Slashdot Mirror


'CandySwipe' Crushed: When Game Development Turns Nasty

Nerval's Lobster writes "King, the gaming developer behind the monster hit Candy Crush Saga, has attracted a fair amount of criticism over the past few weeks over its attempt to trademark the word 'candy,' which isn't exactly an uncommon term. The company followed up that trademarking attempt by firing off takedown notices at other developers who use 'candy' in the titles of their apps. But things only got emotional in the past few days, when indie developer Albert Ransom published an open letter on his Website that excoriates King for what basically amounts to bullying. Ransom claims that he published CandySwipe in 2010, a full two years before Candy Crush Saga hit the market, and that the two games bear a number of similarities; after opposing King's attempts to register a trademark, Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark. Ransom claims he spent three years working on his game, and that King is basically robbing his livelihood. King was not effusive in its response. 'I would direct you to our stance on intellectual property,' a spokesperson for the company wrote in an email to Slashdot, which included a link to a letter posted online by King CEO Riccardo Zacconi. 'At this time, we do not have any comment to add beyond what is outlined in this letter.' Zacconi's various defenses in the letter seem a moot point in the context of CandySwipe, considering how Ransom has already abandoned the prospect of fighting to protect his intellectual property. But the two developers' letters help illustrate how downright nasty the casual-gaming industry has become over the past several quarters, as profits skyrocket and people attempt to capitalize on others' success."

251 comments

  1. Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://tangodropbox.com

    DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.

    1. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tango DropBox was made YEARS before DropBox existed.

    2. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      DropBox.com was founded in 2007
      TangoDropBox was written in 2005.

      DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

    3. Re:Tango DropBox by roninmagus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the AC's are hidden, I'll elaborate that tangodropbox existed before dropbox. I'm afraid your comment is indicative of the perspective that candy crush fans will have.

    4. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DropBox.com was founded in 2007
      TangoDropBox was written in 2005.

      DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

      If that's the case, then perhaps the person who coined the term drop box should start exercising their IP rights. Dropbox sure as hell didn't invent the concept of a "drop box" or cloud storage, they merely wrote software around it.

    5. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Very True... as a guy that owns TangoDropBox, I appreciate your validation.

    6. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are time travelers and went back in time to copy them? Are you that fucking stupid?

    7. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I learned the hard way about fighting larger companies with legal teams on staff. After about $5k in lawyer fees, we were left with no resolution to the conflict. I know this is 'Merica and the legal system is our crown-jewel, but it's not an environment where the "little guy" has a chance...

      DropBox literally has 14 people on-staff in their legal team, not to mention their main legal contact JOHN L. SLAFSKY is with "WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI" and is giant:

      https://www.dropbox.com/about
      http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/DBIndex.aspx?SectionName=attorneys/BIOS/3391.htm

    8. Re:Tango DropBox by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same thing happened to Samsung. Here's a digital picture frame they made in 2005 and sold in 2006. Long before Apple even came out with the iPhone much less the iPad. (Yes the back doesn't look like a tablet - that's beside the point since it wasn't a tablet.) After you've seen the picture frame you realize Samsung didn't copy the iPad's appearance when they made the Galaxy Tab 10.1. They just took their old digital picture frame design (black face, silver/white trim, and yes rounded corners) and repurposed it as a tablet. Even their name/logo is in the same location.

      But because almost nobody saw/bought their digital picture frame, they just assume the iPad was first and anything that looked like it must be a copy. I'm of the opinion that with minimalist designs like this, pretty much everyone will come up with the same design. But if you insist there was copying, it's far more likely that it was Apple who lifted Samsung's digital picture frame design when they were settling on the iPad's appearance.

    9. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others have said DropBox wasn't first. Also, the use of the word dropbox in the context of file uploads predates both of these services. On many FTP-servermanager programs you had the option of creating dropbox accounts, an account where the user could only upload files but not list nor download files. Useful when clients wanted to send files to a company for printing etc.

    10. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described Tango DropBox as it's exact function! That was part of the argument that DropBox.com used, that's their own trademark was ubiquitous; didn't change their opinion to wipe TangoDropBox.com out as a violator of *their* trademark. Legal is funny.

    11. Re:Tango DropBox by D'Sphitz · · Score: 2

      http://tangodropbox.com - DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.

      Where can I read about this? Googling "tango dropbox" trademark doesn't return anything relevant, maybe some bad pub DMCA scrubbing going on?

    12. Re:Tango DropBox by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      To be fair, arcademan's post is quite insightful if you only ignore the pesky forward direction of time. If you reverse it, he makes a really spot on statement. ABOUT THE FUTURE NO LESS.

    13. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good analogy. Another example is of my friend Christiaan Rendle, who was also involved in TangoDropBox.com. He made a game called "AirDrop", Apple came out with a product/service called "AirDrop" and the fight ensued. I'm not privy to the details, but it's still alive as well...

      https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airdrop-pro/id363670888?mt=8
      http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/03/apple.airdrop/

    14. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trademark and copyright are very different. Copyright is automatically granted when someone creates anything that is covered by copyright law and they will hold that copyright until it expires. A copyright holder can't lose their copyright. Trademarks must be registered to be valid, and trademark holders must protect their trademark or it can be revoked.

    15. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't DropBox the default name for the upload only folder on new Hotline Server (file sharing system) installs?

    16. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about?

      Everyone knows Apple invented black rectangles with rounded corners, the USPTO says so!

    17. Re:Tango DropBox by MrDoh! · · Score: 1

      Aye, very much, but the point was the LOOK of the device, that as said, was the basis for their own later products.

      --
      Waiting for an amusing sig.
    18. Re:Tango DropBox by pipedwho · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know the Slashdot meme of Apple suing over 'rounded corners' is prevalent. However, the actual design patent Apple were suing over contained numerous clauses (including operational UI elements as rendered by software) that the courts evaluate for infringement as a whole. It had nothing to do with Apple claiming violation of a singular clause of their design patent.

      The only way that the Samsung/Apple example resembles the summary is that it involves lawyers and 'IP'.

      What the summary describes is a lowest of low attempt that goes well beyond any real legal entitlement, by bullying an opponent in a way that requires significant financial backing to defend. And since the financial disparity between the parties is so large, mounting a legal defence is very difficult. If this were two equal players, the CandyCrush lawyers would likely be slapped out of court.

      If you want to bring up an Apple comparison, it would be far better to find one about i* trademark claims.

    19. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually got that the digital picture frame is a Samsung invention from his post? Crafty!

    20. Re:Tango DropBox by davester666 · · Score: 1

      if it were relevant, you would think the lawyers for Samsung would have mentioned it. maybe hauled one out of storage to show the court.

      instead, Apple was producing internal Samsung presentations which had "make this more like the iPhone" for both a whole bunch of physical and software design features.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:Tango DropBox by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      I know the Slashdot meme of Apple suing over 'rounded corners' is prevalent. However, the actual design patent Apple were suing over contained numerous clauses (including operational UI elements as rendered by software) that the courts evaluate for infringement as a whole. It had nothing to do with Apple claiming violation of a singular clause of their design patent.

      The meme comes directly from the design patent.

    22. Re:Tango DropBox by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The parent post didn't say anything about who was first. Not everyone uses DropBox and I'm sure a tiny percentage of DropBox users ever heard of TangoDropBox.

      Ignorance does not make me a troll.

      And TangoDropBox should sue DropBox for using a shorter version of their own name.

    23. Re:Tango DropBox by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      ----------------- whoosh ----------------->

    24. Re:Tango DropBox by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, if Apple ripped off Samsung, and Samsung ripped off Apple, does that mean that Apple should win in court because they were the first to file (the lawsuit)?

    25. Re:Tango DropBox by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      A design patent is taken in totality, not on a claim by claim basis. An infringement is upheld when the 'copy' substantially violates the overall design, not just a single elemental claim.

      Obviously, when describing a design, you need to describe each element that makes up that design. Rounded corners and the rectangular proportion are just two of many of those elements. How else can a design be described if not by listing the elements that make up the design? If it was a CAD file that described the design, we'd probably have a meme of 'Apple suing over a tangential curve to line intersect'.

      The meme comes from people with a severe lack of understanding about how the patent system works, and the difference between a design patent and a utility patent. Either that, or they've made the invalid assumption that Apple somehow was able to have approved a patent with just a single claim of 'device in the shape of a rounded rectangle'.

      I'm here to both point out that the meme is not describing reality, and also not an equivalent analogy to the issue as described in article summary.

    26. Re:Tango DropBox by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      What the summary describes is a lowest of low attempt that goes well beyond any real legal entitlement

      you read this part, right?

      Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark

      if the timeline is CandyCrusher > CandySwipe > Candy Crush Saga ... the entity w/ the rights to CandyCrusher has a real legal entitlement. it really sucks for the developer of CandySwipe, but it sounds like it was legally outmaneuvered.

    27. Re:Tango DropBox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Aye, very much, but the point was the LOOK of the device, that as said, was the basis for their own later products."

      That might have been GP's point but if so I don't think it's a valid point.

      If I make a TV that resembles a toaster, I haven't infringed on any toaster patents. (Including, probably, any design patents because they are completely different kinds of devices.)

    28. Re:Tango DropBox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No "whoosh" involved. It's GP who doesn't understand the point.

      A picture frame is a picture frame. A phone is a phone.

