Check this out Civ. fans...
James Dickinson
I thought that it might interest some of you.
Jim
From usenet-feed.umr.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!wmichgw!x90wardell Thu Jun 24 19:06:30 GMT-0600 1993
Article: 63633 of comp.os.os2.misc
Xref: usenet-feed.umr.edu comp.os.os2.misc:63633 comp.os.os2.apps:16975 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games:56949
Path: usenet-feed.umr.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!wmichgw!x90wardell
From: x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games
Subject: Galactic Civilizations: Announcement!
Message-ID: <1993Jun24.1...@gw.wmich.edu>
Date: 24 Jun 93 17:07:22 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University
Lines: 414
June 24, 1993 -------------------------------------------------------
Developer's Announcement: Galactic Civilization for OS/2 2.1
Brief:
An OS/2 multithreaded PM game that uses MMPM/2 to generate digitized
sounds. Began development early in June. Beta testing begins
early this Fall. Game only available on the OS/2 platform.
Features:
* Completely 32 bit
* Multithreaded
* SDS/AI (SDS Artificial Intelligence specification .9)
* Up to 7 computer players vs. You.
* Over 1000 different star systems
* Over 8000 different planets to conquer
* SVGA/XGA graphics support, 256 color high resolution.
* Object Oriented interface. If you can see it, you can click
on it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Early June SDS inquired on the Internet Usenet conference of
comp.sys.os2.apps about the interest in an OS/2 specific game. SDS
had come to the conclusion that OS/2, lacking native entertainment
software, might be a viable market now that it had reached critical mass.
We expected to receive between 5 and 10 responses that week and would
base our decision on that mail. Instead, SDS received over 1000 mail
messages in the first 2 weeks and discovered that the message had
made its way all over the globe to virtually every major OS/2 BBS
in existence. This response prompted SDS to not only pursue this project
but to accerlate its development.
This announcement will cover in a fair amount of detail what the game
is about, how to make suggestions to changes, how to become a beta
tester, pricing information, and availability information.
This message will be cross posted to several well known OS/2 areas by
us. If it is not on a conference that you, the reader, think it should
be, please feel free to re-post it there. To Fido-Net moderators, please
do not consider this off topic, in order to produce this game to the
OS/2 population's liking, we are including (on various FTP and BBS sites)
bitmap snap shots of the program. This way, users can send us feedback
about the interface as well as the rules and other design mechanics of
the game. Before cross posting this message, please be sure that it
has not already appeared on that conference since this message is
rather long and will take up considerable bandwidth.
THE GAME
--------
The game is loosely based on MicroProse's game, Civilization.
The game departs from Civilization in most ways but maintains its general
theme: Build up technology, ally with other players or destroy them, keep
your people happy. In this game, you begin with your people just beginning
to explore space. To make the game more fun, we have taken several
factual liberties, namely, you don't know where stars are. The stars
appear as you get close to them. You will begin with one little explorer
star ship that can't even colonize new worlds.
Your screen is dominated by the map view, which lets you see
one "quadrent" at a time. In order to leave a quadrent you must
develop "warp" technology. A typical quadrent might hold 5 or so
star systems, the game features an 16x16 grid of quadrents, so it is
a pretty big galaxy. When you finally build ships capable of transporting
a colony, you can enter a star system and colonize the various worlds.
The worlds you can colonize will be pretty easy to tell by looking at
them. You can colonize any world you want but the less earth like it
looks, the less you will get out of it in terms of food, resources, and
trade.
The key ingredient to success in this game is developing new
technologies. For instance, you begin the game with space travel and
a few other technologies and are asked what you want to develop next.
Unlike Civilization, which only allows you to be developing one new
technology at once, GalCiv allows you to be working on 4 new technologies
at once, dividing up your research resources among them however you want.
You can, for example, put 50% of your resources into developing
Nano-Electronics, 20% into Phaser tech, 10% into Anti-matter tech, and
10% into photon tech. Some technologies will take longer to develop
than others. Developing technologies to make a "death star" will take
a lot longer than to design a cloaking device.
While you are busy building colonies and exploring space, up
to 7 other computer players will be doing the same thing. These computer
players will be controlled by SDS's AI specification and molded after
real life strategy experts. Since a lot of the strategy to win is
similar to the game Civilization, we have chosen to model the AI after
people who have literally creamed Civilization. Unfortunately for you,
no matter how easy you set the difficulty, the computer players will
always be smart, they will just have the number of resources available
to them limited.
The game is won by either A: Destroying all enemies, or B:
Uniting all players into one alliance. There is no time limit to
complete the game, the game could literally go on forever if you aren't
able to destroy other players or unite them. Because of this, the
player has the option to set the size of the universe. The largest
it can get is the aforementioned 18x18 area. In a smaller universe,
the game will likely end sooner.
If you are not familiar with Civilization, then this next part may be
difficult to understand. Feel free to skip it to the next section...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEATURE SET:
Since this game takes place in the distant future, we assume that
all resources are handled optimally. You will be too busy to have
to deal with making sure your colonies are (for example) using the
newly made Energy System you've built (in Civ, you could build a coal
mine and the game would use a desert area until you manually changed it
to the coal mine, this won't happen in this game).
The economic system is based more on reality than Civilization. In
this game you set your tax rate. The higher the tax rate, the more
irritated your people get. With those taxes you can spend it on
research, military or social programs. Mineral resources can be put
towards your military or colony improvements. This is an added
modifier towards the amount of taxes. If you happen to have a lot
of very productive planets, you can lower your taxes spent on the
military and social and more towards research.
In summary on this feature:
Your taxes go towards:
- Research of new technologies
- Building your military might
- Building colony improvements (Social)
* By the way, our game isn't based on socialist politics, social programs
simply mean that we invest in privately owned companies that would build
the colony improvements!
Your star systems also produce resources which can be converted
into liquid funds or applied directly towards colony improvements (for
the colony that the mineral resources came from) and military units
(again, for that particular colony).
