copyright

[hammike]

The way Gameland got around the copyright issue was to call it "Crow" and they just changed one of the colors from black to blue.  Hope this helps.

[FireBird]

yea gameland calls it crow...and changed the colors of the cards and the way the cards look...but you cant change the rules to the game...because then it wouldnt be rook any more

[UmmYeaFoSho]

I found this on google...

The other aspect of Games's unfair competition claim was that the presence of the other versions of the games online infringed rights exclusively held by Games. The court rejected this claim, however, after an examination of the agreement revealed that Games never held such exclusive rights. The grant of such exclusive rights was contingent on the final payment, which admittedly never was made.

heres the link to the site i found it on.

http://www.internetcases.com/archives/2005/03/in_atari_inc_v.html

That was in Feb 2005

This is from a different site but the most current one i could find.

At issue is Games' $1.125 million deal to buy the www.games.com Internet site from Atari as well as digital licenses to games including Monopoly and Risk.


The two companies have claimed the other is in default, and Atari's France-based owner announced June 9 that it had sold the licenses to Hasbro Inc. for $65 million.

i got it from here...http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050702/BIZ01/507020334/1076/BIZ

Seems like as long as you dont take their code and names then you can do w/e ya want. Its not like they invented the game. I heard the reason gameland stopped improving is b/c they copied the games...and they even changed the names and all that. Thats just what i heard so who knows.

[UmmYeaFoSho]

heres another site about the court thing...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060205/COL01/602050321/1081/BIZ

[Parsley]

I'm not certain whether copyright would apply to a card game -

The innovation itself is the pack of cards, which would are obviously not under any form of (p) or (c).  Whether it is possible to claim Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) on how these cards are used is unlikely.

It would be my belief that, legally (as mentioned below), the only source of binding rights would be to the Trademark (rook) and/or any identifiable developments or innovations associated with the game (such as a branded card deck).

[FireBird]

right...so change the name from rook to something else...and change the way the cards look

[Parsley]

Basically, yep.