      If I make a phone in a diamond shape (just pulling something something out of the air that is easy to describe), and then YOU make a phone that is a diamond shape, then you might have violated my patent, even if you had previously manufactured can openers in a diamond shape.

      They're different kinds of devices. Further, they are different kinds of devices that are not very likely to be confused with one another.

    29. Re:Tango DropBox by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A picture frame is a picture frame. A phone is a phone.

      so you are one of those people that think that if you append "on a phone" to any patent it becomes unique.

    30. Re:Tango DropBox by davester666 · · Score: 1

      wtf? samsung didn't [at least to my knowledge] claim Apple copied them for the design aspects, so I have no idea what you are arguing.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    31. Re:Tango DropBox by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are trying to argue, rather than reading. That was your first problem. Apple won because they were the first to file a court case. Samsung has an Apple-looking device that pre-dates Apple's devices. Time wise, Apple followed Samsung, and Samsung was consistent and persistent. That Apple's design looks remarkably Samsung-like, and Samsing copied Samsung's look and feel (which Apple may have copied in the mean time) apparently didn't make any diffference.

      It shouldn't matter if Samsung directly copied Apple if Samsung did it first.

    32. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple should sue them both, they've had a folder in every user's home account named "Drop Box" since at least OS 7.5 ;)

    33. Re:Tango DropBox by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Only if the single word is approved and the court allows using a single word subset within a larger trademark as being actionable. If every single word is suddenly 'owned' by someone because it's part of their trademarked name, that dramatically reduces the available trademark space. And buying a previously trademarked 'name', unless identical still does not mean you have grounds to claim 'market confusion' - as the product name did not apply to the product at the time the trademark was applied for. Next they'll claim all synonyms too: Lollie*, *Smasher, etc. Where does it end?

      If the words were identical, or so close as to be confusing (i.e. CandyCrusher vs CandyCrush), then yeah, they have reasonable grounds for taking action. But CandySwipe as a name neither sounds or looks anything like CandyCrusher. And attempting to trademark anything with the word Candy in it, and then start suing people before it's even fully granted is jumping the shark.

      See Microsoft and their attempt to take control of the single word 'Windows'. They tried and failed to trademark the single word 'Windows'.

      The only outmanoeuvring that went on here, was targeting an smaller entity without deep enough pockets to defend themselves against a heavily financed legal attack.

    34. Re:Tango DropBox by davester666 · · Score: 0

      sure. I guess Samsung's lawyers are idiots for not presenting it to court, or else the design elements of the Samsung devices weren't similar to what was covered by Apple's design patents.

      It wasn't a "i filed first, so you can't use your pre-existing devices as evidence of non-infringement". I am 100% sure of that.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    35. Re:Tango DropBox by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'll just assume that you haven't bothered to look at the design patent then.

    36. Re:Tango DropBox by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      In the Samsung suit there were many design and utility patents that they were alleged to have infringed.

      Regarding the design patent you linked above, it was determined that Samsung had not infringed on that patent. Primarily because the patent's design when taken as a whole was not being infringed - even though some subset of its elemental features do. With a design patent like that, you end up with a very narrow definition of infringement - especially when it is so heavily superseded by similar prior art.

    37. Re:Tango DropBox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 0

      "so you are one of those people that think that if you append "on a phone" to any patent it becomes unique."

      Of course not. That's not the point at all.

      There are two issues at hand here: design patent and utility patent. GP was referring to the design, not utility patents.

      But since smartphones and digital picture frames are clearly two completely different kinds of devices, consumers with half a brain could never confuse them, so there is no design patent issue.

      It has nothing to do with "on a phone" per se. It has only to do with being different kinds of devices.

    38. Re:Tango DropBox by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened to Samsung. Here's a digital picture frame they made in 2005 and sold in 2006.

      FTFY

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    39. Re:Tango DropBox by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Aye, very much, but the point was the LOOK of the device, that as said, was the basis for their own later products.

      Funny that Samsung had already abandoned that look for their picture frames even before the iPhone came out.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    40. Re:Tango DropBox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they?

      An iPhone - a jumped up MP3 player that can play games and live in your pocket.
      A digital photo frame - - a cut down MP3 player that lives on your desk.

    41. Re:Tango DropBox by sjames · · Score: 1

      But if it looks like the toaster you also make then it brings any claim that your TV is a copy of someone else's TV into question.

  2. Someone should write a game about this by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Someone should write a game about Thieves, Lawyers and Thieving Lawyers.

    and the stupid people who love them

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Someone should write a game about this by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Not sure if this is the best example, but games like this already exist.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Someone should write a game about this by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Not sure if this is the best example, but games like this already exist.

      Not quite .. in the game I have in mind you are constantly squashed by Sumo Attorneys who land on you every time you attempt to take a breath.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Someone should write a game about this by Yahooti · · Score: 3, Funny

      It should be called Candy Thieves.

    4. Re:Someone should write a game about this by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny

      It should be called Candy Thieves.

      Perhaps a Candy Follow-up, where the player collects dentures and insulin credits.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    5. Re: Someone should write a game about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make me happy if I read about the Candy CEO's house burning down. This kind of people disgust me.

    6. Re:Someone should write a game about this by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      I was thinking more like "Trademark Crusher Saga"

    7. Re:Someone should write a game about this by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      The 90's game Earthworm Jim (which is an absolute gem) has a level called "What the Heck?" that's set in hell. Most of the enemies are briefcase-wielding corporate lawyers.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    8. Re:Someone should write a game about this by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      Then someone should steal the idea and force them to lose their trademark.

  3. Irony by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'd like to see a real candy company sue King for using the word "candy".

    Hell, even funnier would be a real King suing him for misuse of the title "King" by a non-royalty.

    1. Re:Irony by coolsnowmen · · Score: 2

      Usually trade marks are by business area. So a just as a candy company couldn't sue a software company...unless that candy company also made software.
      IANAL, that is the simplified version.

    2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Luck for us, there is this:

      http://www.candystand.com/

      which was created by nabisco

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candystand

    3. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple Computers
      Apple Records

    4. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to be a bit less cryptic.

      http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html

    5. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, Apple Inc paid Apple Corps $500 million for that. Never heard that bit before.

    6. Re:Irony by geekoid · · Score: 0

      I hope a crusher company crushes King.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One problem is, that if I recall, King trademarked the word "candy" in the area of games. They didn't limit it to "digital games". And I recall a game called "candy land" being quite popular. Really, if anybody had the balls to just say "see you in court, I'll be self representing and counter suing for costs", and simply brought a copy of their registered trademark terms and a copy of candy land, bought at your locals walmart for about $10, you'd eliminate their trademark and throw the door wide open for counter suit.

    8. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see a real candy company sue King for using the word "candy".

      Like ? Go tell them. But they probably didn't use the trademark for electronic games, so...

    9. Re:Irony by stox · · Score: 1

      I think the owners of the film should sue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      BTW, wild flick.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    10. Re:Irony by crazyprogrammer · · Score: 1

      quoting an ac posting above "First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it."

      so Disney, who I believe has enough money and lawyers could sue King out of existence because in the movie Wreck It Ralph, there is a character by the name of King Candy.

      --
      "the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached to it." - Grandpa Simpson
    11. Re:Irony by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Hmm ... Hasbro owns Candy Land, and they also published through Wizards of the Coast a little role-playing game called Star Wars: Saga Edition. And we know Hasbro has more than a few lawyers ... how do we bring this to their attention so they can kill two attempted trademarks with one lawsuit or legal nastygram?

    12. Re: Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In sweden where King is based there is a company named Candy king. They ahoild defenatly sue.

    13. Re:Irony by bane2571 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Apple Computers never did anything in music, they certainly haven't been involved in anything tunes related as far as I can see.

    14. Re:Irony by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a real candy company sue King for using the word "candy".

      Hell, even funnier would be a real King suing him for misuse of the title "King" by a non-royalty.

      What would be even better is the estate of Elvis Presley suing King for using the name "King".

      Almost as funny as the representative of the office of Caesar suing everyone who ever used the word King, Tzar, Kaiser or any of the other derivatives.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is interesting. In Holland, there's KING Peppermints.. This brand is owned by Leaf International, a Dutch candy manufacturer...

    16. Re:Irony by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, somebody made a game called "Twittles" many years ago, and they were forced to change the name. The new name they picked was... Candy Crisis.

  4. Rate by WPIDalamar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just rated several of king's games 1-star, no idea if that helps, but made me feel better.

    1. Re:Rate by portwojc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I removed it from my mobile device just now. I too feel better.

    2. Re:Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must work for King.

    3. Re: Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I installed and tried it just last week. For the gameplay it provides, it's a bloated pig. Lots of tedious cut scenes when you just want to play the game. There are numerous similar games on the market that don't take up tens of megabytes in your phone or spam you instead of being fun. I deleted it quickly.

    4. Re:Rate by mmell · · Score: 0
      Never had it. Never will. My G*d, I'm a Seven-Up (tm) commercial!

      Somebody help me - here comes the Doctor Pepper (tm)/Snapple(tm) group to get me. If I try to flee to Europe, Pepsico (tm) will catch me. I'm Doom (C)'ed!

      Oh, crap - here comes Id (tm) Software.

    5. Re:Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say he's taken up ... the King's shilling.

    6. Re:Rate by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      Just rated several of king's games 1-star, no idea if that helps, but made me feel better.

      Nice one. I'm scanning the ratings and flagging 1-star protests such as yours as 'Helpful'.

