance and value (Krofft, 562 F.2d at 1164). Judge Learned Hand, in finding infringement, once stated that "the ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same" (Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir. 1960)). It has been said that this test does not involve "analytic dissection and expert testimony," Arnstein, 154 F.2d at 468, but depends on whether the accused work has captured the "total concept and feel" of the copyrighted work (Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 1970)).

While dissection is generally disfavored, the ordinary observer test, in application, must take into account that the copyright laws preclude appropriation of only those elements of the work that are protected by the copyright (Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 913 (2d Cir. 1980); Clarke v. G. A. Kayser & Sons, Inc., 472 F.Supp. 481, 482 (W.D.Pa.1979), aff'd without op., 631 F.2d 725 (3d Cir. 1980)). "It is an axiom of copyright law that the protection granted to a copyrightable work extends only to the particular expression of an idea and never to the idea itself" (Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop, 533 F.2d 87, 90 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 980, 97 S.Ct. 492, 50 L.Ed.2d 588 (1976)). "Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea-not the idea itself" (Mazer v. St

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

> Seeing as how the EA filing also references the other (non-EA) games zynga copied

Dude... do you have any idea how many games qualify as "copies" of each other? I mean, how many RPGs could be the same if you can just take any random parts of the game and say that enough coincidences constitute a ripoff? Well, see, this other RPG _also_ has HP, MP, gold ....

How long would it take us to find some random coincidental games that EA has "ripped off" in some manner? This is not good for the industry. It ends with everyone suing everyone, and all the money going from making games to paying lawyers. That's not good for anyone.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Zynga is in San Francisco, CA. If you are a developer *in* San Francisco that Zynga is willing to hire, there are many, many other companies that would love to hire you, too.

Of course, your point re: outsourcing, and remote work in general, is a good one.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the market for ActionScript developers here is kinda dying off. I bet they have no trouble finding people who used to do mostly marketing work.

Re:Rules

[hairyfeet]

Bah! You want to show they are evil you pet the kitty. Haven't you ever played Evil genius?

Lets face it folks, Zynga has been royally buttfucking indie games devs for a loooong while now, and it looks like its time they got screwed back. Zynga doesn't just borrow ideas, they make the most blatant rips they can, copying the characters, icons, I mean we don't allow this in other media as far as i know, you can't take the movie almost word for word and just change the name to "Florist Frump" so why should you be allowed to do that to a game? Hell even the "Mockbusters" only make a sound alike title while changing the characters and situations enough its not the same movie!

Now don't get me wrong, i think most copyrights ARE bullshit, and there are certain situations where you just can't help it. For example if a game has marines in it? Well everyone knows what marines look like so if you have those characters in your game they are gonna look like just about every other marine in a game because you are basing it on a real life subject. But with these games they aren't just ripping off the gameplay, they are ripping off the characters, the artwork, hell I've seen ROM hacks that are less off a ripoff of the source material than a Zynga game!

If Zynga wins i could see this seriously hurting indie devs, because who in the hell is gonna want to buy your new iPhone game if the next week Zynga or some other social group has spammed out a copy from the cheap Chinese coder factory? Why should i pay for "Plants VS Zombies" when i can play "Flowers against the undead" for free and it looks and plays the same? Why should I pay for Angry Birds when I can play "ticked off turkeys" for free and side by side shots can't tell the difference between the two?

Ultimately this doesn't hurt the big guys, who can spam the networks and radio with ads and get people to buy, it hurts the little guys who hope to get enough from their little game to keep their doors open and make the next one, because it is those guys that Zynga has been ripping off hard. The only difference between then and now is Zynga got ballsy and decided to steal from someone that can fight back.

Re:Rules

[tbird81]

Hey look guys. I'm planning a party in Auckland NZ tonight, and the three of you (parent, GP, and GGP) sound like great fun, I hope you can all come.

If you can't I'll probably cancel, because it's not going to be the same without your awesome debating skills.

Re:Rules

[jxander]

Since about the same time that you could copyright a rectangle, I'd imagine.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean patent a rectangle?

Re:Rules

[Maxmin]

Oh, you must be a hoot at parties! I bet you also are one of those that responds to annoyed friends with "that's not what I said..." and follows with a pedantic description of the technical and semantic nuances between words.

That's generally how geek parties go, mate.

So the images are not binary equivalent--do you really think that's what a court will consider?

If you'll recall NimbleBit's whine (http://is.gd/rJwkR7 ), to Zynga about Tiny Tower vs Dream Heights? The response (http://i.imgur.com/ajaYt.jpg ) was to show how NimbleBit had seemingly copied Corporation Inc, which looks itself to be a rip-off Sim Tower, and so on.

The lesson of the casual game industry is there's little originality. Thousands of games (perhaps tens of thousands now) leveraging, what, a couple of hundred game ideas across a few dozen genres?

When it comes down to lawsuits about copyrighted look, injunctions and other court-orders are the ordnance of the day. These things rarely end up in full-blown trials. It's all about intimidating competitors to change or quit. Or settle, as Vostu did with Zynga over their MegaCity clone of CityVille (in itself copied from many other game ideas): http://is.gd/XK1nnX

To me, this way of doing business is all one and the same with software patents.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The IP rights of Checkers and Chess have long since expired, but it's anybody's guess as to which game came first.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Square Enix owns that trademark from the old Square Pictures logo (seen at the start of the Spirits Within movie).

Re:Rules

[larry bagina]

The unemployment rate is 8.3%. Plus another 8% that no longer count as unemployed since they've been unemployed for too long. And some that retired or went on disability, so the unemployment rate is really 16-20%.

But that 16% isn't distributed evenly. Subprime mortgage lender? 100% unemployment rate. Silicon valley programmer? 0% unemployment rate. Ok, over 45, the unemployment rate jumps ... but Zynga isn't going to hire them either. If Zynga will hire you, someone else will hire you.

Re:Rules

[antsbull]

Hold on - got a link on Nintendo suing over Karnov? I've never heard of this, and can't find anything in google about it. Sounds highly suspicious given how different the games are and the fact that Nintendo granted a license for it to be released on their own console. Wheres your precedent?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the source...

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/672/672.F2d.607.81-2920.html

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Indie devs have been buttfucking themselves.

If their games were really good or properly marketed, they would get all the popularity and Zynga's copies wouldn't.
If their games aren't properly marketed or good, and if Zynga steals the market, then the solution is simple: make a sequel and market it as "the original [insert Zynga game here]". And even feel free to play the victim and say Zynga ripped you off in order to get sympathy and thus customers.
But don't just sit there, whine, and say you are owed a piece of Zynga's cake.

