Re: Richard's PBeM Server (Monthly Post)

From: kmaroney@crossover.com (Kevin J. Maroney)

Date: Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0000

sthomas@tricity.isltd.insignia.com (Steve Thomas) wrote:

>Reversi probably wasn't copyrighted in the US, but in most of the rest
>of the world all that was necessary to obtain copyright in those days
>was to publish a copyrightable work.  Whether Reversi was copyrightable
>is open to dispute, but I think it was.  However, it's more than 50
>years since the game was published, so copyright has lapsed.  I think
>it's older than 70 years, so it won't come back.

There's a much more important principle:

Under the Berne Convention, a game cannot be copyrighted. Period.

The *particular expression of the rules of a game* can be copyrighted,
as can the *particular likeness of the components*. But the game
itself cannot.

And since the rules of Othello can be easily restated in any number of
ways, and the components are no more than coins and a checkerboard,
there is little or no protection on Othello even disregrading the fact
that the game was inventing in the XIX century.

--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kevin@crossover.com
              Games are my entire waking life.

References

Richard's PBeM Server (Monthly Post)
Richard Rognlie <rrognlie@erols.com>
Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Richard's PBeM Server (Monthly Post)
tim@mail.htp.com (Tim Mirabile)
Fri, 02 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Richard's PBeM Server (Monthly Post)
Nick Wedd <Nick@maproom.demon.co.uk>
Sun, 04 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Richard's PBeM Server (Monthly Post)
sthomas@tricity.isltd.insignia.com (Steve Thomas)
Mon, 05 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0000