      Every little bit helps...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    7. Re: Rate by Lanforod · · Score: 1

      Once you get past the first 50 or so levels, there seem to be no more cut scenes. Shrug.

    8. Re:Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up you sniveling, infected moldy breadbox of a cunt.

  5. Re:I heard that Satan by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know someone will attempt to trademark the name 'asdfgasdfgasdfg' which is part of my upcoming game titled 'asdfgasdfgasdfg world'

    They suck and you know they do because they are sucking the fun out of everything for everybody.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  6. Yes, but Google was faster by lennier1 · · Score: 1

    ;)

  7. Dumbest thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that everyone knows candy crush's core gameplay is just bejeweled with slightly different powerups, why hasn't ea/popcap sued the crap out of King yet?

    1. Re:Dumbest thing is by alen · · Score: 1

      probably because bejeweled is based on another game as well and it has enough differences to survive a court challenge. i played candy crush for a bit and it was a lot of things i found lacking in bejeweled

      there used to be lots of board games made by different companies where the basic mechanic was to roll the dice, move, collect some card or so whatever and no one was ever sued because the differences are different enough

      lots of Civ/Sim City clones in the app store as well. Clash of clans is one. they are all different enough since you can't make a civilization/city building game and sue people for the concept

    2. Re:Dumbest thing is by similar_name · · Score: 3, Informative

      Game mechanics can't be copyrighted.

  8. A new challenger appears... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasbro should fight King's "trademark" with Candy Land. That game has been around well before King even existed.

    1. Re:A new challenger appears... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next up: King attempts to patent 'Land' and 'Hasbro'.

    2. Re:A new challenger appears... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Hasbro should fight King's "trademark" with Candy Land. That game has been around well before King even existed.

      They really should, especially considering there was an officially released Candy Land video game.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    3. Re:A new challenger appears... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      there was an officially released Candy Land video game.

      Tagline: "The only winning move is not to play"

  9. These matching games existed prior to bejeweled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't think King could argue they have ownership of the game mechanic; just the trademark.

    Seems like bullshit to me, but i once read King rakes in over $100,000 daily on this game. I guess they will do whatever they can to protect the golden goose.

  10. i hope king ceo dies of cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slowly
    fucking patent / tm trolls

  11. apples and oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very poor analogy. There would be absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever of trademarking "asdfgasdfgasdfg".

  12. Or by Pope · · Score: 5, Funny

    you could just go back to playing Bejeweled for free.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  13. HE can! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was trying to trademark 'Beta'

    Just spell it "BeD'uh" and it can be done under copyright law.

    1. RE: HE can! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awfully close to be'joy, the Klingon word for ritualized torture by women. How apropos!

  14. Re:I heard that Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you going to make flappy asdfgasdfgasdfg after that?

  15. "King Pr*ck"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trademark that!

  16. Eventually the whole industry by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Will just be people suing each other. All products and services will have long since stopped existing at all.

  17. Re:I heard that Satan by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    Are you going to make flappy asdfgasdfgasdfg after that?

    To derivative.

    I figured I'd do floppy asdfgasdfgasdfg, where you drop a pancake made of asdfg (with some zxcvb, thrown in for good measure) down a near infinite shaft, where irate birds try to peck at it, any contact with their beaks and you lose, so you have to glide to the left and right to get between successive beaks. The speed picks up gradually.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  18. Muricans ea.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all those who are disconcerted by this news. Here is something New, happy, exhilarating for you to enjoy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftnRFN9sfl8

    un not intended.

  19. Goldmine by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Candy Crush has made a TON of money.

    Since there's another developer with a similar product and a similar name that shipped well before, you think he would have no end of lawyers offering up services just for a cut of the juicy Candy Mountain they can take a big chunk from.

    If one side is going to play the legal angle then have no qualms about doing the same.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad thing is that there are tons of similar games now.

      After iOS 5, and in-app purchases became the norm, the quality of virtually every single app on the store has gone down the tubes. Most games now went from having an actual challenge to being cookie-cutter "free to play, but if you want to actually complete it, better fork up for a truckload of Smurfberries or whatever currency that you have to buy via IAP.

      Has IAP added anything to the play quality or revenue stream? About as much as having to purchase all but the basic gun did on FPS console games.

      I can understand IAP for buying more levels, or turning a "free" version into a paid edition. However, the way it is used now is pointless. Want to play a MMO where you need to pony up $1000 for raid gear? Not really.

    2. Re:Goldmine by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Isn't being a legal troll a full time job? It's quite lucrative if you have a team of lawyers to back it up, but "Hey, I'll take you to court as soon as I find a lawyer who accepts my credit card" will probably be laughed off more than this letter (IANAL though.)

    3. Re:Goldmine by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is he should not even need to pay, there should be lawyers willing to work for a cut of the very likely payment the giant company will make just to get the lawsuit off their backs.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no grounds for Candy Swipe to sue Candy Crush. You can't copyright gameplay mechanics or art style in the US. Candy Crush didn't actually steal any of the art from Candy Swipe, they just made a clone. That's perfectly legal under US copyright law.

    5. Re:Goldmine by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If one side is going to play the legal angle then have no qualms about doing the same.

      Kind of hard to do when one side is earning more money per day than the other side has earnt in its existence.

    6. Re:Goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until you actually look at the facts of the case. CandySwipe is not a match-3 game and barely has any resemblance to one. In other words, the gameplay is completely different. Having bright, primary colored candy for game pieces isn't very novel in games, nor is arranging game pieces on a rectangular grid. Nor is depicting a couple different types of candy in an icon to represent your candy-themed game. The "Sweet" logo text is pretty suspicious, but that's not really enough, on its own, to make a good case.

      While it's bullshit that King is attacking any game that uses the words "candy" or "saga," and I feel bad for the guy and don't think his game should be shut down, I don't think he has a good case against King potentially stealing his ideas. The gameplay of the games are just too different. The fundamental interaction is different. The most they have in common is that they're both grid-based touch screen puzzle games.

    7. Re:Goldmine by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Too bad, from the descriptions I thought they were more similar. You make an excellent case for a lawsuit going nowhere.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. One of life's great mysteries by Tanman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

    I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

    1. Re:One of life's great mysteries by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it's just an indication that the biggest and most ruthless pricks are the most likely to get, and stay, rich.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:One of life's great mysteries by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

      I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

      It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them. In addition, people with more are going to go to greater lengths to ensure that they don't lose what they have. Some companies are much more aggressive than others and some resort to what should be categorized as extortion. But, it's not going to change unless we find a way to change the system.

      As for charity, you have to go back to the old saying: "lies, dam lies, and statistics". If I'm making $10 and I give $1, then I am giving 10%. If I make $100 and I give $2, then I am giving 2%, despite having doubled (100% increase) my charitable contribution. I am now giving a lower percentage than the guy making $10, but I am also giving twice as much. Now I can pick to write a story about how the rich are giving less to charity or a story about how the rich gives more than the average donor.

    3. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining percentages to us.

    4. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's also based on the society and laws within it

    5. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

      I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

      Given that they named their company "King" I suspect the greed and over-inflated sense of entitlement was a preexisting condition to their success with Candy Crush Saga.

    6. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't explaining percentages, he was explaining relative perception and how to abuse it in a persuasive manner. You know, pretty much like all politics.

    7. Re:One of life's great mysteries by XPhiNermal · · Score: 1

      Which studies are these?

      This New York Times blog from 2011 clearly shows the opposite: Americans in higher income brackets give away a larger percentage of their income to charities than those in lower income brackets.

      http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

    8. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Tanman · · Score: 1
    9. Re: One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you consider only their disposable income (what they are left with after all of the absolute necessities have been paid), that figure reverses. Mostly because people in very low income brackets don't have any disposable income, so if they give $5 to charity per month, it's a fairly large sacrifice for them.

    10. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Tanman · · Score: 1

      When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters. If someone makes $50k/yr and gives $5k/yr to charity, and someone else makes $5,000,000/yr and gives $20k to charity, do you really consider them to be more generous since they gave FOUR TIMES the amount? No, they are less generous. They would be giving 0.4% of their salary vs. 10.0%. The impact on their lives would be non-existent. The point of charitable giving is that you are giving up something for other people -- you are saying "my life will be harder so that other people's lives can be easier."

      But yeah, I guess you could say they gave quadruple the amount to charity, if you wanted to be disingenuous.

    11. Re:One of life's great mysteries by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's no dumber than people who claim the same in reverse for taxes... that as your income goes up, you should be paying a greater percentage of it in taxes.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:One of life's great mysteries by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them.

      That's not true. Yes, they have to "defend" them, but the implications of your statement is the opposite of reality.

      They could "defend" them by sending a letter asking the recipient to apply for a no-cost license granting commercial use of the trademark. If everyone using your trademark is registered to do so at a zero-rate, you have successfully defended it. There is no requirement to stop anyone from using it. Ever. And the way you are stating it is implying the "must stop others" reading, which is 100% false.

    13. Re:One of life's great mysteries by operagost · · Score: 1

      The Chronicle of Philanthropy used an indirect method of gathering statistics by zip code, whereas the CBO numbers are based on actual income reported. Neither method is perfect-- after all, people can lie on their tax returns-- but I could see the previous method being thrown greatly askew by a few wealthy holdouts in an impoverished neighborhood, or donors using the address of their business (which could very easily be smack in the middle of one of these working-class neighborhoods) instead of their residence.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just fucking sad when you think about it... and the same goes for politicians as well. I just don't see any distinction between a ruthless rich person and some politician paddling their corrupt bullshit around.