Zynga has made all the marketing work for devs of the ripped off games - they took a game that was receiving no attention, they improved it a bit and they marketed it better. Those indie devs can exploit that. About a year ago a developer came forward and said Farmville was a rip off of his game, and he got plenty of public attention and sympathy (I have no idea if he used that to his advantage).
Would these developers have been happier if Zynga hadn't copied their games? That would not have made their games more popular, they would have remained obscure and only known to a few hundred people due to poor marketing. Also, the game that Farmville ripped off was not even on Facebook... so it's really not like that game had any hope of reaching Farmville's popularity to begin with. Zynga marketed to a completely different market that the original would not touch, and thus Zynga wasn't really competing with the original. But once Zynga made money due to better business decision, the dev of the original wanted his piece of the cake.

I will add that taking someone's idea and doing it better is beneficial to the public. A developer who makes an awesome game but fails to even tell me his game exists is not helping me at all. But a company who copies his game and tells me it exists is actually doing something good for me.

Re:Rules

[cas2000]

While it's easy to sympathise with small indie developers even they don't get to own an idea.

Zynga may be copying *ideas* from everyone but as long as they are writing their own implementation including creating their own artwork, they are legally entitled to do so. And *morally* entitled to do so too - nobody owns ideas, and the *ONLY* correct response to someone who claims that they do is "fuck off and die you worthless scumbag parasite".

BTW, indie devs have more to lose than big developers if ideas were copyrightable - they wouldn't be able to do *anything* without getting sued into oblivion by trolls like Zynga or worse.

Re:Rules

[slashmydots]

The correct answer is: to waste all Zynga's money on legal fees to the point where it's not actually profitable to operate the game anymore.
By the way, you don't mess with EA. You piss them off, they'll ride a helicopter to your house and drop a bomb on it. EA gets pretty pissy about pretty stupid shit lol. Just search "EA" on slashdot to get a good idea how they react to just about anything.

Re:Rules

[Darby]

The makers of Doom? They'd probably just send them some barrels by mail.

I think Carmack would drive his suped up Ferrari over to their house, destroy their arguments in person. If at that point they were still disinclined to listen to reason, he'd launch them into space...on the outside of the rocket.
And, if you think about it they'd better hope there were more than one guilty party. He's not going to strap one guy on one side of the rocket because that would throw off the balance. No, the solo asshole would find his own asshole perched right on the pointy top of the rocket at ignition and I'd imagine that might sting a bit.

I mean that's just a WAG. I don't know Carmack or anything.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

The unemployment rate for programmers in silicon valley is actually significantly lower than the unemployment rate for other occupations or areas.

That said, nobody really cares where you've worked previously as long as you are good at what you do.

Re:Rules

[vux984]

Well its easy to commiserate with diminutive autonomous developers, even they don't get to possess an idea.

Zynga may be duplicating "ideas" from everyone but provided they author their own realization including drawing their own pictures, they are lawfully allowed to do so. And "ethically" allowed to do so also - noone owns ideas, and the *SOLE* right reply to anyone who asserts that they do is "fucking die you valueless filthy leech".

BTW, autonomous devs have more to lose than large developers if ideas were copyrightable - they would be unable to do *whatever* without getting sued into nothingness by ogres like Zynga or worse.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds pretty similar to the Apple vs Samsung issue to me. Hopefully Apple will win and so will EA.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

" I mean we don't allow this in other media as far as i know, you can't take the movie almost word for word and just change the name to "Florist Frump""

Wrong. The entire porno industry makes a fair bit of money doing direct parodies. The Rock Whore Picture Show is a DEAD COPY of the original RHPS, but with porn added, that's it. We just released the latest The Dark Knight Rises porno parody (and the fucking costume looks BETTER in the parody than in the actual movie.)

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this opinion to be substantially similar to this one...

Though I suppose the document is public domain, so perhaps I shouldn't have bothered.

Re:Rules

[M3wThr33]

Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.

Re:Rules

[thegarbz]

You forgot to finish with:
"but IANAL"

or... maybe you ARE a lawyer. Quick get him guys!

Re:Rules

[thegarbz]

Looking at the examples in the lawsuit PDF shows that they're not copies, but at worst reimaginings.

... which in every prior case has been found to be an infringement of copyright.

But really by all means go make a game called Munchkin. It can look like Pacman with absolutely no copying of the original code or graphics. Change the name of the characters and change the gameplay slightly. Pacman can be called Munchkin, the ghosts can be called Munchers, and Artari won't be able to sue you and win.

Oh wait

Hard to call it hyperbole when it's based on many actual court decisions isn't it.

Re:Rules

[brit74]

On the other hand if zynga loses this case it might set a dangerous precedent. My own work is generally inspired by something else, all artists plagiarise to some degree.

I don't think you need to worry about that at all unless you are taking dozens of screenshots of another game and copying them as best you can. This won't affect game developers (I'm one too) unless there some big shift in how these kinds of laws are interpreted.

Re:Rules

[Havenwar]

Except Zynga only copies POPULAR games, so if you don't play the originals then they won't ever make a copy for you to play, so your argument falls flat. Plus in true Zynga fashion the copy will pretty much push you to spam your entire friendslist and pay real money for in-game advantages, something most other companies do much less heavy-handedly... As someone who used to be a facebook game junkie and enjoyed several games that then got Zyngafied, I've tried both sides of the coin... and in almost every case I went back to play the original. Except of course the few cases when the benefit of a massive developer house really shone through... Zynga's games might be rip-offs, but in some cases they actually play better/less buggy than the originals.

Does Zynga hurt the indie devs? Sure. It rapes them hard and heavy... AFTER they have gone popular. AFTER they have had a chance to build a name and fan-base and revenue stream. Still rape, but clever indie devs should be expecting such possibilities and have a plan to either compete with quality, sell out, or get out when the beast rolls along.

Re:Rules

[makomk]

If you'll recall NimbleBit's whine (http://is.gd/rJwkR7 ), to Zynga about Tiny Tower vs Dream Heights? The response (http://i.imgur.com/ajaYt.jpg ) was to show how NimbleBit had seemingly copied Corporation Inc, which looks itself to be a rip-off Sim Tower, and so on.

