copyright: Imangi threatens Quadrum

[kirill]

I think many of you will find this interesting:
I just received a letter from Walter Devins, Esq General Counsel for Imangi Studios, LLC, saying that my game (QUADRUM) "is identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its basis". (Work = Imangi)
Also he says "Therefore, you have willfully infringed Imangi Studios’rights under 17 USC Section 101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000" - that is, if I don't remove it by November 11. "Imangi Studios demands that you immediately cease...."
I will post the complete text of this letter later, for now just one more quote:
"The following is a non-exhaustive list of copyright infringements of the Work:
1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters.
2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns.
3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work.
4) When you form words in Quadrum, they light up, just like in the Work.
5) When you clear words from the board, they get replaced with new letters, just like a particular mode of the Work entitled “Speed Imangi.”"

So, does it mean I can not make anymore games where you slide letters on grid to make words? Or game where you have to make words from left to right? Point 2 is a killer - you use finger on iPhone, this is how it works.

I will not argue - Quadrum has simular mechanics, but still, it's not the same. And, believe it or not - I did not see/play Imangi before releasing Quadrum - was not looking at any word games - just had the idea and wanted to implement it.

So, would appreciate any educated advices, all the comments are interesting as well.

[1337brian]

Ouch... I don't know what to say, I'm interested in seeing how this unfolds though. Please keep us posted.
Good luck

[BATTLE BORN]

6) your game is released in the app store
7) your game may be played sitting, or standing
8) the title contains the letter 'A', just like Imangi

am I forgetting anything? I've said it before and I'll say it again...
why can't the creator of sudoku run around the store threatening devs like a jackass?

[SLDROFHLA]

good luck. I know you came up with the idea yourself and did not copy from them. could you work out a deal with them? good luck again

[SLDROFHLA]

exactly right battle born

[tunawrap]

heres a thought: try making it so when you create words they disappear, and more letters fall in from the top. and somehow implement accelometer controls, so like...tilt it to the side to make letters fall in that way. :D i hope you can keep it up if you implement these ideas :(

[vandy1997]

Fight it. Ask the attorney for the patent filing. And if they are filing for a patent, then fight the patent filing if you can prove that you had the idea before Imangi implemented it. I am all for competition and Imangi didn't create the Word Puzzle format!!

EDIT: And change the name of your app to Imanji - haha!!

[SLDROFHLA]

you are giving it away for free, why can they sue? if you charged 10 dollars that would be wrong, but you are giving it out to people

Edit: whoops. they are giving it out for 99 cents, so I guess lost business, but what about lighter apps? Ezone.com is not suing for copying its lighter idea and giving it away for free.

[Freegoo]

Even the small devs are playing with copyright/trademarks now.

[nickels]

Add some of the stuff suggested in the other thread and your game will clearly be different from Imangi. Then, get a lawyer (hopefully a friend) and respond with all the reasons why your app is different and not a rip-off.

[rootbeersoup]

Honestly, they've got no case

This is pretty low of them

[1337brian]

am I forgetting anything? I've said it before and I'll say it again...
why can't the creator of sudoku run around the store threatening devs like a jackass?

Damn good question. But it seems sudoko has been "open market" since the 1970's

[QuickWit]

Don't know what to tell you other than I didn't give your game a second look because it looked like a game I already had. Sometimes timing is a knee to the groin.

But if you can prove that you did all of your work without any knowledge of their game you might stand a chance to going up against them. They have to prove that you stole their idea. But keep in mind that you have a "chance", the law is a funny thing.

A few years ago I had Paramount sue me because I was doing a parody of Star Trek at a playhouse I owned. They went after me for millions even though I was only doing a parody -- like thousands of others (long, but good story). I stood up to them and fought it in court but even with a lot of "free" lawyers helping me it still cost me a fair amount of money.

It's up to you. Like I said, if you can prove that your idea is original in every way and have proof to back it up you have a fighting chance. You'd have a better chance if you made the game look a little different. Look at all the "matching" games there are out there. The key is that they have a few subtle changes. Look at the things they said are too similar and see what you can do to tweak them. Open some dialogue with them and let them know that this is original but you'll make some changes in the look -- that might help.

Best of luck...

[nickels]

How is it that NeoSameGame, Same Game, BeeJeweled, reMovem, and countless other titles are all clones of the same concept and there is no problem?

[NotYou]

I like your game, but I can't blame Imangi Studios.

It'd have to be one hell of a coincidence for your game to just happen to be that similar to Imangi. I'm not trying to take sides, but I really don't think you could consider your game an original work. You might have made it yourself, but the concept and mechanics are Imangi.

Again, I think you made a great game and I hope you keep making more.
Chromix is a good concept. I remember you telling me personally that it's like nothing I'd ever played. You should keep making games with that frame of mind. I really am looking forward to whatever you're making next.

