Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kit Kat Accused of Copying Atari Game Breakout (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the don't-copy-please dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Kit Kat's maker Nestle has been accused of copying Breakout, the 1970s computer game, in a marketing campaign. Atari, the company behind some of the most popular early video games, has filed a suit alleging Nestle knowingly exploited the game's look and feel. The advert showed a game similar to Breakout but where the bricks were replaced with single Kit Kat bars. Nestle said it was aware of the lawsuit and would defend itself "strongly" against the allegations. Breakout was created as a successor to "Pong" by Apple founders, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs. In the advert, which is titled "Kit Kat: Breakout", a row of people, of varying ages and appearance, share a sofa and play a video game during their work break. In the game depicted, a primitive paddle moves side-to-side to bounce a ball into a collision with the horizontal bars ranged across the top of the screen.

134 comments

  1. Kit Kat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gimme a break!

    1. Re:Kit Kat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Client Nestlé/Kit Kat et al. hereby inform you of a legal demand that you cease and desist in the usage of our trademarked phrase "Gimme a break!" or other phrases evocative of it (i.e. "Give me a break" ) in relation to any sort of candy or matters connected to the corporate interests of our client.

  2. I'm going to allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are not making a competing video game so this is fine. I'm throwing out the lawsuit.

    1. Re:I'm going to allow it by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Does that also mean I get to make a game stacking Nestle candy bars without them suing me?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:I'm going to allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they sue you? People are buying more Nestle candy bars in bulk to play this game.

    3. Re:I'm going to allow it by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Well a video game, I'd sell them virtual Nestle bars and not give Nestle any of the money. But that's fair right, because Nestle isn't interested in copyright or trademarks.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re: I'm going to allow it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you serious? Fuck out of here. Can't even come up with a decent hypothetical.

    5. Re:I'm going to allow it by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Well a video game, I'd sell them virtual Nestle bars and not give Nestle any of the money. But that's fair right, because Nestle isn't interested in copyright or trademarks.

      They did tried to trademark but lost the case...

    6. Re: I'm going to allow it by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Are you serious, or are you wasting my time with empty criticism?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  3. Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that's where they screwed up. Funny thing is Atari probably could have got a lock on brick breaker games if they'd set precedent early enough (Namco/Atari won the KC Munchkin case as I recall).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You cannot copyright game mechanics.

    2. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      For one thing, that depends on the country.

      For another, in Slashdot's home country, you can copyright those elements that are just outside the scope of "mechanics". For example, the mechanics of Tetris aren't copyrighted, but the specific use of the seven one-sided tetrominoes with those mechanics is.

    3. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      that's where they screwed up.

      I don't see the problem. They aren't publishing a game. They decided to use a clever modification of the breakout game but they could have had people sitting around playing the actual breakout game or Mario for that matter. Taking a video of someone playing the actual breakout game should fall under fair use and playing a parody of it should also fall under fair use.

    4. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      So I'm a fairly staunch opponent of copyright law in general. I think it is way too encompassing and blah blah blah.

      With that said, in the COMMERCIAL sphere, I'm much more accepting. If you are in the business of making commercials, I think you should have all of your ducks in a row when using someone else's work. I don't know if this case has merit or not, but "fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by peterofoz · · Score: 1

      This won't go anywhere. Kit Kat 'Breakout' is different than Atari Breakout. Its also less than 30 seconds so fair use could apply. It looks like they've taken down the playable game out of an abundance of caution however: http://www.nestle.co.uk/Career...

    6. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.

      Why should anybody have this protection decades after the original version could no longer run on modern hardware?

      Patents for anything in this would have expired years ago even if they had existed in the first place.

      Nestle needs to win this suit or yet another section of culture is going to be locked off from the public.

    7. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Its also less than 30 seconds so fair use could apply.

      In the US, "fair use" does not come into play solely based on the duration of the clip used. It's possible for a 5 second clip to violate copyright, and it's also possible for a 50 minute clip to fall under fair use.

      The determination of whether or not a use is "fair" is based on the total circumstances of the use.

