>Video game copyright cases turn on whether the clone copied “functional” elements (tolerated) or “creative” elements (verboten).
Yeah, this quote from the conclusion is not at all what I took from it.
I strongly suspect that, for the most part, the judges here decide based on 'gut feeling' whether a title infringes or not, and then look for justification after the fact.
It also probably matters how litigious the plaintiff is: The Tetris Company is legendary in that regard. I mean, a 10x20 game board is infringing? And how else are you going to arrange four blocks, other than what is already done in Tetris?
I guess if copyright didn't extend effectively forever I would have less of a problem with it, but the idea that a single legal entity is going to own all these ideas when my grandchildren are having children, strikes me as - to put it lightly - very bad for the notion of cultural progress.
> judges here decide based on 'gut feeling' whether a title infringes or not, and then look for justification after the fact.
I think that's a fair assessment of how a lot of court cases are decided, especially where the law involves an imprecise weighing and balancing of several competing factors.
Yeah, this quote from the conclusion is not at all what I took from it.
I strongly suspect that, for the most part, the judges here decide based on 'gut feeling' whether a title infringes or not, and then look for justification after the fact.
It also probably matters how litigious the plaintiff is: The Tetris Company is legendary in that regard. I mean, a 10x20 game board is infringing? And how else are you going to arrange four blocks, other than what is already done in Tetris?
I guess if copyright didn't extend effectively forever I would have less of a problem with it, but the idea that a single legal entity is going to own all these ideas when my grandchildren are having children, strikes me as - to put it lightly - very bad for the notion of cultural progress.