Electronic Arts Sues Zynga, Says The Ville Is An “Unmistakable Copy” Of The Sims | Hacker News Reader

Electronic Arts Sues Zynga, Says The Ville Is An “Unmistakable Copy” Of The Sims

techcrunch.com

106 pointsjconley133 comments

From the complaint "As demonstrated in the chart below, The Ville uses the same precise RGB values for its skin tones as does The Sims Social. There is aninfinitesimally small chance that the use of the same RGB values for skin tone in The Ville as TheSims Social is mere coincidence."

Zynga could have at least tried not to make the copying so obvious.

If you're having trouble finding the actual complaint (as I was) here it is: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Fin...

The key argument in the complaint:

"Not only does The Ville blatantly mimic the entire framework and style of gameplay in The Sims Social, but it so closely copies the original, creative expression and unique elements of The Sims Social — i.e., the animation sequences, visual arrangements, characters’ motions andactions, and other unique audio-visual elements — that the two games are nearly indistinguishable."

The pages marked 17-34 in the complaint contain a number of screenshots demonstrating just to what degree the "original, creative expression" was copied. Specific colors, proportions, and even action sequences appear to be nearly identical. This is most definitely not coincidence, and (as the complaint notes on page 9-12) is common practice for Zynga.

This is such a surprising claim that I had to check, and it does not appear to be true.

Copy the image from the complaint into an image editor and look at the RGB values with the color tool. I looked and didn't see a single match.

I'm going to give EA the benefit of the doubt here, and suggest that there is almost certainly additional compression on the images from when it was converted to PDF / uploaded to Scribd.

Or, to put it another way, I'm pretty sure EA has a fairly competent legal team, and you don't make such a specific claim in a filing unless you're prepared to back it up.

The image is a jpg, which does not always retain true colors (it's a "lossy" format.) Click the same color block in 3 or 4 different places and you'll get different results.

In order to do a true comparison, you'd have to use a color tool directly on the game or on screenshots taken in a lossless format.

Just a query: How similar is this to the 9 lines of code in the Oracle vs Google situation?

well, rgb is 16777216 colors. Lets say not all of those are acceptable skin tones, but there's a broad spectrum that's allow. for the sake of argument, lets go with a million. Not to be crazy racist, black white brown red and yellow are all adjectives used to describe skin color. skin color is a big slice of the color spectrum.

so, out of a million colors pick 8. what are the odds i pick the same 8? (if you don't remember combinatorics, a million choose 8 is on the order of 10^40).

Even if you dispute the full million colors are available, restricting our choice to just 100 unique skin colors, choosing 8 is over a hundred trillion combinations.

I'd say the odds of you and i picking the same 8 colors are pretty darn small.

And this is of course ignoring the decision to go with 8, not any other reasonable number, different colors in the first place. ;)

Are you asking about the API vs expressive elements?

There's also the bit about hiring of EA executives (John Schappert, Jeff Karp, Barry Cottle) who had access to The Sims Social and social IP (pages 13-14).

What's wrong with copying skin-tone? It's a good color.

The issue is that Zynga copied the precise RGB value. Given the large number of possible RGB values for skin, it's beyond suspicious that they wound up with the same value.

It's a SINGLE COLOR!

Well, yes, so what? That precise RGB value might be a great color! Good artists copy, great artists steal, etc. It's certainly not enough to warrant legal action. If they stole actual media, that would be different.

Zynga is the Samwer Brothers of games.

Blatant copying, element-for-element. No derivation from the original, no ethics, no shame. Zynga is a despicable company, and I have absolutely no respect for the company itself or Pincus.

I don't like Zynga either.

My understanding is that games can't be copyrighted, though:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

Basic mechanics, no.

Text and look and feel are another story, though. In this case EA is alleging that The Ville is a derivative work not because it borrows mechanics but because it meets the 'substantially similar' test by meticulously cloning the look of The Sims Social, right down to copying the exact RGB colors of specific elements.

Although it seems most of their argument (http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Fin...) except for the RGB values relate to game mechanics.

As someone who doesn't play Facebook games, looking at the images, they certainly look like two different ways of expressing the same game. Some icons are similar - e.g. the 'heart break' icons, but they don't seem to be that novel for what they are depicting.

Yeah, my understanding is that the case law was pretty well established with board games. You can steal pretty much the entire mechanics of a game, but not the specific artistic expression. Of course, that doesn't mean a company with deep pockets can't bludgeon anyone they like with the legal system.