[vandy1997]

Just make your app much better than theirs, and then send them a copy so that they can enjoy it as well!!

You have made two very nice apps thus far, and I applaud you.

I purchased Imangi, and now I'm going to delete it from my phone because the developer is being a jerk. You can send this post to the developer! :D

[rootbeersoup]

I honestly did not even like Imangi and I don't think their idea is all that original anyway

[Eric5h5]

"The following is a non-exhaustive list of copyright infringements of the Work:

None of those are copyright infringements. To quote copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html):

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Unless you are ripping off their code/graphics/sound effects/music (which you aren't), then they have no case under copyright law. They seem to be confusing copyrights with patents. Unless their game is patented, tell them to get lost.

--Eric

[SLDROFHLA]

I just downloaded your game and love it! it is very mean of them to do that to you. Come up with all the differences, add more changes, and present it to them. I will help you with differences. for one, yours is more stone, classic theme, theirs is techno-ish. I am going to give you a great review in the App Store right now, and would like to give them a bad review, however, I don't want to purchase it. Good Luck!

[rootbeersoup]

None of those are copyright infringements. To quote copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html):



Unless you are ripping off their code/graphics/sound effects/music (which you aren't), then they have no case under copyright law. They seem to be confusing copyrights with patents. Unless their game is patented, tell them to get lost.

--Eric

No they are confusing copyright with intellectual property, which is hard to prove

[orBeaver]

Just make your app much better than theirs, and then send them a copy so that they can enjoy it as well!!

You have made two very nice apps thus far, and I applaud you.

I purchased Imangi, and now I'm going to delete it from my phone because the developer is being a jerk. You can send this post to the developer! :D

I fail to see how the developer is being a jerk here. Attempting to verify that someone is not ripping your work off is not being a jerk, it is protecting yourself. I agree with the other posters who have said to simply come up with a way to make the game clearly unique and show that it is not a knock off and move on.

Punishing someone for attempting to protect themselves is hardly reasonable.

[NotYou]

Even if they're confusing copywrite with intellectual property, Imangi will still win in court. It'll take the judge about five minutes of demonstration to make up his mind.

You have to look at it from both sides. I don't think he can prove that Quadrum is different from Imangi. There's really nothing new offered there. Without an improvement to Imangi's concept, it's going to be considered a copy.

He could argue that all platform games copy Mario, or something along those lines, but he'll need one hell of a lawyer to pull it off.

[vandy1997]

He is being a JERK because he could have written an e-mail to this developer INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ATTORNEY WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING SEND A THREATENING LETTER. This is not "attempting to verify", it is ACCUSING!!

DO YOU GET IT NOW??


I fail to see how the developer is being a jerk here. Attempting to verify that someone is not ripping your work off is not being a jerk, it is protecting themselves. I agree with the other posters who have said to simply come up with a way to make the game clearly unique and show that it is not a knock off and move on.

Punishing someone for attempting to protect themselves is hardly reasonable.

[RaiderRich721]

Tell them I said Imangi sucks! Can't believe I wasted money on that. They need to forget about your game and concentrate on making theirs better! :D

[orBeaver]

He is being a JERK because he could have written an e-mail to this developer INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ATTORNEY WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING SEND A THREATENING LETTER. This is not "attempting to verify", it is ACCUSING!!

DO YOU GET IT NOW??


In legal terms I view filing a lawsuit as accusing, and sending a letter doing anything other than filing a lawsuit, as opening discussion. Companies have legal teams to handle these issues for them so that they don't shoot themselves in the foot doing the communication without a lawyer. If you step on Apple's IP, Steve jobs doesn't call you asking to talk it over, he says, "Hey Mr Lawyer, this is your job, figure out what is going on, but don't actually sue until we get the facts straight". That is all that is happening here.

[networkman]

Caution ahead.

I would first, ask the mods to erase this thread.
Then, make some changes to your play-game. Respond in your self, not lawyer and indicate what you changed the game play. There are some good ideas posted here, review those as game-play changers.

Low-key is the way to win. Remember in court it's not that the right team wins, but the team with the most voice! (money!)

Good luck.
:cool:

[vandy1997]

Then obviously you and I differ in our interpretation of what is "accusing". I am an attorney, by the way, and I have sent letters to individuals with different tones, depending upon the circumstances. This letter is not one in which the attorney is trying to "open discussion". It is one in which the attorney is blatantly accusing the developer of infringing upon Imangi Studios' rights. I am speaking from experience, Mr. Developer. Now do you get it? :D

EDIT: Did you read the words "you have wilfully infringed"? That is making the accusation that the developer "has" infringed, and it makes the accusation that the infringement was done "wilfully". If this were not an accusatory letter, it would state, "you MAY have infringed". Do you understand, or should I make additional points?

