Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'CandySwipe' Crushed: When Game Development Turns Nasty

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the trying-to-take-ransom-for-ransom dept.

The Courts 251

Nerval's Lobster writes "King, the gaming developer behind the monster hit Candy Crush Saga, has attracted a fair amount of criticism over the past few weeks over its attempt to trademark the word 'candy,' which isn't exactly an uncommon term. The company followed up that trademarking attempt by firing off takedown notices at other developers who use 'candy' in the titles of their apps. But things only got emotional in the past few days, when indie developer Albert Ransom published an open letter on his Website that excoriates King for what basically amounts to bullying. Ransom claims that he published CandySwipe in 2010, a full two years before Candy Crush Saga hit the market, and that the two games bear a number of similarities; after opposing King's attempts to register a trademark, Ransom found that his rival had taken things to a whole new level by purchasing the rights to a game called Candy Crusher and using that as leverage to cancel the CandySwipe trademark. Ransom claims he spent three years working on his game, and that King is basically robbing his livelihood. King was not effusive in its response. 'I would direct you to our stance on intellectual property,' a spokesperson for the company wrote in an email to Slashdot, which included a link to a letter posted online by King CEO Riccardo Zacconi. 'At this time, we do not have any comment to add beyond what is outlined in this letter.' Zacconi's various defenses in the letter seem a moot point in the context of CandySwipe, considering how Ransom has already abandoned the prospect of fighting to protect his intellectual property. But the two developers' letters help illustrate how downright nasty the casual-gaming industry has become over the past several quarters, as profits skyrocket and people attempt to capitalize on others' success."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tango DropBox (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239785)

http://tangodropbox.com

DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.

Re:Tango DropBox (-1, Troll)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#46239809)

They used the exact same fucking name and added another word in front of it and you're surprised this happened?

Re:Tango DropBox (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239893)

Tango DropBox was made YEARS before DropBox existed.

Re:Tango DropBox (5, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | about 9 months ago | (#46240313)

Same thing happened to Samsung. Here's a digital picture frame [engadget.com] they made in 2005 and sold in 2006. Long before Apple even came out with the iPhone much less the iPad. (Yes the back doesn't look like a tablet - that's beside the point since it wasn't a tablet.) After you've seen the picture frame you realize Samsung didn't copy the iPad's appearance when they made the Galaxy Tab 10.1 [arstechnica.com] . They just took their old digital picture frame design (black face, silver/white trim, and yes rounded corners) and repurposed it as a tablet. Even their name/logo is in the same location.

But because almost nobody saw/bought their digital picture frame, they just assume the iPad was first and anything that looked like it must be a copy. I'm of the opinion that with minimalist designs like this, pretty much everyone will come up with the same design. But if you insist there was copying, it's far more likely that it was Apple who lifted Samsung's digital picture frame design when they were settling on the iPad's appearance.

Re:Tango DropBox (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240433)

Good analogy. Another example is of my friend Christiaan Rendle, who was also involved in TangoDropBox.com. He made a game called "AirDrop", Apple came out with a product/service called "AirDrop" and the fight ensued. I'm not privy to the details, but it's still alive as well...

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/airdrop-pro/id363670888?mt=8
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/03/apple.airdrop/

Candy Drop (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240681)

I guess I shouldn't make a new game named Apple Candy Drop Box then...

Re:Tango DropBox (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239895)

They used the exact same fucking name and added another word in front of it and you're surprised this happened?

No, I think you're confused. The people who ADDED one word to the name and published it 2 years after the original are trying to take out the original's name as well.

Re:Tango DropBox (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239945)

DropBox.com was founded in 2007
TangoDropBox was written in 2005.

DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

Re:Tango DropBox (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240125)

DropBox.com was founded in 2007
TangoDropBox was written in 2005.

DropBox "dropped a word" from the title and trampled the existing product with lawyers. First doesn't mean you get the trademark, the one with the most lawyers gets it.

If that's the case, then perhaps the person who coined the term drop box should start exercising their IP rights. Dropbox sure as hell didn't invent the concept of a "drop box" or cloud storage, they merely wrote software around it.