A good example in board games is a game called "Anti-Monopoly". (http://antimonopoly.com) It's pretty much a direct take-off on Parker Bros. Monopoly. Parker Bros. sued the creator and dragged the case through the courts for ten years, but the creator won in the end. Ironically, PB Monopoly was itself a rip-off of earlier versions of Monopoly.

It's still an evolving area, as evidenced by the recent Tetris vs. Xio lawsuit:

http://www.sunsteinlaw.com/publications-news/news-letters/20...

Oh, wow. If I'm reading this right they decided that the pieces being made of four squares is protectable.

you forgot to add that most likely by the end of the year this empty shell will be de-listed.

edit: take a look at this: [1] - if the Chief Financial Officer dumps 50% of its Zynga stock in secondary offering, who really could believe there is any value in this trojan horse.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-losers-of-zyngas-...

Hey, maybe we have Pincus all wrong; when he strongarmed his early employees into giving up stock options for late joiners, he may have been doing them a favor.

Pincus will lose all that money before you know it. He's nothing but a turd in the world of innovation. It's funny since Zynga is backed by KPCB and Bing Gordon (who was a big time player in EA back in the day).

Couldn't agree more. Zynga is the biggest scam since Facbeook. Assholes like Pincus are not innovators at the least, they are just plain scumbags who are taking advantage of the boom. It's unfortunate. Especially how Pincus and others cashed out $400M+ and left investors to dry.

Zynga will face their fate, as will Facebook, a lot of people will get rich, a lot of people will lose money, but at the end of the day Zynga won't be around for long and Facebook will be the next AIM.

I understand why Pincus runs Zynga like he does. But I don't understand why Zynga's employees want to work there. They are (were?) probably hoping for a big lottery ticket, but they must realize that every day they go to work and rip off someone's original work.

I'm reminded of Pigdog's "d00d, Quit being a FUCKING ASS" rant addressed to the programmers of Sony's malicious copy-protection:

  I know you didn't start off like this. I know that you're like me, that you're 
  like all of us. That you love these things called computers, that your fingers 
  itch when you're away from them, that your whole essence pours out of your 
  fingertips into the keyboard when you make that system DO YOUR MAGIC. It's 
  incredible, it's power, it's a tradition that goes back centuries, and it's 
  flowing through you right now, right this very second.

  And you're BETRAYING it. You're standing on the shoulders of giants and SHITTING 
  on them. For something you believe in? For something you're PROUD OF? Or for the 
  dollars of Sony Megacorp and the opportunity that that brings?

http://www.pigdog.org/auto/software_jihad/link/2581.html

A lot of Zynga's employees are game industry developers and Zynga tends to pay better than most for a comparable title and skillset. I know a lot of people thay have left "beloved" console and PC developers to get a better paycheck at Zynga. This is especially true for game designers and artista who have less ability to simply leave games entirely to make more money.

I am dissapointed that Pincus and friends seem to have made a clean getaway, but I don't feel sorry for any investors that have been screwed by investing in Zynga.

Not really. The Samwer brothers may not be innovators, but they are problem solvers. They solve the very huge problem of internationalisation. Zynga doesn't solve anyone's problems. They just aim to kill/leech off competitors.

I agree with your statement. Samwer bros aren't innovators by any means but they do solve internationalisation problems - no question. Good for them and I wish them success

So if I launch at the same time internationally, then they won't copy me - you seem to be suggesting?

Yes, if you do a good international launch, they usually won't, since there are lower-hanging fruit to pick.

Some of the stuff in the details section is pretty astounding. They've copied things as closely as the wall-height to floor size ratio. I doubt even EA thought much about that, other than selecting a size that they thought looked reasonable, yet Zynga neeeded to put effort into copying it so exactly? Why? If you're going to rip off a game, why put effort into making it so blatant?

I understand Zynga even less now.

My gut feeling on reading the headline was originally "Well, EA can't complain, Simcity Social was far more a Cityville clone than a continuation of Simcity", but wow, actually looking at the complaint is pretty damning for Zynga.

I'm willing to bet those exact dimensions came about by someone sending an email that went something to the general effect of:

"Here are some screenshots. Redraw them."

I wonder if their internal emails can be subpoenaed.

If they do get subpoenaed and it turns out I am right, I'm going to buy myself a beer. ;)

I'll spring for one brew of your choice as well.

Absolutely.

Probably, they prototyped the game using rips of Sims assets, and as they replaced EA's art with their own they tried to keep the new elements consistent with the old ones (rather than, say, having some walls suddenly 1.3x as tall as others for no obvious reason.)

If you're not skilled enough to create something good, you're better off finding something good and copying it exactly — you're probably not qualified to understand which parts are essential and which are arbitrary. It takes guts to copy something exactly, though; most people can't resist the urge to make their mark.

