Atari Policy on Game Cloning, 1982 Usenet post

[pacman000]

I was searching Google Groups for a Pac-Man related group, and I discovered this old conversation: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.games.pacman/_3SL8iLybtg

 

 

wivax!dyer

4/13/82

At the risk of starting a long controversy (or maybe it's been mentioned
before, I dunno) I'd like to ask what other people think about ATARI's
policy of prosecuting individuals or firms that sell software games which
resemble their products. We are not dealing with software piracy, in the
strict sense. Rather, their intent, if I understand it (and I am very willing
to be corrected on this) is to suppress the distribution of "look-alike"
games which are completely "original" pieces of software, sharing no code
with the ATARI version, but, of course, share a similar appearance or
conception.

I bring this up to this news group, since "pacman" is now completely
"owned" by ATARI in the US. Where do we stand? I have to admit that
I was really flabbergasted when I read ATARI's announcements in major
newspapers of their intentions, and I don't feel very sympathetic.
It's very much a Goliath vs David thing. Can you imagine what furor
there would be if AT&T tried to carry out a similar policy towards
"UNIX-like" systems? How can they do this? Is there any precedent
for their behavior?

watmath!bstempleton

4/17/82

I have been told that Atari's attempts to fight copiers have involved
copyrighting the screen image, as well as the pictures of the monsters
and the pacman. In this way if somebody has a pacman program that draws
something like a pacman maze or a creature that looks like a pacman, they
say - Hey, he stole our copyrighted design of a screen. This is quite
valid.

Protecting an idea is another study. The mechanism for that is the patent, and
such things are almost never given for software.

hplabs!hansen

4/19/82

...copyrighting the screen image doesn't seem fair. I have worked
for some time in the typesetting industry, where the copyright laws
gave very little protection from copies of typeface designs. It turns
out that the typeface design itself was not 'copyrightable,' only the
name of the typeface design. Consequently, other companies would
copy the typeface design and give it a different name. We couldn't
touch them. Any attempt by Atari to circumvent that ruling without
asking for revision of the copyright laws should be bound to failure.
As to expecting any revision, many of you may recall that many major
changes to the copyright laws were made a few years ago. The issue
above was under consideration, but was rejected (the company I
was working for was lobbying for a change at the time).

 

 

Now here's another response, which was somehow cut off from the other responses: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.games.pacman/KoX7BrNAo2A

 

cbosgd!mark

4/18/82

Actually, in March 1981, the U.S. Supreme court held
that virtually all software and firmware inventions
are patentable (!) Also, algorithms can be patented.

 

 

 

And another one, which mentions K.C. Munchin specifically: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.games.pacman/KlnxIB2HL5s

 

 

we13!kik

4/16/82

I want to add my feelings to a subject brought up a couple of days ago
about ATARI's attitude toward ODYSSEY's K.C. Munchkins cartridge. It's
true that ATARI bought the American rights to "homevideo" versions of
pacman, but as was pointed out, ODYSSEY doesn't call their game Pacman
and the game is slightly different. As an ODYSSEY II owner, I have a
slightly biased view of the subject. Even so, I think that after
ATARI saw how successful K.C. Munchkins was, they got a little scared.
I know I would be if I were in their shoes. After playing both versions
of the game, I can say that the ODYSSEY version is a whole lot more fun
to play. Maybe the scoring, etc, is not the same as Pacman but it was
never intended to be. I am sure it helped to sell many ODYSSEY II games
while it was available. It's just a shame that something couldn't be
resolved without bring the judicial system into it, but that seems to
be standard operating practice anymore. Too bad...

Kit Kimes
!lime!we13!kik

 

[+xucaen]

Good find!

[CapitanClassic]

There have been quite a few game clone related court cases over the years.

 

http://pnwstartuplawyer.com/copyright/software/copyright-illustrated-video-game-clones/

 

What I would be most interested in is the Zamga v (somebody) where they were copying the rules of the game, but changing the art assets. (Not the Hasnro Scrabble suit). Game rules cannot be copyrighted in the USA, so the ruling would be interesting.

[jhd]

What I would be most interested in is the Zamga v (somebody) where they were copying the rules of the game, but changing the art assets. (Not the Hasnro Scrabble suit). Game rules cannot be copyrighted in the USA, so the ruling would be interesting.

 

Do you have any additional information (e.g. approximate date, which court)? I just checked Westlaw, and there are no reported State or Federal decisions with a party named "Zamga".

 

I too would like to read this decision if it is available.

[CapitanClassic]

Stupid phone autocorrect . Zynga

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Facebook+and+social/Zynga+news/feature.asp?c=44184

 

I guess we will never know.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE91E0YG20130215

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-electronicarts-zynga-lawsuit/electronic-arts-zynga-settle-competing-lawsuits

Edited February 10, 2018 by CapitanClassic

[SignGuy81]

 

wivax!dyer

4/13/82

At the risk of starting a long controversy (or maybe it's been mentioned

before, I dunno) I'd like to ask what other people think about ATARI's

policy of prosecuting individuals or firms that sell software games which

resemble their products.

 

I thought that was a more recent thing. I use it all the time didn't realize it was used that long ago for "I don't know", but I dunno I guess.

 

EDIT:

 

Out of curiosity I have been searching for a few minutes now to see if I can see how far that it dates back. Found it on urbandictionary.com but it just explains the meaning I'm trying to find the origin now curious when it was first used in place of "don't know."

 

I apologize for getting off topic.

 

EDIT:

Found my answer on dictionary.com

 

1835-1845 is when it said the use was first recorded.

Edited February 10, 2018 by SignGuy81

[tschak909]

Wow, I wonder if Landon has found this post, yet?

 

-Thom

[landondyer]

"wivax!dyer" is Steve Dyer, not me. Additinally, my start date at Atari was in late October 1982; the post in question is from April 1982.

 

(My first 400/800 game was a Centipede clone, which Atari tried to suppress, and which also got me a job there. Irony, several times over).

Edited June 27, 2018 by landondyer