    15. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bingo, newly wealthy crytptocurrency investors have been very generous, many working on business models that include social contributions. Even the uber-greedy are exploring alternate voluntary governance experiments on their own floating countries, it's fascinating stuff.

      Wealth earned though merits other than greed invest in merits other than greed.

    16. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Cederic · · Score: 1

      When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters.

      Only if you're keeping score. I prefer the "support people I like" approach, and fuck keeping count.

    17. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income.

      Another great mystery: The intuition that correlation implies causation.

    18. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is best in life?
      To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

    19. Re:One of life's great mysteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
      Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
      Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

  21. Re:I heard that Satan by Java+Pimp · · Score: 2

    You'll need to fight Strong Bad for that one.

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
  22. Re:No Such Thing by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I tell my friends that if this country had a straight up popular vote, we would never, ever again elect a Republican.

    Except for:
    George W Bush
    William McKinley
    Ulysses Grant
    George H.W. Bush
    William Taft
    Ronald Reagan
    Andrew Johnson
    Dwight Eisenhower
    Herbert Hoover
    Theodore Roosevelt
    Richard Nixon
    Calvin Coolidge
    Warren Harding

    But hey, Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote. So your theory might hold true... maybe.

  23. not entirely accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better count your actual votes again. 61million to 58million for the last presidential election is not a large margin of victory. Especially with a population around 300million, you only got 20% of the population to vote democratic vs 19% to vote republican. Part of the reason for the electoral college system was to make elections actually slant more dramatically one way or the other. 332 out of 538 = 61% of the electoral votes for the winner, sounds a lot better than winning with 51% of the popular vote.

    1. Re:not entirely accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 million votes is a lot. The 300 million includes children and tens of millions of non-voters.

      At any rate, the popular vote is bullshit since it has nothing to do with the result.

  24. that stuff you just wrote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it actually applies to just you.

    (not the op)

  25. Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I absolutely hate that term "bully". Whenever someone is being mean or throwing their weight around these days, people say "they're a bully!" as if that is the end of the discussion.

    Well, you know what you do when someone pushes you around. You FIGHT BACK. Punch them in the face if you're on the school yard, or ridicule and sue them if you're in the corporate world.

    Just calling them a "bully" doesn't give you any sympathy in my eyes. You need to fight back, and stop being such a whiny little bitch.

    1. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 2

      In modern schools, fighting back just gets you both suspended or expelled. And in court, fighting back just bankrupts you from legal fees.

    2. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Well, you know what you do when someone pushes you around. You FIGHT BACK. Punch them in the face if you're on the school yard, or ridicule and sue them if you're in the corporate world.

      A bully is someone who picks on someone because they know that they can't/won't fight back. If your problem is the latter, then it's simple to do as you say. If you simply *can't* fight back, because the other party will destroy you if you try, then that's a different story. What you advocate is simply self-destructive stupidity in the name of pride.

      Fighting back in court isn't free, and King's victims simply can't afford justice.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Often the only way to deal with a bully is to move schools to somewhere the adults maintain something resembling order and prevent the little guys getting the shit knocked out of them. Similarly, perhaps the Candy Swipe guys should consider moving their business to a less corrupt jurisdiction that isn't completely beholden to US lawyers (there are still a few left). To start with, I would suggest Iceland or one of the more developed Latin American countries.

    4. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You've obviously never been bullied. Hitting a bully back doesn't work. The two times I did, one got me suspended and disciplined (no "charges" for the bully) and the other time, the bully came back with 5 others and cornered me. Fighting back doesn't work, and those that suggest it were annoyed with people but the people annoying them weren't bullies.

    5. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never been bullied. Hitting a bully back doesn't work. The two times I did, one got me suspended and disciplined (no "charges" for the bully) and the other time, the bully came back with 5 others and cornered me. Fighting back doesn't work, and those that suggest it were annoyed with people but the people annoying them weren't bullies.

      This.

      People keep pretending that bullies have some kind of code of honour, that if you stand up to them they'll just give up and accept you are the boss.

      This is bullshit from people who've never lived in the real world, of course a bully is going to come back with 5 of his mates once you've bloodied his nose. In fact they will almost never start bullying unless they have a serious numerical advantage (well they are cowards, but cowards in numbers are still dangerous). You've embarrassed them, they need to make an example of you.

      There are really only two ways to deal with bullies.

      1. Just ignore them. This works better with adult bullies in the workplace, on the road, in shops, etc... They end up looking like the douchebag and the harder they try the worse they look.
      2. Get more friends than they have. I was bullied in highscool... but one day it all stopped. I didn't figure out what had happened until years later but it turned out I'd developed a sense of humour (well I always had it, I just didn't show it) and people started to like me. Enough people so that bullies were afraid of becoming persona non grata themselves if they did anything beyond simple name calling (in which case I'd just call them something back, I was usually the better smart arse). The worst idiots still tried to start fights, but would never actually touch me because then they'd earn the ire of our peers.

      Friends are really the biggest defence against bullying because bullies are inherently cowards.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Same experience here. I was bullied by a group of six or so kids. I could have probably fought them one on one, but their friends would have no doubt joined in. Had I been foolish to fight all six at once, I would have been beaten up and then they would have bullied me over that as well. Sometimes fighting back might help, but doing so in the wrong time can get you in trouble at best and seriously injured at worst.

      What people who are bullied need to do is find people to side with them and help them. (Even if it's just someone to talk to.) In the case of the developer of CandySwipe, getting information about Candy Crush's bullying tactics out means that people might be less likely to play Candy Crush. And less players means less money for Candy Crush.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Bullies sense weakness. When I went to a new school after years in the same one with untouchable bullies (son of the dean). Somone grabbed something of mine and they were playing keep away. I ran to get it, and it would be thrown to someone else. I told the next guy to give it to me, "or else". He laughed, so I ran towards him, like I wanted to intercept it. He threw it to someone else, but I didn't stop, and I laid him out flat. I turned to the person he threw it to, and said "may I have it back please?" He put it on the ground and walked away. I wasn't bullied in that school.

      Yes, bullies do respond if you hit back, but only before they are bullies. "trained" bullies would have no issue starting a fight, then turning you in for starting a fight. Then getting 4 friends to start a fight with you, then turn you in for starting a fight. When you have 6 reports against one student and no more than 1 report each against the others, the bullied student will be punished, but not the bullies.

      I have 4 years of bully stories from before then, but as you say, fighting back never helps. And where I was, I could get no friends. I had "friends" that we'd play together, and such, but when it was school time, they pretended not to know me because to know me was to get in trouble with the professional bully. Who was the dean's son. He ended up in jail, but not for many years. This was at an exclusive private school. They solved the bullying by essentially expelling me. They told me I shouldn't come back the next year, or I'd get expeled if I was in a fight, regardless of how it started. This was at St. Mark's School of Texas.

      The irony is that I was put into private school because I was being bullied in public school, by the teacher (locked in a closet for lunch, beat for doing assignments in ways she didn't like). That, and she put me in the retarded class, despite my 140+IQ (the reason I got into the most exclusive private school in Texas, though it's major draw was that it was one block from my home so I could latch-key it, and the academics was secondary). She didn't know what to do with me. If I were born 10 years later, I'd I'd have been Asperger's, dyslexic, ADD, ADHD, and probably 10 other things. The labels were invented to explain the teacher's failings.

    8. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read a fair amount of bullying experiences, and it seems the rule is "it depends." If the bully has no friends, and/or the bully doesn't want to escalate the issue (because he's too scared or he doesn't want to get teachers involved, etc), then hitting them can work, otherwise yea you're in even worse shit. Course this is only for boys getting bullied. The rule for girls seem to be NEVER hit them cause you'll always be seen as the evil bitch.

    9. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      I have the opposite experience. I moved schools a fair bit when young and each time there was a new set of bullies to deal with. Bullies usually come with at least one sidekick, and usually a few. I faced down packs of as many as ten at some times, but usually it was a trio.

      Simply throwing a few punches back isn't enough. You need to knock them to the ground, stand over them and humiliate them in front of 'their' peers. The bullies need to know that they can't win against you, that's the real key to making them stop.

      The first step is to identify the alpha male. Don't wait for him to dominate you and push you around, ramping up to the obviously incoming violence. Straight out the gate, once it's obvious the person is a bully smack them fair in the face and don't stop till they are down. A few direct punches to the nose will stop most anyone in their tracks. Do the same to anyone on his side who is stupid enough to step in, they almost never will - none of them want to risk taking a beating. Don't play the game of push, shove and tossing insults while they build up their courage, jump straight in and go as hard as you can.

      Most bullies only ever tried it on once. They knew well enough to steer clear of me after that and go after the easy prey.

      I was sent to the office a few times, and I guess times were a bit different back when I was younger (also, I don't live in the litigious USA), but most trips to the office were a 'he said, she said' affair, followed by at worst a bit of essay writing or detention.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    10. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Simply throwing a few punches back isn't enough. You need to knock them to the ground, stand over them and humiliate them in front of 'their' peers. The bullies need to know that they can't win against you, that's the real key to making them stop.