    8. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it can be useful when looking things up on youtube, but am I the only one who thinks *naming* advertisements is getting a bit ridiculous?
      I noticed it first with "State of Unrest" about a year ago, then more commercials started doing the same thing; overlaying a title on the first second or two of video.

      There are a few rare cases when advertisements are notable enough to be objectively considered artwork ("Some of you feel bad for this lamp; that is because you're crazy"), but although the average commercial has gotten a little better over the years, we're still a long way off from the point where putting a title on your ads doesn't seem stuck-up or snobby.

      Related- I don't think I've ever downloaded a commercial jingle(unless it was already an existing song by itself; some of Target's stuff is pretty good). They're just not entertaining enough to nullify the purely-for-profit creative origin.

    9. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.

      Agreed. Don't know the specifics of this case, but suspect Nestle crossed a line.

      Why should anybody have this protection decades after the original version could no longer run on modern hardware?

      I'm a huge proponent of shortening copyright terms - you won't hear an argument from me.

      Patents for anything in this would have expired years ago even if they had existed in the first place.

      Agreed. I think copyright should have terms similar to patents.

      Nestle needs to win this suit or yet another section of culture is going to be locked off from the public.

      No, only the commercial sphere. The "public" is a lot larger than the commercial sphere.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Nestle crossed no line.

      This is bullshit and ancient history. Were you even ALIVE when the original was released?

      Some of the clones are pretty ancient too. Not only is this game ancient history but so are it's knock-offs.

      No. This is where "intellectual property" becomes nothing more than a pointless burden on new works and commerce.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      This is trademark infringement, commercial use of what's appears to be Atari's registered trademark without license to do so. Demonstrating the harm that Atari has suffered from free advertising and association of their video game with candy is going to be the tough part.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    12. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      "fair use" arguments seem to fall flat in a purely commercial context.

      But what does that even mean? Does it mean I need permission to eat dorritos in a movie? What about if I'm filming a movie and walk thru a grocery store or drive thru a town where hundreds of logos are present? Do I need permission from every logo that happens to be on screen? In this case, it is obviously front and center so it would have likely have been a good idea to get permission first but even in the commercial context there needs to be some allowance for fair use or you would need the sink manufacturer's permission to film a scene in the kitchen. Also, in most cases, including this case, this should actually benefit the copyright holder with free exposure. I think you should need to actually show harm or loss of revenue to sue someone. In this case, it should have been a net benefit to breakout.

    13. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of breakout clones that have shown up over the years.

      This isn't even a clone. It is a generated video of an imaginary clone. Likely a real game doesn't even exist so anyone who wants to play breakout needs to use the original game (or one of its clones)

    14. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It doesn't appear to be a trademark suit, though that will naturally be an element, but a "look and feel" copyright suit. It's got a lot more basis that the suit on round-cornered rectangles the got so much press last year..

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Does it mean I need permission to eat dorritos in a movie?

      Probably. I suggest before you make your film, you have your copyright experts give this advice, as it can be a minefield.

      there needs to be some allowance for fair use

      There seems to be, but the allowance is a lot less generous.

      I think you should need to actually show harm or loss of revenue to sue someone.

      Not with copyright, nor with certain other things like trespassing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Nestle crossed no line.

      I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to make a judgement on that. Presumably if that is true the case will be thrown out.

      Were you even ALIVE when the original was released?

      Yes, but copyright lasts for 90+ years so that is irrelevant.

      No. This is where "intellectual property" becomes nothing more than a pointless burden on new works and commerce.

      Like I said, I'm generally very anti-copyright. With that said, if you make commercials for a living, run everything by your copyright experts. There's no excuse, this is supposed to be your domain of expertise.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It always seems weird to me that the various brand products are vetted in visual media, but, as far as I know, not or mostly not in books. (For example, Stephen King uses a lot of real brands in his books, and I actually like it -- it makes things seem more realistic.) I realize for movies & TV, nowadays they often are getting product placement (payment or at least the use of free products to film with).