> It takes guts to copy something exactly, though;

Guts and a total disregard for copyright law.

> I understand Zynga even less now.

Honestly, it works. We can hate it as much as we like; at the end of the day, Zynga is in fact pulling in cash.

"it works".

what a destructive attitude. many things 'work'. insider trading and extortion work too, does that mean we can't 'hate' on them?

just because something happens doesn't mean it 'should' happen. you filter options through your values to really decide if 'it works'. good insight into your character.

You completely missed the point. He's not saying that Zynga's actions are moral or should be socially acceptable, just that it's easy to see their motivation. It's not hard to understand why they do what they do, no matter how reprehensible.

i got that. but i don't call that something that 'works'. my point is that making cash isn't the only condition that needs to be met for something to 'work'. i take issue with his use of 'it works'.

> my point is that making cash isn't the only condition that needs to be met for something to 'work'.

To make cash, you must make cash. This is a simple tautology. Insider trading and extortion work. Again, fact. Denying reality does not make it go away. We 'hate' on them because we have larger goals that are sabotaged by these things: a free market, a trusting society. If we are to succeed at our better goals, then we cannot do so by pretending things are other than what they are.

I probably hate Zynga more than you do, since they basically killed my dreams of entering the industry on my terms. But I don't let my hatred make me blind and stupid to the point where I no longer understand what it means for something to work.

I don't hate zynga, I just think they're irrelevant, they add no value, they move nothing forward, they are a wealth redistribution scheme. What they do, doesn't 'work' in my book, so I don't care.

so what's the point of your original post that 'Zynga is in fact pulling cash' that's a fact, but so what? why should I care if I don't like how they're doing it? is there something i should take away from the fact that they make cash?

> why should I care if I don't like how they're doing it?

I don't know. Why are you posting in this thread? I wasn't responding to you in my initial reply and I haven't a clue how you managed to feel personally spoken to from it.

Why are you even in a comment thread about a company you consider irrelevant?

It's a public board and I'm responding to a public comment. What I'm asking is why you or anyone care that they're making shit loads of money, why is that so impressive, esp if you hate them? I'm in the thread to challenge folks to think beyond cash so there are fewer zyngas in the world, because that affects the business environemnt and that affects me.

Nobody said it was impressive, and they care only because it came up in the conversation. If you bothered to read the comment thread, you would see that Macha said:

>I understand Zynga even less now."

So saraid216 explained their motivation, i.e. that they're able to make money doing things like this.

Why exactly is my character relevant here?

your character is relevant because it's tied to how you choose to define what 'works'. i agree with your other comment making cash = making cash. but thats not what you said, you said works, which implies your only definition of working is making cash. i'm challenging that, i'm saying you get to choose how you define what works, and your choice of what 'works' means, is determined by your values.

Zynga is accomplishing their goals. Stop making this about you and your moral superiority by being overly picky about wording.

It's not about me, it's about accepting a shady company as a success so long as they accomplish their goal of making cash. Im making the case that there's more to a successful company than just making cash. We shouldnt be impressed simply because a company makes cash. It's not about superiority, just stating a challenging point of view. No need to take it personally.

You are the one that made it personal. saraid216 said that Zynga is getting what Zynga wants and you immediately pretended saraid216 was saying that it was something Zynga 'should' do and we couldn't criticize Zynga for it. Then you directly insulted saraid216's character. Get off your high horse and stop reacting to things people didn't say or mean.

You don't have to pretend someone disagrees with you just so you can post your point.

As a graphic designer, I can tell you that a detail like the wall height to tile size ratio is actually a very specifically chosen value based on a number of trade-offs and priorities, and not something easily arrived at because it just looks pretty good. Which isn't to say that a given ratio is inevitable (or that the match in this legal case is pure coincidence, it certainly is NOT), just that you may wish to be aware that you're short-changing the designers based on your lack of domain expertise.

Ok I'm rooting for EA in this. I think Zynga's been preying on smaller developers for years in this manner. Its about time they went head to head with an 800lb gorilla.

Zynga got its start by blatantly copying another company's game and they haven't stopped since. If there is any justice in this world they will eventually fail horribly and go bankrupt but I am not holding my breath.

Up to now they have chosen minnows who couldn't fight back but EA is a whole new ballgame.

So we're gonna side with Zynga on this because it is innovating by bringing The Sims to Facebook and EA is trying to block innovation with IP lawsuits here, right?

The Sims Social was already on Facebook.

The Ville was launched in June 2012[1]; the Sims Social was launched on August 9, 2011[2].

