I fail to see how the developer is being a jerk here. Attempting to verify that someone is not ripping your work off is not being a jerk, it is protecting yourself. I agree with the other posters who have said to simply come up with a way to make the game clearly unique and show that it is not a knock off and move on. Punishing someone for attempting to protect themselves is hardly reasonable.
Even if they're confusing copywrite with intellectual property, Imangi will still win in court. It'll take the judge about five minutes of demonstration to make up his mind. You have to look at it from both sides. I don't think he can prove that Quadrum is different from Imangi. There's really nothing new offered there. Without an improvement to Imangi's concept, it's going to be considered a copy. He could argue that all platform games copy Mario, or something along those lines, but he'll need one hell of a lawyer to pull it off.
He is being a JERK because he could have written an e-mail to this developer INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ATTORNEY WHO DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING SEND A THREATENING LETTER. This is not "attempting to verify", it is ACCUSING!! DO YOU GET IT NOW??
Imangi Sucks Tell them I said Imangi sucks! Can't believe I wasted money on that. They need to forget about your game and concentrate on making theirs better!
In legal terms I view filing a lawsuit as accusing, and sending a letter doing anything other than filing a lawsuit, as opening discussion. Companies have legal teams to handle these issues for them so that they don't shoot themselves in the foot doing the communication without a lawyer. If you step on Apple's IP, Steve jobs doesn't call you asking to talk it over, he says, "Hey Mr Lawyer, this is your job, figure out what is going on, but don't actually sue until we get the facts straight". That is all that is happening here.
Caution ahead. I would first, ask the mods to erase this thread. Then, make some changes to your play-game. Respond in your self, not lawyer and indicate what you changed the game play. There are some good ideas posted here, review those as game-play changers. Low-key is the way to win. Remember in court it's not that the right team wins, but the team with the most voice! (money!) Good luck.
Then obviously you and I differ in our interpretation of what is "accusing". I am an attorney, by the way, and I have sent letters to individuals with different tones, depending upon the circumstances. This letter is not one in which the attorney is trying to "open discussion". It is one in which the attorney is blatantly accusing the developer of infringing upon Imangi Studios' rights. I am speaking from experience, Mr. Developer. Now do you get it? EDIT: Did you read the words "you have wilfully infringed"? That is making the accusation that the developer "has" infringed, and it makes the accusation that the infringement was done "wilfully". If this were not an accusatory letter, it would state, "you MAY have infringed". Do you understand, or should I make additional points?
I haven't played your game, but must admit that when I saw it and read the description, my first thought was, "what a ripoff of Imangi". I don't doubt that you developed it independently, but I also don't know what position you have in this given the seemingly strong similarity to Imangi. Perhaps they have no claim. I really don't know, but your game does appear to be very similar.
I understand your point, but I just think that until a lawsuit is filed, the language is fairly irrelevant. This can still be settled without going to court, regardless how the initial contact from the lawyer is phrased. And to speak to your "Mr Developer" comment, I am not the author of Imangi. I write open source software for the National Cancer Institute and have worked as an independent software developer in the past. So I just happen to have opinions on these matters as it is a major point of discussion in my field.
If this kind of intellectual property cannot be protected against identical or nearly identical copies, there is no rationale for commercial development. I'm with Imangi on this.
Haha - touche! I understand your point. I just think that some of these matters could be handled in a more civilized fashion (i.e., without attorneys). I agree with you about using legal teams when you are referring to large organizations (I represent many myself). However, we are dealing with two indie developers in this case. And sometimes a simple e-mail can go a long way to clearing up these kinds of matters. I'm not necessarily stating that Imangi is wrong about the allegations - these laws are not clearcut; all that I'm saying is that certain measures should be taken when one has exhausted other more sensible avenues.