In legal terms I view filing a lawsuit as accusing, and sending a letter doing anything other than filing a lawsuit, as opening discussion. Companies have legal teams to handle these issues for them so that they don't shoot themselves in the foot doing the communication without a lawyer. If you step on Apple's IP, Steve jobs doesn't call you asking to talk it over, he says, "Hey Mr Lawyer, this is your job, figure out what is going on, but don't actually sue until we get the facts straight". That is all that is happening here.

[crunc]

I haven't played your game, but must admit that when I saw it and read the description, my first thought was, "what a ripoff of Imangi". I don't doubt that you developed it independently, but I also don't know what position you have in this given the seemingly strong similarity to Imangi. Perhaps they have no claim. I really don't know, but your game does appear to be very similar.

[orBeaver]

Then obviously you and I differ in our interpretation of what is "accusing". I am an attorney, by the way, and I have sent letters to individuals with different tones, depending upon the circumstances. This letter is not one in which the attorney is trying to "open discussion". It is one in which the attorney is blatantly accusing the developer of infringing upon Imangi Studios' rights. I am speaking from experience, Mr. Developer. Now do you get it? :D

EDIT: Did you read the words "you have wilfully infringed"? That is making the accusation that the developer "has" infringed, and it makes the accusation that the infringement was done "wilfully". If this were not an accusatory letter, it would state, "you MAY have infringed". Do you understand, or should I make additional points?


I understand your point, but I just think that until a lawsuit is filed, the language is fairly irrelevant. This can still be settled without going to court, regardless how the initial contact from the lawyer is phrased.

And to speak to your "Mr Developer" comment, I am not the author of Imangi. I write open source software for the National Cancer Institute and have worked as an independent software developer in the past. So I just happen to have opinions on these matters as it is a major point of discussion in my field.

[amn624]

If this kind of intellectual property cannot be protected against identical or nearly identical copies, there is no rationale for commercial development. I'm with Imangi on this.

[vandy1997]

Haha - touche! I understand your point. I just think that some of these matters could be handled in a more civilized fashion (i.e., without attorneys). I agree with you about using legal teams when you are referring to large organizations (I represent many myself). However, we are dealing with two indie developers in this case. And sometimes a simple e-mail can go a long way to clearing up these kinds of matters. I'm not necessarily stating that Imangi is wrong about the allegations - these laws are not clearcut; all that I'm saying is that certain measures should be taken when one has exhausted other more sensible avenues.

I understand your point, but I just think that until a lawsuit is filed, the language is fairly irrelevant. This can still be settled without going to court, regardless how the initial contact from the lawyer is phrased.

And to speak to your "Mr Developer" comment, I am not the author of Imangi. I write open source software for the National Cancer Institute and have worked as an independent software developer in the past. So I just happen to have opinions on these matters as it is a major point of discussion in my field.

[NotYou]

oops, wrong thread.

There's nothing to see here.

[crunc]

Incidentally, I have and really enjoy Imangi, I do think it was a very original idea, and one that was beautifully implemented (though, like I did with Galcon, I burned myself out a bit and haven't played lately.) Even if Quadrum isn't an intentional ripoff of Imangi, it's not hard to understand why they would be utterly convinced that it was, and thus take this action. If it was developed independently and the very strong similarity is coincidence, well then I wish you the best, but I have to admit that I find it a tad hard to believe.

[kirill]

I don't know, the base idea looks quite obvious - if you have grid of items (letters in this case) - you slide them vertically/horizontally, like CHUZZLE, FAIRIES, and lots of other games doing it for years.
Now, most logical/natural way to make a word is going left-right or up-down. Once word is submitted - you create new letters. What is so original here?
Actually, I'm pretty sure there must be some old share-ware PC games doing the same thing.
Would be nice if somebody could point to any of those.

[nickels]

Don't games take a while to develop? Can't you prove that your game was in development before Imangi came out? I would think that you'd have some timestamped files or some other proof that you were developing your game before Imangi was released.

Otherwise, you should make some rule additions to your game that clearly make it different from Imangi. Or take the safe route and remove it from the store and use your talents on another project.

[ficbot]

None of your games work on first gen Touches, do they? This was raised in other threads and you did not address the reason for this choice on your part. Maybe you would get a bigger audience for your games if you opened it up to everyone who uses this platform.

[kirill]

I might be exaggerating here a bit, but if this conflict will not be resolved on some friendly manner...
to the developers: imagine, few more cases like this, than it becomes normal practice, and in a year you just can not release anything for AppStore unless it's something never-ever seen before, with some never-used control mechanics etc. And eventually you will not be able to release anything at all, because at least some part of your game is using something which was done before (tilting to control character or drawing on screen to dynamically create stuff in the game, etc), and it will be just matter of somebody with big layer team deciding to sue you.
to the gamers: imagine, few more cases like this, and in one year AppStore becomes place occupied by 10 or so big developers, each holding it's own area (word games, puzzles, shooters, etc). They will release new game once in couple months, and this game will not have to be any good - you will have to buy it coz there will be no choice, it will be the only fresh thing. Those big guys will not let anybody new in (using the layers) - so they will have no competition. Which means - no good products for you.

