Atari requested to remove BreakClassic

[bootant]

Atari has requested that BreakClassic and BreakTouch 3D be removed from AppStore. :eek:

What do you think? :confused:

BreakClassic:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=286136632&mt=8

BreakTouch 3D:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285549513&mt=8

[raps27]

r u going to make them free:) LOL

[VeganTnT]

Atari requested to remove BreakClassic and BreakTouch 3D from AppStore. :eek:

What do you think? :confused:

BreakClassic:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=286136632&mt=8

BreakTouch 3D:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=285549513&mt=8


thats really a shame. Did they give a good reason for it??

Its a shame when devs that make quality games are being forced to pull games like this =(

[dudehuge]

That sucks, the game is well done. But c'mon let's face it, it's not an original idea, so no ones at fault here. There's only one thing you can do, release them again for free, and try to snuff out all the business that they can make.

[DeadlySquirrels]

I have an idea: change the name to BiiTouch and BiiTouch3D, then change the look of the game and make the ball hit triangles that look like the ones in trism. :)

[grafikrobot]

But c'mon let's face it, it's not an original idea, so no ones at fault here.

You can't copyright nor patent ideas, at least in most countries. So telling people to get lost because they did a better implementation of your idea is insane. Now, using the term "break" or "breakout" does give Atari claim that you are trying to capitalize on their copyrights and trademarks. Which is a no-no. So just change the names and make them compete.

[dudehuge]

You can't copyright nor patent ideas, at least in most countries. So telling people to get lost because they did a better implementation of your idea is insane. Now, using the term "break" or "breakout" does give Atari claim that you are trying to capitalize on their copyrights and trademarks. Which is a no-no. So just change the names and make them compete.

What if I copied the idea and gameplay for Shards grafik, call it Fragments and release it for $0.99, and for example sake it turned out to be better than yours. (I like your game I have it btw ;P) Would you feel the same?

[grafikrobot]

What if I copied the idea and gameplay for Shards grafik, call it Fragments and release it for $0.99, and for example sake it turned out to be better than yours. (I like your game I have it btw ;P) Would you feel the same?

Yep, I would be fine with that. After all, it's not like I didn't take ideas (a.k.a. inspiration) from other games. If being like another game was the only criteria needed to get others out of the market there would only be one FPS game. And just think how boring that would be!

[tosui]

You can't copyright nor patent ideas, at least in most countries. So telling people to get lost because they did a better implementation of your idea is insane. Now, using the term "break" or "breakout" does give Atari claim that you are trying to capitalize on their copyrights and trademarks. Which is a no-no. So just change the names and make them compete.

I don't know what the intellectual property laws are in America (I'm in Canada - we're covered!), but unless they're going to go after every implementation of the idea and not just the ones that actually represent competition for them, then I'm with the "kiss my a$$" camp! Change the name and wish them luck competing with you!

I'm telling all my friends to buy BreakTouch3D or whatever name you call it, and they're both gonna buy it!

[Oliver]

Well, without knowing exactly what Atari told you guys I just can't say something to this. However, of course your games are a copy of breakout. We even had breakout on our old nanos builtin and it's well know that it was developed by steve wozniak for atari. And the review in the store say "that's breakout for the iPhone". So I think it understandable that Atari sees a connection between your games and their games. And now to the interesting stuff, what exactly did Atari tell you? :)

[Pyrofer]

I have to agree. I was first in the AppStore with ROCKFALL. However, when iDigga (Digga) came out, what did I do? I said, "Oh good, another cool game" Rather than try to sue them. Then Rocky came out, again I was happy because healthy competition is what open free markets are about!

If they can write a better game than me, I should get better! Not use dirty legal threats and intimidation to force them to take down a game that maybe the customers prefer. Because who loses out really? The customer.

I am not able to defend a legal challenge, be it right or wrong. I beleive that I have a right to have Rockfall in the AppStore, and yet ive taken it down at the Request of First Star Software because its not worth the legal battle.

You CAN NOT copyright or patent a game idea, or every FPS game would get sued by iD software, Every Racing game would get sued by (i think) Atari etc.

If I didnt have a family to worry about first Rockfall would still be in the Appstore and you would be reading about my legal battle. But I have a child and a wife to support first.

Im sorry to hear your games are being taken out in the same way. I wonder what the writers of these games would have thought if somebody else was able to sue THEM just because of a timing issue. Just because you got there first it doesnt give you the right to extort money from the idea for all time.

No company has its right to make money protected under law, if games developers are threatened by competition they are in the wrong job, or need to get better and make better games. In the end it helps the market, drives quality up and prices down, and that is good for the consumer.

