A sad day for fangame makers: Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc Options

[necrosaro]

I also find it worth mentioning in detail (although Xio did not assert this in their official defense): Many of the specific items that TTC claimed their game(s) were being infringed were in fact not their original creation, i.e. they were originally introduced in unlicensed or third-party Tetris variants that TTC does not own the copyrights to.

I wanted to make a detailed list of these, so here is a list of the specific copyright infringements TTC claimed in their lawsuit, and the first Tetris game copyrights they were associated with:

• "Brightly colored" tetrominoes (Tetris v3.12) - Mirrorsoft/Andromeda Tetris was the first officially published game to feature colored tetrominoes (the PC '3.12' version had a later official publication date). There were also several unlicensed versions unofficially released in 1986 that featured color. (One could argue here that the use of 'brightly colored' tetrominoes was not original, given the design of existing pentomino puzzle games at the time)
• Individually delineated blocks (Tetris NES) - unlicensed versions released in 1986, such as the V.A.Baliasov ZX Spectrum version feature individually delineated blocks. (One could argue that since there are copyrighted variants of Tetris featuring both delineated and undelineated blocks, one has no choice but to copy one way or another on this point.)
• the display of ‘garbage lines’ with at least one missing block (Tetris Game Boy) - Tengen Tetris NES, published prior to the Game Boy version, featured 'garbage lines' with at least one missing block in some of its levels.
• change in color of the playing pieces when they are in lock-down mode (Tetris Zone) - Tengen Tetris NES, published prior to Tetris Zone, featured a change in color of the playing pieces in lock-down mode.
• The screen layout in multiplayer versions with the player’s matrix appearing most prominently on the screen and the opponents’ matrixes appearing smaller than the player’s matrix and to the side of the player’s matrix (Tetris EA Multiplayer) - TetriNET, which was published prior to Tetris EA Multiplayer, had this feature.
• the display of the next playing piece that will fall down the matrix above the playing field (Tetris Evolution XBox360) - I can only assume the specific copyright associated with this assertion was misplaced, because almost every variant of Tetris other than the original contains this feature. For example, this version by Andic Software released in 1986 has this feature, which would have predated the v3.12 publication.

Here are some of the other copyrighted features asserted by TTC, and the first versions in which they were asserted (does anyone know of examples of any Tetris variants with these features that predate the games mentioned here?):

• appearance of minos automatically filling in the matrix from the bottom to the top when the game is over (Game Boy) - (although Xio claimed that this feature had been removed in recent versions of Mino)
• appearance of “ghost” piece or shadow piece under the playing piece (Tetris Zone)
• display of ‘incoming lines’ with at least one missing block in random order that appear during game play (Tetris Pop) - (did TetriNET have this feature?)

And here are the 'core' copyright assertions, that TTC asserted in every variant of Tetris from its inception:

• The seven tetrominoes
• The long vertical rectangle playing field, higher than wide
• Playing pieces at the top (x)
• Downward, lateral and rotating movements (x)
• Starting orientation of the playing pieces (this one could be disputed as it's not entirely consistent across variants)
• Disappearance of any completed horizontal line (x)
• Subsequent consolidation of the playing pieces remaining on the playing field as a result of the downward shift into the space vacated by the disappearing line (x)

Note that even the judge's (imo overly broad) description of the 'idea' of Tetris implicitly discards most (but not all) of these 'core' assertions from copyright protection (marked with 'x' above):

Tetris is a puzzle game where a user manipulates pieces composed of square blocks, each made into a different geometric shape, that fall from the top of the game board to the bottom where the pieces accumulate. The user is given a new piece after the current one reaches the bottom of the available game space. While a piece is falling, the user rotates it in order to fit it in with the accumulated pieces. The object of the puzzle is to fill all spaces along a horizontal line. If that is accomplished, the line is erased, points are earned, and more of the game board is available for play. But if the pieces accumulate and reach the top of the screen, then the game is over. These then are the general, abstract ideas underlying Tetris and cannot be protected by copyright nor can expressive elements that are inseparable from them.

Taking all of this into account, you can see that the real proper deciding factor in this case is whether the seven tetrominoes, and the long vertical rectangle playing field are properly part of the 'idea' of tetris or only part of its copyrighted expression.

[bigwig]

Although I do not know when the rule went into effect, the license agreement currently used to allow third party developers to make their own variants stipulates that any innovation in game mode or feature can be used by any other licensed developer.

[Wojtek]

Although I do not know when the rule went into effect, the license agreement currently used to allow third party developers to make their own variants stipulates that any innovation in game mode or feature can be used by any other licensed developer.

necrosaro say about unlicenced games in pre-TTC times.

[XaeL]

Many of the specific items that TTC claimed their game(s) were being infringed were in fact not their original creation, i.e. they were originally introduced in unlicensed or third-party Tetris variants that TTC does not own the copyrights to.

I'm pretty sure stealing someones idea and then copyrighting it before they do is fair game.

(One could argue that since there are copyrighted variants of Tetris featuring both delineated and undelineated blocks, one has no choice but to copy one way or another on this point.)

This is EXACTLY TTC's strategy. Copyright EVERYTHING individually, and no matter what "infinite combination" you come up with, TTC has done it before. E.g. Individually delineated (NES) vs non-delineated (GameBoy).

Say hypothetically you have previews. They sue you for having previews because their tetris games have previews.
Say you don't have previews. They sue you for having no previews because they say that their tetris games have no previews, and show a picture of the original tetris.

They have a CRAPLoad of orientation systems: SRS,ARS, NES, Original, etc.
Since they only need to show say 4 to 5 out of 7 of ur starting orientations are the same as yours, and SRS+ARS have already taken all the logical 2-step finesse versions, You can't even make a useful starting orientation without getting sued for that too.
E.g. for 2 step finesse to work, you need flat spawns. Oh wait thats taken by SRS. ok we'll just flip them. OH F*** THATS TAKEN BY ARS.