Bottom line: competition is healthy. Market and customers should decide which game/utility/product is good. Ideally there should be no need to force it with layers, marketing, big money on advertisement, etc.

[QuickWit]

You say that competition is healthy... and I agree, but I think it's obvious to everyone on this thread that your game is more than just similar to to the other and it came out before yours.

The way to compete is to make something better, not make it the same.

I think all anyone is asking you to do is to use your talents and find ways to make it different -- thereby giving me a reason to buy it over a game I all ready have.

I have a few different TD games and each of them are a little different. Why would I buy one that is the exact same? Which is what people seem to think your game is.

Many have offered suggestions on how to make it better. Take them (they're free) and make the game that all these people want. If you don't Imangi will likely do it and you've lost out.

Also, take the suggestion on the "time stamp" on your development and show that to Imangi. If your game was like theirs before it came out you should be able to get them to back off. If it wasn't than you've got a big uphill fight.

Competition only works if there is something different for people to decide between. I saw your game and saw nothing different and didn't give it a second thought until today. If I was Imangi I'd be upset as well.

[kirill]

I think all anyone is asking you to do is to use your talents and find ways to make it different -- thereby giving me a reason to buy it over a game I all ready have.

Sure, I will implement the ideas from the forum (BTW, thanks to everybody for suggestions, nice stuff!), but what about this:
The following is a non-exhaustive list of copyright infringements of the Work:
1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters.
2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns.
3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work.

Which means - I can not use grid of letters and sliding in my game without making them upset and taking me to the court?

[kirill]

Anyway, my point was - if the precedent is created (one not-so-big developer pushing out another very-small developer), next time somebody else can decide to do it with some more different competitor, (look at all the arcanoids, etc) and step by step it can come to the situation I described - very few developers, very few games, nobody can enter.

[Eric5h5]

1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters.

Nobody can can copyright ideas.

2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns.

Nobody can copyright mechanisms either. Some other games use this technique to slide rows and columns, even if they aren't letters.

3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work.

Also not something that can be copyrighted. They can still try to take you to court though, but then they could do that anyway no matter what. It would be worth trying to make your game as different as possible, not because of lawsuit threats, but just for the sake of making your game stand out more.

--Eric

[QuickWit]

Going back to my battle with Paramount they had all kinds of things in their first set of letters and even in the actual law suit that really didn't have any legal reason to be there. What my lawyers told me was that the more stuff they throw in there, the more they think we have to defend, and the more it looks like they are right.

The bit about the moving mechanisms is a lot like that. Sure what the two of you did is pretty much the same, but there are things like that in many other games. And pretty much 99% of the "match three" games have alike mechanisms. My guess is that they threw everything they could thing of that was similar into their letter to make you have even more of the "oh crap!" feeling.

Paramount was made because my show "looked like the original" and listed pages and pages of similar things. My response was... "it's a parody... it's supposed to look like the original". All of those pages were thrown out way early in the process.

Don't get hung up on the little things. Yes... your game looks like theirs, and Yes... it came out first. Just make some things that make it look and play a little more different and they won't be able to bother you... and you'll have a better game in the end anyway.

As I've said... your game is way too similar for me and I'd be mad if I was Imangi. But if you had some more obvious twists to it (like some of the stuff mentioned here) I'd have to just tip my hat to you and move on. One I just thought of (and it's not all that different) is to have blank squares that can be anything (like scrabble). I love the idea of turning your phone so that the letters can fall in different ways (like Trism).

Anyway, I admire that you can make games. I'm just a player and dreamer. Don't let them get you down. Make a few twists to it and if they still come after you for the original (which I doubt they will) just show them your work and there is not much you can do.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with -- with this game and others.

[orBeaver]

Going back to my battle with Paramount they had all kinds of things in their first set of letters and even in the actual law suit that really didn't have any legal reason to be there. What my lawyers told me was that the more stuff they throw in there, the more they think we have to defend, and the more it looks like they are right.

The bit about the moving mechanisms is a lot like that. Sure what the two of you did is pretty much the same, but there are things like that in many other games. And pretty much 99% of the "match three" games have alike mechanisms. My guess is that they threw everything they could thing of that was similar into their letter to make you have even more of the "oh crap!" feeling.

Paramount was made because my show "looked like the original" and listed pages and pages of similar things. My response was... "it's a parody... it's supposed to look like the original". All of those pages were thrown out way early in the process.

Don't get hung up on the little things. Yes... your game looks like theirs, and Yes... it came out first. Just make some things that make it look and play a little more different and they won't be able to bother you... and you'll have a better game in the end anyway.