Re:Tango DropBox (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240305)

I learned the hard way about fighting larger companies with legal teams on staff. After about $5k in lawyer fees, we were left with no resolution to the conflict. I know this is 'Merica and the legal system is our crown-jewel, but it's not an environment where the "little guy" has a chance...

DropBox literally has 14 people on-staff in their legal team, not to mention their main legal contact JOHN L. SLAFSKY is with "WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI" and is giant:

https://www.dropbox.com/about
http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/DBIndex.aspx?SectionName=attorneys/BIOS/3391.htm

Re:Tango DropBox (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240691)

Trademark and copyright are very different. Copyright is automatically granted when someone creates anything that is covered by copyright law and they will hold that copyright until it expires. A copyright holder can't lose their copyright. Trademarks must be registered to be valid, and trademark holders must protect their trademark or it can be revoked.

Re:Tango DropBox (2, Informative)

roninmagus (721889) | about 9 months ago | (#46239975)

Because the AC's are hidden, I'll elaborate that tangodropbox existed before dropbox. I'm afraid your comment is indicative of the perspective that candy crush fans will have.

Re:Tango DropBox (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240141)

Very True... as a guy that owns TangoDropBox, I appreciate your validation.

Re:Tango DropBox (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46240409)

To be fair, arcademan's post is quite insightful if you only ignore the pesky forward direction of time. If you reverse it, he makes a really spot on statement. ABOUT THE FUTURE NO LESS.

Re:Tango DropBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240253)

Because they are time travelers and went back in time to copy them? Are you that fucking stupid?

Re:Tango DropBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240323)

As others have said DropBox wasn't first. Also, the use of the word dropbox in the context of file uploads predates both of these services. On many FTP-servermanager programs you had the option of creating dropbox accounts, an account where the user could only upload files but not list nor download files. Useful when clients wanted to send files to a company for printing etc.

Re:Tango DropBox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240369)

You just described Tango DropBox as it's exact function! That was part of the argument that DropBox.com used, that's their own trademark was ubiquitous; didn't change their opinion to wipe TangoDropBox.com out as a violator of *their* trademark. Legal is funny.

Does stupidity burn? (1)

nobuddy (952985) | about 9 months ago | (#46240377)

genuinely curious.

Re:Tango DropBox (2)

D'Sphitz (699604) | about 9 months ago | (#46240381)

http://tangodropbox.com - DropBox trampled all over them; so they gave up.

Where can I read about this? Googling "tango dropbox" trademark [google.com] doesn't return anything relevant, maybe some bad pub DMCA scrubbing going on?

I heard that Satan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239801)

Was trying to trademark 'Beta'

Re:I heard that Satan (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#46239857)

Next thing you know someone will attempt to trademark the name 'asdfgasdfgasdfg' which is part of my upcoming game titled 'asdfgasdfgasdfg world'

They suck and you know they do because they are sucking the fun out of everything for everybody.

apples and oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239969)

Very poor analogy. There would be absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever of trademarking "asdfgasdfgasdfg".

Re:I heard that Satan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239991)

Are you going to make flappy asdfgasdfgasdfg after that?

Re:I heard that Satan (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#46240077)

Are you going to make flappy asdfgasdfgasdfg after that?

To derivative.

I figured I'd do floppy asdfgasdfgasdfg, where you drop a pancake made of asdfg (with some zxcvb, thrown in for good measure) down a near infinite shaft, where irate birds try to peck at it, any contact with their beaks and you lose, so you have to glide to the left and right to get between successive beaks. The speed picks up gradually.

Re:I heard that Satan (2)

Java Pimp (98454) | about 9 months ago | (#46240111)

You'll need to fight Strong Bad [homestarrunner.com] for that one.

Yes, but Google was faster (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 9 months ago | (#46239887)

;)

HE can! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239989)

Was trying to trademark 'Beta'

Just spell it "BeD'uh" and it can be done under copyright law.

RE: HE can! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240419)

Awfully close to be'joy, the Klingon word for ritualized torture by women. How apropos!