[crunc]

I'll be a bit of a devils advocate and suggest that perhaps it would be better for everyone if developers created new games instead of making slight variants of long existing games. Mind you, I have purchased several breakout/arkanoid variant games and enjoy them (Chimps Ahoy! and Space Out), so, yes, this is devils advocate stuff. Still, in the end I think that original games are better then more of the same. Just look at all the Sudoku games. Is the iPhone/iPod Touch better off for having 500 Sudoku games? I don't think so. If even half of those developers instead developed something original, we'd have more and better choices of games available to us.

[davidmdowning42]

Yeah, I stoped buying whole heartedly into the competition always helps when I noticed how many different brands of pickles there were at the grocery store. I don't know if it would help for there to be less, but it doesn't help that there are more either.

That's totally off the subject though. I think it's a lame move for Atari.

[spacecowgoesmoo]

Maybe if there are any lawyers here, they could help you out?

You probably shouldn't have used the word 'breakout' in you app description though :)

[jdrambio]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, legally there seems to be no copyright or patent protection on original game concepts. So these developers may technically be in the clear for copying these game concepts.

On the other hand, as a developer, this lack of intellectual property rights is very frustrating. At one point in time these games were novel concepts. I would be heart broken if someone took my game concept, developed it for another platform, called it something different, and released it as their own before I had a chance to port it myself. If that happened, legally there isn’t much I could do. Does that seem right? It kinda makes me sad.

[davidmdowning42]

but then I'd never have gotten to play Golden Axe Warrior on my Sega Master System!

[troile00]

No need to go through a legal battle royale, I really don't think it is necessary.

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it" (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008).

However, "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form" (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008) and:

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008)

In all honesty I can see if they had beef against Break Classic. The pictoral manifestation of the idea seems extremely similar to theirs. Breaktouch 3d on the other hand has a radically different manifestation and expression. Round Paddle Vs Flat, Cylindrical 3d play area vs Flat 2d play area, Individual cubes instead of a long lines of non-individualized rectangles. The idea may be extremely similar, but its manifestation is clearly not. According to copyright law, they do not even have claim to the name, though you can change it if it makes you feel comfortable. See for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html (I hope the posting of links isn't against forum rules. If it is, I really wont do it again)

All in all, this news is terrible since I have downloaded your game and have not even had a chance to play it yet (I'm waiting a few days to unpack my iPod Touch) and I was looking forward to the many updates you would put out. So to re-iterate: They may have a case against you with breakclassic, but I do not see how they could possibly ask you to remove breaktouch 3D. I wish I knew what reasons they stated for it.

I would also like to see apple offer some protection to game makers against the bullying of larger companies (Atari). Perhaps require that copyright infringment claims come through them, at which point their lawyers assess the program on behalf of it's software suppliers (you bootant) to determine the validity of the claim. If apple's lawyers found something was at fault, they would simply let the developer know what they need to change to conform, or if the company filing the complaint (Atari) is just blowing smoke. At that point the developer (you bootant) could decide to change what was needed, or chill knowing everything was fine. Of course apple would have to require the developer (you bootant) to make whatever changes were necessary during a specified time frame in order to protect the company filing the claim as well. Not that apple's lawyers dont already have their hands full, but I think this is just very unfair bullying on Atari's part.

[arn]

According to copyright law, they do not even have claim to the name, though you can change it if it makes you feel comfortable.

They probably have a trademark on the name, though.

arn

[whooley]

I think it's hard to have a "one size fits all" rule.

As someone said, if we prevented developers from being inspired by existing game, we'd have exactly one FPS, one RTS, one racing sim, etc. etc.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for developers who just take someone else's game, make some cosmetic changes, tweak the name and try to make money off it. Get your own ideas! :)

Sheesh, my problem is I've about a dozen original game ideas nothing like any iPhone game out there but it'll take me months to develop them!

I think it's all about how close the "copy" is to the original.

[troile00]

They probably have a trademark on the name, though.

arn

True. If that's the case though, a simple name change (at least for Breaktouch 3d) should fix the problem.

I was wondering if Atari would even bother to give the reason for wanting it removed, or if they simply said "Your application violates 'blah blah blah'" knowing it was a simple name thing but not caring to say so.

After all, if the goal is to remove the competition, the less the developer (bootant) knows, the better right? All he has to know is that a company with more resources and influence than himself is looking at his application in a mean way and threatening legal action.

[dudehuge]

"Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form"

They have the trademark for "Breakout" though, copyrights are different from trademarks. Just like the trademark "Tetris", you can't make a game that plays like it and with a name that sounds like it (Anything that end in "tris") .

Another common form of infringement is to make something with a name that is "confusingly similar" to an existing product. This is the "likelihood of confusion" standard, and it's the most common infringement claim and available as a Federal suit. In summary, it's the idea that a consumer would be confused into thinking a product is made by someone else.

For example, if I made a "Sorny GameStation," it's likely that that product would be considered to infringe on the Sony and PlayStation trademarks.