As I've said... your game is way too similar for me and I'd be mad if I was Imangi. But if you had some more obvious twists to it (like some of the stuff mentioned here) I'd have to just tip my hat to you and move on. One I just thought of (and it's not all that different) is to have blank squares that can be anything (like scrabble). I love the idea of turning your phone so that the letters can fall in different ways (like Trism).

Anyway, I admire that you can make games. I'm just a player and dreamer. Don't let them get you down. Make a few twists to it and if they still come after you for the original (which I doubt they will) just show them your work and there is not much you can do.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with -- with this game and others.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Great explanation.

[rootbeersoup]

Like I said, it's intellectual property, not copyright. It's going to be very hard to prove.

[QuickWit]

The big point that I'm sure Imangi will try to make is that this game is hurting their sales. They would likely go after damages for that -- if they went after anything. And all they would have to do is find one person who said that they bought Quadrum instead of Imangi for any reason other than "it was different".

It's really less of a copyright matter than damages. It would be very hard to prove that Quadrum's dev actually, or knowingly, stole anything from Imangi. It's likely they could say he "borrowed" the idea, but unless they have hard evidence that he took their code... you can steal an idea but you can't copyright it.

But the damages from creating the same thing could be another matter. I'm not saying that Quadrum did that, but it's why he needs to make it look a little different. In the end I'm sure that Imangi will go away when Quadrum mixes it up. The legal process is a long one and no one wants to go through it. It's easy to see that Imangi saw enough to warrant the letter and put in enough legal-ese to make it "pants filling", but i would bet that they just don't want such exact competition (who would). When it's changed they'll move on.

[Rocketman919]

sorry but it looks like you did copy imangi. its practically the same game

[ficbot]

Okay, you've fixed the '2nd gen only' problem, and I was able to try this game today. It *is* very similar to Imangi, and since that is one of the top-selling iPhone games, it seems unlikely you would convince a judge that it's only coincidence.

After trying them both, I find I am unable to decide which game I prefer. What I like about yours is the tiles disappearing. You can get this in Imangi, but only in timed mode which lats three minutes. I like being able to play indefinitely. In standard Imangi, I feel too much pressure to make a 'perfect' board. I prefer being able to just make words and enjoy the game; the sliding and moving IS different than Boggle-type action.

But yours is lacking in the pizzaz factor a little. Imangi has special tiles which are worth more points, and yours has nothing like this. You could also try stuff like in Numba where there are fire tiles that must be used within a certain timeframe, or tiles which change their letter periodically. It just needs something so it is not just making words forever. And (I have this same criticism of your other game) the scoring method is kind of dull. I played for a long time and only had like a hundred points or something. There need to be things a user can do as part of their strategy or gameplay that they know will be worth more points (e.g. using special tiles, multipliers if you make longer words etc.)

Your game is a little brisker-feeling than Imangi, where you have to click many times to get something to go away. If you add in some other features, you could wind up with a very good game that is much like it is now, but better, and different than Imangi.

[personaestudio]

First off, I must state that I am a game developer for the iphone and have I.P. that I will protect. I am not an expert on copyright law however, I can say definitely that gameplay cannot be copyrighted. If you check with the US Copyright office, the rules of games cannot be copyrighted only the text of the rules. The only exception would be a patent on the input method, e.g. moving letters with your finger. From the discussion in this thread, I see that both games are very similar. (I have not played either game) As the developer for one of the Air Hockey games (Fingertip sports and us were there on launch day), I understand frustrations from the opposite side. (There are 6 Air Hockey games for the iPhone now) Quite frankly I see this a a ploy by another developer to remove your App from the store. I suggest that you can contact the EFF www.eff.org to see if they will support your case. Unless you game is a complete clone, there is no case for gameplay.

[CrocStock]

I think many of you will find this interesting:
I just received a letter from Walter Devins, Esq General Counsel for Imangi Studios, LLC, saying that my game (QUADRUM) "is identical to the Work and clearly used the Work as its basis". (Work = Imangi)
Also he says "Therefore, you have willfully infringed Imangi Studios’rights under 17 USC Section 101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000" - that is, if I don't remove it by November 11. "Imangi Studios demands that you immediately cease...."
I will post the complete text of this letter later, for now just one more quote:
"The following is a non-exhaustive list of copyright infringements of the Work:
1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters.
2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns.
3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work.
4) When you form words in Quadrum, they light up, just like in the Work.
5) When you clear words from the board, they get replaced with new letters, just like a particular mode of the Work entitled “Speed Imangi.”"

So, does it mean I can not make anymore games where you slide letters on grid to make words? Or game where you have to make words from left to right? Point 2 is a killer - you use finger on iPhone, this is how it works.

I will not argue - Quadrum has simular mechanics, but still, it's not the same. And, believe it or not - I did not see/play Imangi before releasing Quadrum - was not looking at any word games - just had the idea and wanted to implement it.