Someone should write a game about this (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#46239821)

Someone should write a game about Thieves, Lawyers and Thieving Lawyers.

and the stupid people who love them

Re:Someone should write a game about this (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 9 months ago | (#46239943)

Not sure if this is the best example, but games like this already exist [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Someone should write a game about this (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#46240097)

Not sure if this is the best example, but games like this already exist [wikipedia.org] .

Not quite .. in the game I have in mind you are constantly squashed by Sumo Attorneys who land on you every time you attempt to take a breath.

Re:Someone should write a game about this (3, Funny)

Yahooti (3401115) | about 9 months ago | (#46240317)

It should be called Candy Thieves.

Re:Someone should write a game about this (3, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#46240403)

It should be called Candy Thieves.

Perhaps a Candy Follow-up, where the player collects dentures and insulin credits.

Re: Someone should write a game about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240597)

It would make me happy if I read about the Candy CEO's house burning down. This kind of people disgust me.

The opposite is there (1)

nobuddy (952985) | about 9 months ago | (#46240405)

Redneck Rampage already exists.

Irony (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#46239829)

I'd like to see a real candy company sue King for using the word "candy".

Hell, even funnier would be a real King suing him for misuse of the title "King" by a non-royalty.

Re:Irony (2)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 9 months ago | (#46239883)

Usually trade marks are by business area. So a just as a candy company couldn't sue a software company...unless that candy company also made software.
IANAL, that is the simplified version.

Re:Irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239993)

Luck for us, there is this:

http://www.candystand.com/

which was created by nabisco

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candystand

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240027)

Apple Computers
Apple Records

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240049)

Or to be a bit less cryptic.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/10/the-beatles-apple-corps-logo-is-now-a-registered-tm-of-apple.html

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240105)

Oops, Apple Inc paid Apple Corps $500 million for that. Never heard that bit before.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240319)

One problem is, that if I recall, King trademarked the word "candy" in the area of games. They didn't limit it to "digital games". And I recall a game called "candy land" being quite popular. Really, if anybody had the balls to just say "see you in court, I'll be self representing and counter suing for costs", and simply brought a copy of their registered trademark terms and a copy of candy land, bought at your locals walmart for about $10, you'd eliminate their trademark and throw the door wide open for counter suit.

Re:Irony (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46240121)

I hope a crusher company crushes King.

Re:Irony - Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240471)

Candyland?
It's been around forever.

Rate (4, Interesting)

WPIDalamar (122110) | about 9 months ago | (#46239843)

Just rated several of king's games 1-star, no idea if that helps, but made me feel better.

Re:Rate (4, Insightful)

portwojc (201398) | about 9 months ago | (#46240033)

I removed it from my mobile device just now. I too feel better.

Re: Rate (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240459)

I installed and tried it just last week. For the gameplay it provides, it's a bloated pig. Lots of tedious cut scenes when you just want to play the game. There are numerous similar games on the market that don't take up tens of megabytes in your phone or spam you instead of being fun. I deleted it quickly.

Re:Rate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240047)

You must lead a fairly shitty life to do something like that. I'm guessing you're one hell of a passive-aggressive unique little snowflake who feels entitled to all kinds of things without rhyme or reason.

that stuff you just wrote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240181)

it actually applies to just you.

(not the op)

Re:Rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240333)

You must work for King.

Re:Rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240629)

You could say he's taken up ... the King's shilling.

Re:Rate (0)

mmell (832646) | about 9 months ago | (#46240513)

Never had it. Never will. My G*d, I'm a Seven-Up (tm) commercial!

Somebody help me - here comes the Doctor Pepper (tm)/Snapple(tm) group to get me. If I try to flee to Europe, Pepsico (tm) will catch me. I'm Doom (C)'ed!

Oh, crap - here comes Id (tm) Software.

Dumbest thing is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239897)

that everyone knows candy crush's core gameplay is just bejeweled with slightly different powerups, why hasn't ea/popcap sued the crap out of King yet?

These matching games existed prior to bejeweled. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239951)

I don't think King could argue they have ownership of the game mechanic; just the trademark.

Seems like bullshit to me, but i once read King rakes in over $100,000 daily on this game. I guess they will do whatever they can to protect the golden goose.

