GT and Varcon Capitulate to Hasbro
The problem with Munch man and Maze man, is that the main character Pac man and also the ghosts look like the same as the orginal Atari’s characters. Only size or other little details could be different, but the expression look a like is the same. When the idea was the same, but the characters look a like was different there was no problem. So in this case a chase game like pac man is no problem, but the expression must be different.
So the graphic look a like of characters, main objects etc. must be different, not the same. Am I right about what is mentioned in the article, this is what I understand about it?
Is a breakout clone a legal problem in relation to the first orginal Atari’s Super Breakout?
The game has of course a ball and bat, power ups. When it’s a problem it means that it isn’t possible to sell a breakout clone. Only Hasbro have the right to do so. What is meant by the expression, the graphic look a like?
I don’t know about Atari’s Super Breakout graphics look a like, but my graphics are of another style, the modern style. And the graphics expression couldn’t be the same. Ball/Bat/Bricks/Background/Powerups are all of another style.
What is your opinion?
"Graphic look-a-like" usually means that if someone didn''t know about the original art, when you place them side by side it would be difficult to decide what was the original OR if they were NOT markedly different
Mine are a layman''s terms not lawyer''s terms. There might be somewhere an actual "legal" definition in some law in some jurisdiction.
ZoomBoy Developing a 2D RPG with skills, weapons, and adventure. See my character editor, Tile editor, diary, 3D Art resources at Check out my web-site Also new links to combat flight sims