So, would appreciate any educated advices, all the comments are interesting as well.

A lot of these points are petty and meaningless and I would suspect this is more of a scare tactic than anything. I would suggest you stand your ground and prepare some differences between the 2 games (Don't buy their game though XD). This news though has certainly has put me off their games as a whole and I hope things go well for you whatever happens.

[rootbeersoup]

I think the makers of Tetris have a better case against the makers of Columns than Imangi has against Quadrum

[nickels]

I see this game is still in the app store and now its $.99 - any update on the threats?

[swarmster]

Hypocrisy bump.

Imangi rips off Flight Control (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/18/boat-control-er-harbor-master-arrives-in-app-store/)

[reinhart_menken]

Hypocrisy bump.

Imangi rips off Flight Control (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/18/boat-control-er-harbor-master-arrives-in-app-store/)

I'd just tell them a summation of what the people have said here, and kindly inform them in an assuring manner that you had no intention of copying their work, and that you're adding new gameplay mechanics.

And just don't take the app down, and don't change what's common sense - a word in English goes left-to-right, or top-down; there are just no other way to write it (you could, but...you know what I mean).

It's as you said, this kind of things cannot be allowed to happen or it would just be common place.

If they take you to court, take what people have said here with you, and show that they copied off Flight Control (harbour control is WAY too obvious a rip-off).

[s0mah]

Hypocrisy bump.

Imangi rips off Flight Control (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/18/boat-control-er-harbor-master-arrives-in-app-store/)

Hypocrisy bump.

Apple rips off Graham Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Graham_Bell)

Stop being an idiot thx.

[badmanj]

Nice find, Swarmster. Absolutely agree - that's a blatant ripoff.

Jamie.

[daveak]

I see this game is still in the app store and now its $.99 - any update on the threats?

As it is still there I would hope the update is that there is no legal basis for the threat, you can not copyright a game concept, your code, your artwork are protected by copyright, but not the concept.

Before anyone mentions it scrabble games usually get chased down by lawyers, but that is down to trademark infringement on the name, and IIRC the board as well.

[daveak]

Hypocrisy bump.

Imangi rips off Flight Control (http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/18/boat-control-er-harbor-master-arrives-in-app-store/)

Saw harbor master earlier, hadn't look at the developer, thought it was from the same one.

[mrbass]

Also he says "Therefore, you have willfully infringed Imangi Studios’rights under 17 USC Section 101, et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $100,000" - that is, if I don't remove it by November 11. "Imangi Studios demands that you immediately cease...."

So did you pay the $100,000 or what?

[nattylux]

Hah.

You live and you learn, eh?

We resolved this issue with Kirill a very long time ago, and don't worry - nobody's bank account was hurt in the process.

But yes. It was kind of stupid. I know this was just a few months ago, but it's about 10 years ago in App Store time, and we were just a couple of crazy kids with a word game idea. Our understanding of the game industry has significantly evolved since then, and we wouldn't do something like this now. The game industry works by improving on existing concepts, and there's plenty of room for competition. Look at all the tower defense games, all the side-scrollers, all the racing games, all the FPS's, etc.

Finally, as to the Harbor Master/Flight Control issues, I just responded in the other thread:

http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=310938&postcount=124

And this thread kind of speaks for itself:

http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=16320

[MrSnap]

Hah.

You live and you learn, eh?

We resolved this issue with Kirill a very long time ago, and don't worry - nobody's bank account was hurt in the process.

But yes. It was kind of stupid. I know this was just a few months ago, but it's about 10 years ago in App Store time, and we were just a couple of crazy kids with a word game idea. Our understanding of the game industry has significantly evolved since then, and we wouldn't do something like this now. The game industry works by improving on existing concepts, and there's plenty of room for competition. Look at all the tower defense games, all the side-scrollers, all the racing games, all the FPS's, etc.

Sigh. How could you seriously not know how the game industry works? Do you really think your word game is any better than say.... Bookworm or Scrabble? Attempting to sue someone is a serious thing and to shrug it off... well, sigh.

[Palfince]

Sigh. How could you seriously not know how the game industry works? Do you really think your word game is any better than say.... Bookworm or Scrabble? Attempting to sue someone is a serious thing and to shrug it off... well, sigh.

Somebody pulled up an almost 8 month old thread and everything has been sorted out since then. Can't you just let something die in the dust like it should do or don't you have anything better to do?

People live and learn so just leave it.

[MrSnap]

Somebody pulled up an almost 8 month old thread and everything has been sorted out since then. Can't you just let something die in the dust like it should do or don't you have anything better to do?

People live and learn so just leave it.
Sigh.

[HJJ]

Sigh.

I think you've got the wrong onomatopoeia. You're looking for waaaaahhh.

[VeganTnT]

Sigh. How could you seriously not know how the game industry works? Do you really think your word game is any better than say.... Bookworm or Scrabble? Attempting to sue someone is a serious thing and to shrug it off... well, sigh.