      Sounds like someone just watched Ender's Game. But what about those unable to win against the group sent after? They didn't line up in order for me, as they do in the movies, where it's possible to fight 6 people one at a time.

    11. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      It's called fight or flight for a reason.

      Even if you can't win, the goal is always to do so much damage to them they they don't want to come after you. If you stand there, let them push you around, then cry like a little girl afterwards they are coming back for more. If you show no fear, attack first, attack hard, they won't come back, even if you take a few hard punches that day...they're going to go after something easier next time.

      If you're fighting multiple opponents, 9 times out of 10, most of them will be standing out of harms way while just one or two engage. In the rare case a few are willing to fight - position yourself so the alpha male is between you and the other opponent(s) who are trying to engage. Keep on your feet and move around using him as a shield.

      If you don't know how to fight, join a local gym with martial arts classes and start training. No one else is going to do this for you.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    12. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't have worked in the situations I was in. And no bully would ever fight by your rules. They circle and all attack at the same time (all are arms length *1.5, and any move to dodge one swing will get you hit from the other side). You can't keep one between you and the rest, when they act in unison. Your advice would have made it worse, not better.

      Were you ever actually bullied, or are you just making up shit based on how you think it "should" work, or what you saw on TV?

    13. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you're completely blameless, and just a victim that seemingly everyone wants to bully. Poor, unlucky guy...

    14. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      It worked for me, and not just once.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    15. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then you were never bullied, you just had run-ins with bullies. There's a difference, but never having actually been bullied, you don't know the difference.

    16. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Nope, but filling your hands full from your bloody nose and then covering the entire front of their $20 sports jacket in blood works wonders.

    17. Re:Oh noes!! Bullies!!! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Doh, that should have been $200...

  26. Re: No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. The electorate was decide by a federal Supreme Court.

  27. Re:No Such Thing by jxander · · Score: 2

    You've actually got that backwards. If it was a straight up popular vote, Dems would be at a strong disadvantage.

    Dems currently have California on lockdown, ensuring all 55 electoral votes go blue. If that split out, and California republican voters actually got a voice on the national level... well ...

    --
    This signature is false.
  28. I had this experience with Google by spiritplumber · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and their Cellbots project -- I scooped them by around six months, and even offer to share my code with them. What I got was a project manager telling me that I was just a hobbyist and my product didn't exist. What he got was me giving him one of my PCBs to him, then closing his hand around it, and asking him if this doesn't exist why is it causing you pain? When they started giving out the Google ADK board at Maker Faire 2011, I made the rounds to give my board to people half an hour before... including to the Google guys. If anyone was at the Bay Area Maker Faire, they probably will remember how the Robots Everywhere Antbot worked, and the Google Cellbot sat there victim of wifi overload. If something's bigger than you, and you want to win, bite the shins and punch the nuts. Only way.

    --
    Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
  29. Re:No Such Thing by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

    That is why many call it Imaginary Property Rights, because it is neither intellectual, nor property, nor rights. Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is asinine.

    --
    Piracy == Disrepsect
    Piracy != Theft

  30. Knockoff? by pouar · · Score: 1

    Yes the guys who made CandySwipe saw Candy Crush Saga, so they hopped in their time machine and went back to 2010 to create the Candy Crush Saga knockoff. :rollseyes:

    --
    while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done
  31. Does stupidity burn? by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    genuinely curious.

    1. Re:Does stupidity burn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would sure solve the World's energy crisis, and probably prevent the eventual heat / entropic death of the known Universe as well.

  32. The opposite is there by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Redneck Rampage already exists.

  33. Casual gaming dominated by criminal thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Betas are told that everything happens by accident, and criminals are only really found amongst the working classes. The reality is very different.

    When casual gaming was discovered to be the new growth area for gaming, very serious criminals took interest in the market, and became their MOBSTER-IDENTICAL methods to gain control of the action.

    Their experts noted that most casual games (at the time) were 'published' (to use the word very lightly) by individuals and tiny companies with no real clout. So, the experts advised the criminal thugs to simply STEAL the current games considered to have the best prospects. Steal the design. Steal the assets. Hell, even steal the code if possible.

    The experts advising the criminal thugs argued thus. Focus on getting as rich as possible, as quickly as possible, by turning the 'amateur hour' of casual gaming into something as big as organised gambling or AAA console game publishing. "Use your lawyers to threaten the people you steal from, and then, if needed, to delay court action by as many years as possible."

    "In the meantime, use your gigantic profits to buy off most of the people you steal from. After all, they were making pennies from their work, whereas you, using their stolen games, will be making so much money, a tiny fraction of your income will seem like an astonishing windfall to the people you may have to eventually pay-off. "

    Now the criminal thugs have long since established themselves, and have the income to place politicians, computer companies and law enforcement into their pockets. America was built on such corporate criminality. America LOVES profit, not whining by little guys who never really made much money, but whose ideas and work had so much potential when illegally transferred to ruthless crooks.

    The legal system, especially the civil side, is designed to reward successful criminality, so long as such criminality spreads the wealth to the 'RIGHT' people. Gaining general possession of the word 'Candy' was a simple consequence of money well spent. No legality, no justice, no morality- just money placed into the pockets of the 'right' people.

    But the thugs at the top of casual gaming publishing are pikers compared to the people that run Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple etc. Look what Microsoft intended to do with the Xbox One, before a massive backlash forced Microsoft to reverse every one of its obscene plans. Look at how Intel is PAYING companies to use its new Baytrail CPU, and PAYING legions of vile shills working for reputation management agencies to flood forums like this with the message that Intel's criminality is 'legal' and 'reasonable' (and this in the face of knowledge about how many times Intel has been successfully prosecuted in court).

    Only petty criminals get punished. The big boys are always an essential part of the 'elite' that rule over you. Go read some history, if you are foolish enough not to believe this.

    1. Re:Casual gaming dominated by criminal thugs by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful since I already posted.

    2. Re:Casual gaming dominated by criminal thugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a paranoiac scumbag who is apparently off of his meds. Please seek help you bleeding ulcer of a twat.

  34. Who knew... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Candy Crush Saga isn't just the title of their game, it's a description of their business.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  35. So everybody here was confused? by Yakasha · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I do see a lot of hate for King and support for "the little guy". Why? I see two issues with Ransom's claim.

    First, honestly when I look at the comparisons, I see no confusion. If King actually cloned Candy Swipe, they did so at such a high level as to not require any litigation. "A game about candy that uses a touch screen." Beyond that, what is the same? The colors are similar... shapes are wildly different. Count of the # of objects is different. The gameplay is different. Candy Crush has far more content. The list goes on.
    So I'm curious... who here was actually confused by the games? Who here played Candy Crush for a while before realizing "omg, this isn't Candy Swipe"? I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

    Second, look at Candy Crusher. Make a little comparison pdf of screenshots between the three games. Any claim Runsome makes on King's game can be done by AIM Productions on Runsome, continuing the chain of trademark confusion back a little further, making Runsome's entire claim bubkis. Runsome "cloned" AIM's Candy Crusher just as much as King "cloned" Candy Swipe.

    Just because you lost an argument, doesn't mean you were bullied.

    1. Re:So everybody here was confused? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ". shapes are wildly different"
      no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different. Plus the font is identical.

      The argument is that King used his lawyers to make 'Candy' a trademark name and stop preexisting entities from using it.

      AS for confusion:
      http://www.candyswipe.com/ccs....

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:So everybody here was confused? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Just a casual browsing of the iTunes App Store makes me wonder what the real story is. If you click on Show All Versions for each of the free/paid iPhone/iPad versions of CandySwipe they were first published in May 2012 (not even close to 2010), abandoned, then there were updates to all of them around 27/28 Jan 2014, and now there is all this debate. Was there a PC/Android version published earlier?

    3. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      ". shapes are wildly different" no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different.

      A square shiny candy vs. a candy valentine heart.
      A butterscotch candy vs. a gingerbread man.
      A candy apple vs. a banana.
      A blue circle with "CS" in it vs. a blue candy with a ridge in the middle.
      You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.

      Plus the font is identical.

      A cursive font with all letters linked is "identical" to a printed font? The exclamation point alone is short & fat in Candy Crush, but tall and skinny in Candy Swipe. I don't understand where your "identical" affirmation is coming from here.

      The argument is that King used his lawyers to make 'Candy' a trademark name and stop preexisting entities from using it.

      And that is worse than using lawyers to stop a "future" entity from using a trademark that some other pre-existing entity that is not you, first used? My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome? Sounds to me that its not a matter of using the trademarks first, but actually a matter of who complains first...

      AS for confusion: http://www.candyswipe.com/ccs....

      Oh I read that. It is why Im not convinced.

    4. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.

      > My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome?

      It doesn't matter where the right comes from, it is how trademark works. Runsome isn't trying to stop anything other than King stopping him from having his product available. The answer to your first question IS IN THE NARRATIVE YOU JUST TOLD.

      You're a moron.

    5. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Yakasha · · Score: 0

      > You honestly think an apple and a banana are the same shape? A gingerbread man and an amorphous blob? I don't get it.

      > My point is where does Runsome get the authority to stop King, when AIM was using the trademarks before Runsome?

      It doesn't matter where the right comes from, it is how trademark works. Runsome isn't trying to stop anything other than King stopping him from having his product available. The answer to your first question IS IN THE NARRATIVE YOU JUST TOLD.

      You're a moron.

      Not only are you an asshole, you're wrong. gj. Ignored.