Re:Dumbest thing is (1)

alen (225700) | about 9 months ago | (#46240011)

probably because bejeweled is based on another game as well and it has enough differences to survive a court challenge. i played candy crush for a bit and it was a lot of things i found lacking in bejeweled

there used to be lots of board games made by different companies where the basic mechanic was to roll the dice, move, collect some card or so whatever and no one was ever sued because the differences are different enough

lots of Civ/Sim City clones in the app store as well. Clash of clans is one. they are all different enough since you can't make a civilization/city building game and sue people for the concept

Re:Dumbest thing is (3, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | about 9 months ago | (#46240211)

Game mechanics can't be copyrighted [copyright.gov] .

No Such Thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239919)

as intellectual property. It's a farce designed to prevent legitimate competition. It's like politics. I tell my friends that if this country had a straight up popular vote, we would never, ever again elect a Republican. Intellectual property is bogus... Compete or get out of the market. The people that push intellectual property tout the joys of an open market. Open market means just that... open to rabid competition. Compete on merit or GTFO.

Re:No Such Thing (2, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#46240133)

I tell my friends that if this country had a straight up popular vote, we would never, ever again elect a Republican.

Except for:
George W Bush
William McKinley
Ulysses Grant
George H.W. Bush
William Taft
Ronald Reagan
Andrew Johnson
Dwight Eisenhower
Herbert Hoover
Theodore Roosevelt
Richard Nixon
Calvin Coolidge
Warren Harding

But hey, Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote. So your theory might hold true... maybe.

Re: No Such Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240229)

Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. The electorate was decide by a federal Supreme Court.

Re: No Such Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240505)

There is no such thing as a popular vote for the US President. Journalists can scurry all over gathering up numbers to add together and it doesn't change that.

The US is a republic. People vote for the president in statewide elections and electors from each state vote in the national election.

Re: No Such Thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240705)

Hence the "IF this country had a straight up popular vote" clause in OP's comment.

Re:No Such Thing (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 9 months ago | (#46240697)

You have to be alive to run for President. Bush Sr is the only one of those guys could run for President again.

not entirely accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240171)

Better count your actual votes again. 61million to 58million for the last presidential election is not a large margin of victory. Especially with a population around 300million, you only got 20% of the population to vote democratic vs 19% to vote republican. Part of the reason for the electoral college system was to make elections actually slant more dramatically one way or the other. 332 out of 538 = 61% of the electoral votes for the winner, sounds a lot better than winning with 51% of the popular vote.

Re:No Such Thing (2)

jxander (2605655) | about 9 months ago | (#46240235)

You've actually got that backwards. If it was a straight up popular vote, Dems would be at a strong disadvantage.

Dems currently have California on lockdown, ensuring all 55 electoral votes go blue. If that split out, and California republican voters actually got a voice on the national level... well ...

Re:No Such Thing (1)

vakuona (788200) | about 9 months ago | (#46240589)

Actually, the Dems won the "popular vote" in the congressional elections as well.

And the Republicans have Texas as well.

It's sixes of one and half a dozen of the other to be honest, but there are reasons to believe that the Dems would have the advantage (hence why only Democrat controlled states are represented in the National Popular Vote Compact. If the Republicans thought they would win,, they would want the popular vote "by hook or by crook", and they would support that initiative. Unless you believe that the Republicans believe in the constitution so much that they are not willing to do an "end run" around certain constitutional provisions if it would suit them.

Re:No Such Thing (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 9 months ago | (#46240263)

That is why many call it Imaginary Property Rights, because it is neither intellectual, nor property, nor rights. Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is asinine.

--
Piracy == Disrepsect
Piracy != Theft

Re:No Such Thing (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46240619)

" neither intellectual, nor property, nor rights. "
don't be daft.

Writing software isn't intellectual? writing a book? making a movie?

Property is something that belongs to someone. IN this case the legal right to distribute works.

Conseptually, It's good and needed. Implementation is a little out of whack, but that's a different issue.

"Audio, Video, and/or Textual information can be represented as a number. To say someone somehow "magically" "owns" ones a particular sequence of bits is asinine.

That reasoning is..well.. stupid.

You can be represented as a number, does that mean you have no rights?

Oh, and it's not the number, it's the actual work.