Incidentally, I have and really enjoy Imangi, I do think it was a very original idea, and one that was beautifully implemented (though, like I did with Galcon, I burned myself out a bit and haven't played lately.) Even if Quadrum isn't an intentional ripoff of Imangi, it's not hard to understand why they would be utterly convinced that it was, and thus take this action. If it was developed independently and the very strong similarity is coincidence, well then I wish you the best, but I have to admit that I find it a tad hard to believe.
I don't know, the base idea looks quite obvious - if you have grid of items (letters in this case) - you slide them vertically/horizontally, like CHUZZLE, FAIRIES, and lots of other games doing it for years. Now, most logical/natural way to make a word is going left-right or up-down. Once word is submitted - you create new letters. What is so original here? Actually, I'm pretty sure there must be some old share-ware PC games doing the same thing. Would be nice if somebody could point to any of those.
Don't games take a while to develop? Can't you prove that your game was in development before Imangi came out? I would think that you'd have some timestamped files or some other proof that you were developing your game before Imangi was released. Otherwise, you should make some rule additions to your game that clearly make it different from Imangi. Or take the safe route and remove it from the store and use your talents on another project.
None of your games work on first gen Touches, do they? This was raised in other threads and you did not address the reason for this choice on your part. Maybe you would get a bigger audience for your games if you opened it up to everyone who uses this platform.
I might be exaggerating here a bit, but if this conflict will not be resolved on some friendly manner... to the developers: imagine, few more cases like this, than it becomes normal practice, and in a year you just can not release anything for AppStore unless it's something never-ever seen before, with some never-used control mechanics etc. And eventually you will not be able to release anything at all, because at least some part of your game is using something which was done before (tilting to control character or drawing on screen to dynamically create stuff in the game, etc), and it will be just matter of somebody with big layer team deciding to sue you. to the gamers: imagine, few more cases like this, and in one year AppStore becomes place occupied by 10 or so big developers, each holding it's own area (word games, puzzles, shooters, etc). They will release new game once in couple months, and this game will not have to be any good - you will have to buy it coz there will be no choice, it will be the only fresh thing. Those big guys will not let anybody new in (using the layers) - so they will have no competition. Which means - no good products for you. Bottom line: competition is healthy. Market and customers should decide which game/utility/product is good. Ideally there should be no need to force it with layers, marketing, big money on advertisement, etc.
Difference is Healthy You say that competition is healthy... and I agree, but I think it's obvious to everyone on this thread that your game is more than just similar to to the other and it came out before yours. The way to compete is to make something better, not make it the same. I think all anyone is asking you to do is to use your talents and find ways to make it different -- thereby giving me a reason to buy it over a game I all ready have. I have a few different TD games and each of them are a little different. Why would I buy one that is the exact same? Which is what people seem to think your game is. Many have offered suggestions on how to make it better. Take them (they're free) and make the game that all these people want. If you don't Imangi will likely do it and you've lost out. Also, take the suggestion on the "time stamp" on your development and show that to Imangi. If your game was like theirs before it came out you should be able to get them to back off. If it wasn't than you've got a big uphill fight. Competition only works if there is something different for people to decide between. I saw your game and saw nothing different and didn't give it a second thought until today. If I was Imangi I'd be upset as well.
Sure, I will implement the ideas from the forum (BTW, thanks to everybody for suggestions, nice stuff!), but what about this: The following is a non-exhaustive list of copyright infringements of the Work: 1) The goal of Quadrum is the same as the in Work: "Slide rows and columns to combine letters into words" on a grid of letters. 2) The piece moving mechanics are exactly the same as in the Work - using your finger to slide rows and columns. 3) Words are formed left to right and top to bottom in crossword fashion in Quadrum, exactly as in the Work. Which means - I can not use grid of letters and sliding in my game without making them upset and taking me to the court?
Anyway, my point was - if the precedent is created (one not-so-big developer pushing out another very-small developer), next time somebody else can decide to do it with some more different competitor, (look at all the arcanoids, etc) and step by step it can come to the situation I described - very few developers, very few games, nobody can enter.