    6. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding this, but, seems everything hit the fan when KING tried to copyright the word "Candy" and force Ransom to pull his product or whatever, not because Ransom wanted to go after King. The instigating factor here is KING is trying to copyright extremely broad terms... CANDY, SAGA? Come on man, and then push out games who use those words even if they came out before their product. It's completely bullying and bullshit.

    7. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding this, but, seems everything hit the fan when KING tried to copyright the word "Candy" and force Ransom to pull his product or whatever, not because Ransom wanted to go after King. The instigating factor here is KING is trying to copyright extremely broad terms... CANDY, SAGA? Come on man, and then push out games who use those words even if they came out before their product. It's completely bullying and bullshit.

      Broad words are trademarked all the time. Comically, I picked a random word, and found out it was trademarked by the company I currently work for... weird. Not calling this an excuse, just saying it happens and King is hardly the first.

      Anyways the chain of events isn't entirely clear from what is available here. Sounds like King is just being a typical business, protecting their stuff. I feel bad for Ransom as it seems he got hosed. I'll just add this story to my list of reasons the system blows chunks. I have no idea how to really fix trademarks, patents and copyright systems... but the system definitely needs better financial aid for little guys so people like Ransom have a fighting chance without ruining their lives.

      Though i still maintain the games are not confusing in any significant way.

    8. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is King going after a game that existed way before candy crush.

      You are either a shill or the dumbest piece of shit ever.

    9. Re:So everybody here was confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the world revolves around Apple's store?

  36. don't forget foux charity... by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    You know, "charitible" foundations that somehow make your company MORE money without being taxed. Need to deduct those from your total charitable tally for the rich.

    This guy was on eof the more famous- but hardly an anomaly.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    1. Re:don't forget foux charity... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      *Faux* charity. A lot of people try to use "charitable contributions" as a way to scam the system. To me, the guy who is struggling to pay his rent but still kicks in $20 is a lot nicer person than the dude who rolls up in his BMW and gives $100. Of course, the charities themselves don't want to say something like that, because they can do a lot more with the $100 than the $20, so they want to make everyone feel special so they'll keep donating.

  37. Re:Irony - Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Candyland?
    It's been around forever.

  38. Re: No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as a popular vote for the US President. Journalists can scurry all over gathering up numbers to add together and it doesn't change that.

    The US is a republic. People vote for the president in statewide elections and electors from each state vote in the national election.

  39. Re:No Such Thing by BoberFett · · Score: 1

    You're an ignorant buffoon if you believe this is limited to Republicans.

  40. Heres how we stop them by corvax · · Score: 1

    Make sure no one you know plays their games. If you see someone playing one explain to them whats going on and suggest alternatives. If that fails turn to ridicule make it so no one would be caught dead (isnt this happening already?) playing their games for fear or persecution.

  41. You're being dishonest... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

    I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

    Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.

    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    1. Re:You're being dishonest... by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

      Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.

      How is it dishonest? I'm talking about the responses here. Why would I care what reddit or digg or cnn or anybody else thinks if I'm talking about /. responses?

  42. Re:No Such Thing by vakuona · · Score: 1

    Actually, the Dems won the "popular vote" in the congressional elections as well.

    And the Republicans have Texas as well.

    It's sixes of one and half a dozen of the other to be honest, but there are reasons to believe that the Dems would have the advantage (hence why only Democrat controlled states are represented in the National Popular Vote Compact. If the Republicans thought they would win,, they would want the popular vote "by hook or by crook", and they would support that initiative. Unless you believe that the Republicans believe in the constitution so much that they are not willing to do an "end run" around certain constitutional provisions if it would suit them.

  43. Re:No Such Thing by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " neither intellectual, nor property, nor rights. "
    don't be daft.

    Writing software isn't intellectual? writing a book? making a movie?

    Property is something that belongs to someone. IN this case the legal right to distribute works.

    Conseptually, It's good and needed. Implementation is a little out of whack, but that's a different issue.

    "Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is asinine.

    That reasoning is..well.. stupid.

    You can be represented as a number, does that mean you have no rights?

    Oh, and it's not the number, it's the actual work.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  44. Er, uh . . . I agree with you in general, but by mmell · · Score: 1
    I think novelists and authors who publish their works as a professional act deserve some degree of protection for their works. I'll admit I'm torn between the "renewable every seven years" idea and the "lifetime of the author" idea. I'm a lot foggier on derivative works. If someone writes and produces a fantastic Star Trek spinoff, do Roddenberry/Desilu/Paramout/... have a right to prevent it? How about if it's about Federation civilians, you won't even see Starships or Starbases - not even a Starfleet Officer in sight. What if my show's about personal drama and never even gets of the surface of Tau Ceti 2? I promise, no phasers or photon torpedoes.

    So when does software become comparable to a novel? What criteria should we appropriately apply (hint: it isn't "it's all free")? Margaret Mitchell et. al. deserve better than that, don't you think? These rights aren't imaginary - they're tied to real money (and I mean REAL money). If I sequelize the best seller from this week's NYT list very few people would argue that the original author has no right to sue me. If I sequelize The Martian Chronicles, I doubt that Mr. Bradbury's interests will come after me (after all this time, they shouldn't. I doubt they would, although their laughter at my idiocy might be amusing). If I sequelize Mario Bros. (hey, pick just about any side-scrolling shooter, really), should Nintendo have a right to bust my chops, or should they just accept that they've made all the money they deserve from the Mario franchise and let me make a fool of myself? If I make money at it (i.e., people read Chronicles II or buy Luigi's Plumbing), should Nintendo be allowed to change their mind and say "oh, that's ours. Too bad, so sad, you lose."?

    That's only a little of the muck we collectively need to strain through. Those were fairly trivial examples. There are lots of more complicated examples to be contrived, many of which are actually really happening right now.

    1. Re:Er, uh . . . I agree with you in general, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll admit I'm torn between the "renewable every seven years" idea and the "lifetime of the author" idea.

      I don't see the problem. The copyright system is wildly out of control. It's supposed to offer short-term benefits to the creator, eventually falling into the public domain for others to have access to, to share and expand on. That's where a short initial period plus an option to renew once works. 14+14 isn't unreasonable.

      The whole "lifetime+" thing is where it goes off the rails, however. Lifetime of an individual could be argued. Beyond the lifetime, the "plus", though, is absurd. If the creator is dead, they're not going to benefit in any way from continued protection. Anyone arguing that their heirs deserve further compensation is mad; if the heirs want to reap the benefits of creating something, let them create their own something.

      As far as "lifetime+" for not-individuals goes, that should be a non-issue: if the copyright is owned by a corporation, it's assigned for a fixed period, full stop. It might be a flat 14 years, it might be a 14+option to renew for an additional 14 deal, but "lifetime" terms should never be an option for corporations. Despite the laws they've managed to buy, corporations are not people and corporations do not have consistent, fixed lifetimes. If it can't be beheaded, it doesn't have a life.

      ... If I sequelize ...

      If you try to spin something off a creation that's still within its reasonable copyright term -- say, 14 years -- then you should reasonably expect to get your ass handed to you. After the far-less-than-lifetime reasonable copyright term, however, you should be free to spin off whatever you like.

      If Mr. Bradbury opted to renew his copyright after the initial term and the second term has expired, it should have made him whatever money it's likely to do. If you want to write your Chronicles II after that period, knock your socks off.

      I would argue that software copyright terms should be shorter than that for things like books and movies. Given the rate of change when it comes to computers and software, if a term+one renewal approach was taken, making that term 5-7 years should be ample. Fourteen years after initial publication, the odds of the software still producing sufficient income to be worthwhile creating longer copyright periods for is absurdly slim. If 7+7 years have elapsed since Mario Bros. hit the streets, you'll probably be hard-pressed finding a console to plug the cartridge into; it's made its money, time to let it go. So yes, go ahead and develop your Luigi's Plumbing, based on Luigi and Mario from Mario Bros., and no, Nintendo shouldn't expect kickbacks from you for it if it sells.

      You're right that these are trivial examples, but the point is there: the current system is out of control. Creative works should be relinquished to the public domain after a not-overlong, reasonable period within which the creator reaps a reward for the creation. As things stand, nothing created within the last handful of decades is likely to hit the public domain within the lifetime of anyone alive today and that's a huge loss for everyone, particularly when you consider that most of those creations are spins on things already in the public domain.

  45. Candy Drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess I shouldn't make a new game named Apple Candy Drop Box then...

    1. Re:Candy Drop by fredprado · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably not, but you may have a small chance of their killing each other whilst deciding who will sue you first.

    2. Re:Candy Drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple Box Candy Drop Entirely Free Good

      I'm ADD you insensitive clod.

    3. Re:Candy Drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Candy Apple Box Drop

    4. Re: Candy Drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tango Apple Candy Box

  46. Re:No Such Thing by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    You have to be alive to run for President. Bush Sr is the only one of those guys could run for President again.

  47. Re: No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hence the "IF this country had a straight up popular vote" clause in OP's comment.

  48. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's how it works. You can win the popular vote and lose the election because the election isn't decided on popular vote. There is a popular vote because you can simply add all the votes. It isn't that confusing.

  49. Major Marketing Announcement by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    For Valentine's Day, my new line of Crushed Candy Cock Rings!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  50. Skeptic here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit skeptical about this claim about tangodropbox. If I check their website from archive, what it gives are snapshots beginning from 2011. [archive.org] Okay, perhaps there weren't any snapshots taken before then.
    Again, there is the question of lack of google search results.