Er, uh . . . I agree with you in general, but (1)

mmell (832646) | about 9 months ago | (#46240649)

I think novelists and authors who publish their works as a professional act deserve some degree of protection for their works. I'll admit I'm torn between the "renewable every seven years" idea and the "lifetime of the author" idea. I'm a lot foggier on derivative works. If someone writes and produces a fantastic Star Trek spinoff, do Roddenberry/Desilu/Paramout/... have a right to prevent it? How about if it's about Federation civilians, you won't even see Starships or Starbases - not even a Starfleet Officer in sight. What if my show's about personal drama and never even gets of the surface of Tau Ceti 2? I promise, no phasers or photon torpedoes.

So when does software become comparable to a novel? What criteria should we appropriately apply (hint: it isn't "it's all free")? Margaret Mitchell et. al. deserve better than that, don't you think? These rights aren't imaginary - they're tied to real money (and I mean REAL money). If I sequelize the best seller from this week's NYT list very few people would argue that the original author has no right to sue me. If I sequelize The Martian Chronicles, I doubt that Mr. Bradbury's interests will come after me (after all this time, they shouldn't. I doubt they would, although their laughter at my idiocy might be amusing). If I sequelize Mario Bros. (hey, pick just about any side-scrolling shooter, really), should Nintendo have a right to bust my chops, or should they just accept that they've made all the money they deserve from the Mario franchise and let me make a fool of myself? If I make money at it (i.e., people read Chronicles II or buy Luigi's Plumbing), should Nintendo be allowed to change their mind and say "oh, that's ours. Too bad, so sad, you lose."?

That's only a little of the muck we collectively need to strain through. Those were fairly trivial examples. There are lots of more complicated examples to be contrived, many of which are actually really happening right now.

Re:No Such Thing (1)

BoberFett (127537) | about 9 months ago | (#46240507)

You're an ignorant buffoon if you believe this is limited to Republicans.

A new challenger appears... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239937)

Hasbro should fight King's "trademark" with Candy Land. That game has been around well before King even existed.

Re:A new challenger appears... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240123)

Next up: King attempts to patent 'Land' and 'Hasbro'.

Re:A new challenger appears... (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 9 months ago | (#46240485)

Hasbro should fight King's "trademark" with Candy Land. That game has been around well before King even existed.

They really should, especially considering there was an officially released Candy Land video game.

i hope king ceo dies of cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239961)

slowly
fucking patent / tm trolls

Or (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | about 9 months ago | (#46239983)

you could just go back to playing Bejeweled for free.

"King Pr*ck"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46239995)

Trademark that!

Eventually the whole industry (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 9 months ago | (#46240071)

Will just be people suing each other. All products and services will have long since stopped existing at all.

Muricans ea.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240087)

For all those who are disconcerted by this news. Here is something New, happy, exhilarating for you to enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftnRFN9sfl8

un not intended.

Goldmine (4, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#46240089)

Candy Crush has made a TON of money.

Since there's another developer with a similar product and a similar name that shipped well before, you think he would have no end of lawyers offering up services just for a cut of the juicy Candy Mountain they can take a big chunk from.

If one side is going to play the legal angle then have no qualms about doing the same.

Re:Goldmine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240209)

Sad thing is that there are tons of similar games now.

After iOS 5, and in-app purchases became the norm, the quality of virtually every single app on the store has gone down the tubes. Most games now went from having an actual challenge to being cookie-cutter "free to play, but if you want to actually complete it, better fork up for a truckload of Smurfberries or whatever currency that you have to buy via IAP.

Has IAP added anything to the play quality or revenue stream? About as much as having to purchase all but the basic gun did on FPS console games.

I can understand IAP for buying more levels, or turning a "free" version into a paid edition. However, the way it is used now is pointless. Want to play a MMO where you need to pony up $1000 for raid gear? Not really.

Re:Goldmine (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#46240421)

Isn't being a legal troll a full time job? It's quite lucrative if you have a team of lawyers to back it up, but "Hey, I'll take you to court as soon as I find a lawyer who accepts my credit card" will probably be laughed off more than this letter (IANAL though.)