      My favorite counter-example is MTV. They always fuzz out the "other" brand (e.g. if Pepsi is involved with this season of "Real World", they fuzz out Coke T shirts and products). The funny thing is, this always makes me pay WAY more attention, and try to figure out (when it's not obvious) what's being fuzzed out.

    18. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrelevant. Nestle can claim that their word is a parody, covered by fair use. There is no code to copy, and they are clearly making fun of the original game by replacing the bricks with KitKat bars.

      They can also point to the movie Pixels, and open source Lbreakout as examples where Atari did not enforce their trademark or copyright.

      This is a genius marketing campaign, as evidenced by the Streisand effect. Imagine all of the free airplay that the news media will give Nestle.

    19. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is a great example showing that copyright is too long.

      A troll purchases the IP of a long dead company, and starts trying to get money for non-playable facimiles of long dead, long irrelevant software.

      Pathetic. But this is what happens when copyright terms are too long -- stifling the sciences and creative arts.

    20. Re: Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Preaching to the choir!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    21. Re:Shouldn't have used the name 'Breakout' by hawk · · Score: 1

      >Does it mean I need permission to eat dorritos in a movie?

      That's what the "No outside food or drinks" sign means :)

      >What about if I'm filming a movie and walk thru a
      >grocery store or drive thru a town where hundreds of
      >logos are present? Do I need permission from every
      >logo that happens to be on screen?

      How quaint.

      Look at the calendar; it's the 21st century. You don't get *permission* to uses their brands, you *charge* them to appear . . .

      hawk

  4. Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The current iteration of Atari is just recycling the Intellectual Property (IP) from the 1980's. And, not surprisingly, filing a lawsuit to protect the IP from everyone else.

    1. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      Hell it's not even your daddy's Atari. The real Atari died in 1984, from then on it was a shambling zombie of its former self until someone decided to mercifully put it down in 1996. After that it was just a collection of IP and trademarks that has been bought and sold way too many times.

    2. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly why I'm not remotely interested in their supposed new console. Same with the new Amiga... It's just people capitalizing on something they were likely never a part of in any degree.

    3. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      1984? Atari went through some upheavals around then but under Tramiel continued to produce some decent hardware until the mid-nineties. The Atari ST range wasn't bad (even if the Amiga was a hundred times better), and Atari's Transputer based workstation, and on the other side, early 1990s 64 bit games consoles, were radical and interesting, at least as interesting as the Atari 8 bit home computers were before 1984 (which similarly made little impact on the market, but were loved by their owners.)

      Throughout Atari's life, only their arcade business and the 2600 were massively popular. Remove those, and the 1984-1994 period looks pretty much identical to their pre-1984 period, mostly commercially successful, producing interesting hardware. They died because after the death of Commodore nobody was keen on tying themselves to non-standard proprietary computers any more in the personal computing market, and because Nintendo and Sega were better at getting their consoles into people's hands than they were.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by crow · · Score: 1

      When Atari split into two companies in 1984, I would think that Breakout would have gone with the arcade portion of the company, Atari Games. Wikipedia reports that it was eventually acquired by Midway, which was sold back to Warner Brothers, so in a sense it's back to where it was. It should have nothing to do with the French Atari company (the result of several sales of the home Atari company), which is the only company using the Atari name now.

      The article is a bit vague on details, but it sounds like it's the French company because they're calling themselves Atari, not Warner Bros. Perhaps I'm confused as to the ownership of the arcade games developed before the 1984 split.

    5. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 1

      You've got some pretty powerful rose-colored glasses there. :)

      The XE line was full of cheap crap that was simply low cost XL era stuff or items that were already having their finishing touches put on them when the crash happened. Almost no innovation there which is why most of the software world ignored it after 1985. The ST line was alright, but even then it suffered from Tramiel's terminal cheapness and stagnated pretty fast (not that Amiga fared much better).The Jaguar wasn't even an Atari product, they just bought it from a company called Flare. I'll agree with you though, after the 2600 and original 8-bit systems (400/800) it was all downhill.

      There really wasn't much they could do though, once the 'PC Clone Revolution' happened nothing was going to compete. If Jobs hadn't come back with OS X at just the right time even Apple would have disappeared.