---------------

[1]http://investor.zynga.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=686775

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sims_Social

What does The Ville do that The Sims doesn't? Where are the aesthetics drastically different? Where do the two games behave differently.

The Ville has identical behavior to The Sims Social, and strikingly similar artwork.

Yeah, but, "identical behavior" and "strikingly similar" are not Copyright violations.

My comment was mainly in the context of the parent comment's implied contradiction between our apparent siding with EA here, but our siding with Android in Apple v. Android.

Change one word ("strikingly similar" to "substantially similar") and you have the very legal definition of a derivative work, an infringement on the original copyright (17 U.S.C. § 101).

> Yeah, but, "identical behavior" and "strikingly similar" are not Copyright violations.

Good thing you're not a lawyer.

Ferguson v National Broadcasting Co:

If the two works are so strikingly similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, 'copying' may be proved without a showing of access

If Zynga had 'prior access' and their resulting product is similar, then it's easy to prove an infringement.

I'll go with EA on this one. Zynga is perhaps the most unethical video game company I've come across in my 20+ years of gaming.

Hell no. This isn't like craigslist vs. padmapper because EA was never founded as a pseudo-charity and Zynga is not the little guy. Zynga with it's 60%-70% Cloned portfolio is the bad guy. EA's flaws are by accident and ignorance, Zynga's flaws are willful and on purpose.

I've noticed a lot of comments here state that "you can't copyright a genre". These are people who did NOT read the complaint or see the screenshots comparing The Ville with the Sims. GO and READ the complaint. Jesus, it's one click away. Just skim all the way through it and look at the pictures. It is blatant copying. No mistake. Pure facts. Cloning. Copyright infringement.

Zynga might have finally bit off more than it could chew. Lets hope it chokes and dies a miserable and embarrassing death.

It comes down to: did Zynga break the law as it currently stands (probably), is the law just (imo no).

These are multinational corporations. Applying labels like good-guy, bad-guy, underdog, etc are meaningless. The only question is whether they are lawful. Everything else is left to the consumer.

By the way, Zynga usually beats their competitors because in the long run their clones are better than the originals. Like it or not, but thats innovation.

edited for civility :)

By the way, Zynga usually beats their competitors because in the long run their clones are better than the originals. Like it or not, but thats innovation.

I think cross-advertising through their other games to their massive existing user base has much more to do with it.

because in the long run their clones are better than the originals.

Nonsense. Zynga just used it's position and money to better advertise, brand, & connect their games together using facebook as a marketing channel. MS did the same thing with Internet Explorer. IE had the highest market share all these years NOT because it was better than Netscape, Firefox, & Opera. But because MS used their position, money, and installed base. Once at the top, a monopoly is hard to overthrow.

More recently, that is true. But it doesn't explain how their early successes (poker, mafia wars, farmville) succeeded before they had the money and the market share to do those things. Back before they were a monopoly and back before they did cross-promos.

Zynga doesn't succeed on the quality of it's ripoffs. They succeed on their marketing, positioning, and copying.

So little guy vs big guy has relevance? I thought the law was what was relevant. Suggesting that the perpetrator of an act ought to be treated differently based on factors unrelated to the actual action seems wrong. If a poor homeless guy robs my house, I want him just as arrested as the rich guy that does it.

But, if we're supposed to be pulling for the little guy, then we should be supporting Apple against Samsung right? Samsung makes over twice Apple's yearly revenue. The blatant copying by Samsung of Apple (even down to icon colors and packaging design) is just as obvious as Zynga's ripoff.

The blatant copying by Samsung of Apple (even down to icon colors and packaging design) is just as obvious as Zynga's ripoff.

I honestly can't believe you that you think this could possibly be true. Then again, Apple fans can get pretty overzealous.

What are you an emotionless corporate suit? Of course little guy vs. big guy has relevance. Consumers are very emotional creatures. You might be logical but the world around you is not.

Why do you think we all flocked to Google and give it a chance back in early days of Lycos, Yahoo, MS, & AltaVista? It wasn't because we were educated about its new "page rank" algorithm. It was the story behind the company. The same thing that led us towards Facebook and Craigslist. It's NOT the only factor in using a service, the service has to be good obviously and provide something the others don't. But there are endless cases where being better doesn't bring home the bacon. It's the human element, the emotional factor that can win people over and get them to give you a try.

"Little guy" is simply a way of saying "ability to have empathy for". When a company is vulnerable, non aggressive, new, innocent, we tend to see them as something pure and beautiful that must be protected from a brutal world. like a flower. Cheesy I know, but it works.