There is no "corruption" in this game or "revolutions" but the higher
you raise taxes, the less productive your people get and the more
taxes that are lost due to having to fight crime on your colonies.
* Star Ship Units *
-------------------
The following is a preliminary list of star ships. Each empire will
have their own unique looking star ships. they aren't color coated,
they simply look different.
Planet Explorer - Explores your quadrent, no warp drive
Star Fighters - Can attack others, no warp drive
Colony Wagon - Can colonize star systems, no warp drive
Interstellar Colony Wag - " ", has warp drive
Star Cruiser - Explores everywhere, has warp drive, limited arms
Battle Cruiser - " " better arms
Battle Ship - """" also has hyperspace, very tough
Military Transport - Transports troops. Can invade other colonies
Sensor Array - Just hangs around in a quadrent, required if you
want to be able to look in that quadrent (when
you don't have a star ship in it).
Death Moon - Can destroy ships easily, no warp drive
Death Star - " and star systems, has warp drive very tough.
Diplomatic Cruiser - Can make treaties with other star nations.
Tradeships - Allow interstellar trade (major part of game)
* Ground Based Units *
Ground Troops - Just protect the ground
* Colony Improvements *
You can improve your colonies' defense, money making potential, happiness,
or productivity by adding improvements.
Planetary library - Increases research, a modifier of the taxes you
put towards new technlogies
Planetary bank - Increases wealth and makes republicans happy!
Fusion based manf. plant- Increases productivity
Planetary Defense - Improves your defenses
Military Accademy - "
Food Replicators - Lets your population increase faster
Research Institute - Really improves your research modifier
Stadium - Makes people happy
Multimedia stations - Makes people happy
(we want to add more here, please feel free to suggest more to us)
** WONDERS OF THE UNIVERSE **
-----------------------------
TerraForming device:
This is a device that only one empire can have, that empire
basically doubles the trade resources of all its worlds. Very powerful
and very expensive to build. Because you can make your worlds a
garden of eden, you will receive a lot more trade income.
Hydroponics Lab:
One empire will be able to build a lab that will make everyone
on that colony always have enough food keep them happy.
The Cloaking Device:
Whoever develops this first will receive increased offensive
points.
Dinosaurus Park:
Doubles trade to that colony. Bring back the dinosours.
"Chicago":
Build a mythical operating system that allows you to automatically
get the next closest technology free because while everyone else was
wasting time waiting for this to get done, you were busy getting real
research done.
Deep Thought:
Build the ultimate super computer. Doubles research in colony.
The Death Star Project:
Must complete this before you can build death stars (PLURAL).
Creation of Life:
Makes everyone a bit happier.
(We need more...please send suggestions if you have any for more wonders
of the universe).
-----------------------------------------
* Government Types *
Government types are very important to the game. You start
out as a simple colonizer and work your way to having a federation.
Colonizer:
You can only collect taxes from your home planet, but then again,
you don't have to worry about how unhappy your colonies are. You
can still build things with your colonies (except star ships) but collect no
money, unless
you trade your resources into money (which means you can potentially
get a moderate income from colonies).
Star Empire:
You can collect taxes from your colonies but you still can't
build star ships on your colonies.
Star Democracy:
You recognize your colonies to be states and collect taxes and
can build ships.
Star Federation:
Same as above but your trade resources are doubled. Downfall is,
people get unhappy a lot easier.
*** List of Discoveries ***
---------------------------
Nano-Electronics
Phasers: Allows star fighters and star cruisers
Anti-matter
Photons
Deflectors
TurboLasers Allows battle cruiser
instant communications
tractor beams
universal translotor
Super-Metals
Warp drive Allows you to leave the quadrent
Transporters
Anti-matter weapons
robot fighters
long range sensors
planetary defense
Cloaking
Atmosphere Traversal
Super Lasers Allows battle ships
Intergalactic Diplomacy Allows you to make alliances
Largescale building
Civilian Interplanetary transport
Hyperspace
Mass food
Molecular Reconstruction
Molecular Medicine
Star Democracy
Star Federation
Artificial Satellite (moon)
Death Moon
Death Star
(if you can think of more, please tell us).
*********************************************************************
Special Features:
Unlike Civilization, ships and death stars take damage. You can keep
attacking a battle ship and if that battle ship is far away from a home
port it will eventually be destroyed. Also unlike civilization,
if a attacker is far less powerful than the defender, the attacker
will ALWAYS lose. A star fighter will NEVER single handedly destroy
a death star. It may damage it some but NEVER will it just destroy it.
You can form alliances with other powers. Alliances mean that if someone
attacks you, the other members of the alliance will attack them.
The economics of the game is very important. You can trade with other
races and get a lot of income. But if you are at war, you will receive
NO money from star systems that belong to the enemy. Even if you
have a small military, if you are a large economic power, people will
think twice before going to war with you.
You receive money in 3 ways:
The aformentioned trade.
Taxation
Tourism. For every quadrent you control, you will get some
tourism money from it.
To control a quadrent, the sum of your star system's
power must be greater than the enemy players' star systems'
power.
*Enemy Players************************
THE BORG
The NTers
The Altarians
The Cylonians
The Empire
The Drengi
The Orcors
==========================================================================
Availability:
The game is still early in development, but we are a couple weeks ahead
of schedule. The September beta may have sound support in it but it
will not have the enemy players in it. You will be able to play it
in completeness but there won't be anyone to play against (so it
won't be very fun). Next winter a feature complete version should
be almost done and ready to be tested by a limited beta audience.
Next Spring the finished product should be ready.
Beta users will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement with SDS.
The cost of the game will be between $28 to $35.
Requirements:
OS/2 2.1
8 megabytes of memory
VGA or better, SVGA or better highly recommended (16 colors will look terrible)
4 to 8 megs of disk space.