    6. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > As a content creator, Atari must protect its copyrights, or risk losing them.

      Stop posting bullshit you know nothing about. There is no "abandonment" in copyright.

      Would be wonderful if such an actual real-property concept were applied to the IP train wreck though.

      TRADEMARK dilution is the only area of IP that has a defend it or lose it aspect.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound sweet, bitter tits

    8. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by tsqr · · Score: 2

      There is no "abandonment" in copyright.

      Well, actually there is, and you'd know that "copyright abandonment" is a term of law if you'd troubled yourself to do 15 seconds of research to find out your impression was mistaken. However, failure to defend a copyright does not constitute abandonment; abandonment requires an explicit release of the copyrighted material by the copyright holder. Go ahead, search on "copyright abandonment". It won't hurt much.

    9. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like how you recycle comments when you copy paste your Amazon shill links on your work hours?

    10. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound bitter, honey bunny

    11. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stay current with your Slashdot memes, 4-digit-UID grandpa. It's a reference to creimer's claim that he has a "copyright" on his name....

    12. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sound abused, Mallory Knox

    13. Re:Not your Granddaddy's Atari... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Hey, they have to fund the AtariBox somehow!

      Oh, wait... that's being crowdfunded... to "reduce investor risk". Never mind.

  5. free to play by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Can someone give me one good reason why the Atari game Breakout shouldn't already be in the public domain?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:free to play by kbg · · Score: 1

      Money

    2. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because US copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

    3. Re:free to play by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Infogrames paid big bucks for Hasbro Interactive that had the Atari IP, renaming the company to Atari, and, like its namesake, took a tour through bankruptcy. They're going to squeeze out every last penny out of the Atari IP since that's the only thing they still have after the dot com bust.

    4. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if games like Breakout were in the public domain there would be no reason for anyone to develop any other games. It would be pandemonium!

    5. Re:free to play by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Infogrames paid big bucks for Hasbro Interactive [wikipedia.org] that had the Atari IP, renaming the company to Atari, and, like its namesake, took a tour through bankruptcy. They're going to squeeze out every last penny out of the Atari IP since that's the only thing they still have after the dot com bust.

      So, some corporation that is three times removed from the people who actually created the work are able to prevent the work from entering the public domain.

      Ain't capitalism grand?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:free to play by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Because US copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

      This is not a case of copyright infringement, though, because the original work (the code for the breakout game) has not been copied.

    7. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Can someone give me one good reason why the Atari game Breakout shouldn't already be in the public domain?"

      Because nobody woke up decades ago when copyright was extended repeatedly from it's initial 14-28 year term to the current life-time-of-creator-plus-50(to90, depending on the country you're in)

      People still haven't woken up and smelled the coffee on this issue. Every time the lobbyists go rattling their chains and pitchforks demanding more time, more punishments, etc, you have a percentage of the population going "yeah, we need to do more to protect the intellectual property of people!" (Because protection until the death of your grandkids isn't enough for some people.)

    8. Re:free to play by imatter · · Score: 1

      2017 the year of Breakout.

    9. Re:free to play by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Ummm...

      Generally speaking, copyright infringement in software does not necessarily require that the code itself is actually copied. The graphical design of user interfaces, for instance, can themselves be copyrighted. Copying those designs would be copyright infringement even if code wasn't involved at all.

    10. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The government says you can't do something
      >Capitalism

      You commies really aren't very smart, are you?

    11. Re:free to play by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      What does capitalism have to do with this? You should be complaining about the ridiculous duration that the government has set for copyright.

    12. Re:free to play by suutar · · Score: 1

      this is in fact exactly the kind of thing that makes me think copyright should be 20 years, tops. That's a generation. After that, the work is most likely either forgotten and not going to earn much more, or it's become part of the general culture.

    13. Re: free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP said "good reason."
      Money = greed = bad reasoning.
      Generally because it is irrational and or paranoid.

    14. Re: free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a game. If they haven't made a profit in the first year they're unlikely to ever. These things well nearly all copies within a few months which is why they typically get a permanent deep discount within a year or two of being released. Even more so for multiplayer and arcade games.