Well width -> they've got several ranging from 16 to 20. BAM Sue. Goodluck trying to choose something thats 10 wide.

Garbage -> None of their multiplayer games have more than 1 hole, but in the sample case, they claim "garbage with 1 or more holes". Also they use 60% change, change on attack, basically every useful combination has been done in a game so you can't even choose a fair garbage system without infringing.

[necrosaro]

Although I do not know when the rule went into effect, the license agreement currently used to allow third party developers to make their own variants stipulates that any innovation in game mode or feature can be used by any other licensed developer.

This may be the case (I haven't read the actual licensing agreement contract being referred to), but unless TTC required the third-party developer to assign the relevant copyright to them (which would be extremely surprising), it would still make it impossible for TTC to include a copyright infringement claim on such feature without ownership of the original copyrighted work in which the feature first appeared. The other possible thing TTC could do in their licensing agreement is force any third-party developer to join TTC in a lawsuit with their respective infringement claims (this might be more plausible, but didn't happen in this case).

I'm pretty sure stealing someones idea and then copyrighting it before they do is fair game.

Actually no, it's not fair game, nobody can 'copyright an idea before they do'. First of all, an 'idea' can't be copyrighted in the first place (see my previous post on idea vs. expression). But more to the point, these days, copyright is automatic and happens the moment an idea is first set down in a fixed work. The US keeps a copyright registration database, but registering a copyright only gives you extra certification that your work was created / published on certain dates. Even without an official copyright registration, if it can be proved that the original work was indeed created/published first, then the latter work loses any claim to originality it might have asserted.

Something interesting about the Tetris copyrights is that Mirrorsoft has a registered US copyright for their 1988 dubiously-licensed "Tetris: The Soviet Challenge" game, with a publication date (1988-01-28) that actually predates Pajitnov's "Tetris v3.12" (1988-09-01) and "Tetris version 2" (1988-02-24) publication dates (The original "Tetris Version 0" and "Tetris version 1" copyright registrations don't have publication dates, though their creation date is listed as 1985.) This means that according to the US copyright office, the earliest published Tetris game actually belongs to Mirrorsoft, not TTC.

[XaeL]

This may be the case (I haven't read the actual licensing agreement contract being referred to), but unless TTC required the third-party developer to assign the relevant copyright to them (which would be extremely surprising), it would still make it impossible for TTC to include a copyright infringement claim on such feature without ownership of the original copyrighted work in which the feature first appeared. The other possible thing TTC could do in their licensing agreement is force any third-party developer to join TTC in a lawsuit with their respective infringement claims (this might be more plausible, but didn't happen in this case).
Actually no, it's not fair game, nobody can 'copyright an idea before they do'. First of all, an 'idea' can't be copyrighted in the first place (see my previous post on idea vs. expression). But more to the point, these days, copyright is automatic and happens the moment an idea is first set down in a fixed work. The US keeps a copyright registration database, but registering a copyright only gives you extra certification that your work was created / published on certain dates. Even without an official copyright registration, if it can be proved that the original work was indeed created/published first, then the latter work loses any claim to originality it might have asserted.

Something interesting about the Tetris copyrights is that Mirrorsoft has a registered US copyright for their 1988 dubiously-licensed "Tetris: The Soviet Challenge" game, with a publication date (1988-01-28) that actually predates Pajitnov's "Tetris v3.12" (1988-09-01) and "Tetris version 2" (1988-02-24) publication dates (The original "Tetris Version 0" and "Tetris version 1" copyright registrations don't have publication dates, though their creation date is listed as 1985.) This means that according to the US copyright office, the earliest published Tetris game actually belongs to Mirrorsoft, not TTC.

are you saying xio lost coz they had sh** lawyers?

Coz i was surprised by a lot of the arguments that they could have brought up but didnt.

[Wojtek]

are you saying xio lost coz they had sh** lawyers?

Coz i was surprised by a lot of the arguments that they could have brought up but didnt.

how do you know what Xio lawyers said? I guess judge verdict document only quote things that support her decision and not things that have not convinced her. This is why Xio sounds so wrong in this document, because point is to show they were wrong. Notice how we don't read much about what Tetris Company said, I guess they are wrong on many things too.

[XaeL]

how do you know what Xio lawyers said? I guess judge verdict document only quote things that support her decision and not things that have not convinced her. This is why Xio sounds so wrong in this document, because point is to show they are wrong. We don't read much about what Tetris Company said, i guess there are also wrong on many things too.

Oh ok

[necrosaro]

how do you know what Xio lawyers said? I guess judge verdict document only quote things that support her decision and not things that have not convinced her. This is why Xio sounds so wrong in this document, because point is to show they were wrong. Notice how we don't read much about what Tetris Company said, I guess they are wrong on many things too.

Xio's defense brief is also public, so you can read what they actually said. Yes, the judge's opinion didn't acknowledge much of their defense, but Xio also focused their brief on the defense that all of Tetris game mechanics are 'functional' and thus uncopyrightable, which allowed the judge to pretty readily decide against them after deciding against that defense. One of the more interesting things I found the defense, however, was that they cited a Parker Brothers puzzle game called Universe, which I hadn't been aware of before this:

Further consider Parker Brothers’ board game Universe, which has a copyright date of 1967 and has a number of features in common with Tetris- specifically, players rotate and reflect brightly-colored pentominos (whose blocks are individually delineated) and place them on a grid ranging from ten by ten to a larger grid.

Pretty interesting. It seems that there are several other pre-Tetris colored-polyomino tile-placement board games that demonstrate similar principles, such as Vagabondo, for example.

Hmmm http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.