

Atari abuses copyright to kick competitors out of the iOS app store - extension
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/852638998/vector-tanks-3

======
biot
I don't know the copyright claims process Atari uses, but the review[0] of
Vector Tank the Kickstarter page links to says:

    
    
      First, let's step back a moment and take a look at the overall 
      Vector Tanks situation. Peter's original Vector Tanks appeared 
      in the App Store, published by Chillingo, just over one year ago. 
      It delivered a stylized iPhone take on Ed Rotberg's 1980 arcade 
      classic Battlezone, with a large helping of modern-day retro, 
      thanks to the lovely glowing vector effects that make the iPhone's 
      screen feel more like an Atari Quadrascan display than a 3.5-inch 
      LCD.
    

That's fairly telling. Additionally, if I were to come up with a generic name
to describe Battlezone, Vector Tanks would be a top pick. I'm not experienced
with copyright with respect to clones of games, but Atari might be the victim
here.

EDIT: Even more damning, the original Vector Tanks review details how the
creator loved Battlezone so much he wanted an iPhone version[1]. So he created
one. The original app's description:

    
    
      Vector Tanks is a Battlezone remake with a "future retro" feel. 
      It's great fun and is perhaps the most enjoyable retro offering
      to be found in the App Store.
    

EDIT 2: The VentureBeat article[2] puts the nail in the coffin:

    
    
      Vector Tanks programmer Peter Hirschberg commented to VentureBeat: 
      “The cruel irony here is that I tried for years to get ahold of 
      Atari to license their IP but they seemed to have fallen off the 
      planet. Now this. It’s very depressing.”
    

The developer originally recognized the need for a license but, unable to
contact Atari, decides to clone the game anyways.

[0] [http://toucharcade.com/2010/03/01/a-closer-look-at-vector-
ta...](http://toucharcade.com/2010/03/01/a-closer-look-at-vector-tanks-
extreme/)

[1] [http://toucharcade.com/2009/02/16/a-look-at-
retro-3d-shooter...](http://toucharcade.com/2009/02/16/a-look-at-
retro-3d-shooter-vector-tanks/)

[2] [http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/ataris-latest-legal-
action...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/30/ataris-latest-legal-actions-
appear-to-be-putting-the-squeeze-on-hundreds-of-apps/)

~~~
kls
Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written and not the
inspiration, if the original code base and images where not used and no
trademarked assets where used then there should be no infringement. It is the
reason that I can go out and write a spreadsheet application even though there
are other spreadsheet applications. I can even draw my feature inspirations
from other offerings. So long as I do not use their code and write it myself,
I have not violated copyright. Now I am sure Atari has a trademark on
Battlezone, but I think the tanks themselves would be too liberal of an icon
to actually constitute a trademark, they probably have a trademark on the font
lettering and the name Battlezone as applied to games. They would have a hard
time wining this case in court, on either copyright or trademark grounds,
which should be the bar that Apple is applying. If I where Apple, I would make
all parties agree to arbitration and then comply with the outcome of that
arbitration, even if Apple has to pay for such arbitration, it is a known
cost, they are a third party with legal liability and I am surprised that they
are comfortable in that position with such a loose process.

~~~
stonemetal
_Copyright is supposed to cover the actual code written_

True

 _if the original code base and images where not used... then there should be
no infringement._

Not so true anymore. Copying a work doesn't mean Xeroxing it. You can do 100%
of the work, draw all the images yourself etc. As long as the output is, shall
we say, unreasonably similar then it is copyright infringement. In this case
all he had to do is not directly copy the artwork and everything would have
been free and clear. Look at the images of the tanks in both games it is
pretty open and shut to me.

~~~
robterrell
This is astoundingly incorrect. At least where I live (int he US) copyright
protects the game binary code, the game assets, the game's manual, etc. but
doesn't protect the overall game concept or the game's general look and feel.
Those things are in the realm of patent protections.

The OP is confusing a moral right (rather, a moral wrong, i.e. he clearly was
making a Battlezone clone) with a legal wrong. The game breaks no copyright
laws.

I was involved in a very similar situation, where a publisher made a copyright
claim against a game of mine in the app store. But you can't copyright a game
idea, or the way the tanks generally look. You can only copyright the actual
game, or game assets. We pushed back and Apple accepted our arguments and the
game went back into the store.

This is abuse of copyright for the sole purpose of eliminating a competitor in
the app store, and it's got to be fought, or we're all going to be spending
huge portions of our lives as developers fighting incorrect and spurious
copyright claims.