Except that Dream Heights is clearly a copy of Tiny Tower in ways that Tiny Tower isn't a copy of Corporation Inc. The building in Corporation Inc is a very different shape, the kinds of things you can put in the building are different, the user interface layout is very different, the goals of the game and scoring mechanics are completely different... All those things and more are basically identical between Dream Heights and Tiny Tower - really, just compare the original Nimblebit comparison with the one you linked above. As Tiny Tower and Corporation Inc demonstrate, there are many possible ways to create a game that involves building a towering empire of some kind from the ground up, you really don't have to copy your competitors.

Similarly, if you read EA's complaint which was linked further up, what they're actually suing over isn't the fact that Zynga launched another game which allowed you to create a character based on yourself and have them socialize with your friends' characters, it's that Zynga copied every last detail right down to the height of the walls and the RGB values of the skin tone options.

Re:Rules

[gl4ss]

Read the document. Zynga even copied the exact same RGB values for the 8 skin tones. EXACT same.

haha - that's fucking classic !

where is zynga headquartered again ?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away Zynga, you won't get any sympathy here.

Re:Rules

[Kalriath]

What's this "we" you speak of?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean we don't allow this in other media as far as i know

2002: A Sex Odyssey
28 Dicks Later
A Beautiful Behind
A Bitch Too Far
A Clockwork Orgy
American History XXX
An Officer and a Genitalman
Ass Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Brown Eye
Backdoor Adventures of Butthead and Beaver
Battlestar Orgasmica
Buffy The Vampire Layer
Buttman and Throbbin' meet the Poker
Das Booty
Dodgeballs
Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Tensing and Love the Bum
Evil head
Fist Club

And..

Foreskin Gump
Forrest Hump
Forresty hump

Source: FunnyTitles.com - Porno Movie Names Based On Real Movies

Re:Rules

[Kalriath]

And then we can all go for a Swim at Kim's. Oh wait, if the argument's about copyright Kim would probably go for that.

Re:Rules

[Kalriath]

Would that be a bad thing?

Oh, and likely Chillingo as well.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

besides that, sim city social (unfortunately because its a sucky pyramid marketing scheme) is a copy of Zyngas cityville... it is a little better, but they disgraced the simcity name by copying zynga so much :(

Re:Rules

[Kalriath]

Cadbury trademarked the fucking colour purple, so yeah.

Re:Rules

[Dunbal]

Sorry I'm not into Korean men...

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

So, had they flipped the least significant blue bit it would be all fine? Can Powell sue Bolt out of the Olympics for infringement on his skin color?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah thats pretty blatent. When I got to that part I actually felt like I should side with EA.... 16 million colour possibilities and they copy the EXACT same 8 combos EA used. They didnt even put in the effort to hide that they were copying EA. Like they couldn't adjust by 1? haha

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hate Zynga. They wrote their own code, didn't they?

No

Is the artwork a pixel-for-pixel copy,

Yes

or a stylistic imitation?

No, it's a literal pixel for pixel copy of other people and companies artwork, code, look, as well as game play. Only the latter is acceptable to copy, none of the former.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Im sorry, but using the EXACT wall heights, EXACTLY the same RGB values for all 8 skin colour tones, fridge so similar its the same dimensions and has the same pictures on it in the same spots, yoga mats with the same dimensions and pattern (seriously they are near identical), the same buttons to do the same tasks ("wall down" for example), same dimensions for TV's, classes so similar that they are holding exact same items/posing the exact same way for their icons, identical animation to enter the shower, identical animations to get into bed, characters show the same icon when they need to use the washroom, you can dress your character in identical clothing (shirt, dress, shoes all identical), the same snuggling animation (you can place the outlines on eachother and there is no difference), date accept and breakup are the same screen with same symbol, 2 characters sitting and watching TV look identical (same sitting position, spacing, look), taking pictures looks the same, starting houses have the same look, items and dimensions,hell EA even shows how Zynga copies OTHER peoples games.

I know that it was a long read, but the claim even says itself that its not challenging the IDEA for the game, its challenging the identical animations, textures and all that. Before you rush to post first you should actually read the article and links. They didnt even bother changing all of the words, let alone changing animations and textures. I can hate on EA just as much as the next guy, but their filing sure lists a TON of reasons why its a copy, not a clone.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey look guys. I'm planning a party in Auckland NZ tonight, and the three of you (parent, GP, and GGP) sound like great fun, I hope you can all come.

If you can't I'll probably cancel, because it's not going to be the same without your awesome debating skills.

I hope you don't have to cancel: I really want to find out which one is the master debater.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid companies have to compete on quality and support.

No. its way better that any copy of the game is just as good as your version. yep.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

If you treat your customers right.
Your product has style.
You sell at a reasonable price.
You don't treat people like shit or act like a tool.
And your support is good.

Why would your customers abandon you for 'yet another clone'?

Don't discount brand loyality.
Most products in the world are exactly the same. From car insurance to computers to dishwashing detergent...
They all work pretty much the same for any given product type.. All functionally the same.
Any brand of detergent will work fine for getting stuff clean. Same chemicals. ect....

And yet all those products somehow keep customers just by how the customer 'feels' about the product.

I mean hell. Look at apple users. The hardware is the same now. The software is damm close to the same.
Functionally theres really not much difference at all. They will both browse the web, print, ect ect ect....
The actual products do not explain the rabid brand loyality of apple junkies. And it wasn't the product that made that happen.
It was how the user was made to FEEL about the product.

Bout time the software industry wised up to this.
Of course they will have to change the fact that most consumers HATE the software makers.
Because so many of them have gone out of their way time and time again to screw over the end user...
So many boneheaded mistakes from the likes of microsoft, sony, ea games, blizzard, and a million other software makers...

Stop doing that. Build some brand loyality. Make your customers LIKE you.
And like giving YOU money instead of some company who made a generic clone of your game and you'll be just fine.

And if you can't do any of that... What makes you think you deserve their business anyway?

Re:Rules

[TheRaven64]

This isn't new, it predates computers by a long way. Copyright has always had the notion of a derived work. If someone wrote a story and you write a story that is more or less the same as theirs but with a few tweaks, then that can still be copyright infringement. If, however, you write one that just has a similar setting, then that's fine. If you're reusing the characters and the setting, then it starts to get into the grey area.

Re:Rules

[hellop2]

Considering your sig, would your statement perhaps be born out of self-reflection?

That's cool. I do that too. But, I'd rather be right on the Internet than hang out with a bunch of imprecise idiots and their stupid boobs.

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe I'm rooting for EA to win in court. Snowballs in hell and the like.