We're not only talking about Copyrights in cases like this.

Read more about trademark laws here explained in a concise manner.
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/04/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-trademark-infringement/

I hate to be the devil's advocate like crunc, but if you want to avoid stuff like this, go make an original game.

[Acceleroto]

They probably have a trademark on the name, though.
Yup: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=913pe5.2.48

[troile00]

I completely understand what everyone is saying, but I do not see any added problems with the information you are providing. Yes there is more to copyright/trademark infringement. However, wouldn't the problems presented by the additional information still be solved for Breaktouch 3d if the name was changed to something "non confusing" and "completely unrelatable to Atari's trademark"?

Of course i'm not a lawyer, but barring "even more" information coming to the table (Read: Some lawyer type schooling me with some laws), I think that should solve the problem.

The presentation for Breaktouch 3d is already almost completely different from Atari's game (Maybe change the shape of the "bricks" and the "ball"). I mean, the game we are comparing Breaktouch 3d to has a flat paddle, a wall of bricks above it, a ball, and two levels; other than the "idea" Breaktouch is almost a different game. With a name change shouldn't it be alright? Now, Breakclassic looks unsavable to me, just as Tris was (It was a straight clone of tetris, presentation and all).

If there is still any doubt, go ahead and add an additional round paddle, so the player is controlling two at once, one with each finger! (I kid, maybe)

The way I think about it is this:

Nobody is claiming exclusive rights to the idea of the "Car" right? Any company can use the idea to make one. However, if Chevrolet had made a small car with a rounded top that looked just like a VW beetle, but called it the VVV Beatle, they would be in for trouble (At least in the U.S.A).

However, flatten the top, elongate the vehicle, and change the interior and the name to Corvette. Where did the trouble go? Both products do exactly the same thing, they get you from point A to B. The only difference is the presentation and the method (One goes really fast, the other does not). Wouldn't the same thing apply here?

Note: I'm only posting more since everyone else needs a reason to "advocate", so i'm actually on your side!

[johnbowers]

I have mixed feelings on this.

On one hand, legally there seems to be no copyright or patent protection on original game concepts. So these developers may technically be in the clear for copying these game concepts.

On the other hand, as a developer, this lack of intellectual property rights is very frustrating. At one point in time these games were novel concepts. I would be heart broken if someone took my game concept, developed it for another platform, called it something different, and released it as their own before I had a chance to port it myself. If that happened, legally there isn’t much I could do. Does that seem right? It kinda makes me sad.

I disagree. Code should be copyright protected only in the same way a novel is copyright protected. Just because you are the first to write a steampunk novel does not mean that you should have exclusive rights to the genre. If you want to sell your novel you should be better than your competition, not first to market.

Same with games. So Atari wrote a game where a ball hits a block, that doesn't mean that they should get to lock down that idea. I don't think that just because someone was the first to do something that they should then get all rights to do similar things. Its crazy and it stagnates innovation.

Of course in this case the use of "break" is probably under copyright or trademark which is infringement.

[mjjw]

<rant>

There is a big difference between taking an existing concept and extending it to make a new game or adding story etc and simply remaking someone else's game and then trying to pass yours off as being like the original.

I think that for instance the myriad of 1st person shooter games on the PC are a good example of taking an existing idea/genre/concept/whatever you want to call it and extending it. More in context breakout vs arkanoid is a good example - both similar games but arkanoid is not trying to pass itself off as breakout.

However making a bat & ball game and calling it BreakClassic or BreakTouch or something similar and then modelling that game quite closely on BreakOut is treading a bit close to the line.

It doesn't matter if the developer made their game because original game XYZ from 20 years ago isn't available on the iPhone. The owner of the rights to the original game might make an official port of the game tomorrow (like happened with Tetris) and if people have bought unofficial games then they are unlikely to buy the official game.

I wouldn't like it if it happened to one a game I had written and I doubt that the developers of game XYZ would like it either if it happened to one of their games.

This doesn't mean that you can't make bat-and-ball games or falling-block games for the iPhone. It means that you should come up with your own take on bat-and-ball or your own take on falling-block games and an original name. The games market is full of examples of this (heh - the last game I bought was a new take on an existing genre and perfectly adapted for the iPhone, with an original name for it's genre and great fun to play :)).

</rant>

[Pyrofer]

I think people are missing my real complaint, and what I feel is the real issue.

Whether this is right/wrong legal or not doesnt matter.
The large company that simply "got there first" is using its size and financial mass to threaten and intimidate a small developer in some cases.

Nobody owns the rights on an idea. If their game is better thats fine, but nothing should stop you making the same game just because yours is better and they dont want to lose sales!

I admit making a total clone of a game sucks, it lacks imagination etc, but I dont think it should be illegal.

