[bitwize]

Game companies do this all the time. Namco had a patent on the idea of "a minigame playable during a loading screen". Splatoon on the Wii U had a minigame you could play while waiting, but as it was during the multiplayer matchmaking process, not loading, it avoided the patent.

But there is no IP in the gaming industry more vigorously defended than Tetris. The Tetris Company LLC has:

* trademarks on the name Tetris, the wordmark, and the word "tetrimino" to refer to the pieces, of course

* trade dress rights on otherwise generic elements, such as the shape of the tetromino pieces themselves and the Russian folk song "Korobeiniki", when used in video games

* copyright on the concept of "a video game where tetromino pieces fall and you must arrange them to make lines". You'd think that this element would not be copyrightable, but Atari v. Philips, which concerned Pac-Man and clones thereof, established that a video game is copyrightable as a form of audiovisual performance, not just program code, which means that if a game looks and behaves enough like a copyrighted game such as Tetris ("substantial similarity"), it can be infringing. And it's near-impossible to make a falling-tetromino puzzle game without making it look and behave like Tetris. Henk and Alexey have retained some of the best lawyers American capitalism can buy, and they've successfully litigated copyright actions against cloners of Tetris and have had "Tetris clone" material seized at the border on copyright grounds.

[bluescrn]

> Namco had a patent on the idea of "a minigame playable during a loading screen"

Patent issued in 1998, yet there was prior art dating back to the C64 era - I remember 'invade-a-load', where you could play a Space Invaders clone while a larger game loaded from tape.

[Nursie]

> Namco had a patent on the idea of "a minigame playable during a loading screen".

When does that date from?

Because I remember playing "Invade-a-load" on the C64 in the 80s, while waiting for (I think) Slimey's Mine to load off tape. It was fun enough that sometimes I would stop the tape and just play space invaders for a while.

(edit - ah, and there it is, at the bottom of the fast-loader article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_loader

"In 1995, Yoichi Hayashi of Namco Ltd. invented a variant of the Invade-a-Load technique for use with optical disc based platforms such as PlayStation and applied for a patent. U.S. patent 5,718,632 was granted in February 1998 and assigned to Namco despite the Invade-a-Load prior art."

Hey, I guess that means...

Edit again: got my timelines wrong, 1995 was 30 years ago, this thing is long-expired. Ugh, I am old...)

[moring]

Spore (C64) also had that and was even a year earlier than Slimey's Mine. So even multiple instances of prior art are not a blocker towards getting a patent...

[hananova]

This is also why most of the innovation in Tetris comes from the indie scene. See for example tetrio, or my own game Pandora's Blocks.

We all know that if TTC were to sue any of us, they'd be likely to lose their trademarks outright. Which is also why they haven't.

[AshamedCaptain]

> And it's near-impossible to make a falling-tetromino puzzle game without making it look and behave like Tetris.

This just reveals a terrible lack of imagination. The games Tetris was able to challenge frankly _are_ Tetris clones, up to the point they are indistinguishable from Tetris on screenshots and gameplay.

There are a million of "falling blocks" puzzle games that have not and can not be challenged by Tetris because they are not Tetris clones. E.g. Puyo Puyo / Kirby's Avalanche, Nintendo's own Dr. Mario, Nokia's ancient "Blocks" , etc.

[PetitPrince]

> nd it's near-impossible to make a falling-tetromino puzzle game without making it look and behave like Tetris.

What's more is that you cannot release a Tetris game if you follow the exact gameplay specification the Tetris Company mandates. And those specification prevent a whole range of gameplay, leading to stagnating game design and the impossibility to play some higher difficulty style of Tetris.

It's as if the First Person Company LLC mandated a Halo style floating jump with regenerating shield. There would be no classic Quake and the Doom revival series (2016, 2020, 2025) wouldn't be able to center its gameplay on agression (or at least, it would feel very weird).

[freejazz]

> copyright on the concept

You can't have a copyright in a concept. You can only have a copyright in an expression of something.

[bitwize]

No. The judge ruled in Tetris v. Xio that Tetris's look and feel and gameplay elements are copyrightable. The judge in a subsequent case, Spry Fox v. Lolapps, came to a similar conclusion. Judges in copyright cases now consider the issue of "substantial similarity" on a very abstract basis and will find you liable if you copied enough of someone else's concept. In particular, the idea that look and feel are not subject to copyright now belongs on the list of "false things programmers believe about copyright".

Tetris's copyright is ironclad. If you make a game that looks and plays like Tetris, you are infringing. Period. End of story.

(Yes, this means that M-x tetris in Emacs is infringing, and will have to be removed at some point, like the Yow lines were.)

[freejazz]

> that Tetris's look and feel and gameplay elements are copyrightable.

Those are expressions, not concepts.

>In particular, the idea that look and feel are not subject to copyright now belongs on the list of "false things programmers believe about copyright".

You brought them up, not me. I don't think you understand copyright law very much. I also don't value at all any assumptions programmers make about copyright law, as I'm proven here nearly every day, such beliefs are based in glaring errors.

> someone else's concept

Again, concepts are not copyrightable. Nothing you have posted indicates otherwise. When your expression looks exactly like another persons expression... that's what substantial similarity is. I find it very odd that you think looking like something isn't an expression but is actually just a concept instead. It's not.

>Tetris's copyright is ironclad. If you make a game that looks and plays like Tetris, you are infringing. Period. End of story.

Yeah, and?

[bitwize]

> Again, concepts are not copyrightable. Nothing you have posted indicates otherwise. When your expression looks exactly like another persons expression... that's what substantial similarity is. I find it very odd that you think looking like something isn't an expression but is actually just a concept instead. It's not.

There is no definitive answer for what is an idea (not copyrightable) and what is an expression of an idea (copyrightable). It really depends on the judge and what the prevailing legal opinion is. During the nineties it was generally thought that software's "look and feel" was not copyrightable, and there were rulings to that effect. That is no longer the case. These days, judges grant copyright coverage to very abstract ideas. For example, one may not own the copyright on "side-scrolling platformer", but if you make a "side-scrolling platformer where you hit bricks from below to get power-ups, collect coins, and jump on enemies to defeat them", you may just be close enough to _Super Mario Bros._ that Nintendo might sue you and win. And we're not even getting into the specific names and appearances of the characters, enemies, and setting.

[charcircuit]

>not loading, it avoided the patent.

The patent also expires a few months after the release of the game.

[mschuster91]

And now they've licensed at least the mobile game IP to a free-to-play vendor that's loaded up Tetris with gambling and ads.