A mouse
Features not in v1.0 but in 2.0 (if the game is successful, a sequel will
probably be made).
THESE FEATURES WILL NOT BE IN THE FIRST VERSION:
- No modem play
- No network awareness
- No editors
=============================================================================
About the Bitmap snap shots:
The screens show some of the early featurs (not polished yet) and
show what a battle ship will look like. One screen shows how the
game will begin with no discovered stars. The final product will
look somewhat different. For example, the starfleet icon will not
be there since it is trademarked.
If you have questions, please send email to:
Internet:
x90wa...@wmich.edu
On OS2BBS: Brad Wardell
On the Altanta IBMBBS: Brad Wardell
Note. No support will be at locations requring a fee (i.e. compuserve).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions:
We believe that this is probably the first commerical OS/2 game,
and hope that it sells well. It is more than just a game, it is
advocacy for future software development for OS/2. How well it does
will depend on how well we market it and how responsive the OS/2 community
is to it. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to make them
to us.
Rob Skrobola
might sue?
Rob
--
--------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola || CITI, University of Michigan
"Floop?" suggested the tarpit.
---------------------------------------------
William Bruvold
>So, anybody think this is derivative enough that Microprose
>might sue?
> Rob
Well they should get in Line! My guess is that serious amounts of
copywrite infringement also on Lucas Films (can't call things
Death Stars) and Paramount (too much Star Trek here).
To be honest I doubt this is going to happen if only because
Microprose will sue them and their claims about AI make little to no
sense (based upon real Civ. player styles?)
Erik
Jason O'Rourke
>In article <20fgm5$5...@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> r...@citi.umich.edu (Rob Skrobola) writes:
>>So, anybody think this is derivative enough that Microprose
>>might sue?
>copywrite infringement also on Lucas Films (can't call things
>Death Stars) and Paramount (too much Star Trek here).
Civ is just a growth on games like empire and every other world formation
programs (xconq, et al). Even the borg (trek) isn't really theirs,
unless this game were to mimmick them completely. The only possible
problem could be with the DStar.
In any case, Microprose has no grounds...the others, maybe but doubtful.
The fact that they are talking with civ players for tactics really
doesn't matter.
Jason O'Rourke
CEA
Andrew Klossner
to me.
-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
Give me a break. How can Microprose sue us because it is based loosely
on it? That is silly. As if Civ is really that original, conquer the world?
We use Civilization as a point of reference because it is the only game
similar to this. If you saw the game (and you can by downloading snap shots
from cdrom.com -- file galciv.zip) you would see waht I mean. The game looks
totally different, it's in space for one thing. As the announcement said,
it is similar to Civ in only these ways:
You develop new techs by allocating your resources anyway you want.
You have to deal with other players in more ways than just blowing them
up.
YOu improve your cities (colonies in this game).
Hardly a trademarked idea. The game from there is very different.
Also mentioned in the file is that before the released, the various
trademarked things (death star, starfleet symbols, etc. would be removed).
AS for the AI, the strategies that work for Civ are very similar to
the strategies needed to do well in Civ (the strategies in most war games are
quite similar, agreed?) Based on the aggression level we will use various
strategies from good Civ players (or Empire or whatever). For example, the
novice player of Civ probably doesn't know that to do very well in the game you
need to spread out QUICK. Make one defender (tops, if any) and make new cities
as fast as you can right away. Some players prefer to bide their time and
be friedns with other players, others try to destroy them right away. These
strategies will be used in the game.
Any questions?
Brad
>
>
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
Thanks. My point exactly.. Civilization is just a more complex (and
better) version of Empire. Galactic Civ is a more complex (and hopefully
better) version of Civ.
Its complexity is one of the reasons it is being made for OS/2.
Civilization 2 is going to have to use more than 640K of memory if it hopes
to incorporate even a fraction of your suggestions. 640K is very little memory
for working with the number of statistics that a game like this requires. In
fact, I have no idea how they were able to do it so well (okay, I do but
it must have been a major pain).
As for death star and such, as the program gets further into
development, copy right infringements and the like will be dealt with. IBM
is working closely with SDS in the development of this game and will probably
keep an eye out for us as well on the legal problems. By the way, the
death star has been renamed "Terror Star" since the original announcement.
Brad
Andrew Klossner
"Give me a break. How can Microprose sue us because it is
based loosely on it? That is silly."
Spoken by someone who is clueless about the law.
But it probably won't matter. Over the years, we've seen that there
are folks who build interesting products, and there are folks who
talk about the interesting products they would like to build. The two
sets never seem to intersect.
-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
> []
>
> "Give me a break. How can Microprose sue us because it is
> based loosely on it? That is silly."
>
> Spoken by someone who is clueless about the law.
>
> But it probably won't matter. Over the years, we've seen that there
> are folks who build interesting products, and there are folks who
> talk about the interesting products they would like to build. The two
> sets never seem to intersect.
Clueless about the law? I am quite familiar with patent and
copyright laws in the US. YOu ccannot copyright a general idea. Believe
it or not, there are more games that involve strategy and conquering than
Civilization. If you didn't have your nose so far up in the air you
might know that.
YOu don't seem to be aware of the world enough to make a claim
about people talking about products and people building products.
The game we are speaking of is being "built". 10,000 lines of code is
not some idea, it is a product in development.
Brad
>
> -=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
I thought I would bring up another couple points,
I was fairly infuriated with this post when I first saw it (mainly due
to its lack of legal basis)...
IN teh US, you cannot copyright an idea, only your actual code.
A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
it will just as promptly get thrown out.
Consider the spreadsheet market. Quatro Pro, 123, and Excel
are 3 programs that basically do the same thing except for a few minor
interface changes here and there. Heck, they even use the samem commands
for the most part. But , as lotus found out the hard way, you cannot
copyright and idea, just the code.
