Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Gaming, iPhone, App Store
Apple yanks iPhone game for being "too much like Tetris"
Shaker, a fun "Tetris-like" game with a martini theme, has been pulled from the App Store. TUAW provided a first look at the game back in early September. According to sources, developer Phunkware was told that Shaker would be removed from the App Store after the Tetris Company and Tetris Holdings LLC complained to Apple that the app resembled Tetris too closely.It seems odd that Tetris would wait a month to complain about Shaker's similarities to their game. Shaker had graphics that were nothing like those in Tetris, and a "shaker" game mode in which the accelerometer was used to move and flip the falling blocks. The game supplied martini recipes to top scorers, and was quite a bit smaller in size (3.5 MB compared to 9.6 MB for Tetris).
Can we now expect iPhone games like Jewel Quest II and Trism to be removed from the App Store because of their similarity to Bejeweled? Let's hope not!
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Jonathan Allen said 8:21AM on 10-08-2008
Besides claiming that it is too similar to Tetris, is there a specific patent or intellectual property that was abused?
Reply
mex said 11:46AM on 10-08-2008
I suppose EA copyright on Tetris is enough
Joel said 4:00PM on 10-08-2008
This is pretty routine. The Tetris company routinly asked toat software venodrs (usually independent software vendors) cease selling what is essentially a game to which they have ownership. The game has had prolonged success and continues to be a revenue source even to this day (24 years so far). It is in their best interest to retain ownership of this game.
Joel said 4:06PM on 10-08-2008
http://abednarz.net/wp/?cat=8
Here ya go. The iPhone is not alone. This has been going on for some time and is hardly news worthy. Note this page is 9 years old.
"Many freeware and shareware tetris game developers and distributors have received threatening e-mails from “The Tetris Company” about their game being a copyright infringement.. I received one such e-mail in December 1997 in regards to my freeware tetris clone “Bedtris”. I subsequently changed the name to “Bedter” and put in disclaimers that it was not an official “Tetris” game. On the 18th of February 1999 I received another e-mail that states that I am still infringing their “look and feel” copyright.
However, I left the game available on this webpage and as of yet (July 2008) I have received no further threats..."
Buckingham said 8:25AM on 10-08-2008
I think Apple yanked it for being too boring. After playing tons of tetris in the 90s, I never want to play it anymore.
Reply
Jash Sayani said 8:34AM on 10-08-2008
The AppStore issues are common now....
New Apps released !!
Oh no! Where's NetShare gone...?!?!?
Ok, Its just gone from US Store....I hate ATT !
What?? Its gone from all AppStores...?!?!??
Ok, due to the NDA policy......
NDA policy is now void...Ok...
Why is the App gone now..??!?!?!??
Ok. Similarities..... I see...I see......
Reply
Jamie said 8:46AM on 10-08-2008
As Tetris Holdings own the rights to the Tetris game is it really that surprising that they want to protect their property? I haven't played shaker but from the screen cap it looks to be pretty similar. Obviously the colours are different but that doesn't really make it a different game...
Reply
Le Big Mac said 8:54AM on 10-08-2008
No kidding . . . skulls instead of blocks, a martini glass in the background, and martini recipes? Yeah, different -- oh, the size of the game is different.
If there's no IP rights, so be it, but it looks awfully similar.
Ryan said 8:55AM on 10-08-2008
That idiotic.
That like the id software suing everyone that makes a game similar to doom. It's a game concept, and it's software. Tetris holdings has a long history of strong arming smaller devs because none can afford to take them to court and challenge their BS.
Ryan said 9:00AM on 10-08-2008
That idiotic.
That like the id software suing everyone that makes a game similar to doom. It's a game concept, and it's software. Tetris holdings has a long history of strong arming smaller devs because none can afford to take them to court and challenge their BS.
Ed said 8:47AM on 10-08-2008
Has 'Tris' been removed to? I've got that on my phone...
Reply
Rob Bourne said 8:59AM on 10-08-2008
Yeah that was also removed, which is why I'm never deleting it from my iTouch!
Pumapayam said 11:21AM on 10-08-2008
Good god, it's "iPod Touch", not iTouch!
Rob Bourne said 11:47AM on 10-08-2008
When you're writing fast because your Boss is in the vicinity, it's iTouch, pedantic assbag
Macskeeball said 12:02PM on 10-08-2008
Actually, it's "iPod touch," not "iPod Touch."
michael cysouw said 8:53AM on 10-08-2008
There is massive intellectual property abuse in the app store, but probably the right-holders are not yet informed (or don't care).
For example, the games 'Amber Tiles', 'Blocked' and 'Gridlock' are blatant rip-offs of a puzzle originally called 'Rush Hour', developed by Nob Yoshigahara and marketed by the company ThinkFun.
Further, 'Matcher' and 'Triad' are the same as the commercial game called 'Set', developed by Marsha Falco (there used to be a third version in the app store, called '3-Tuple', but that one seems to have vanished!) Apparently, there has been a long struggle about the rights of this game, and the mobile rights now lie with a company called Mustang Mobile Games.
Not to speak of the various Rubic's Cube variants (xCube, Lee's Cube, iCube, Cubix, 3D Cube Puzzle)...
Reply
Joel said 3:59PM on 10-08-2008
Hi Michael,
I saw your comment here and a similar one at watchingapple.com, and thought I'd put in my 2 cents. I originally made "Blocked" because I've been enjoying all the incarnations of Rush Hour so much over the years; I'm a big fan of the game. Before I released it, I did my homework on the patents they had published. From the patent office website, they only patent their "Ornamental Design", so I chose not to use cars or a car-like theme in order to stay away from their patents. I also avoided the use of their name in order not violate their trademarks.
But most importantly, I think that the company *encourages* public reproductions of their game, as they link to many online incarnations from their official company site, and these versions make money through advertising ( http://www.puzzles.com/products/RushHour/RushHourLinks.htm ). You're right, though, the original sliding block idea wasn't mine, but I just wanted to take a shot at putting it on a platform that allowed me (and others) to play it on the go, like those others have been doing online.
Jeremy said 8:54AM on 10-08-2008
You guys are being dumb here. Shaker is an almost exact clone of Tetris, and the similarity to Tetris is pretty much the exact "intelletual property" being abused (@ Jonathan Allen). I mean, what do you think they mean by "intellectual property" anyway?
The article also stirs it up unnecessarily when it says that Trism is in danger when it's clearly a different game entirely from Bejeweled. Shaker is just Tetris with martinis in the background. Trism is a completely different game.
Reply
Desiree said 3:32PM on 12-12-2008
Actually, you're quite wrong.
Although shaker shares the Tetris game concept, this aspect of the game is not patented, uncopyrightable, and has nothing to do with Trademark.
So, in terms of intellectual property, Shaker is completely in the clear.
The Tetris Company has only been able to scare off game developers who do not know their rights
Check out http://desiree47.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/the-tetris-company-and-the-iphone/
and DXG's comment in the forum: http://forum.freeadvice.com/copyrights-trademarks-39/cease-desist-letters-tetris-company-386711.html
Josh said 8:58AM on 10-08-2008
You have to keep in mind that the tetris folks (the ones that own the IP) are some of the biggest douchebags in the history of technology. They Employ people specifically to find clones and shut them down. Wired or Ars had an article about this a while back.
Reply