One of life's great mysteries (4, Interesting)

Tanman (90298) | about 9 months ago | (#46240103)

One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

Re:One of life's great mysteries (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 9 months ago | (#46240165)

No, it's just an indication that the biggest and most ruthless pricks are the most likely to get, and stay, rich.

Re:One of life's great mysteries (2)

David_Hart (1184661) | about 9 months ago | (#46240307)

One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

It's not a mystery at all. The system is set up in such a way that companies are forced to defend their trademarks. If they don't, they lose them. In addition, people with more are going to go to greater lengths to ensure that they don't lose what they have. Some companies are much more aggressive than others and some resort to what should be categorized as extortion. But, it's not going to change unless we find a way to change the system.

As for charity, you have to go back to the old saying: "lies, dam lies, and statistics". If I'm making $10 and I give $1, then I am giving 10%. If I make $100 and I give $2, then I am giving 2%, despite having doubled (100% increase) my charitable contribution. I am now giving a lower percentage than the guy making $10, but I am also giving twice as much. Now I can pick to write a story about how the rich are giving less to charity or a story about how the rich gives more than the average donor.

Re:One of life's great mysteries (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240451)

Thanks for explaining percentages to us.

Re:One of life's great mysteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240571)

He wasn't explaining percentages, he was explaining relative perception and how to abuse it in a persuasive manner. You know, pretty much like all politics.

don't forget foux charity... (1)

nobuddy (952985) | about 9 months ago | (#46240467)

You know, "charitible" foundations that somehow make your company MORE money without being taxed. Need to deduct those from your total charitable tally for the rich.

This guy was on eof the more famous- but hardly an anomaly.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... [bloomberg.com]

Re:One of life's great mysteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240491)

I'd say it's also based on the society and laws within it

Re:One of life's great mysteries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240563)

One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.

I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.

Given that they named their company "King" I suspect the greed and over-inflated sense of entitlement was a preexisting condition to their success with Candy Crush Saga.

Re:One of life's great mysteries (1)

XPhiNermal (91739) | about 9 months ago | (#46240693)

Which studies are these?

This New York Times blog from 2011 clearly shows the opposite: Americans in higher income brackets give away a larger percentage of their income to charities than those in lower income brackets.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 [nytimes.com]

I'm not enjoying this Beta. (-1, Offtopic)

Deffexor (230167) | about 9 months ago | (#46240167)

The summary is cut short which requires me to click into the article. That's not fun. While I won't exactly say F-beta, I certainly don't like this either. Dice should go back to the way it was.

Oh noes!! Bullies!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240221)

I absolutely hate that term "bully". Whenever someone is being mean or throwing their weight around these days, people say "they're a bully!" as if that is the end of the discussion.

Well, you know what you do when someone pushes you around. You FIGHT BACK. Punch them in the face if you're on the school yard, or ridicule and sue them if you're in the corporate world.

Just calling them a "bully" doesn't give you any sympathy in my eyes. You need to fight back, and stop being such a whiny little bitch.

I had this experience with Google (5, Interesting)

spiritplumber (1944222) | about 9 months ago | (#46240243)

and their Cellbots project -- I scooped them by around six months, and even offer to share my code with them. What I got was a project manager telling me that I was just a hobbyist and my product didn't exist. What he got was me giving him one of my PCBs to him, then closing his hand around it, and asking him if this doesn't exist why is it causing you pain? When they started giving out the Google ADK board at Maker Faire 2011, I made the rounds to give my board to people half an hour before... including to the Google guys. If anyone was at the Bay Area Maker Faire, they probably will remember how the Robots Everywhere Antbot worked, and the Google Cellbot sat there victim of wifi overload. If something's bigger than you, and you want to win, bite the shins and punch the nuts. Only way.

Knockoff? (1)

pouar (2629833) | about 9 months ago | (#46240359)

Yes the guys who made CandySwipe saw Candy Crush Saga, so they hopped in their time machine and went back to 2010 to create the Candy Crush Saga knockoff. :rollseyes:

Casual gaming dominated by criminal thugs (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46240413)

Betas are told that everything happens by accident, and criminals are only really found amongst the working classes. The reality is very different.

