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."
http://tangodropbox.com
DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.
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
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.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Just rated several of king's games 1-star, no idea if that helps, but made me feel better.
you could just go back to playing Bejeweled for free.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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
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
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.
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!
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.
Game mechanics can't be copyrighted.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I guess I shouldn't make a new game named Apple Candy Drop Box then...
In modern schools, fighting back just gets you both suspended or expelled. And in court, fighting back just bankrupts you from legal fees.
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
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").
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").
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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").