It should also not be legal for big companies to push around small devs simply because they cannot afford to defend themselves.

[NotYou]

I hate big companies trying to control competition as much as anyone else, but you guys have to think ahead about this.

If you should be able to take their idea and make your own game, then they, in all fairness, could take a game you invented and make it their own, putting you out of business.

If that were the case, the small developers wouldn't stand a chance.
We can't hold double standards just because one side has an advantage. It will backfire every time, in any business or situation.

I'm all about creativity. I think if you really want to do something worthwhile, you need to be more unique than that. Those guys that made the breakout clones obviously have talent. I really think they need to exploit that and make something new.

[ReformatPlanet]

I'm really interested in the fact that people seem to think you can't stand up to a big corporation, yet people sue McDonald's for spilling coffee on themselves and eating into obesity.

Big companies are not just walking about, stamping out whatever indie developers they find. They are attacking people that infringed their property.

Develop a game that doesn't look, play, and sound like Tetris. Maybe then they'll leave you alone. Or hire you to make a big budget adaptation of it. The indie scene has been seeing a good amount of love (for once) on lots of major platforms. Quite complaining about the big corporate bullies pushing you around over a clone, and make something that will intimidate them in a good way.

It also seems like the idea that these games are being taken down is wrongly perpetuated. How many are actually removed from the app store instead of seeing a name change?

http://www.iphonefootprint.com/2008/08/complete-list-of-removed-apps-app-store/

Tris got axed right? Have there been any others?

[Pyrofer]

"If you should be able to take their idea and make your own game, then they, in all fairness, could take a game you invented and make it their own, putting you out of business."

Hmm, and exactly how do I stop them now? I cant afford a lawyer, I cant afford a court case and I definately cant afford to go through the copyright and patent process.

I fully expect ANY good idea I have to be ripped off within days of it hitting the store and there to be nothing I can do about it.

The only reason THEY can do it is because they CAN afford a lawyer, and know that the threat of that alone will scare people into compliance.

People DO take on McDonalds over spilt hot coffee, why? Because RICH lawyers are desperate for any case they can use to get richer and offer no win no fee type services whenever they see an ambulence to chase. Its all about greed.
NO lawyers offered to leap to my defence for free I can tell you that.

I can assure you that MY game was taken down, so thats 2 at least.

For somebody with no money, the threat of legal action alone is enough to make them do anything you ask whether its right or wrong. This sort of behaviour is obviously wrong. Bullying using money and legal threats against the little people is just evil.

So not only do I have no way to defend myself if somebody says I infringe on them, I have no way to defend myself if one of them actualy infinges on me! Show me fair in this situation.

[BATTLE BORN]

In the business I work in, my company is always innovating and coming up with new products. and sure enough, EVERY ONE of those ideas gets stolen by our competitors, tweaked just enough to be legal (ie. renames it), and starts offering it to their customers.

I'll admit that it sucks hard to see people take your ideas verbatim, and slap their name on it. but when it comes down to it, our products are the best, and people know it. people imitate us all day long, but we remain the cream of the crop because we're the ones spending the time and effort to develop good products. everyone else just tries to play catch up after the fact.

anyways, a simple name change allows these people to blatantly steal our products to a T. from what I've seen in the store already, this is an easy workaround for apps under pressure by the big boys. especially since all of your apps vary at least a little bit.
(and if not, then why bother right?)

I've got one of those "45 games in 1" NES cartridges and on it there's a copy of Super Mario Bros 1. In that game, they tweaked it so that everywhere it would normally say Mario, it said "ario".
no joke...they just removed the "M" and stuck an exact copy of the game on there. whether it's wrong or right, I dunno, you be the judge. but my guess is they made some bank off of this little loophole.

and I know none of you indie developers are making blatant copies, but even if you were... change the name and keep it up there.
If the big boys are so concerned, it'll drive them to be more competitive.

and come on... we're talking video games here. building on ideas is the name of the game. find me a video game that doesn't have SOME sort of similarity to another video game and I'll give you 100 bucks.

my company has defended our products in court, and lost.
it basically boils down to a simple name change.
I'm no lawyer, but I see companies making clones of my products all the time and there's really nothing we can do about it, except do a better job...

I know I'm a little all over there place here, but hopefully this was helpful to some of you devs under pressure. I know the thought of going up against Atari seems like going up against a goliath, but I would seriously consider fighting if I were in the shoes of you indies.
I'm no developer (or lawyer) so I can't tell you guys how to pick your battles. but my company gets (blatantly) ripped off all the time, we've fought it in court, lost, and we continue to get ripped off all the time.

I don't think Atari will get far with this one. we're talking about bouncing a ball off of bricks here...

It's too bad the creator of Sudoku isn't in there hassling developers ;)
or match 3 games for that matter