Cause.... it was their first game ever?

I'm pretty sure when someone that has never worked on a game in their life is sitting on their computer the intricacies of the game industry aren't magically given to them.

It's like yelling at a chef for not being able to run a restaurant. The chef's job is to make food not run a business. If a chef is forced to do both then you have to expect a few mistakes.

It's being shrugged off because it's been completely resolved. I'm sure at the time they truly felt that their game was cloned (I thought the same thing when I saw it) but it turned out that the similarities for the game are in areas that can't be copyrighted. Imangi learned about the game industry in an unpleasant way (for both parties) and with that they grew.

The Appstore is wonderful in that anyone can make games and have it sent to the masses. In the beginning there were a TON of mistakes by devs.

Remember KinWits!? Going from 2.99 to FREE and once everyone downloaded it they sent out an "update" that neutered the game and made it a demo.

Remember SpaceMonkey!? Went from 4.99 to .99 then went Free... WITH ADS! So those that paid full price had to deal with ads now

I was so pissed at both devs that I started threads that got so much attention and bad publicity that Glu changed SpaceMonkey back to 99cents and made a separate free version. Troutfly has yet to make another game for the appstore since Kinwits "pro"

I think it's completely fine to acknowledge, and in some cases be angry about, the mistakes that are made.

But once they are resolved... then that should be the end of it

Just my opinion though
Cheers!

[mrbass]

Just let bygones be bygones. I do remember this event though wasn't pretty but in the end it was handled well.

[justThinkEasy]

Oh sorry Imangi, that was real low.
:mad:
I'll think twice about buying your games now. (how's that)

[iGame]

Well, I'm never gonna buy anything from Imangi. . .

[khangtoh]

Do no evil. Learn your lessons and let bygones be bygones, and don't copy smackbots ... :)

[gnadenlos]

8 months or 10 years - this is the reason I will not buy Harbor Master.

[Kris Jones]

8 months or 10 years - this is the reason I will not buy Harbor Master.

That is pretty shallow...

The lawsuit, which the developer came on her to discuss, was resolved and was a personal business/legal matter between the two parties.

No one was harmed in the process and the party that created the lawsuit stated it was a mistake and it has been resolved.

Why are we being so naive to keep bringing it back up, when we can just drop it and spend some time doing something more fun, like playing one of the many great iPhone games. ;)

[Mellifluous]

Seeing as the defendant made it public domain by creating a post about it, I think it's open to discussion. Kudos to Imangi for coming on here and putting their hands up. People are going to be apathetic or disgusted by their action and that's up to people's prefernces. Doesn't seem too harmful as Harbor Master is doing well.

My take is if you're entering a market you've got to know how it works and what does and doesn't count as your intellectual property. Chef analogy doesn't work either because devs and sellers are one and the same in indie game development. It's also bad IMO that too many people are buying into this litigatory society and shooting first, asking q's later. I can't condone this kind of thing by indie devs when I despise big companies for doing the same. This won't stop me buying an Imangi game but there's nothing wrong in a discussion about it.

[sam the lion]

That is pretty shallow...

The lawsuit, which the developer came on her to discuss, was resolved and was a personal business/legal matter between the two parties.

No one was harmed in the process and the party that created the lawsuit stated it was a mistake and it has been resolved.

Why are we being so naive to keep bringing it back up, when we can just drop it and spend some time doing something more fun, like playing one of the many great iPhone games. ;)

I'd be careful to say that "no one was harmed" - quadrum had to change into quadrum:colors, with colors instead of words. If you want the original quadrum with words, you can't buy it, because of imangi. And NOW imangi says they didn't have the right to do that.
With the same logic, if firemint decides that they want some changes in harbor master, imangi should do what they want - and still "no harm done".

[Scott30]

I think its wrong for anyone to judge Imangi based on what has been said, for one its a old subject and it was settled already.

I think its easy NOW for people to think they were wrong, seeing the app store now is a lot different then it was back then. Now you see a million TD games, a million match 3 games and so on. But back then when you quit your job to make games and all the sudden see the same exact game being put up for free and see how this could be a big problem for you and your profits. I am quit sure some of you who have said "I wont buy from them now" would think a little differently if you were in their shoes.

I dont know any legal aspects of copyright laws so I cant say anything to that but I completely understand where Imangi could have been coming from.

You can easily just look at StickWars and Defend Your Castle as a good example, DYC was the first on a different platform and SW's clearly has taken alot of potential sales by coming out with pretty much the same game and being first on the app store.

Now not knowing the legal side of things I cant say anything about those issues but it sure sucks for DYC devs a bit.

Also look at EDGE being taken down from the app store, that is way worse as it was being taken down just cause of the word, losing a lot of potential sales in the process. Now thats dumb.

People live and learn and move on, simple as that. Obviously they did and you should too.