    15. Re:free to play by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What does capitalism have to do with this? You should be complaining about the ridiculous duration that the government has set for copyright.

      Good question. As predicted 100 years ago, capitalism will inevitably result in the government being completely co-opted by corporate interests, resulting ultimately in policies that are antithetical to freedom, anti-consumer and anti-worker.

      This has now happened. Government didn't just wake up one day and decide intellectual property should last forever. It's the result of many decades of concerted effort by capitalists.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re: free to play by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Money != Greed. Money is a medium through which we exchange goods and services; money is a "good thing" unless you want to get chickens or have your wagon wheel repaired in exchange for writing software.

      I'd also point out that even the oft misused quote "money is the root of all evil" is a wrong - the actual quote is ".... for the love of money is the root of all evil."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    17. Re: free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the context and taking things way too literally.

    18. Re:free to play by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The copyright of "visual elements" very much a disputable thing. The computer and OS you're using right now would not exist in it's current form otherwise. Apple would have choked it in infancy.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re: free to play by gfxguy · · Score: 2

      I knew what the post meant, I also know that purveying this "money is evil" nonsense is harmful to open discourse.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    20. Re:free to play by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      This is true -- the courts have ruled both ways on these issues, depending on the specifics of the case at hand.

    21. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone give me one good reason why the Atari game Breakout shouldn't already be in the public domain?

      Mickey Mouse.

    22. Re:free to play by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Good question. As predicted 100 years ago, capitalism will inevitably result in the government being completely co-opted by corporate interests, resulting ultimately in policies that are antithetical to freedom, anti-consumer and anti-worker.

      And the proposed solutions at the time were Communism and Fascism, which were far more rapidly antithetical to those things.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    23. Re:free to play by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Infogrames paid big bucks for Hasbro Interactive [wikipedia.org] that had the Atari IP, renaming the company to Atari, and, like its namesake, took a tour through bankruptcy. They're going to squeeze out every last penny out of the Atari IP since that's the only thing they still have after the dot com bust.

      So, some corporation that is three times removed from the people who actually created the work are able to prevent the work from entering the public domain.

      Ain't capitalism grand?

      "Capitalism" has nothing to do with it. This is simple property ownership, and the right to transfer (e.g. sell) that property... far more fundamental than capitalism.

      Yes, it seems whack that some corporation that is three times removed from the people who actually created the work are able to prevent the work from entering the public domain, but it's no different than someone three times removed from the people who actually built a house now lives in that house, preventing squatters from moving in, or some kid three times removed from the kid who originally bought a comic book now owns that comic, locked in a closet preventing anyone else from reading it.

      Sure, a house or a comic book may seem different from a copyright, but each can be owned by a person, and that person can keep it, share it, hide it, punch it, sit on it, fart on it, or do anything else to it if they want to, including selling it to someone else, and then that new owner can in turn do whatever he wants to do with it.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    24. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have copyrighted the extra apostrophe in possessive pronouns. Please stop using my copyrighted it's means it is, or face dire legal consequences.

    25. Re: free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the context.

      In reply to money being the reason old things never enter public domain I said that is just greed.
      Then you replied to me with a weird, off topic rant about money in general. I never mentioned evil at all and yet both your replies to me imply I did. I said it was paranoid and irrational to act like there's no other way to make money besides taking a dead guy's work and repackaging it.

      Go put words in someone else's mouth because I will keep this up forever.

    26. Re: free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does N*** steal water? Ask yourself that question. Damn right they do! Good for Atari. How does it feel to get a taste of what you dish out, you monster corporation?

    27. Re:free to play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is this not covered under parody provisions?

  6. break me off a piece of that big law suit! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    break me off a piece of that big law suit!

    1. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha ... Atari is a

    2. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's pathetic. How fucking desperate have "Atari", or rather the people who own the Atari name, got to be to try to sue over something like this? Key points:

      *The game is old.
      *The game itself is a ripoff of Pong.
      *Nobody has cared about Breakout for a long time.
      *Kit Kat's commercial is clearly a parody and thus protected by fair use/fair dealing laws.