~~~
stonemetal
_You can only copyright ... game assets._

What do you think the tanks are? He made his game's tank assets identical to
their tank assets. It doesn't matter if he ripped them from a rom or modeled
them up himself he copied their assets.

------
sehugg
Atari has been little more than a brand name and an IP catalogue since the
late 90's. They and Hasbro Interactive sued a bunch of shareware developers in
2000 before releasing a slew of truly awful Windows "reboots" of Asteroids,
etc.

The scary part is that copyright law is not yet decided on the "look-and-feel"
infringement issue, yet Atari/Infogrames seems to be getting their way without
touching the courts. This is a chilling trend and has definite parallels with
SOPA.

------
frogpadbunnyhop
The letter I received from Atari was:

I am general counsel for Atari Interactive, Inc. (“Atari”), the owner of the
copyrights and trademarks in the United States for the REDACTED computer and
video games. We have recently become aware of REDACTED app “REDACTED”
currently accessible on the iTunes games website at
<http://itunes.apple.com/us/am;REDACTED>.

This unauthorized use of the REDACTED game constitutes copyright infringement
in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. This unauthorized use of the REDACTED® mark
also violates the trademark laws, including l5 U.S.C. lll4(1) and ll25(a), by
creating a likelihood of confusion with respect to Atari’s authorization or
sponsorship of this iTunes game.

We therefore demand that you immediately remove the “REDACTED" game from the
iTunes website listed above.

Please acknowledge receipt of our letter. This letter does not purport to be a
complete statement of the facts or the law and is without prejudice to Atari's
legal and equitable rights.

\------

It was later confirmed that the percieved copyright/trademark infringement was
in the app name. The name was the same as an older Atari game. The copyright
on the name had expired, so I thought I was ok, but I didn't check trademarks.

For what it's worth Atari was quite reasonable once the communication channel
was open.

~~~
megablast
This is a different situation though? Or are you talking about the article?

~~~
roghummal
I'd like to know too. I'd like to hear from other people that received notices
like the Vector Tank people.

------
Ogre
While I'm not for this action, Vector Tanks (not the Extreme sequel) bears
more than a "vague resemblance" to Battlezone. It's a vector-for-vector clone
as far as I could tell.

There is legal precedent for outright clones being banned, and it seems to be
Atari's longstanding specialty. See for example
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(video_game)> from 1982. I don't know
of a more current case that's gone to court though. And the real problem here
is that the developer didn't even get the chance to present their arguments in
court or anywhere else, Apple just decided the "case" for them.

~~~
extension
The Munchkin case was a travesty. It had significant differences from Pac-Man,
both cosmetic and functional. By the same standard, almost all current video
games would be illegal, as would most works in any creative medium that fell
into an existing genre. But I suspect the court, at the time, didn't
appreciate video games as a medium that could have genres. Atari initially
lost the case but then won on appeal, apparently to everyone's great surprise.

EDIT: I read the appellate court decision and discovered some things.

First, this only got as far as a preliminary injunction, as far as I can tell.
I haven't found anything about an actual trial happening. So, the legal
decision was simply that Atari had a _decent chance_ of winning at trial, and
the potential harm to them justified an injunction, not that there was
definitely any infringement.

The potential for infringement was based not on similar game mechanics, but
rather on the more superficial similarities between the characters and
aesthetics. In other words, it would be ok to make a maze-eating-chasing game
that played just like Pac-Man, but featured squirrels eating nuts and being
chased by dogs. It was decided that K.C. Munchkin needlessly copied some small
details from Pac-man, like the ghosts and the "gobbler". This was compared to
a playwrite copying specific characters and settings rather than re-telling a
story in an original way. (That playwrites are not limited to 8x8 pixels and
two colors when creating their characters is not touched upon in the
decision.)

~~~
biot
I found the ruling to be an interesting read which went to lengths to
distinguish idea from expression. It even referenced an older case of Atari
vs. Amusement World (Asteroids vs. Meteors) which Atari lost:

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6441518363892064...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6441518363892064579&q=Atari,+Inc.+v.+Amusement+World,+Inc.&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5)

A notable quote from that case:

    
    
      It seems clear that defendants based their game on plaintiff's 
      copyrighted game; to put it bluntly, defendants took plaintiff's 
      idea. However, the copyright laws do not prohibit this. Copyright 
      protection is available only for expression of ideas, not for ideas 
      themselves. Defendants used plaintiff's idea and those portions of 
      plaintiff's expression that were inextricably linked to that idea. 
      The remainder of defendants' expression is different from plaintiff's 
      expression. Therefore, the Court finds that defendants' "Meteors" 
      game is not substantially similar to and is not an infringing 
      copy of plaintiff's "Asteroids" game.
    

