[jsheard]

> Tetris, er, um I mean

TTC has such an iron grip on Tetris that even clones which don't use the name or anything similar to it are still at risk of being shut down, it's ridiculous. It's possibly the only example of game mechanics being de-facto copyrighted, in spite of game mechanics ostensibly not being copyrightable, due to some legal sleight of hand where they successfully argued that the look of Tetris is their exclusive trade dress. That look is inextricably tied to the mechanics, there's no way to make a Tetris clone which doesn't look like Tetris.

[josephcsible]

> That look is inextricably tied to the mechanics, there's no way to make a Tetris clone which doesn't look like Tetris.

If we lived in a just world, that would make the look uncopyrightable, rather than making the mechanics copyrightable.

[fbdab103]

How long does the license persist? Wikipedia says the first version came out in 1985. Or is it somehow a life of the author + century kind of deal?

[jsheard]

IANAL, but a quick Google suggests that trade dress protection can be extended indefinitely, the only requirement is that it is still being actively used.

TTC exists solely to collect rent on Tetris so they're never going to let it slip away if they can help it.

[gpderetta]

Lego tried the same strategy, but it didn't work for them. What's different for TTC?

[jerf]

Lego protection was based on patents. They tried to play the "make a slight variation and extend the patent" game but were slapped down. Now anyone can make Lego-compatible blocks legally, though of course they can't identify it as Lego. (Although based on the various ones I've gotten as presents, Lego never had anything to fear. The knockoffs sucked before the patent expired and they didn't get any better afterwards. It's still a terrible idea to let knockoffs mix with your real sets, and that's 0% Lego "purism" and 100% pragmatics. Maybe there's a good specific knockoff somewhere, but the odds seem poor.)

TTC protection is based around other IP constructs. Here's a good sample link from a source that seems to know what is up, which I link to for the legal analysis rather than the details of a 2009 court case: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/game-platforms/exclusive-i-tet...

[aeneasmackenzie]

Your information is outdated. Cada is at parity with lego now, they have even introduced brick designs that lego later copied (flip flop technic beams). The rest of the Chinese brands are similar, and even aliexpress mystery bricks are serviceable. Sometimes their color matches are not exact, but lego had the reddish brown issue so that's also at parity.