Re:Rules

[drummerboybac]

You forgot Face Jam

Re:Rules

[Kalriath]

Kim Dotcom isn't Korean, he's German.

(Auckland NZ is where he lives, but I assume you knew that. About 10KM from my house, actually).

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between inspiration and rebadging, no?

Re:Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me wish I had mod points....

Re:Rules

[cas2000]

i guess you thought you were making some kind of clever point by making a simple variation of what i posted.

sadly, you're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

more importantly, you haven't disproved or even undermined my point. Instead, you've unwittingly (witlessly!) provided an example to support it.

Re:Rules

[vux984]

I suppose you believe you are creating some kind of thoughtful response by making a trivial variation of what I posted.

disappointingly, you're not nearly as thoughtful as you thought you are.

more compellingly, you have not rebutted or even undermined my point. Indeed, you've carelessly (uncaringly!) demonstrated an example to support it.

Another original post brought to you by Zynga

(And indeed, this -would- violate copyright. While the idea itself cannot be copy protected, my expression of it too closely resembles yours, even though it is different, even if I change all the words, and even the sentence structure... suppose I were to translate it to Chinese.

It is a -derivative work-.

Dis gunna be good.

[antant007]

I'm going to go grab the popcorn.

I Hate Zynga, But...

[deweyhewson]

I'm not really seeing what Zynga has done here that is illegal or violating copyright. You can't own copyright on an idea, only on an implementation of that idea; Tolkien's writing of the Lord of the Rings does not prevent anyone else from writing fantasy with orcs and goblins themselves.

I'd enjoy seeing these two companies bloody each other up in a grudge match, but the more pragmatic side of me doesn't want to see a precedent set where an entity implementing an idea suddenly grants them complete control over anything like it which might follow. If that happens, it will be the rest of society which ends up paying the price.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[thegarbz]

They're not in trouble for copying the idea. They are mainly in trouble for copying the expression of that idea. I.e. the games look identical. The artwork is similar, the character graphics are similar, everything about the game is designed to be as close as possible to the original. At least their tiny tower game looked very different graphically to the original, however this one almost looks identical to the original. This is indeed copyrightable according to the Tetris ruling.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the world of software copyright where the end result is protected. Its probably the interface thats been stolen.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the complaint document and then think again about what you posted:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final

It's amazing how similar everything is. Wall to floor proportions. The exact same 8 RGB values for character skin tones. The exact same set of character roles, with different names. The exact same character poses in the artwork for these roles. Same contents in starter home. Etc...

Just check out that document.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[BradleyUffner]

They even copied the plum bob! They could have at least come up with a different "Active" indicator icon.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[amicusNYCL]

Tolkien's writing of the Lord of the Rings does not prevent anyone else from writing fantasy with orcs and goblins themselves.

That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone? They go to Riverdale and meet up with Borowmor (from Gander), Gelmi, and the elf Lagelos, go through the mines of Moira, travel through Fangrow Forest, meet the riders of Rahon, etc? Can I call that my own work and publish it? I haven't played either game, but have you seen the screenshots? A lot more than "the idea" was copied, specific implementation details were copied (such as personality types with different names, character animations, etc). The creativity that Zynga put in was what I did, thinking up new descriptions for the same exact things.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[dzfoo]

Your story sounds vaguely familiar... Are there also Nizguls and Ring Wreaths, and a damned creature called Goellum? Because I think I've read it!

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[amicusNYCL]

Right, the one with the elf queen, Chlamydia.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tolkien's writing of the Lord of the Rings does not prevent anyone else from writing fantasy with orcs and goblins themselves.

But not hobbits. You should call those halflings.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you should be able to do that. Remember, copyright is indefinite. There should be a lot of flexibility to compensate.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone?

You could, probably, but you'd have to face the wrath of geekdom... not something I'd want to bring upon myself.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

with the one thing to rule all

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone? They go to Riverdale and meet up with Borowmor (from Gander), Gelmi, and the elf Lagelos,

Of course you can't. You'll be sued by Archie Comics.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[hairyfeet]

Uh ohhh...according to that they hired the guys in charge of making Sims Social before the rollout to get the jump on their copy. I'd say that alone when added to the fact they look like perfect clones is gonna fuck 'em.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Odin's Raven]

Can I call that my own work and publish it?

Sure, why not - and you can call your book "The Sword of Shannara"

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

One does not simply walk into mortar. Pull off the ring and throw where there is fire in the hole!

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

> That's broadly true, but can I write and publish a story about a group of 4 little people, called Hobbins, who team up with people called Argon and Gendelf on a quest to destroy a magic ring sought after by the evil Sarone?

I'm more worried about whether people in the future will be able to write stories where elves are tall and immortal (rather than short), where dwarves write in runes, or where languages are made up for the story. Tolkien gave us a lot of what we take for granted these days in the fantasy genre and it would be poorer but for him, yet I would rather not have his books if it meant giving up all the other books that were inspired on some level by his.

And that would be sad, because he very explicitly wanted to create a myth for others to draw upon. He was a great author worthy of much respect. But I would hate to see bad rulings against people who might have gone too far in copying things create a wave of lawsuits that leave new works unable to pay homage to those who came before lest they be sued.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Borowmor (from Gander)

Erhmergerd, Gernder nedhs no knnng!

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[JohnnyMindcrime]

Anyone want the publishing rights to my new 7 book fantasy series:

1. Henry Peters and The Philanthropist's Stain
2. Henry Peters and The Hamper of Secretions
3. Henry Peters and The Pensioner of Azerbajan
4. Henry Peters and The Goblin of Fear
5. Henry Peters and The Ordinance of Galaxians
6. Henry Peters and The Half Footprints
7. Henry Peters and The Deadly Heroes

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was surprised to not see mention of this sooner. Zynga has hired quite a lot of people away from EA the past few years.

Re:I Hate Zynga, But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those sound suspiciously like *ahem* Adult Entertainment

Only the start

[T Murphy]

I, for one, hope that EA doesn't stop at Zynga in its pursuit of game publishers that lazily copy EA's games, instead of coming up with new ideas. That's right, I'm looking at you, EA, you better watch out as EA is coming after you next!

Re:Only the start

[Em Adespoton]

You joke, but I seem to recall that has already happened in the past, with one arm of EA suing another arm.... I believe EA Legal arrived at a quick settlement with themselves (they had recently bought a company that they were in a suit with IIRC).

Re:Only the start

[Kalriath]

I live in a city which once actually brought a lawsuit against itself - they had forgotten to obtain consent for a building, and decided to prosecute themselves to prove that noone is above the law. They ended up paying a hefty fine to themselves, and the lawyers walked off with a cool $6 million.