      Maybe Atari should try creating something new instead of resting on ancient laurels. Past accomplishments don't mean shit, what are they doing NOW? That's the only thing that matters.

    3. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You forgot the most important point of all:

      * Krakout is much, much better. :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by tepples · · Score: 1

      The game itself is a ripoff of Pong.

      Also an Atari product, unless you count Pong itself being a ripoff of Odyssey.

    5. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pong was a ripoff of Tennis for Two.

    6. Re: break me off a piece of that big law suit! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i second and third that ... fourth too ... how far does the madness go, it must have like a trizillion clones and this is simply someone who has money ... its like where they accuse companies of actually making more money trading money than doing something to make money ?
      should i remove that atari poster from my wall, i recently noticed the roms to run C64 vice emulator have been hogged by some dutch company too, AS IF ... but from the land where brains got replaced by brein nothing new i suppose
      too far, too much, like PC .. its gonna get a re-bound sooner or later, like this anti extremist thing is being taken to extremes at this very moment ? its gonna bounce back, it always does when it goes too far, you can't force evolution or you get revolution, its Newton in the metaverse all over

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  7. Here's the Move by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Quick, do a cross-marketing promo with Squeenix. We never meant to invoke the primitive 1970s Atari title Breakout, your honor. We were clearly referring to Arkanoid.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Here's the Move by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Do a cross-marketing with Fox at the same time:

      We were clearly referring to Arkanoid: Revenge of D'oh!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Here's the Move by Comboman · · Score: 1

      Since the ad specifically used the work "Breakout", that won't help. No one can copyright simple game concepts like hit-bricks-with-ball (otherwise there wouldn't be a billion three-in-a-row games on the app store), but if you reference a hit-bricks-with-ball game, you had better not call it "Breakout", because that is a trademark issue, not copyright.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    3. Re:Here's the Move by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      I miss that game. It was the first game with a level editor I ever played.

    4. Re:Here's the Move by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Uhh, what? Taito published Arkanoid.

  8. Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the part of the ad showing the game was actually changed to look like kit kats, then it was technically a parody. So it should fall under the fair use act.
    Weird Al does... or used to do this.

    1. Re:Fair Use by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Weird Al still does.

      He also gets the permission of the copyright holders of the songs he parodies, although he himself says he does this purely out of courtesy and doing so is not legally required.

    2. Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he does not always get said permission, and sometimes he does it anyway.

  9. I live in an alternate universe by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where Nelson Mandela died in prison, kids read The Berenstein Bears, and

    Breakout was created as a successor to "Pong" by Apple founders, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs

    --
    Required reading for internet skeptics
    1. Re:I live in an alternate universe by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      and the Ford log didn't have the little curly Q on it.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    2. Re:I live in an alternate universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what gives? Jobs didn't do shit... (Woz did everything, and got the chip count down low enough that Atari gave Jobs a bonus - which he didn't share.)

    3. Re:I live in an alternate universe by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It has elements of truth but is ultimately fundamentally wrong, the element of truth being Wozniak designed a device that implemented the game (it was all TTL circuits), based upon a concept by Bushnell. Somewhat infamously, Jobs handled the contract with Atari to do this, and told Wozniak it was for far less money than it actually was.

      However, critically:

      - Wozniak didn't come up with the idea of the game, he implemented a specification written by Bushnell.
      - Woz's design actually wasn't comprehensible to Atari. I don't mean it didn't work, I just mean they felt they couldn't build it because they didn't understand it. So they ended up chucking out his design and reimplementing it from scratch.

      So... so much for that. Now, about C3PO's silver leg...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:I live in an alternate universe by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Atari lost its chance to enforce the copying of "look and feel" of breakout when they failed to sue:

      Apple when Woz made the game "Brickout" for the Apple II, and even provided it for free with every computer.
      and
      Taito when they made Arkanoid.

    5. Re:I live in an alternate universe by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Berenstain bears, not Berenstein bears.