The Munchkin ruling also references an older case and quotes:

    
    
      Thus, "if the only similarity between plaintiff's and defendant's 
      works is that of the abstract idea, there is an absence of substantial 
      similarity and hence no infringement results."
    

It later goes on to say:

    
    
      Plaintiffs' audiovisual work is primarily an unprotectible game, but 
      unlike the bee pin, to at least a limited extent the particular
      form in which it is expressed (shapes, sizes, colors, sequences,
      arrangements, and sounds) provides something "new or additional 
      over the idea."
    

This was to be North American's downfall:

    
    
      North American not only adopted the same basic characters but also 
      portrayed them in a manner which made K. C. Munchkin appear 
      substantially similar to PAC-MAN. The K. C. Munchkin gobbler 
      has several blatantly similar features, including the relative 
      size and shape of the "body," the V-shaped "mouth," its distinctive 
      gobbling action (with appropriate sounds), and especially the way in 
      which it disappears upon being captured. An examination of the K. C. 
      Munchkin ghost monsters reveals even more significant visual 
      similarities. In size, shape, and manner of movement, they are virtually 
      identical to their PAC-MAN counterparts. K. C. Munchkin's monsters, 
      for example, exhibit the same peculiar "eye" and "leg" movement. 
      Both games, moreover, express the role reversal and "regeneration" 
      process with such great similarity that an ordinary observer 
      could conclude only that North American copied plaintiffs' PAC-MAN.
    

Had they only copied the idea the case would have gone the way of the
Asteroids vs. Meteors case. Where they went wrong is that they copied the
expressions used to such a degree that it was found to be infringing their
copyright.

~~~
extension
Yep. And in the case of Battlezone, a game that is _about_ its appearance, I
would argue that the expression can't be separated from the abstract idea. But
I doubt we'll ever see a court's opinion on that.

~~~
biot
To me, the abstract idea is a 3D wireframe world where you accumulate points
and avoid being shot by wireframe enemies, much in the same way that the
Munchkin ruling says:

    
    
      Other games, such as "Rally-X" (described in Dirkschneider)
      and North American's own "Take the Money and Run," illustrate 
      different ways in which a basic maze-chase game can be expressed.
    

The idea could still have been a 3D wireframe world where things try and shoot
you, but it didn't have to be tanks. Atari's own Star Wars: Empire Strikes
Back from 1985 shows how the idea can have a radically different expression.

------
rabenfrass

        So - thanks to their special relationship with Apple - 
        Atari has successfully scrubbed the app store of their 
        perceived competition. It looks as though Apple complied
        without so much as a rebuttal or independent evaluation.
    

"it looks like" it's not enough to claim there is a "special relationship". It
pisses me off that everyone having legal trouble with a third party claims
wrongdoing by Apple for spurious reasons.

Apple is taking action based on "the best of their knowledge". That is, they
comply when someone files a claim, but they reinstate the game when someone
else files a reasoned legal rebuttal. It's not up to them to take the case to
court or seek independent evaluation.

------
walru
I'd like to see a list of all the games that were part of this claim by Atari,
because this is a pretty slippery slope. One for one knockoffs (same game art
& design) I can see, but games that were inspired by something else should in
no way be victim here. Otherwise, how long before Nintendo lays claim that
Sonic is a infringing on their copyright?

------
sgaither
is this copyright infringement claim posted anywhere? It'd be interesting to
read. I've seen other vector-based tank games on iOS.

------
mwexler
What does this mean for classics like Spectre?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(video_game)> It's been around for a
long time on multiple Apple platforms. Will Atari start attacking not only
recent entrants, but also ones who were there far more than a year ago?

~~~
jawngee
Spectre VR was the business back in the day. Not sure how many hours I lost
playing that game.

We also used to play that and Bolo all of the time back in school (92-93'ish).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(video_game)>

But, to your point, Spectre is way different than Battlezone. IIRC, you
collected flags and other stuff, with some RPG stat leveling business.

God, now I'm all nostalgic.

------
e-dard
(Apologies for being off topic)

In the list specifying the rewards for investment on the Kickstarter page, the
author specifies investors receive free copies of the iOS game. I was under
the impression that Apple didn't allow developers to sell copies of games
outside of the app store?