Prior Art

[cpu6502]

EA can't claim to be the originator of online People/Life Simulations because of these programs released in the mid-80s (on Commodore 64):

home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Computer_People
Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game)
Sequel: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=habitat+club+caribe

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

This is copyright, not patent. Prior art is irrelevant. As much as I hate Zynga I'm not convinced EA has a case, you can copyright a game itself but copyright law doesn't do that much to protect a game concept.

Re:Prior Art

[pdabbadabba]

I believe you're confusing patent and copyright. Prior art is a concept relevant to patent law, but not copyright (which is the sort of claim EA is bringing). In essence, a copyright claim requires an infringing work to be substantially similar to an original.

Re:Prior Art

[Jahava]

EA can't claim to be the originator of online People/Life Simulations because of these programs released in the mid-80s (on Commodore 64):

home: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Computer_People Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_(video_game) Sequel: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=habitat+club+caribe

You sneaky jerk! Now I can no longer honestly say I've never used Bing.

Re:Prior Art

[Sir_Sri]

It's not.

It's claiming that Villie is a specific rip off of their sims social product (where they've copied as much as possible the style of basically the entire game at every level, abilities, characters, character behaviours etc.). Not inspired by, but essentially a copy. You can be inspired by a previous work and build on it, (if you couldn't EA would be in very serious trouble with every FPS they've ever released for example), but you can't reproduce the game under a different name and try and sell it.

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright claim requires an infringing work to be substantially similar to an original.

You didn't emphasize "substantially " enough. Copyright essentially requires it to be the original image, otherwise derivative works would not be fair use.

Re:Prior Art

[Dunbal]

This is copyright, not patent. Prior art is irrelevant.

Prior art certainly is relevant to show EA is guilty of the very thing they are accusing Zynga of. Or will I suddenly get sued if I write a book involving a young unknown who finds he has mysterious powers and in fact is the son of some very nasty people, gets involved in an epic war and... wait, am I talking about Star Wars or some Greek play? Copyright is just that - you cannot copy the work. Heck if you're a good painter you're more than welcome to paint a very very similar painting to say, the Mona Lisa. You can sell those paintings. You can't claim that they are the Mona Lisa, but you can certainly call them the Mona Laura.

Re:Prior Art

[Dunbal]

It's only a sin if you consented to it. Just delete your cache and do 5 backups of your hard drive and you'll be absolved.

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

You can sell those paintings. You can't claim that they are the Mona Lisa,

Actually I think you can, what you can't do, is claim good ol' Leonardo painted your copy of it. Mona Lisa should actually be pretty well out of copyright by now, since Disney wasn't around back then.

Re:Prior Art

[tepples]

This is copyright, not patent. Prior art is irrelevant.

To what extent is "scenes a faire" relevant?

Re:Prior Art

[flimflammer]

It's not the same thing at all. EA is suing not because of the game idea of a life simulator itself but that the look, feel, and function of the game is virtually identical to their own. The art assets are almost indistinguishable. The characters have basically the same animations, some of the characters look nearly identical, the same colors for things like skin tones (down to exact RGB values), and the list goes on. It's probably Zynga's most blatantly copied game to date. A life simulator can still work if it doesn't look and work identically to EA's game. It would be like rewriting Lord of the Rings, but replacing the names of the main characters and keeping 95% of the story intact. It's like Tetris clones which has been tested in court as copyright infringement even if the graphics aren't identical.

I do think EA has a case but I don't know what they'll really be able to get out of it. Zynga may have gone too far this time. We'll know seen enough.

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still say it dishonestly.

Re:Prior Art

[Kalriath]

You mean 5 restores?

From tape?

Re:Prior Art

[Dunbal]

the look, feel, and function of the game is virtually identical to their own.

You mean kind of like when I sit behind the steering wheel of a Toyota, or behind the steering wheel of a Ford, the "look, feel and function" of driving a car is virtually identical? Look and feel has been tried before, and it has failed before.

Re:Prior Art

[Dunbal]

Bloody protestants...

Re:Prior Art

[BenJury]

Blimey, I amost clicked that as well! Seeing that sort of filth on /. makes me hark back to the good ol' days of the Goatse links...

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh you Orthodox Jews and your punch tape

Hahahaha

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess it's all games until someone gets hurt...

What you can't copyright.

[bmo]

You can't copyright game rules. They are functional, not creative. You can copyright the *presentation* of those rules, but not the rules themselves.
You can't copyright isometric projection of a 3 walled house to show the interior. It's functional, not creative.
You can't copyright a genre.
You can't copyright an idea.

As much as I find Zynga offensive, unless EA can show that Zynga copied EA's actual artwork and/or code and not just created their own version of it, then EA should shut up and walk away quietly.

--
BMO

Re:What you can't copyright.

[amicusNYCL]

Taken individually, you're right. But you may be able to make a claim on a game that shows an isometric projection of a 3 walled house, has 6 basic personality types for people (athletes, artists, romantics, socialites, businessmen, villains), uses different traits and animations for the different personalities, has various interactions between different characters, etc. Yeah, you can't really make a claim on any of those. Tetris can't claim that no one else can create a game that has falling blocks. But when you have a specific set of blocks, and they're specific colors, and you show the next block in a certain way, and you clear the board with a rising wall of squares when the game ends, and you can have random garbage rows at the start, etc etc, then that's something that you can stop other people from copying wholesale. It's the entire game that matters, EA isn't suing because Zynga made a game that shows a house from an isometric perspective.

Re:What you can't copyright.

[mwvdlee]

You can't copyright game rules. They are functional, not creative. You can copyright the *presentation* of those rules, but not the rules themselves.
You can't copyright isometric projection of a 3 walled house to show the interior. It's functional, not creative.
You can't copyright a genre.
You can't copyright an idea.

As much as I find Zynga offensive, unless EA can show that Zynga copied EA's actual artwork and/or code and not just created their own version of it, then EA should shut up and walk away quietly!

(See what I did there, I replaced the . at the end with a !. So it's not a copy, clearly not).

Re:What you can't copyright.

[Dunbal]

Nah they will throw tons of money at it until Zynga either settles, or until they screw up Zynga's chances of going public enough that the CEO will sell Zynga to EA privately. Because that is what EA does - it buys and destroys game studios.

Re:What you can't copyright.

[bmo]

Look-and-feel lawsuits are less than a crapshoot. Apple lost theirs against Microsoft, for example.

