you need to consult with a real IP lawyer. when it comes to copyright and look and feel if you show both applications to an average person on the street; they need to be able to say "they are not the same". both luxor and stoneloops have a bar on the bottom (launcher) and a pattern the loops pass through - the average person may not be able to tell the difference between two screen shots. if such is true; then there would be a potential lawsuit. trust me - i've been down this road before with my game and watch games. its why they have new graphics i have been in consultation with an IP lawyer specifically to fight off Nintendo.
Again, I am neither developer of Stoneloops nor publisher so this does not concern me. I just wanted to bring this matter to your attention because this may very well soon concern us all. Still from what I understand both developer and Codeminion are working closely to resolve this situation. Defending product is not easy when you cannot talk with anyone because they simply ignore you. Because PC version was released before PC version of Stoneloops I think. This is absurd squared. CM mentions that MumboJumbo have seen their game since they were considered as publisher. They never claimed infringement until StoneLopps totally owned Luxor in iStore.
This somewhat happened to me with Xeno Sola when it was named Starcassonne. Hans im Gluck's lawyer demanded Apple take it down. I said I was not breaking the law but was willing to change the name and leave it up. Long story short, this is exactly what happened. I do wonder what happened to Kolonists. Seems like a name change and a theme change would have been enough to keep it legally safe. Despite what anyone tells you, it is 100% legal to borrow gameplay rules / mechanics from existing games. Otherwise the whole concept of a "genre" wouldn't exist!
I agree that the reverse claim could be made: I just don't think any lawyer would take up the case, since it clearly has no chance of prevailing in court (and may even get you countersued for filing a frivolous lawsuit). In any event, the point is moot since Codeminion has not taken that route. The point about Apple is: it's not duck and ass cover for them -- it's their only choice in the matter. Let's say Apple decides to side with Codeminion and tell MumboJumbo to go screw. Let's say MumboJumbo prevails in court (crazier things have happened); don't you think that their lawyers would immediately turn their sights towards the rich and meaty target that is Apple. Inc? And don't you think that from then on Apple would get named in every single copyright lawsuit involving the App Store, since they will now be seen as an active (instead of neutral) participant? Apple would then have two choices: either create a whole legal infrastructure to ascertain the copyright of everything that comes to the App Store (and if you think approval times are long now, they would be apocalyptic if this happened); or simply close down the App Store. Oh, and and probably the iTunes Store as well, since it also handles copyrighted material. Speaking in abstract terms, the right thing for Apple would have been to look at the facts, decide that the case had no merit, and disregard MumboJumbo's claim. Doing that, however, would be opening an enormous can of worms that could swallow the company whole (sorry about mixed metaphors).
You are probably right. Apple's only fault here would be not responding to Codeminion's mail - this is very Appleish by the way. It is the MumboJumbo who played dirty here.
I've done this and seen this done plenty of times. Investigate your competitions product and report anything that could potentially be a flaw to apple. 9/10 times they remove it. Then your sales go up. Why shouldn't a dog eat a dog?
What I don't understand is why Apple would be liable at all. A book store doesn't get sued for selling a book by an author who plagiarizes before the author loses the case in court. Now, if the dev came to Apple and said that they had a court order, or had won a lawsuit, that would be different. But if there is no legal judgement involved I don't see why Apple should need to worry about it. Apple does have a track record though of pulling apps due to outside pressure..."Shake A Baby" anyone? I think Apple is far too wimpy when it comes to this stuff.
The real problem why it was removed is because of the keyword Luxor, which they might have a trademark on. Remove this from the app description and resubmit and it will be fine. This has happened to a lot of other apps too...
I can see what youre saying. Lets hope, then, that Codeminion successfully fights Mumbo Jumbo, and that Apple then promptly restores the app to the store. Im sure we havent seen the last of this kind of behavior, though: anyone with deeper pockets can get anyone else kicked off the store, with this kind of precedent. The deeper pockets can afford a lawyer, and the little guy cant. (Not to say that Codeminion is a little guyIm hoping theyre not!) Im imagining that I could make a game, someone could clone it (even badly), then tell Apple to remove my game. And if I cant afford a lawyer (since good apps arent always profitableits marketing and luck) and they CAN afford a whole team of lawyers then my hard work may profit them forever and I cant make a dime. (Which is of course true in many other facets of life ) Anyway good luck to Codeminion
From the stories I've heard told over drinks at conferences, the guys at Mumbojumbo have pretty awful reputations for underhanded dealings in the casual games space. At least once before this has ended up in the courts: http://www.gamezebo.com/features/news/popcap-mumbojumbo-sue-each-other I've never dealt with them directly, but based on what I've heard, I don't think I ever would. My hope is that the outcry for this will get at least as large as the one over EDGE and Tim Langdell (may he rot in a pit).