Galactic Civilizations, on the other hand, is a completely
different game than Civ. It is similar in many respects (which is
why we use it as a reference)./ Civ is unique in that it relies on
you to develop technolgoies to win the game, over its stragies. No
matter how good at waging war you are, if you don't develop
the technologies, your legions will be overcome by the idiotempire's
tanks. Similarly, Galactic Civ relies on you to improve your space
age technlogies. Develop war drive to get to new quadrants,
develop artificial moons so that you can make a terror star (e.g death star).
No doubt that the beta will probably have trade marked things that
will have to be taken out before it is open to the public. Our announcement
was made by our software engineers, not our marketting arm.
Anyway, I hope I got my point across. There are probably
a ton of spelling errors, I am getting a ton of line noise...
Brad
Rob Skrobola
|> In article <21cs34$m...@gazette.wv.tek.com>, and...@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
|> > []
|> >
|> > "Give me a break. How can Microprose sue us because it is
|> > based loosely on it? That is silly."
|> >
|> > Spoken by someone who is clueless about the law.
|> >
|> > But it probably won't matter. Over the years, we've seen that there
|> > are folks who build interesting products, and there are folks who
|> > talk about the interesting products they would like to build. The two
|> > sets never seem to intersect.
|>
|>
|> Clueless about the law? I am quite familiar with patent and
|> copyright laws in the US. YOu ccannot copyright a general idea. Believe
|> it or not, there are more games that involve strategy and conquering than
|> Civilization. If you didn't have your nose so far up in the air you
|> might know that.
Being the original idiot that asked the question, it wasn't the "strategy
and conquering" that prompted it. Nor was it (as someone suggested) that
you were using Civ players to model AI.
What prompted the question was the use of a very similiar concept, (and
it SEEMS (I say seems since I haven't seen it), a similiar implementation)
namely tech advances. Including tech advances that very closely parallel those
in Civ.
I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
to those laws, you're fine.
|>
|> IN the US, you cannot copyright an idea, only your actual code.
|> A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
|> This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
|> interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
|> True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
|> it will just as promptly get thrown out.
Clearly, if this is true, you're in the clear. Thanks for answering my
original question. No enmity was intended, I was just curious.
Rob
PS Has Apple had no luck with look and feel type litigation?
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
> In article <1993Jul6.2...@gw.wmich.edu>, x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu writes:
> |> In article <21cs34$m...@gazette.wv.tek.com>, and...@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
> |> > []
> |> >
> |> > "Give me a break. How can Microprose sue us because it is
> |> > based loosely on it? That is silly."
> |> >
> |> > Spoken by someone who is clueless about the law.
> |> >
> |> > But it probably won't matter. Over the years, we've seen that there
> |> > are folks who build interesting products, and there are folks who
> |> > talk about the interesting products they would like to build. The two
> |> > sets never seem to intersect.
> |>
> |>
> |> Clueless about the law? I am quite familiar with patent and
> |> copyright laws in the US. YOu ccannot copyright a general idea. Believe
> |> it or not, there are more games that involve strategy and conquering than
> |> Civilization. If you didn't have your nose so far up in the air you
> |> might know that.
>
> Being the original idiot that asked the question, it wasn't the "strategy
> and conquering" that prompted it. Nor was it (as someone suggested) that
> you were using Civ players to model AI.
>
> What prompted the question was the use of a very similiar concept, (and
> it SEEMS (I say seems since I haven't seen it), a similiar implementation)
> namely tech advances. Including tech advances that very closely parallel those
> in Civ.
>
Could you tell a non computer expert the difference between
Lotus 123 and Quatro Pro? The are the same program with the same
interface basically. Only the code is different.
> I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
> like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
> other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
> the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
> to those laws, you're fine.
>
> |>
> |> IN the US, you cannot copyright an idea, only your actual code.
> |> A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
> |> This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
> |> interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
> |> True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
> |> it will just as promptly get thrown out.
>
>
> Clearly, if this is true, you're in the clear. Thanks for answering my
> original question. No enmity was intended, I was just curious.
>
> Rob
>
> PS Has Apple had no luck with look and feel type litigation?
Apple has a lot more legitimacy than if Microprose tried
to sue SDS for Gal Civ. Bill Gates told the programmers "I want
it to look and feel just like a Mac, except be on a PC."
When you load up GalCiv, you start off in space. It looks
totally different. But I do admit it was inspired by Civilization
and its lack of a sequel which many of us would like to see.
Brad
John Lindsey
>PS Has Apple had no luck with look and feel type litigation?
No, they have not, but that fact did not stop Xerox from starting its
lawsuit (their ParcPlace labs developed a computer windowing system
before the Apple LISA). I do not know if they won, but I imagine they met
with the same luck as the people they are (were) suing.
Even if you don't know the law, think about the consequences involved in
allowing such rigourous protection: a person could claim that a piece
of commercial software was remotely similar to a concept they programmed
fifteen years ago. If they won, someone else could say that they used the
same ideas in a book twenty years before that. Where would it end?
John
--
And the red foos did slay the purple foos, and the green foos the pink foos.
And the silver foos did lord over the orange foos, in a way that was bad.
And the yellow foos detonated a small thermonuclear device at the blue foos.
And there were slain foos in great abundance, such that they were everywhere.
Mitch Gunzler
>|> copyright laws in the US. YOu ccannot copyright a general idea. Believe
>|> it or not, there are more games that involve strategy and conquering than
>|> Civilization. If you didn't have your nose so far up in the air you
>|> might know that.
>|>
This, in fact, is false. First, directly, in that "code" is hardly the
only thing that can be copyrighted. "Presentation" is probably a better
guess, since the look and feel issue isn't settled. Basically, if
you write a book on a nifty concept, people can use the concept but not
steal (large) passages from the book to describe it (with "fair use"
exceptions). Same with a program; you can copyright the code, and probably
the passages and key words if sufficiently invented.
A more subtle problem with the above statement, however, is the idea that
copyright is the only form of protection for intellectual property.