This is a look-and-feel lawsuit, and when it comes to games, look-and-feel is even harder to enforce than the look-and-feel of a spreadsheet program, for example.

To repeat what Hatta posted up there:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Just because something is visually similar doesn't mean that it's an infringing copy. SCO tried this "nonliteral copying" argument and failed.

--
BMO

Re:What you can't copyright.

[Dunbal]

Dude copyrighting game rules is a no-no. They are like, functional not creative. I mean like you can copyright the "presentation" of that bunch of rules, but you can't copyright the rules themselves. &tc

The difference here is that you copy pasted, I didn't.

The irony is that EA copies games all the time!

[DishpanMan]

It's funny how EA does this all the time. When the UFC wanted them to help make an MMA game they turned them down. So THQ made UFC Undisputed. When that became a success EA made "EA MMA" which was a horrible copy. Never mind all the tycoon and other knockoffs, or just regurgitating every sports game annually with different names on the jerseys. I just don't have any sympathy for EA when it comes to being copied. They're the perfect example of non risk taking copiers who regurgitate the same franchises every year because they refuse to take a risk. And when somebody does get a good idea they just copy it or buy them out and run the franchise into the ground.

Re:The irony is that EA copies games all the time!

[ebunga]

And yet they're successful.

Shame you can't copyright ideas . . .

[Tanman]

EA is pretty reckless with this. iD could sue everyone for copying the idea of 1st person shooters with the guns popping out the bottom of the screen, et al.

Of course, they can't WIN such a suit. I hope the judge dismisses with prejudice. This is a potentially patent-troll-esque precedent case.

Re:Shame you can't copyright ideas . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparison is of a MoH to CoD. Sure EA was trying to "copy" Activision and with good reason. They were very different games though, most of their similarities were genre specific. This isn't Sim City vs Cities XL where you have essentially the same concept with a entirely different implementation. This is basically Chinese knock-off level, which is another great example. You can't sue someone for making shoes or purses, but you can if they completely steal your design and artwork.

Pot

[Anonymous Coward]

meet kettle.

Ironic

[CmdrEdem]

EA doing this is just amusing, ironic and hypocritical. Ow well, nothing new here. To me this seen only the big kid in town bulling the newcomer to spend some millions in lawyers in both sides. In this case the one with the biggest stick wins, and even with EA doing so bad in the stock market Zynga is worse. I particularly despise both and think they represent the worse there is in this industry and corporate business in general. For all I care and if they pay their employees properly they can just bankrupt. Since they will not pay their employees properly in case of bankruptcy they can still exist, I'll just ignore them all.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like, Win-Win-Win.

this is absurd!

[Gravis Zero]

Zynga would never copy other peoples' games!

Re:this is absurd!

[Mashiki]

Yeah true.

The actual complaint is here:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Final

Re:this is absurd!

[brit74]

FYI, the link was changed today from "#Replication_of_existing_games" to "#Accusations_of_intellectual_property_theft".

Accessible here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zynga#Accusations_of_intellectual_property_theft
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zynga&oldid=505514523#Replication_of_existing_games

Frivolous.

[Kaz Kylheku]

This bullshit is Lotus 1-2-3 versus VP Planner all over again. Or Apple versus Microsoft over Windows. Apple lost that one. Lotus lost when they went after Borland over Quattro Pro. Some people don't learn from history.

Actually Lotus had a stronger case, if anything, because the software they were fighting could read and work with Lotus files.

Re:Frivolous.

[dzfoo]

You should read some history then, because the examples you mentioned are a lot more nuanced than what you are suggesting.

In the case of Apple vs. Microsoft, they didn't lose because "look and feel" is not protectable, they lost because they had given an overly permissive license to Microsoft, and the latter successfully argued that it covered most of the claims. And even that is just a small part of the outcome.

          dZ.

Fed up with all this...

[loneDreamer]

I'm really fed up with all this copying paranoia. Did they do their code from scratch? Did they draw their own graphics from scratch? Then yeah, welcome, that's what competition is supposed to be all about. If EA's game is the better one and they did benefit from being first to market, good for them! If Zinga did at least one improvement and people like it better and switch, good for them too. I don't like Zinga, but I'm in favor of anyone suing about something like this to fail, and fail miserably.

Imagine if all this crap would go to other areas of living. Like if I were to open a bakery and come up with totally different shapes of bread than every other bakery out there.

Re:Fed up with all this...

[bizard]

"Yes, well, that's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."

In all of the discussions about copyright and patents, the ranters all seem to assume that ideas float freely and all anyone needs to do is fire up the machines to produce the widgets or code it up. They neglect the fact that someone had to spend (usually a lot) of time (and often money) to conceive, test, refine and _then_ produce the book, game, widget, etc. And with all of that investment there was no guarantee that it would succeed.

As soon as printing presses were around, it became clear that there are plenty of assholes who will wait to the very end of that process and simply copy a popular product, selling it cheaper because they had to take no risks. And plenty of people willing to save a buck by buying the knockoff.

Nobody would care if you came up with new bread shapes unless they somehow made eating bread even more wonderful. Despite the hours/weeks/years you spent toiling, your bread would be copied and you would never be able to recoup those costs.

I don't think that perpetual copyright is the answer, but neither is vilifying everyone who comes up with an original idea and wishing they would go out of business because Joe down the street was able to copy them in a week and sell it to you for half the price.

Re:Fed up with all this...

[loneDreamer]

Except for the fact that I've seen no proof of any of your statements either. I'm not sure what you wanted to convey by quoting the "non-creative garbage" from somewhere, but the fact that you have a different opinion doesn't make me ignorant. In fact, many opinions are in my side, including artists, economists, lawyers, etc:

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

Intellectual property: Patents against prosperity | The Economist

Why abolish software patents - software patents wiki (en.swpat.org)

When Patents Attack! | This American Life

Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture | Video on TED.com

Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing? Times Labs Blog

The Coming War on General Purpose Computation - Boing Boing

US patent trolling costs $29b: study - Strategy - Business - News - iTnews.com.au

Patents | Electronic Frontier Foundation

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/

Zynga might be too close, but the vast majority of games actually copy each other so much that they create a GENDRE for god's sake. And that has been alwways a good thing for gaming in particular. The truth is that yes, there are indeed assholes, there will always be, but they seem to be on both sides and the question remains to where do they cause the less damage.

As far as being non-creative, I'm not sure who you mean. Personally, I develop new software for a living and I was curiously enough working on my novel when I got your reply.