    OTOH, I do see an archive for candyswipe (which is actually taken on Jan 2nd 2011, with a copyright showing 2010).

    1. Re:Skeptic here.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only having periodic spiders from Archive.org: It's probably due to "robots.txt", I add that file and disallow archive.org to create snapshots. I have it disallowed for some of the other websites, I guess I just forgot about this one. Archive.org can be a liability and doesn't really help much.

      One of the other product's sites has it. thought they shared a symbolic-link:
      http://bpftpserver.com/robots.txt

      The most publicly available date would be in the "About" screen for the program. Go ahead and download it. Outside of that, I use sales logs from third-parties to help validate the initial use. The second most forward facing is probably it's reliance on .NET 2.0 (that's more of a joke, but it was released Jan 2006):

      http://tangodropbox.com/download.html

      You aren't going to find any articles about the dispute, as this literally is the first time I've written publicly about it. Perhaps I'll write up a big "what happened", but you know; that's probably better to do in a state that I don't feel DropBox.com would drop the proverbial hammer on my ass. Prior use doesn't have nearly as much power as 14 lawyers.

  51. I played a for a while by toonces33 · · Score: 1

    and quickly became annoyed, and eventually uninstalled it. The first annoyance was that it was shilling for money, but the deal breaker was that it wanted me to sign up for facebook so it could spam other people to play the (*&(& game. It was easier to uninstall the game.

  52. Eeww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Casual games... keep 'em.
    There's next to no free games even worth playing on mobile.

  53. If it's like patents... by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    "Used to be", first to market could get the patent. A large chemical corporation chose to keep their product proprietary on the gamble no one would figure the process out until well after the patent would have run out. Another large and well known corporation finally figured out the process and applied for a patent. They then sued the original company who had been selling the product line for something like 50 years. It was thrown out of court. Strangely, not too long after that the law was changed from first to market to first to patent. I don' know, but it may be that way for copyright now days. They aren't "supposed" to be able to copyright common, or name that are generic.

  54. Re: No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His point was that there is no federal electorate, thus there is no popular vote. This is also the reason we have no federal referendum. Elections are purely a state matter.

  55. Just rename it by JoelDavis9035 · · Score: 1

    Rename it to lollyswipe, problem solved, assuming lolly is not a trade mark

  56. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Informative

    The controversy about the 2000 election isn't about popular vote totals. It's about the election results in Florida.

    This is the abridged version of events.

    1. Bush won the initial count but the margin was so slim, an automatic recount was triggered by Florida law.

    2. Bush won the recount but buy a slimmer margin.

    3. Al Gore's campaign requested another recount and Florida agreed.

    4. Bush won that recount, but by an even slimmer margin.

    5. The Gore campaign requested another recount.

    6. The state of Florida refused because the results of three counts of the vote confirmed that Bush won.

    7, The Gore campaign files suit to force recount, which a low court orders.

    8. Florida and the Bush campaign appeal and the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case immediately.

    9. Supreme Court rules that the lower court didn't have the authority to force Florida to recount again.

    10. Florida certifies Bush as the winner, Bush gets the electoral votes and wins the election.

    11. Whiny little crybabies all over the world don't like that their guy lost and invent a false narrative about Bush being selected rather than elected.

    12. Idiots who are too lazy to look into the events for themselves repeat this false narrative.

    The votes in Florida were later counted again by journalists who confirmed that Bush won.

    In FOUR separate counts of the votes cast in Florida it was confirmed that Bush won. Get over it.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  57. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The people vote. The people's vote counts for something. That's popular vote. That the popular vote doesn't determine the winner doesn't mean it is necessarily meaningless, as most polls are national (at least as presented, the analysits go to state level for predictions).

  58. Common Law Trademark by bl968 · · Score: 1

    "What are “common law” rights?

    Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark and may allow the common law user to successfully challenge a registration or application. "

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
  59. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was tempted to write some rambling screed here about IP laws stifiling innovation...

    Meh - I can't be bothered - I'd probably be sued by some lame ass patent troll.

  60. Re:No Such Thing by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    George W Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, and many of the people on your list bear almost NO resemblance to a modern Republican in terms of political views (e.g. Roosevelt, Eisenhower).

    Still, the GP's argument is almost as bad for much the same reason, because if the current Republicans kept getting drubbed in the polls, they'd very quickly become a different party. The parties change their mix of positions about once every 2-3 generations or so -- sometimes much faster. Heck, just look at how different Republicans were today and in the 1990s, the 1970s, the 1950s, and the 1930s.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  61. Re:No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Implementation is a little out of whack, but that's a different issue.

    A little out of whack? Crikey, if you consider today's IP implementation to be just a little out of whack, I don't want to know what you would consider a lot to be.

  62. Fuck beta boycott. Fuck King instead. by LaughingVulcan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'll be candy-assed enough to admit I had it on my iPhone. An enjoyable diversion for the 'I'm too brainded for anything else,' times.

    After the initial trademark story broke, I deleted it from my phone. Yep, King, you might not feel my tiny backlash, but I'm never downloading another of your games again.

    Anyone else do the same thing? (And, btw, I'm fucking amused to be able to fucking say I'm trying to Fuck King.)

  63. You ruin my life I ruin yours with a bullet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prison death penalty be damn I walk right up to you and put one in your head in broad day light in front of god and everybody.
    Suck my nuts mother fucker.

  64. Re: No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt grandparent is referring to the 2004 election, in which George W. Bush did in fact win a majority of the popular vote: 62,040,610 to 59,028,444 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004)

  65. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    In your narritive, every recount Bush got fewer votes. Had there been another recount or two, Gore would have won. That is the problem, and why the Supreme Court stepped in. It was almost discovered that *every* election is rigged. We are voting for the winner of WWF matches.

  66. Post hoc ergo propter hoc by Valdrax · · Score: 2

    Part of the reason for the electoral college system was to make elections actually slant more dramatically one way or the other.

    No it wasn't. The electoral college was not designed with a two-party system in mind (the greatest evidence of this is the elections of 1796 and 1800). No, it was designed with Congress as a backup in case no one won a majority, because they expected that to happen quite often once Washington was no longer in the picture. In fact, the framers were more worried about a couple of large states ganging up than what we would now think of as issue-driven parties. (This is the main reason for the large state/small state compromise showing up against in assigning electors by Congressional + Senate seats). They expected most elections to have to be decided between more than five candidates since electors from multiple states would have difficulty colluding before sending their votes in.

    So dramatic, magnified consensus was not one of the design goals for it. In pretty much every way, it was designed without the opinions of the public much in mind. It turns out that you don't actually have any Constitutional right to elect the President. States can choose to pick the electors without you. (In fact, South Carolina did that all the way up until it seceded from the Union.)

    You can read more of the history of the debate in the Constitutional Convention here. Also some really great history of the foundation of the first political parties in the years leading up to and after the ratification of the Constitution.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  67. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0

    Yes, Bush's margin was smaller with every recount because Gore's operatives were successful with that "dimpled, hanging, swinging" chad nonsense.

    Bush won on election day and on two separate official recounts. Bush won In state court. Gore won in appeals court. Bush won in supreme court. Running to the next higher court was a tactic that Gore's team initiated and were outdone by Bush's. Don't cry when you lose the game that you started.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  68. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The foul was having a vote system where fraud is allowed and encouraged. It's time we went back to open voting to end the fraud.

  69. Re: I heard that Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To derivative and beyond!

  70. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    I'm unsure of what you mean by "open voting".

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  71. Re: No Such Thing by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck cares? Do you seriously think there would have been ANY difference between the 2 of them? Obama has expanded every program liberals hated about Bush including his wars, and Obama is certainly more liberal than Gore. They all want the same thing... power... and they all do the same god damned thing once they get it: Whatever it takes to keep that power.

  72. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Verified traceable non-anonymous voting. It's how the country was founded, and it worked better the first 100 years than the most recent 100 with anonymous voting. It only had a problem when there was open violent revolt, and the polls weren't physically safe places. As the Civil War is over, open voting, once again, would result in the best result for the country. Lower fraud, easier error correction. Florida's lesson was "anonymous voting allows massive systemic fraud, and no traceability in the system." There are precincts with more votes cast than humans in the area. Ballot stuffing happens every year. Intimidation, if it were a problem, would happen today with absentee ballots. It doesn't. So there are no downsides for open voting in a stable mature country. But lots of negatives for anonymous voting.

  73. Where's the uprising.... by Rick+in+China · · Score: 1

    Read lots of copyright evilry being perpetrated by King lately... Candy, Saga, they want to own all the words related to everything they use - beyond trolling. Would LOVE to see someone 'oust the king', behead that monster.

  74. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Yes. There would have been several differences between Gore and Bush. Gore would not have restored the Mexico City policy, Bush did. Gore would have pushed to make the Clinton Gun Ban permanent, it was allowed to lapse under Bush. Gore would not have cut marginal tax rates, Bush did. Gore would have not been able to muster support to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush was.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  75. Re:No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democrats and Hollywood are bigger proponents of intellectual property rights than Republicans.

  76. Re: No Such Thing by ildon · · Score: 1

    2004.

  77. Re:No Such Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does a list of former Republicans that won the popular vote years ago have to do with the assertion we'd not elect one via popular vote in the future? Not that I agree with it. It seems you've completely confused the comment.