Trademark leap to mind, and what caught *my* eye about the original
advertisement was the many references to Civ, and how various parts were
like Civ. Taking advantage of Civilization's popularity is a problem, which
the poster appears to have recognized in saying elsewhere that "of course
all such references will be stripped out of the final product." Which
leads to the question, is posting here substantially equivalent to
"advertising" in other contexts, or not? If it *really* was, it should
be impermissible by Netiquette anyway, but I and most other readers would
much rather encourage companies to talk to us than discourage them.
So, how about this; please tell us as much as you're willing to, but
be careful about the appearance much less reality of "piggybacking" on
a particular prior work with which you have no affiliation or arrangement.
>|> A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
>|> This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
>|> interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
>|> True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
>|> it will just as promptly get thrown out.
Not true, if it was advertised as being substantially like Civilization.
Mitch
(None of what I say is by any means guaranteed to be correct; it is based
on a single course in copyright law taken several years ago.)
J Buckel Artist Account
|> When you load up GalCiv, you start off in space. It looks
|> totally different. But I do admit it was inspired by Civilization
|> and its lack of a sequel which many of us would like to see.
|>
|>
|>
|> Brad
|
I think this sentence says it all, it is being written because all us civ fans
have been discussing a sequel to civ for months, just that MPS has done nothing
about it.
Jonathon
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
>>|> Clueless about the law? I am quite familiar with patent and
>>|> copyright laws in the US. YOu ccannot copyright a general idea. Believe
>>|> it or not, there are more games that involve strategy and conquering than
>>|> Civilization. If you didn't have your nose so far up in the air you
>>|> might know that.
>>|>
>>|> IN the US, you cannot copyright an idea, only your actual code.
>
> This, in fact, is false. First, directly, in that "code" is hardly the
> only thing that can be copyrighted. "Presentation" is probably a better
> guess, since the look and feel issue isn't settled. Basically, if
> you write a book on a nifty concept, people can use the concept but not
> steal (large) passages from the book to describe it (with "fair use"
> exceptions). Same with a program; you can copyright the code, and probably
> the passages and key words if sufficiently invented.
We've got a pretty cool discussion going here...
I am speaking specifically about software copyright law. Many
programmers WISH it was as you say it is but, in fact, that is not the
case. Ask any patent attorney and they will basically reiterate what
I have said before.
In software, the only intellectual property recognized by
the court is the code. It was on these grounds that Lotus lots
its various suits and Apple lost their.
>
> A more subtle problem with the above statement, however, is the idea that
> copyright is the only form of protection for intellectual property.
> Trademark leap to mind, and what caught *my* eye about the original
> advertisement was the many references to Civ, and how various parts were
> like Civ. Taking advantage of Civilization's popularity is a problem, which
> the poster appears to have recognized in saying elsewhere that "of course
> all such references will be stripped out of the final product." Which
> leads to the question, is posting here substantially equivalent to
> "advertising" in other contexts, or not? If it *really* was, it should
> be impermissible by Netiquette anyway, but I and most other readers would
> much rather encourage companies to talk to us than discourage them.
For software, the only thing you can copyright is the code.
In some rare cases when the progrma has demonstrated sufficient
inventiveness (which no game would qualify unfortunately), the
interface and commands can be copyrighted. Such was the case of
Lotus vs (I don't remembe the name) where the program was a complete
clone of Lotus, commands, colors and interface.
Names can be copyrighted also, for exmaple, assuming MicroProse
trademarked Civilization (and I am not certain they did), another
company would likely get in trouble if they came out with Civilization 2.
But general ideas (conquering the world) is not copyrighted and
that was the point I was trying to make. Most strategy games (as we SHOULD
know eh?) involved conquering an area of playing field by using our
resources and diplomatic skills. The reason our announcement compared
Galactic Civilizations to Civilizations is because Civilization was the
best game to use as a refernce. Both use a "gain technology" to win
strategy over "Build the most bombs and nuke em". Both worry about
how to deal with your empire's attitudes and allow you to build non
military improvements. But the two depart from there pretty early on.
>
> So, how about this; please tell us as much as you're willing to, but
> be careful about the appearance much less reality of "piggybacking" on
> a particular prior work with which you have no affiliation or arrangement.
>
>>|> A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
>>|> This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
>>|> interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
>>|> True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
>>|> it will just as promptly get thrown out.
>
> Not true, if it was advertised as being substantially like Civilization.
I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. Take, for example, the
MicroGrafx Designer v4.0 vs CorelDraw 2.0 ads. The magazines were
littered with "Hefty Hefty Hefty (for Designer) and Wimpy wimy wimpy
(for CorelDraw)". Designer's ad was basically "We can do everything
CorelDraw can do but even more". Similarly, if we chose to, we could
quite legally (at least in the US) say "Buy Galactic Civilizations,
it is BETTER than Civilizations. Look at our feature comparison chart
below."
>
>
> Mitch
>
> (None of what I say is by any means guaranteed to be correct; it is based
> on a single course in copyright law taken several years ago.)
What you say is CORRECT on most things but software is quite
a different story all together. We talk with patent attornies quite
occasionally (not about video games admittedly but about software).
Brad
>
>
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
SDS is not even a gaming company. Galactic Civilizations
got started at SDS by several engineers who were Civ nuts getting
tired of no sequels to Civ and not liking the limitations of it,
EMpire (PC VERSION), and Warlords. As many of you know, in a
company that does a lot of contract engineering (or a lot of
contracting period) there are often periods of "idle" time. A
few of us managed to convince our boss (and he his boss) that the
OS/2 market was not large enough to develop a game for that we could
work on in our "idle" time. Most of our guys are used to programming
thigns that help (literally) to blow people up. It is quite a nice
change of pace to program things that only blow people up in fun (and
not in reality!).
Brad
Marc Fraioli
>I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
>like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
>other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
>the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
>to those laws, you're fine.
