[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.