I learned of this today and I have to say this is... so preposterous that almost unbelievable. Apparently if there is game that sells better then yours all you have to do is ask apple to remove it. And they do it. Seriously what is this? Soviet Russia? Full story here: http://codeminion.com/blogs/maciek/2009/10/where-is-stoneloops-or-how-to-get-rid-of-your-competition-in-the-apple-appstore/#more-57
Ridiculous. I loved ur game. No expert on copyrights so not really sure if apples decision was correct or not but this is really unfair practice by Luxor devs. Hope apple reconsiders it and puts it back online.
Sadly, it is probably not the first or last time that this sort of thing will happen. What makes this even more absurd is that Luxor was hardly the first such game. Puzzle Loop, an arcade game from Japan, is the originator of the marble popping genre, which was later cloned by Zuma, etc.
It is not my game, it was sublicenced from befriended studio. I am posting about this because this sets dangerous precedent and people have to hear about this. This is outrage because the game was a twist on Luxor mechanic and by no means copyright infringement. The PC version was quite popular and was actually sold on same portals as Luxor. The only difference is that iPhone port was even better then PC original and hit iStore before Luxor port. Therefore it became a genre setter for iPhone and was way more popular then Luxor port. Following this logic every FPS should be banned since they are wolfenstein's clones and therefore copyright infringement. Ridiculous.
holy crap ! I sure hope Codeminion will sue Apple for that BS... PS: how sweet it would be to see a similar claim from Xerox/HP/IBM for Apple to just shut down itself with the exact same reasoning
This reminds me of the trism creator trying to patent the use of accelerometers in a puzzle game. I wonder if that patent gets approved he will demand a fee from everyone on the puzzle top 100 hey, for the record, you can't copyright a game idea, only graphics and sound. I understand there only have to be 7 differences to be supported in law - but I would need a citation of the specific case.
Codeminion could try to sue Apple. And they would lose -- just like MumboJumbo would lose if they tried to sue Apple for allowing Stoneloops into the store in the first place. Apple claims total neutrality when it comes to copyright issues; if they didn't, they would become liable in any copyright dispute involving the App Store (or the iTunes store in general). It's not their job to adjudicate the conflict between MumboJumbo and Codeminion, but once they've been informed that there's a potential violation, they need to respond or risk becoming liable themselves. That said, this is a thoroughly jerky move from MumboJumbo. I think a boycott of their products would be an appropriate action. By the way, the relationship between the Mac OS and the Xerox PARC project is not as one-to-one as most people believe. Read here if you want a more sophisticated understanding of the issues. Not sure what claims you suppose HP/IBM would have over Apple.
I think you didnt read the blog post. Codeminion quite clearly states, that they DID write a formal response to the mail but got no further information from Apple. You call that neutrality ? Being given no means of any discussion, no possibility to defend yourself ? Such stance is ridiculous, not neutral The latter part - its not about PARC or anything. Just IBM/Xerox/HP/TonsOfOthers were on the computer market earlier and Apple stole their idea for business The fact that such reasoning makes no sense, makes it suit even better to the whole situation....
Thanks for clarifying the Xerox thing -- you're right, that's equally ridiculous. I read Codeminion's post. When I say neutrality I don't mean that Apple treats both parties equally, but that it treats every copyright/trademark holder the same way. Basically, as long as there is a credible dispute (meaning that lawyers are involved), Apple will remove the disputed content from the store so as to immunize themselves from liability. It's not up to Apple to decide who has the more credible claim; that's up to a judge or arbitrator. As long as a claim exists that has not been resolved, they will follow the copyright holder's request. It sucks for Codeminion, but the alternative is to make Apple liable for any copyright violation that takes place on their watch -- which would simply kill the App Store, the iTunes Store, and pretty much our entire system of content distribution. I should add, just to be clear: as far as I'm concerned, Codeminion is 100% right, and MumboJumbo is 100% wrong in this dispute.
My understanding is that Apple does try to stay neutral in that they can't make legal judgements whether an app is infringing or not. While I agree the entire situation sounds terrible for Stoneloops, I don't think Apple's the one to blame on this. If they are acting as a hosting provider primarily and someone issues a copyright complaint (DMCA or likewise), they are obligated to remove it, or risk legal exposure themselves. arn
The logical move would be to inform Apple that Luxor infringes Codeminion's rights since it is just clone of Stoneloops for iPhone. Would Apple remove Luxor from iStore just to be safe? They should if they want to appear as truly neutral. And then real shitstorm will commence as everybody will want to try getting rid of competition. After all they risk nothing. I think Apple just decided to side with MJ on this one because they are from US and who cares about company from some European country. They choose option that is safer, less chances of lawsuit.
If there was a formal legal complaint issued against Luxor, then Apple would probably comply. Though there may be consequences for frivolous DMCA notices. arn
Please read arn's response -- he stated things more clearly than I did. But obviously, copyright and trademark claims are not based on platform, but on who originated the art in question (I know that Luxor is on very shaky ground here, but just for the sake of argument). If things worked the way you suggest, the maker of iMario could sue Nintendo if they ever ported their property to the iPhone. As things stand, it was MumboJumbo who made the copyright infringement claim against Codeminion -- hence, it's Stoneloops that gets removed. You are right that Apple is trying to avoid being named on a lawsuit. But this has nothing to do with the home base of either company.
get a lawyer. can you also provide evidence that you sub-licensed the title? if so; you should also be able to get the defense of the company you licensed the title from - in any license agreement, you do have to agree that the material being licensed is 100% original and owned by the licensee. the company you licensed from has an obligation to defend their own product - it shouldn't be you!
What I am trying to say here is: If MumboJumbo can make the claim and remove game without proving anything (and claim is standing on a very thin ice, not to say is absurd) then you can imagine reversed situation. While I agree that kicking Stoneloops from store was proper duck and ass cover routine from Apple's point of view, this sets a dangerous precedent. What got me worked up this much is lack of business ethics on MumboJumbo's side. And Apple just going along with this absurd. Maybe I am an idealist capitalist type of entrepreneur but this is not how things should be done! In medieval terms this is shitting into well under cover of night and cutting throats in sleep.