>
it uninteresting, not illegal. And BTW, I have been looking forward to good
native OS/2 software for some time, but I don't think this will be it...
>PS Has Apple had no luck with look and feel type litigation?
None whatsoever. I believe that the whole thing was finally thrown out of
court entirely just recently (after x years and 10^x dollars wasted on all
sides....)
--
Marc Fraioli
mfra...@grebyn.com (So I'm a minimalist...)
Mitch Gunzler
>In article <gunzlerC...@netcom.com>, gun...@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler) writes:
>>>|> IN the US, you cannot copyright an idea, only your actual code.
>>
>> This, in fact, is false. First, directly, in that "code" is hardly the
>> only thing that can be copyrighted. "Presentation" is probably a better
>> guess, since the look and feel issue isn't settled. Basically, if
>> you write a book on a nifty concept, people can use the concept but not
>> steal (large) passages from the book to describe it (with "fair use"
>> exceptions). Same with a program; you can copyright the code, and probably
>> the passages and key words if sufficiently invented.
This is getting excerpted alot, so let me clarify for those not failiar
with copyright law: the basic principle is that it protects particular
acts of expression, NOT underlying ideas or concepts. What covers ideas?
patents, and to a lesser extent trademarks.
A large part of our disagreement seems to be over what can be objected to
on copyright grounds and what can be objected to on any grounds. If you
come into court suing in copyright because "he stole my idea," you lose.
Copyright claims have to look something like "he copied my stuff instead
of coming up with his own implementation of the underlying idea."
Trademark claims look something like "he's trying to ride my coattails
and sell product on the basis of my reputation."
Patent claims look something like "I went to the trouble of getting you to
Uncle Sam ^^^
agree this is my original, useful, nonobvious approach to a problem and
he went and used it without asking/paying anyway."
>
> We've got a pretty cool discussion going here...
>
> I am speaking specifically about software copyright law. Many
>programmers WISH it was as you say it is but, in fact, that is not the
>case. Ask any patent attorney and they will basically reiterate what
>I have said before.
What would a patnet attourney know about copyright law?:)
(Actually, they overlap alot, especially in software.)
> In software, the only intellectual property recognized by
>the court is the code. It was on these grounds that Lotus lots
>its various suits and Apple lost their.
This is clearly, at least, an overstatement. For instance, Lotus just
won a (lower court) ruling against Quattro for using their "hierarchy"
(the commands and order of those commands in the menu). That's a classic
copyright approach; the idea of a spreadsheet, or of a menu accessing
various tools in it, wasn't protected - but go out and come up with
your own menu!
Similiarly, I count trademarks as intellectual property. You can't try
to confuse your product with another and say "oh, well, it's software
so their's no protection."
>> Trademark leap to mind, and what caught *my* eye about the original
>> advertisement was the many references to Civ, and how various parts were
>> like Civ. Taking advantage of Civilization's popularity is a problem, which
>> the poster appears to have recognized in saying elsewhere that "of course
>> all such references will be stripped out of the final product." Which
>
> For software, the only thing you can copyright is the code.
>In some rare cases when the progrma has demonstrated sufficient
>inventiveness (which no game would qualify unfortunately), the
>interface and commands can be copyrighted. Such was the case of
>Lotus vs (I don't remembe the name) where the program was a complete
>clone of Lotus, commands, colors and interface.
You're talking the old Visicalc decision, I think. I refer you above
to a much more liberal interpretation of *copyright* protection.
> Names can be copyrighted also, for exmaple, assuming MicroProse
>trademarked Civilization (and I am not certain they did), another
>company would likely get in trouble if they came out with Civilization 2.
First of all, you use copyright and trademark interchangeably in
that sentence.
Second of all, you don't have to "trademark" or "copyright" anything to
get trademark or copyright protection, though it helps prove you had
an intent to preserve certain rights and they should have known better.
In copyright, ANY time you fix an expression in a tangible medium that
expression is copyrighted. Period. If you have that nifty little notice,
you can collect statutory damages of (I think) up to $20,000.00 without
having to show actual damages. If you "file your copyright," you give
Uncle Sam a dated copy that you can refer to in court to prove you were
out there first. But the basic idea that if it's yours others can't copy it
and sell it without your permission holds whether or not you've ever
heard of copyrights.
There are some fuzzy terms in trademark law that have to do with having
invested some amount of advertising/quality control/wishful thinking in
a name or phrase or logo to make it valuable, and then the other party
having crossed a line that unreasonably risks consumer confusion.
> But general ideas (conquering the world) is not copyrighted and
>that was the point I was trying to make. Most strategy games (as we SHOULD
That's true.
>know eh?) involved conquering an area of playing field by using our
>resources and diplomatic skills. The reason our announcement compared
>Galactic Civilizations to Civilizations is because Civilization was the
>best game to use as a refernce. Both use a "gain technology" to win
Well, yes, that's PROBABLY okay.
But to the extent you're selling your game as "Civ in Space for all
you Civ fans!" you are, at least technically, crossing a line.
For instance, I would think three times about advertising/representing
your prouct as "the sequel to Civilization everyone here has been waiting for."
>> So, how about this; please tell us as much as you're willing to, but
>> be careful about the appearance much less reality of "piggybacking" on
>> a particular prior work with which you have no affiliation or arrangement.
>>
>>>|> A company could, for example, make a game called World Civilizations.
>>>|> This game could be basically identical to Civilization with a few minor
>>>|> interface changes and be safe from getting in trouble.
>>>|> True, any company can sue you for any reason they want,, but
>>>|> it will just as promptly get thrown out.
>>
>> Not true, if it was advertised as being substantially like Civilization.
