|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xcde4c3db
3423 days ago
|
|
|
> Even mechanics, which is weird, but they are pretty successful. I haven't been able to find a free source for the actual ruling, but apparently a district court ruled in 2012 that the particular playfield dimensions, set of tetromino shapes, set of movement actions, and scoring rules are copyright-protected expressions of more general/abstract rules, and only the latter are ineligible for copyright [1]. To my untrained eye, this seems to parallel Oracle's "structure, sequence, and organization" argument for API copyright. [1] http://www.wired.co.uk/article/tetris-clone-ruling |
|
|
The case is Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive, 863 F.Supp.2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012).
The text of the ruling is available a few places, for example on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=180648822600252...
Keep in mind though that it's a district court ruling and has pretty limited value in predicting other outcomes.