Re:Fed up with all this...

[VortexCortex]

I will by your tetrahedron loaves, and they wouldn't be that hard or different to make. I would then expose the loaves to different strains of moulds and play a dangerous game of IRL Minecraft...... Then get sued by Mojang?

Calculating sympathy...

[ZorinLynx]

Calculating sympathy for Zynga.........Done.

Sympathy calculated: 0

Once they started acquiring every half decent game and ruining them with more ads, bloat and cross promotion for their other crap, I started to despise them. I never even played a Zynga game intentionally, they were just thrust on me when Words with Friends and Draw Something were bought out.

Ugh, DIAF, Zynga. Please.

Re:Calculating sympathy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Calculating sympathy for EA........Done.

Sympathy calculated: 0

Can the judge rule against both of them and sentence them to death?

What about Sony's Mura demo from 1997?

[nicoleb_x]

Of course, Maxim completely ripped off the Sony Mura demo from 1997. Just like Apple stole Sony's phone. If only Zynga knew this!

Thats not what the lawsuit is complaining about

[Anonymous Coward]

But reading TFA is hard, innit.

To hell with them both

[TheSpoom]

Can we declare that they both lose and remove both their apps? They're not games, they're psychological tricks to extract credit card numbers.

Too bad copyright doesn't protect ideas

[kawabago]

Only the expression is protected. Sorry EA, no case.

The best part about this lawsuit:

[Anonymous Coward]

is that no matter who wins or loses, we all win.

time to part ways...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're going to part with that old EA Sports Saying, "Get the Fuck out of my building!"

"...copied ideas..."

[John Hasler]

Ideas are not protected by USA copyright.

Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"I don't fucking want innovation," the ex-employee recalls Pincus saying. "You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers."

Re:Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga

[metrometro]

I'd mod this up if you had a link.

Re:Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga

[pathological liar]

Is it that hard to search?

Re:Quoth Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go. I bing'ed it so you don't have to. And no, that's not a superfluous apostrophe. I didn't binge it.

We can only hope...

[Trapick]

Hopefully both end up losing somehow. It couldn't happen to two shittier companies.

This is NOT about "copyrighting ideas"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about copying the art and the exact interface of the game. Take a brief look at the complaint to see lots of comparison pictures.

For example, SimsSocial has 8 possible skin tones for characters, and Zynga copied them down to the exact RGB values (!!). Items such as refrigerators, TVs, etc. are so similar that their outlines match up almost completely when they're overlaid on top of each other. I hate EA as much as the next Slashdotter, but this is pretty compelling stuff.

Re:This is NOT about "copyrighting ideas"

[Anonymous Coward]

the sims had an lcd TV.. zynga has a CRT... and you think they're similar?

I looked at those pictures.. and they weren't as similar as you're making it out to be.

Soon enough...

[SirAstral]

If you believe that EA has a case here please do humanity a favor and stay away from the rest of us.

The Sims is not a unique or original idea of a game. In fact far to many games to even mention have implemented some form of EA's game function in part. Imagine if EA could win such a case. Next will be WOW shutting down because as popular as it is, they certainly are not the first even though people like to call other games "WOW Clones". Another of the multitude of game developers have already done WOW before it was an idea in the board room. Same goes for FPS, RPG, & RTS games just to name the most popular genre's. We should be more concerned with all the litigation wars that would start over games because of this.

It's simple, if someone beats Maxis at their own game and does a better "SIMS" clone then too damn bad for Maxis! This is the game industry, every game company has been trying to one up each other year after year for the past 2 decades as it is and I like to keep it that way!!!!

That was a terrible ruling, though.

[Anonymous Coward]

That Tetris ruling is nonsensical, though. The court came up with a completely arbitrary line between what was protectable and what was not which it made up on the spot. I hope that ruling is abandoned, rather than expanded, though I suspect that it very likely encouraged EA to file this lawsuit.

While things like the exact RGB value might look bad, I can find other explanations: for example, what if that were one of the preselected pink colors in some editor? Frankly, that seems more likely to me than someone having gone out of their way to sample images from the Sims. I'm sure you could compare any two long books and find similar, or even identical, sequences of words. If we start litigating just "how close" any two works can be, we will prevent anyone from advancing the status quo.

I mean, if we were to go back in time to apply this, there would be no Apple UI because of Xerox. I don't want to live in a world where you can't do anything that anyone else has kinda-sorta done just because they can find a bunch of coincidental similarities and claim you "ripped off" their idea. And when you get right down to it, nothing in this world is that original. I mean, how many RPGs are "clones" in some way using that kind of standard, right down to HP, XP, gold, strength, intelligence, swords..... ?

Think of the future. We can't let lawyers kill everything.

Re:That was a terrible ruling, though.

[VortexCortex]

I agree. The Tetris ruling is ridiculous. For instance, showing the next piece, is considered above the line, (which other games like super puzzle fighter have, so it's not like that feature has to come from Tetris). likewise for: Changing the color of the active piece when dropped -- human eyes react to more light, you make the active one brighter. The shapes used? Tetrominos are part of geometry, arrange any four same sized squares orthogonally touching in every combination and you get the 7 Tetrominos in Tetris and other games.

Furthermore, Other games added bombs before Tetris 2, and the hold piece and next piece features were borrowed from "tetris clones" by Tetris! So, they shouldn't be considered "above the line" when it comes to copyright, or else Tetris is the infringer!

Re:That was a terrible ruling, though.

[gl4ss]

look at the filing, the games. they went out of their way to copy. it was zyngas design methodology to practically have the original open in the same editor...
there's cases where a clone is just a legit clone, rewrite. this is clone as "make a direct port of it".

sorta-done is something different than make a rewrite that can't be said even to be 2.0. had they even added classes or removed them.. but nah, such decisions are hard and nobody at zynga was allowed to make creative choices when cloning the game.

It took this long to get someone to say something?

[tnerb123]

Finally a company does something about it. Look at every game that they have created. Its a copy of some other game. Its said it had to go this long before someone finally did something about it.

Blizzard is next

[farble1670]

take a look at this game, Order and Chaos,
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/order-chaos-online/id414664715?mt=8

it's a near perfect version of World of Warcraft running on iOS and Android. the look, feel, and mechanics are near copies of WoW, but the content is different- the quests, bosses, maps, items, and so on.

if Blizzard can't sue for this, then EA and everyone else doesn't have a prayer in going after copycats.

BTW, OaC is quite a good game.