>
> I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. Take, for example, the
>MicroGrafx Designer v4.0 vs CorelDraw 2.0 ads. The magazines were
>littered with "Hefty Hefty Hefty (for Designer) and Wimpy wimy wimpy
>(for CorelDraw)". Designer's ad was basically "We can do everything
>CorelDraw can do but even more". Similarly, if we chose to, we could
>quite legally (at least in the US) say "Buy Galactic Civilizations,
>it is BETTER than Civilizations. Look at our feature comparison chart
>below."
You're right that "contrast" ads are fine. Nobody's likely to think
that the other guy was involved, endorses your product, or that they
are substantially similiar. Nobody is going to buy your product out
of lyalty to them, or dislike their product when yours turns out to be
of inferior quality (think of the black market in fake Gucchi or Rolex).
>
> What you say is CORRECT on most things but software is quite
>a different story all together. We talk with patent attornies quite
>occasionally (not about video games admittedly but about software).
Well, no, it's an interesting an developing area of law but hardly
"a different story altogether." Just a bit different.
:):):)
Mitch
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
> In article <21evpu$b...@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> r...@citi.umich.edu (Rob Skrobola) writes:
>>I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
>>like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
>>other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
>>the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
>>to those laws, you're fine.
>>
> I agree that the game seems highly derivative. To me though, that just makes
> it uninteresting, not illegal. And BTW, I have been looking forward to good
> native OS/2 software for some time, but I don't think this will be it...
>
Out of curiosity, why do you say that? You have no idea what
the game is going to be like beyond the annoucement. This game is
as similar to Civilzation as Civ is to Empire or Warlords. In other
words, it shares some characteristics to them but it is not by any
means a clone of it. If you liked the above mentioned games, you would
probably like this. I'm sorry you feel that way however.
>>PS Has Apple had no luck with look and feel type litigation?
>
> None whatsoever. I believe that the whole thing was finally thrown out of
> court entirely just recently (after x years and 10^x dollars wasted on all
> sides....)
> --
> Marc Fraioli
> mfra...@grebyn.com (So I'm a minimalist...)
Brad
x90wa...@gw.wmich.edu
Exactly, as I mention further down in an earlier post. You
can't downright steal and interface but you can't copyright an idea.
You can try to patent your idea but software has had very little
success as patents and no game or non-PC-operating system software
has any patents that I know of. In fact, Microsoft's way of switchin
between the 286's real mode and protected mode is the only PC software
patent that I am aware of.
>>
>> For software, the only thing you can copyright is the code.
>>In some rare cases when the progrma has demonstrated sufficient
>>inventiveness (which no game would qualify unfortunately), the
>>interface and commands can be copyrighted. Such was the case of
>>Lotus vs (I don't remembe the name) where the program was a complete
>>clone of Lotus, commands, colors and interface.
>
> You're talking the old Visicalc decision, I think. I refer you above
> to a much more liberal interpretation of *copyright* protection.
>
>> Names can be copyrighted also, for exmaple, assuming MicroProse
>>trademarked Civilization (and I am not certain they did), another
>>company would likely get in trouble if they came out with Civilization 2.
>
> First of all, you use copyright and trademark interchangeably in
> that sentence.
I know but many of the users in the forum are not aware of
the various minute details of copyright vs patents vs trademarks vs
trade secrets vs etc..
So I'm trying to stay basic.
>
>> But general ideas (conquering the world) is not copyrighted and
>>that was the point I was trying to make. Most strategy games (as we SHOULD
>
> That's true.
>
>>know eh?) involved conquering an area of playing field by using our
>>resources and diplomatic skills. The reason our announcement compared
>>Galactic Civilizations to Civilizations is because Civilization was the
>>best game to use as a refernce. Both use a "gain technology" to win
>
> Well, yes, that's PROBABLY okay.
> But to the extent you're selling your game as "Civ in Space for all
> you Civ fans!" you are, at least technically, crossing a line.
> For instance, I would think three times about advertising/representing
> your prouct as "the sequel to Civilization everyone here has been waiting for."
Ah, but it was a Civilization fan, not SDS that posted it
as "Hey Civ fans, look at this!" it was someone on this conference
who posted it. Moreover, I want to point out that the original
announcement was not an "official" document but an informal internet/fido
net announcement meant to generate a response from the public in terms
of suggestions and criticisms. The game is not for sale and won't be
for some time. While Civilization want mentioned in the annoucement
quite a few times, it was never posted at "Hey guys, look, this
is just like Civ but even better! wow!"
Agreed. Please followup to this, this is quite an interesting
discussion!
Brad
x91t...@gw.wmich.edu
>>I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
>>like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
>>other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
>>the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
>>to those laws, you're fine.
>>
> I agree that the game seems highly derivative. To me though, that just makes
> it uninteresting, not illegal. And BTW, I have been looking forward to good
> native OS/2 software for some time, but I don't think this will be it...
GIVE ME A BREAK! You probably marched out and bought X-wing
though didn't you? Great game but a blatant clone of Wing Commander.
The game Stardock Systems is making is much different than Civilization
but you would condemn it because it has some similarities. I bet
you don't have very much software then! Just using Wordstar with
Visicalc and your favorite game space invaders (the original of course)!
Sheesh!
> Marc Fraioli
> mfra...@grebyn.com (So I'm a minimalist...)
Debbie
Software Engineer
Stardock Systems
Mitch Gunzler
>In article <gunzlerC...@netcom.com>, gun...@netcom.com (Mitch Gunzler) writes:
>> First of all, you use copyright and trademark interchangeably in
>> that sentence.
>
> I know but many of the users in the forum are not aware of
>the various minute details of copyright vs patents vs trademarks vs
>trade secrets vs etc..
Well, now we've straightened them out, eh?
>> For instance, I would think three times about advertising/representing
>> your prouct as "the sequel to Civilization everyone here has been waiting for."
> Ah, but it was a Civilization fan, not SDS that posted it
>as "Hey Civ fans, look at this!" it was someone on this conference
Fine, if true (i haven't the foggiest, that's not snide disagreement).