When casual gaming was discovered to be the new growth area for gaming, very serious criminals took interest in the market, and became their MOBSTER-IDENTICAL methods to gain control of the action.

Their experts noted that most casual games (at the time) were 'published' (to use the word very lightly) by individuals and tiny companies with no real clout. So, the experts advised the criminal thugs to simply STEAL the current games considered to have the best prospects. Steal the design. Steal the assets. Hell, even steal the code if possible.

The experts advising the criminal thugs argued thus. Focus on getting as rich as possible, as quickly as possible, by turning the 'amateur hour' of casual gaming into something as big as organised gambling or AAA console game publishing. "Use your lawyers to threaten the people you steal from, and then, if needed, to delay court action by as many years as possible."

"In the meantime, use your gigantic profits to buy off most of the people you steal from. After all, they were making pennies from their work, whereas you, using their stolen games, will be making so much money, a tiny fraction of your income will seem like an astonishing windfall to the people you may have to eventually pay-off. "

Now the criminal thugs have long since established themselves, and have the income to place politicians, computer companies and law enforcement into their pockets. America was built on such corporate criminality. America LOVES profit, not whining by little guys who never really made much money, but whose ideas and work had so much potential when illegally transferred to ruthless crooks.

The legal system, especially the civil side, is designed to reward successful criminality, so long as such criminality spreads the wealth to the 'RIGHT' people. Gaining general possession of the word 'Candy' was a simple consequence of money well spent. No legality, no justice, no morality- just money placed into the pockets of the 'right' people.

But the thugs at the top of casual gaming publishing are pikers compared to the people that run Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Apple etc. Look what Microsoft intended to do with the Xbox One, before a massive backlash forced Microsoft to reverse every one of its obscene plans. Look at how Intel is PAYING companies to use its new Baytrail CPU, and PAYING legions of vile shills working for reputation management agencies to flood forums like this with the message that Intel's criminality is 'legal' and 'reasonable' (and this in the face of knowledge about how many times Intel has been successfully prosecuted in court).

Only petty criminals get punished. The big boys are always an essential part of the 'elite' that rule over you. Go read some history, if you are foolish enough not to believe this.

Who knew... (5, Funny)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 9 months ago | (#46240439)

Candy Crush Saga isn't just the title of their game, it's a description of their business.

So everybody here was confused? (1, Interesting)

Yakasha (42321) | about 9 months ago | (#46240457)

I do see a lot of hate for King and support for "the little guy". Why? I see two issues with Ransom's claim.

First, honestly when I look at the comparisons, I see no confusion. If King actually cloned Candy Swipe, they did so at such a high level as to not require any litigation. "A game about candy that uses a touch screen." Beyond that, what is the same? The colors are similar... shapes are wildly different. Count of the # of objects is different. The gameplay is different. Candy Crush has far more content. The list goes on.
So I'm curious... who here was actually confused by the games? Who here played Candy Crush for a while before realizing "omg, this isn't Candy Swipe"? I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

Second, look at Candy Crusher. Make a little comparison pdf of screenshots between the three games. Any claim Runsome makes on King's game can be done by AIM Productions on Runsome, continuing the chain of trademark confusion back a little further, making Runsome's entire claim bubkis. Runsome "cloned" AIM's Candy Crusher just as much as King "cloned" Candy Swipe.

Just because you lost an argument, doesn't mean you were bullied.

You're being dishonest... (1)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 9 months ago | (#46240529)

I honestly do not believe any readers here were confused.

Why are you limiting the data set to just readers of Slashdot? That's exceptionally dishonest.

Re:So everybody here was confused? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 9 months ago | (#46240657)

". shapes are wildly different"
no, they aren't. most of them a slightly different. Plus the font is identical.

The argument is that King used his lawyers to make 'Candy' a trademark name and stop preexisting entities from using it.

AS for confusion:
http://www.candyswipe.com/ccs.... [candyswipe.com]

Heres how we stop them (1)

corvax (941506) | about 9 months ago | (#46240519)

Make sure no one you know plays their games. If you see someone playing one explain to them whats going on and suggest alternatives. If that fails turn to ridicule make it so no one would be caught dead (isnt this happening already?) playing their games for fear or persecution.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?