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."
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.
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.