>who posted it. Moreover, I want to point out that the original
>announcement was not an "official" document but an informal internet/fido
>net announcement meant to generate a response from the public in terms
>of suggestions and criticisms. The game is not for sale and won't be
>for some time.
Well, I don't think "official" matters much. You may not have reached a very
large audience, which would certainly affect the calculation of damages,
but unofficial communications that have the effect of leading to customer
confusion are (unless you know something I don't) still violations of
trademark.
>While Civilization want mentioned in the annoucement
>quite a few times, it was never posted at "Hey guys, look, this
>is just like Civ but even better! wow!"
it did have something of a "Civ in space" feel to it, from coarsest
memory recall. That is, that's the impression it made on me, a
typical consumer. :)
>>> What you say is CORRECT on most things but software is quite
>>>a different story all together. We talk with patent attornies quite
>>>occasionally (not about video games admittedly but about software).
>>
>> Well, no, it's an interesting an developing area of law but hardly
>> "a different story altogether." Just a bit different.
>>
>> :):):)
>>
>> Mitch
>
> Agreed. Please followup to this, this is quite an interesting
>discussion!
>
I'm trying, but we seem to be agreeing far too much to maintain a
reasonable discussion. (Lawyerese for how do we generate billables on this?)
Mitch
Andrew Klossner
"In software, the only intellectual property recognized by the
court is the code. It was on these grounds that Lotus lots its
various suits and Apple lost their."
Nope. Lotus *won* their cast against Borland. Apple lost their case
against Microsoft because the defendant demonstrated that Apple's
look-and-feel was itself stolen from Xerox. And Adam Osborne's
Paperback Software company was deep-sixed by a successful look-and-feel
lawsuit.
"For software, the only thing you can copyright is the code."
Nope. In the U.S., you can also copyright the output format (screen
display, printer output, etc); you can obtain a "design patent" on the
output, giving much broader rights; you can register, or claim without
registering, trademarks (such as the word "Civilization"); and, sadly,
the courts have invented and now permit software patents, despite their
obvious prohibition in patent law.
-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)
Andrew Klossner
"You can try to patent your idea but software has had very
little success as patents and no game or non-PC-operating
system software has any patents that I know of."
Urf. You've "talked with a patent attorney" about your software plans,
but you don't know about the classic Unix patent on the SETUID bit?
(Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs, approx 1974) Or the several dozen
patents that IBM holds for technology expressed in their 360/370
architecture operating systems?
People pursuing software patents have had far too much success. It's
gotten quite out of hand. Contact the League for Programming Freedom
for details.
Better change attorneys.
-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)
Big Wilber
[alarms and sirens wail in the backgroud while waiting for the net
police to get here]
hey, here's a great suggestion. why not take this all over to
comp.legal and discuss it there. hmmm.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Towe To...@elcsci.com
Electro Scientific Industries (ESI) ^(@,@)^ Who.????
Portland, Oregon, USA compuserve: 70614,1721
-----------------------------------------------------------------
if it wasn't for insanity, I'd have no sanity at all
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Fraioli
>> In article <21evpu$b...@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> r...@citi.umich.edu (Rob Skrobola) writes:
>>>I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
>>>like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
>>>other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
>>>the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
>>>to those laws, you're fine.
>>>
>> I agree that the game seems highly derivative. To me though, that just makes
>> it uninteresting, not illegal. And BTW, I have been looking forward to good
>> native OS/2 software for some time, but I don't think this will be it...
>>
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you say that? You have no idea what
>the game is going to be like beyond the annoucement. This game is
>as similar to Civilzation as Civ is to Empire or Warlords. In other
>words, it shares some characteristics to them but it is not by any
>means a clone of it. If you liked the above mentioned games, you would
>probably like this. I'm sorry you feel that way however.
>
thus I feel the way I do based on the announcement. To me, the announcement
made it sound like the game will essentially be CIV all over again except that
the various improvements/units/etc will have spacey names. (Oh yeah, and
triremes can't sink a battleship). I saw nothing in the announcement that
made it sound like this game would be substantially different from Civ in
any way other than the window dressing. To me, that's boring. If I got
the wrong impression from the announcement, that's great.
Marc Fraioli
>In article <C9vGp...@grebyn.com>, mfra...@grebyn.com (Marc Fraioli) writes:
> In article <21evpu$b...@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> r...@citi.umich.edu (Rob Skrobola) writes:
>>>I don't have the slightest idea about copyright law. However, to me, it seems
>>>like you are utilizing some of the concepts that makes Civ different from
>>>other strat/conq type games. If I were Microprose, I'd find out about
>>>the applicable laws with an eye to lawsuit. If the situation is not relevant
>>>to those laws, you're fine.
>>>
>> I agree that the game seems highly derivative. To me though, that just makes
>> it uninteresting, not illegal. And BTW, I have been looking forward to good
>> native OS/2 software for some time, but I don't think this will be it...
>
> GIVE ME A BREAK! You probably marched out and bought X-wing
>though didn't you? Great game but a blatant clone of Wing Commander.
Wrong. I didn't buy X-wing. Why not? Well, actually, I already had Wing
Commander and X-wing didn't seem to offer anything new...Why would I spend
my money again for the same game with different graphics? And no, I didn't
buy Wing Commander II either.
>The game Stardock Systems is making is much different than Civilization
>but you would condemn it because it has some similarities. I bet
It sounded essentially identical to me, except for renaming the various
units and so on.
>you don't have very much software then! Just using Wordstar with
>Visicalc and your favorite game space invaders (the original of course)!
>
I buy software if it offers me something substantially different from and
better than what I already have. Sometimes I will but a new program that
is similar in concept to one I already have, if it is better executed.
For example, I have more than one wargame. But I don't tend to stack up a
lot of the same type. I have Command HQ, Perfect General, and Patton Strikes
Back, all of which are wargames, but all pretty different too...Maybe I
don't have a lot of software, but I do have pretty much all _good_ software.
--