~~~
ComputerGuru
It's 'free' so it's not selling. Developers are allowed to 'give away' copies
of their apps with promo codes. Obviously this is super-gray area, but it's
'technically' not disallowed.

~~~
sirclueless
Well, giving out product in exchange for microinvestments with no return
sounds an awful lot like "selling" to me.

------
bane
Worse than anything, I just learned that Luna City Arcade is no more...and I
never had a chance to go check it out.

[http://www.thinkgeek.com/blog/2008/07/thinkgeek-travels-
to-l...](http://www.thinkgeek.com/blog/2008/07/thinkgeek-travels-to-luna-
city.html)

------
huntergdavis
Yep, I had a game pulled from the Android app store for using the word 'Pong'
in the title. The game was ping pong. "Easy Custom Pong" was pulled about
October I believe, so they've been prepping this for a while.

------
napierzaza
I don't really understand the app development Kickstarters.

Especially if there is already two apps in the store and this is a sequel to a
long series. If you're making more, isn't the economic incentive of having the
app in the store enough for you to invest? Did you not make enough from the
first two to get started on this?

I just seems to be a case where they'd like the money up front AND the money
from the store. But Kickstarter page is a good way to get a bunch of cash at a
premium (or even kicked in donations that don't want anything in return).

~~~
mbreese
If you needed the money to fund development AND gave the funders a free
copy/coupon code, then it could make sense. In this case, you're spreading the
risk among the early customers, instead of taking it all yourself or needing
investors.

------
michaelpinto
To be fair Steve Jobs got his start at Atari, so they sort of owe them one...
; )

------
pascal_cuoq
[EDIT: how silly of me. I pointed out how a summary was partisan and linked to
a biased source on HN. I forgot how consensual this place was. Forget the
argument I was trying to make then]

"[Atari] thanks to their special relationship with Apple"

Of course. Apple is famous for how well it gets along with every other
hardware- or software-making companies.

Atari claims the game is so nearly identical as to invoke copyright
infringement. Atari is biased, but so is Vector Tanks' developer. I haven't
seen the game, so I can't judge, but here is what one random review says:

"[...] Battlezone.

Yes, Atari's first-person, vector-based tank shooter all wrapped up in a
wonderfully imposing up-right cabinet. Battlezone. I feel like it's part of my
DNA.

And so does Retro Overlord Peter Hirschberg. This is why Battlezone is proudly
represented in his amazing Luna City Arcade located in Northern Virginia.

Now, one would think that a man with such a magical cave of retro delight in
which to daily dwell would be satisfied with the arcade goodness found within.
But not Peter. Peter got greedy. He wanted the goodness of Battlezone in his
pocket--with him at all times. What's more, he has attempted to one-up the
legendary green-and-black tank shooter and inject a bit of modern vitality
into the tried and true formula.

Well, there was no stopping him. Peter Hirschberg has just released Vector
Tanks [App Store] for the iPhone and iPod touch through the iTunes App Store
(published by Chillingo).

Vector Tanks feels like Battlezone 2.0. It's a first-person 3D tank shooter
with a vector-based battlefield display akin to the classic we know so well,
but [...]"

This is a review of Vector Tanks, in case you were confused by the 4 mentions
of Battlezone.

Well, I would still have to see both games, but it doesn't seem as clear-cut
to me as the title of this HN entry implies.

~~~
bediger
Well, the issue probably isn't as clear-cut as the title implies. Very little
is clear-cut when it comes to copyright. This iOS game might or might not
infringe, but nobody knows, not Atari, not the game writer, until a court
gives a verdict, and the appeals settle. There aren't any real rules, just
court judgements. This might qualify as fair use, or maybe even just "not
infringing". The latter might be the case under a very strict "idea vs
implementation" dichotomy.

This vagueness makes copyright claims into the ideal weapon for
"rightsholders" like Atari. Copyright claims are also a bonanza for specialist
lawyers, as they get paid either way the judgement turns out.

~~~
pascal_cuoq
You are right. Life is easier for large companies. I was only focusing on what
I perceived as a slight bias in the reporting (both summary and link to what
is one side's presentation of the facts).

Put it differently: everyone is a rightsholder. Imagine an hypothetical HN
story about a California-based indie developer who witnesses his iOS game
ripped off and cloned to the point of consumer confusion by Chinese
development workshops as soon as he has a little bit of success. I may assume
that the HN consensus would be that Apple shouldn't force him to go to court
before removing the offending copycats from the app store, and that Apple
would not be removing them quickly enough.

Justice is not about rooting for the guy that most resembles you.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Personally I'd apply the same logic in that case: copyright covers specific
expressions/implementations of an idea, not the idea itself. I agree with you
that the law (or in this case vague approximations to the law as implemented
by random and capricious App Store policies) should remain the same no matter
who you apply it to.