[VeganTnT]

Seeing as the defendant made it public domain by creating a post about it, I think it's open to discussion. Kudos to Imangi for coming on here and putting their hands up. People are going to be apathetic or disgusted by their action and that's up to people's prefernces. Doesn't seem too harmful as Harbor Master is doing well.

My take is if you're entering a market you've got to know how it works and what does and doesn't count as your intellectual property. Chef analogy doesn't work either because devs and sellers are one and the same in indie game development. It's also bad IMO that too many people are buying into this litigatory society and shooting first, asking q's later. I can't condone this kind of thing by indie devs when I despise big companies for doing the same. This won't stop me buying an Imangi game but there's nothing wrong in a discussion about it.

Actually it does. A chef creates food. This is what they are trained to do and what they have experience in. If that same chef buys a location and opens a restaurant then you're in the same situation. The chef is now the creator and the seller. Now that chef should OF COURSE learn everything they can about opening a business first but the truth is that without experience mistakes are bound to be made.

Basically the point I was making was that just because anyone can have experience with code, can create a game, and then upload it to the appstore... that doesn't mean they know how to run a gaming business. They both fall under the title of gaming but are radically different things. One just needs to worry about making something fun and beautiful that people will want to play, the other has to worry about copyrights and tax forms.

Even huge mobile gaming companies like Glu, which have been making games for 7+ years (2002-2009), have made huge mistakes on the appstore. So why chastise a dev that had only been doing this for months when this occurred?

*that last part was not directed to Melli. Just a question to those that have said they refuse to buy games from this dev*

[VeganTnT]

I'd be careful to say that "no one was harmed" - quadrum had to change into quadrum:colors, with colors instead of words. If you want the original quadrum with words, you can't buy it, because of imangi. And NOW imangi says they didn't have the right to do that.
With the same logic, if firemint decides that they want some changes in harbor master, imangi should do what they want - and still "no harm done".

I completely agree. However, the game mechanics are completely different in HM and FC. The only similarity is the art style. The fact that you draw a line to move an object isn't exclusive to FC. That's the way all ATC games have been.

I admit that FC did the line drawing WAY better than I have ever seen before but isn't that a good thing? If one game introduces a new mechanic that elevates the genre... shouldn't we want all future games in the genre to adopt that mechanic? (ex: ATC 4.0 updating to add a similar line drawing)

Now if firemint said that the art style was too similar to theirs, to the point that we as customers might confuse HM as being made by firemint, I completely understand.

I do remember seeing in the Iphone Launch Party coverage that nattylux demoed HM for firemint and they enjoyed it. Even if they didn't the game had only just been sent to apple for approval and could have been quickly removed until things were sorted out.


On a completely unrelated note:
I really enjoy threads like this. Aside from the few flamers there are a lot of interesting and well thought out posts for both sides of the argument.

[strawdog]

Like I said, it's intellectual property, not copyright. It's going to be very hard to prove.
You seem to be getting a little confused. intellectual property is an umbrella term which covers copyright, trademarks, patents or a design right. This case is either copyright infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringement an infringement of their design rights or possibly passing off (making something so similar as to confuse customers). Saying "its [a case of] intellectual property is a pretty meaningless phrase.

[strawdog]

1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters.
The concept of moving rows and columns is a well established mechanic going all the way back to Rubics Cube. A Mechanic can NOT be protected by copyright (only be patent) so strike this off the list.

2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns.
This is a standard control mechanism on the iPhone and again not protected by copyright.

3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work.
Yes, words are formed left to right and top to bottom as in crosswords and scrabble and other word puzzles. They can't claim ownership of that fact and nor can their implementation of that mechanic on a computer be protected by copyright - again only by patent.

So actually there aren't any breaches of copyright there at all. If they had a patent or two then there might be problems. If the graphics are too similar they might claim passing off, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a copyright issue.

[daveak]

I think its wrong for anyone to judge Imangi based on what has been said, for one its a old subject and it was settled already.

I dont know any legal aspects of copyright laws so I cant say anything to that but I completely understand where Imangi could have been coming from.

Now not knowing the legal side of things I cant say anything about those issues but it sure sucks for DYC devs a bit.

Also look at EDGE being taken down from the app store, that is way worse as it was being taken down just cause of the word, losing a lot of potential sales in the process. Now thats dumb.

People live and learn and move on, simple as that. Obviously they did and you should too.

I wouldn't say it's wrong to judge them, if you are releasing apps then you should know basic copyright law / issues. You should not send baseless accusations threatening legal action if you do not understand the law. Yes not knowing the legal side of things sucks, but you should find out about them.

The EDGE issue is different and is down to trademark IIRC, not copyright, but again, anyone releasing apps should make sure they understand the basics of relevant laws.

Having said all this I would agree with you, they have learnt from their mistake and things should move on.

[markx2]

http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=48110&postcount=12