      Also, The game Breakout was developed and coded by Steve Wozniak. Steve Jobs lied to him about the contract value and had Wozniak develop the game and gave him a small cut which he thought was half the project value but it was not. That was a point of friction between the two Steves.

    6. Re:I live in an alternate universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    7. Re:I live in an alternate universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even this is incorrect.

      Atari understood it - they had some really brilliant guys and girls working there too - but because Woz had reduced chip count by time slicing so many components, they felt it would be hell to troubleshoot, both during manufacture and in the field. It was a brilliant design, but not a practically manufacturable or serviceable design.

      Pretty much the entire basis of the original post is factually incorrect, but referring to whatever zombie entity now calling itself Atari as having anything to do with the creation of Breakout is truly offensive.

    8. Re:I live in an alternate universe by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      There are very few people from that era that are talking about it, but Woz himself is the source for the speculation that it was too hard for Atari to understand (and he felt it shouldn't have been.)

      Once you understand it, it's very easy because there's so few parts, it's easier to understand. But they had trouble understanding it. So maybe some engineer there was trying to make some kind of modification to it, slight modification, and by not even understanding, who knows what part of that they mean. Was it my vertical horizontal counters or something else? If they don't understand it, that was the problem. They never called me.

      source

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  10. Controversional as it sounds by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    We should probably amend that law for software and set it to 20 years from first publication.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:Controversional as it sounds by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      We should probably amend that law and set it to 20 years from first publication.

      There fixed that for you.

      Actually, I would like to see copyright changed to 14 years from date of first publication with an option to renew it for an additional fourteen years. I find the idea of allowing copyright holders to pay for longer extensions something worth considering (If Walt Disney wants to pay $10,000 a year to keep the copyright on "Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" going indefinitely, I can be convinced to allow that).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  11. Oh, Atari by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    The Atari that produced Breakout hasn't existed for a long time. The name "Atari" no longer even refers to a single company -- it is simply a brand name that is licensed to be used by a number of companies.

    So even though the Atari we all know and love died a long time ago, it saddens me to see the current owners of the name drag it through the mud like this.

  12. Y'know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have an original pong, 2 players.... ths is 4 players, adding a hole new dynamic... frivilous. also breakout, didn't have shadows and depth... this might actually be a good game, pong.. was fucking boring, even with smaller paddles and faster balls

  13. Shouldn't be allowed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Breakout is almost 50 years old. It doesn't deserve any protection anymore i don't care who owns it.

    Because that's just stupid.

  14. They even used the work "break". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Share your "break" with... No no they didn't copy breakout at all.

  15. Are they sure it was not... by Gabest · · Score: 1

    the copy of one of the million clones??

  16. Ad titles aren't shown by tepples · · Score: 1

    Since the ad specifically used the work "Breakout", that won't help. [...] that is a trademark issue, not copyright.

    Glad someone can tell the difference. I was disappointed that the BBC article didn't clarify whether Atari asserted a claim under trademark or copyright.

    Does the title even appear in the ad? Ad titles aren't shown when an ad is played on TV.

  17. Capitalism IS grand by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Capitalism IS grand at least compared to other economical systems. What is not grand in this story, are the IP laws , brought and paid for by corp to protect their ip forever.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  18. Hahaha, not in a long shot, ATARI! by Mrakodrap · · Score: 1

    Breakout was played sideways on C64, Arkanoid was always upstanding, and Batty was top-down and wide screen. I bet I can come up with thousand more ball 'n' bricks game names, spanning coin-op arcades, C64, Amiga 500++, Atari 800, and hell, even ZX Spectrum 48k.

  19. Free Marketing by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    I never hear about this till now. So they used the Breakout name to get sued. What is a small fine to Atari for all this Free Press?

  20. And what about by Ebsolas · · Score: 0

    Arkanoid and the rest of the games on this wikipedia list? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... I think at this point it's become a genre of games. Which makes it silly to try to claim IP considering they already dropped the ball 30 years ago.

    1. Re:And what about by tepples · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Atari is bringing this test case in order to see how much of a case it has against the publishers of the games in that category. If Atari wins, expect the takedowns to fly on GitHub.