    Also, you appear to be unaware that the Republican party prior to the last 60 years or so was a completely different beast. Far more liberal than todays Democrats on many topics.

    Teddy Roosevelt would likely gun down many of the corporate sycophants in the party today on general principle.

  78. Copycats what a surprise (sarcasm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what did slashdot report about Wozniak going around mouthing of about tech repeating itself? And how it is being copycatted? [the context of his rant was over nothing 'new' and or 'innovative' has been coming out] which I found to be ironic coming from someone who stole ideas and claimed them as there own. And I won't get started on the patent abuse from them..

    Apple and there PR along with the brainless media/press tried to make bold claims that there computers were the first at many things but that turned out to be completely false. The only thing these companies seem good at doing is stealing others idea 'packaging' it to look like it was original or innovative, then trying to monopolize it for there own greed.

    It's not just Apple but a lot of companies do this, or you get companies like Google who copycat a product and try to sell it off cheaper but are still trying to monopolize it as there own.

  79. If your ideas can't stand on their own merit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then fuck you.

  80. "casual" by Tom · · Score: 1

    One should not be confused by words. The gamer is the only thing casual about "casual games". The rest of it is a cut-throat business, predatory and in many, many, many cases (Zynga is just the top example) outright evil.

    And not just towards the gamers^H^H^Hvictims^H^H^Hmarks. If you want to get some of the lowest salaries in IT, go work in the casual games industry.

    It's an exploitive industry that I can't wait to see implode and be replace by actual, you know, games again, instead of carefully engineered addiction machines in the disguise of a game.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  81. Re: No Such Thing by Xest · · Score: 1

    I think the point is that upon closer and closer scrutiny Bush seemed to be losing votes rather than the figures staying roughly the same. The question is therefore whether further fraud was being uncovered each time. Statistically after 3 counts if there are no fraud and counting was done reasonable each time you would expect it to increase in his favour once or twice such that it stayed roughly the same as an average across 3 counts. If it goes down every single time then it's a pointer to the fact that something might be wrong which should be more closely investigated, but the Supreme Court stamped out any chance of that.

    That's the problem. Yes you're right Bush won in all those areas you suggested, but it doesn't change the fact you're trying to gloss over the downwards trend of Bush's votes over each recount.

    FWIW I'm not American, I certainly don't like Bush, but I'm not exactly a fan of Obama nowadays - at least Bush had the courtesy to treat us (the British) with respect for backing you on so many controversial issues, whilst Obama expects us to back you and still acts like a condescending cock to us.

    I do think you're being a bit hypocritical in suggesting people are just being bitter about the vote and they should just accept it because the very declining vote count you point to is problematic in itself so your argument effectively comes down to "Yes, there was a worrying statistical trend in the vote count but I don't care because supreme court blah blah blah".

  82. King? Ransom? by mbeckman · · Score: 1

    C.S. Lewis could craft a clever allegory here.

  83. Re: No Such Thing by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    Ignoring the (purely coincidental of course) disenfranchisement of far more than a couple of hundred people as felons in Florida 2000 later found to be incorrect. Not to mention the other oddities in the voting process (like the "Jews for Buchanan" thing). All in a state not only run by the Republicans, but by Dubya's brother.

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  84. Where are the DDoS's when you need them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the sort of time I'd be happy for someone's site to get hacked or taken down. I've just sent them a nice email saying how much I dislike them. I'll see if I can rate down their games now. I guess it's on the Apple Store? I'll have a look there.

  85. No worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will even out. There are many customers like me wh ojust don't spend any money inside any game. I just won't. I might play the free portion of it, but if it's not fun I'm not going to pay a penny inside the game. If the game is not fun it's not a good game, and I simply wont play. I'm ok with paying for different color of hat inside a game, or paying for more levels etc. but i'm not going to invidually pay for changing the game rules or getting new gameplay elements. Luckily there are still games where I get the whole game with single payment. The rest just don't matter to me, and I'm sure it will even out eventually. IT's just that the gaming business has a HUGE influx of new customers right now, who are actually not gamers, but tablet/phone addicts. The games they pay for aren't games, they are timesinks with purposefully added addictive shiny stuffs.

  86. where to look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    look for etonica tango dropbox

  87. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    The issue of incorrect disenfranchisement is certainly a valid concern.

    The rest are nonsensical.

    After all, the people of the state supported Jeb Bush, why not George? That same phenomenon is the foundation for Hillary Clinton's political career.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  88. Re: No Such Thing by amxcoder · · Score: 1

    The foul was having a vote system where fraud is allowed and encouraged

    Oh, you mean like in the last election, where many precincts in several states reported that over 100% of registered voters voted (which should be impossible)? Or where some other precincts reported that a full 100% of the vote for that district went to Obama (which is statistically improbable)? Or the cases where after the election, where some voters have come out and claimed publicly that they voted for Obama multiple times?

    You are right, the foul IS having a vote system where fraud is allowed and encouraged. Now lets see, which party adamantly opposes Voter ID laws which would curb this problem. As I recall, one party was trying to get VoterID laws passed several times over the last several years, only to be called racists by the other party that is usually benefits from voter fraud the most.

    I even recall the current DOJ suing and stopping several states, including Texas and North Carolina, from implementing versions of these laws, again all while calling them racists.

  89. Re: No Such Thing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Oh, you mean like in the last election, where many precincts in several states reported that over 100% of registered voters voted (which should be impossible)? Or where some other precincts reported that a full 100% of the vote for that district went to Obama (which is statistically improbable)? Or the cases where after the election, where some voters have come out and claimed publicly that they voted for Obama multiple times?

    Yes. Why are you trying to turn a non-partisan issue into a partisan one?

    Now lets see, which party adamantly opposes Voter ID laws which would curb this problem.

    That wouldn't curb the problem at all. There wasn't a report of a single case where a Republican showed up to the polls and was turned away because they had already voted that day, and the precinct went to Obama, was there? Even if you increase the number of hurdles, the problem doesn't go away. But yes, the Republican Voter ID laws are anti-vote because they are a poll tax. You must pay $$$ to vote. Even if that $$$ is in time off work, not cash. Where are the Voter ID laws that fund 24 hour ID stores with free IDs? Nope, still limited hour DMVs with massive lines that are impossible to get in and out of over a lunch time, and some fee associated with the ID. Much like the original poll taxes were deliberately anti-voter, I've not seen a Voter ID law that wasn't as well. Not that it'd be hard to craft one that was legal, but the Republicans don't even try.

    But if the problem is ballot stuffing, not ineligible voters, how doe Voter ID address the problem? How can more than 100% vote? Where I vote, the voters are checked off as they give their name, and when the 101%th person shows up, the book would be full. What name are they giving to vote under? How could that problem be caused by anything other than ballot stuffing?

  90. Re:Tango DropBox, so LAW = THEFT. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

    So in cases like this Law does equal Theft... LAW = THEFT.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  91. Re: No Such Thing by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

    After all, the people of the state supported Jeb Bush, why not George?

    Because Dubya is a moron?

    --
    Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  92. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    He has managed to acquire degrees from Harvard and Yale.

    How about you?

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  93. Re: No Such Thing by locke.th · · Score: 1

    Right, the invasion of Iraq which had no basis in reality to be implemented, and was only done to finish what daddy started and get the oil. Yep, good thing he was able to get support for that one.

  94. Re: No Such Thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Which is precisely the fucking point. Both parties are NOT identical.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  95. Cookie Clicker by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've found your nightmare: Cookie Clicker. Now with candy hearts!

  96. Is this Battletoads? by tepples · · Score: 1

    where you drop a pancake [...] down a near infinite shaft, where irate birds try to peck at it, any contact with their beaks and you lose, so you have to glide to the left and right to get between successive beaks.

    In other words the second level of Battletoads.

  97. The pandas already won that match by tepples · · Score: 1

    We are voting for the winner of WWF matches.

    World Wildlife Fund won the WWF match back in 2001.

    1. Re:The pandas already won that match by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I know. They can sue me if they don't like it. It's still WWF for me, and always will be. Get off my lawn!

  98. Assassinations by tepples · · Score: 1

    Lifetime of an individual could be argued. Beyond the lifetime, the "plus", though, is absurd.

    I always imagined that PMA copyright terms, such as those of the Berne Convention, were intended to reduce the perverse incentive to murder authors in order to force their works into the public domain.

    As far as "lifetime+" for not-individuals goes, that should be a non-issue: if the copyright is owned by a corporation, it's assigned for a fixed period, full stop.

    This is how current U.S. law operates: copyright in a work made for hire expires 95 years after the end of the Gregorian calendar year in which the work was first published.

    Creative works should be relinquished to the public domain after a not-overlong, reasonable period within which the creator reaps a reward for the creation.

    Agreed. But when the major movie studios own the major news media that help legislators get elected, how will legislators entertain any idea of a "not-overlong, reasonable period" other than the movie studios'?

  99. Tetris v. Xio by tepples · · Score: 1

    Game mechanics can't be copyrighted.

    Tell that to anyone who has faced The Tetris Company. It managed to convince a district court judge that the use of pieces made from four squares was not an "idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" excluded from copyright's scope under 17 USC 102(b).

  100. We need an open source alternative. by Pherdnut · · Score: 1

    I think all we really need is a deep husky-voiced man's voice that tells women what they just did was "delicious."