Re:Blizzard is next

[gl4ss]

if the content is different then mechanics are probably a bit different too. there's a bunch of mmo's blizzard could sue if they could sue gameloft.
ea is arguing that the _content_ is copy in the ville too. if you had retraced all the wow maps then of course blizzard would sue.

fyi, gameloft only does copies too, but they usually do some aspect just "wrong". for example asphalt gt's have been quite popular car games on mobiles, the graphics engines been ok on many iterations.. but, here's the big but: they should have cloned physics too.

Terrible Precedent

[Aggrav8d]

If this case goes through, then what's to stop John Carmack from suing anyone who's ever made an FPS?

Bored of the Rings with Dildo Bugger

[witherstaff]

Sure you can, it's been done. It follows the adventures of 4 Boggies including Dildo Bugger of Bag Eye and his friends Frito, Moxi and Pepsi. The Bored of the Rings

Re:Bored of the Rings with Dildo Bugger

[Anonymous Coward]

Parody is fair use.

Hypocrit

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you want to plagiarize others, but don't want others to plagiarize you.

copyright does not cover ideas

[cas2000]

EA argues that Zynga willfully and intentionally copied ideas from The Sims Social

Copyright doesn't cover ideas.

Zynga are, IMO, scum but they're not in the wrong here. EA are being arses by claiming to own an idea....EA are, IMO, scum too.

AWESOME!

[toastee]

The two Gaming companies who's business practices I despise the most are fighting? AWESOME! Though I hope EA wins this one, at least they pay the companies they rape the innovation out of.

Re:AWESOME!

[amoeba1911]

EA and Zynga will both lose. The only winners are lawyers. Lawyers win every time.

Tracing

[tepples]

as long as they are writing their own implementation including creating their own artwork, they are legally entitled to do so

Based on the screenshots I saw in the legal filing, Zynga didn't create its own artwork from scratch as much as trace that of EA and other developers.

Re:Tracing

[cas2000]

If that's the case, then EA may have grounds to sue them for copyright infringement - without any need for nonsense about ownership of ideas.

I don't know or care either way.

What i do care about is scumbag corporations and their lawyers pushing the boundaries and making claims about copyright that are not backed up by law. Copyright does not cover ideas, never has, and indeed specifically excludes ideas from coverage. You can copyright a specific expression of an idea but not the idea itself.

that's EXACTLY what's wrong with the system

[amoeba1911]

"isn't the first studio to claim that Zynga copied its creative product. But we are the studio that has the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it."

If you don't have "the financial and corporate resources to stand up and do something about it", then you're shit out of luck. Justice is blind but she expects payment.

And as with most things

[Sycraft-fu]

It isn't an absolute in the law. There isn't a "You can go precisely this far in copying," sort of thing. It depends on a number of factors. So ya, you can copy a general game style. It isn't like if one person makes a game (like an FPS or RTS or whatever) nobody can make anything at all remotely like it. However you can't go can clone a game pixel for pixel, even if all your work is "original" meaning you had a person do the copying. Well in between those two extremes lies what is acceptable.

Zynga is all about ripping people off. Not saying "Hey that is a cool kind of game let's make one of our own," but cloning as much of the game as they can, graphics, gameplay, etc.

EA says that has crossed the line. We'll see if a court agrees, but it is pretty likely, particularly since I'm sure EA will try to get in statements made regarding Zynga's love for copying.

Like Samsung?

[mveloso]

Like the way Samsung copied the expression of the idea of the iPhone?

EA Hypocrisy

[guttentag]

hy-po-cr-isy |hipäkris|
noun ( pl. hypocrisies )
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

For EA to be upset about Zynga copying its games is pure hypocrisy. It wasn't upset when Zynga copied Tiny Tower... in fact, it followed suit with its own clone called Monopoly Hotels. I mistakenly downloaded the game on my iPad thinking it was some new variant of Monopoly... it turned out to be the unholy love child of Farmville and Tiny Tower with a Monopoly facade. Instead of plants growing, money falls from the sky and you have to catch it to build up your hotel... or you could pay them money to build faster to... who knows what... feel better about yourself because you have a bunch of imaginary useless hotels?

On the other hand, we can't give them too much flack for The Sims Social, because EA used it to inject a "dislike" function into facebook (see screenshot on their site of a user b*tch-slapping her real friend's avatar, which I interpret to be the opposite of clicking the "Like" button).

Re:EA Hypocrisy

[guttentag]

OMG! I just bought this new designer umbrella and now it's all wet! It's ruined!

3 people like this; 37 people b*tchslapped you

Cowboyneal and 102,082 other people like this

Re:EA Hypocrisy

[gl4ss]

unholy love child of farmville and tiny tower is still a new product.

seemingly zynga didn't bother with such twist. they had gotten away with 1:1 clones for so long that they forgot they're copying masters of evil.

Words with friends...

[QuincyDurant]

...is fun. But how the hell is it legal? Can you really take a game like Scrabble or Monopoly and give it a new name? And what is it about social networks that makes them ooze slime?

Zynga will counter-sue with simcity

[Anonymous Coward]

Zynga will definitely counter-sue. Simcity's main phrase is more city less ville whatever that bashes Zynga's cityville. Hoping this will be bloody.

I play The Ville - EA has a good point

[the Gray Mouser]

It's not just that you control people building houses and placing objects. The views, even (and especially) the music are VERY reminiscent of playing The Sims. The way you interact with items and other people. Not exactly, but very, very close. You've even got the Needs to take shower, wash hands, etc...

At best, it's a sim clone, the way Torchlight is a Fate/Diablo clone. At worst, it's infringement and Zynga is going to be zapped.

So having a two word name is copywrited?

[dave87656]

The Sims and The Ville. Yep, they both have two words and start with "The". Wow, there must be quite a few names that run afoul of that similarity. Not that I like Zynga or especially Marc Pincus but creating a game with a similar name and similar rules can't be copywriting can it?

A tagline from a movie comes to mind

[neminem]

I first heard the joke used regarding the 2004 Presidential elections, but it applies here too. The movie being Alien vs. Predator, and the tag being "Whoever wins... we lose."

Levels of abstraction

[tepples]

Copyright does not cover ideas, never has, and indeed specifically excludes ideas from coverage. You can copyright a specific expression of an idea but not the idea itself.

The difference between idea and expression is the level of abstraction. At some point, a judge has to draw a line between the two. The problem is that U.S. federal judges have shown themselves willing to draw the line at different places in Oracle v. Google and Tetris v. Xio.