  21. Ridiculous Claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't copyright nostalgia. Fuck you Atari!

  22. Yeah, I Went There... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    "You put your candy in our video game!"
    "Your video game looks like our candy!"

    *Hershey gives poster a cease-and-dissist order*

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  23. It's berakout, so what? by fox171171 · · Score: 2

    I don't see how they can deny it. It's pretty obvious it's Breakout.

    On the other hand, I see absolutely no sane reason that it should matter in the slightest.

  24. (c) no, TM and other things, maybe by davidwr · · Score: 1

    A copyright suit will likely fail, under fair-use rules.

    A trademark suit is on shaky grounds unless the game in the ad is actually a real game that is really being made available to the general public. In that case, just change the name from "Breakout" to "Breakmeoffapieceofthat" and the trademark claim will die.

    Implied-endorsement and other trademark-related claims may also have a chance of succeeding, but changing the name from "Breakout" to something else will eliminate the problem as well.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. renewel fee and can't be used to stop repair by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    renewal fee and can't be used to stop repair.

    There are places the buy up old ip's and then sue to take down free repair guides.

  26. DX-ball2 was cool and it was an clone by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    DX-ball2 was cool and it was an clone

  27. "Nestle said it was aware of the lawsuit" by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

    Oh, so Nestle is "aware" of the lawsuit, eh?

    Was it aware it had a legal department at all?

    Does anyone in either Atari or Nestle, outside of their own legal departments, give two shits about this sugar-biscuit homage in advertising form?

  28. Jesus Christ on unicycle.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Atari even realise how many break out clones have been released in nearly four decades? Sheesh....

  29. Nope, Not Jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia credits Woz only on this one !! Fake News !!

  30. YOU'RE ALL GETTING SUED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've just obtained a copyright to every shape with angles that add up to 360 degrees! I did it with my Copyrighterinator! Soon, I will have everyone's money and I will be ruler of the TRI STATE AREA!

  31. Will a bad reason suffice? by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Walt Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. I was always a big fan.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was always more of a "Chase the Chuckwagon" fan myself..

  33. dumb post by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    Neither of the Steves had anything to do with the creation of Breakout. Wozniak did at one time create a circuit for the game but it was never used as no one at Atari could figure out how it worked.

  34. And so... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    ...starts the downfall of Atari brand as a copyright troll... the end route of all brands agnonizing a slow and irrelevant death.

  35. of all the tall tales, I think my favorite is by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs didn't tell Woz about the bonus for Breakout and kept the money.
    And when Woz found out, he gave Jobs cancer.

    Always brings warm feeling to my heart!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  36. Arkanoid by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    Should've titled it: Kit Kat Arkanoid.

    --
    ...
  37. How would they show harm? by dtandersen · · Score: 1

    People bought a kit-kat instead of an atari 2600?

  38. Video missing by Ebsolas · · Score: 0

    It looks like the advertisement video is disappearing everywhere.

  39. Break Me Of a Piece of That... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...video game clone. It's not like it's illegal or anything. There are tons of clones for any type of game. And this was just a video ad, not an actual game? (I can't find the original video since it was removed from Vimeo.)

  40. Square Enix Taito by tepples · · Score: 1

    Quick, do a cross-marketing promo with Squeenix.

    Uhh, what? Taito published Arkanoid.

    Since then, Squaresoft has merged with Enix and Taito.

    1. Re:Square Enix Taito by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      +1 informative.

      Duhh. I had to even look up "Squeenix" on wikipedia, then re-confirmed who published Arkanoid, but didn't look further for mergers.

  41. Statutory damages by tepples · · Score: 1

    In some countries, such as Slashdot's home country, the owner of copyright doesn't have to show quantifiable harm but can instead choose to take statutory damages.

  42. but but by tailgunner_050 · · Score: 1

    If you made a game with the word nestle in it you would expect to be sued. That's just a word, there's a lot more in a game. However, I doubt copyright is strong enough to defend a game on look and feel. They need specifics and for that you can't go past patents. Atari have clearly changed, is this an act of desparation on their behalf, are they this desparate for cash?