Isn't this exactly the same as the Apple vs. Samsung wars? Although those involve patents and this involves copyright, it comes down to the same moral issue. Company #1 starts selling black glass slabs and company #2 clones themm in almost every respect.

At some fundamental level you either think that competition "should" involve innovation and/or original design in order to incentivise peopel to create original products, or you think that cloning look and feel is part of the market operating efficiently without artifical barriers.

It's similar, but has one fundamental difference.

The Apple vs. Android holy war spans many different devices, user interfaces, brands, packaging methods, and advertisements. Some Android phones copy the iPhone/iOS more than others. For example, I feel that the Galaxy S1 absolutely tries to copy many key aspects of iPhone and iOS, down to the device appearance, UI appearance, packaging, and marketing (in terms of visuals). However, I don't feel that many other phones (such as the Galaxy Nexus) resemble the iPhone to the amount that Apple wishes it did.

In contrast to that situation, this EA vs. Zynga battle is over one specific product, with defined features and aesthetics.

But raganwald wasn't talking about the "Apple vs Android holy war". He posted specifically about Apple vs Samsung which is about specific products.

>Company #1 starts selling black glass slabs and company #2 clones themm in almost every respect.

Except this is totally false since Samsung had black slab designs since 2006.

http://i.imgur.com/KPGYL.jpg

It's about as similar as a fish is to a bicycle. Apple are showing themselves as patent trolls - noone else is allowed to create a smart phone that has black glass and rounded corners, which is about as generic as you get. On the other hand, if you read the link above (the complaint), you will see that detailed feature, after detailed feature is copied (colours, layouts, mannerisms, interaction, selection screens, even the exact RGB colors of skin on characters). This is a complete clone superficially and in detail. I have lost a lost of respect for EA over the years, but they deserve to wipe the floor with Zynga over this case.

One caveat - Samsung clearly copied the phone icon (although this was obviously taken from the keypad of existing mobile phones), packaging and connector from Apple. This is more obvious, but -FAR- less significant to the product than what Apple "borrowed" from Sony/Jony.

Your wording gives the answer away.

Copying the many trivial details of a game down to specific color values is not the same thing as sharing a gross physical resemblance to a piece of glass with metal on the back and a screen with a grid of icons.

Zynga appears to be a serial copycat: http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/tiny-tower-developers-call-...

They have been down this path before: http://blog.games.com/2011/02/23/mafia-wars-zynga-digital-ch...

Many many many times: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-zynga-is-just-like-micros...

From my perspective, a fairy tale ending would be for EA to take Zynga to the cleaners, then cut a check to every independent label that Zynga has copied off in the past, or start some sort of fund for independent game companies. EA are still going to make a few bucks, but it will help the wider community.

EA pay developers? Can you ask for a unicorn, too?

Potentially they could win enough that paying the indie devs Zinga screwed would a.) cost a small amount of their settlement from the case and b.) be epic, epic PR

Don't get me wrong, I can't imagine them doing it, but there's certainly an argument for it.

I can't imagine them doing it either, but the PR would certainly be incredibly epic and a nod to the quality of the indie game scene.

PS: My introduction of "fairy tale ending" was chosen specifically to reinforce the unlikeliness!

Yeah this should turn into a class suit for the indie dev community.

This is all very reminiscent of the video game industry of the 80's, where everyone was making largely the same games and trying to figure out where they fit in the marketplace. Some lawsuits like this were successful, and others weren't. It's a tough call, though I tend to side with Zynga here.

Copyright on characters, art, text, code, and logos is great. We obviously don't want direct clones. But, Copyright applied to a genre and style of gameplay is ridiculous. We wouldn't have any of the great games we have today if those things were enforceable.

I'm not quite sure how you could mistake The Ville for The Sims. Besides both games being set in a buildable house with interactive objects, the games are largely completely different. From what I can tell, It doesn't even simulate people.

Imagine if in the 90's the makers of Dune 2 decided to sue everyone who made a game which looked like their RTS. I don't think Warcraft would have stood a chance!

They're suing for The Sims Social, not The Sims. In all honesty, I think the title should be edited to read 'The Sims Social' instead of 'The Sims'. They're very different games.

Stealing from dag11's comment below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Fin...

I'd say that's pretty blatant copying there.

Yeah, ouch. At first I was thinking some of the comparisons were going to be reaching but when even the x/y scale of objects is the same, that's pretty blatant.

In "The making of Warcraft part 1", one of Warcraft's developers says they used Dune 2's art assets as "programmer art" during Warcraft 1's development:

http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-making-of-warcraft-part-...

Thinking about this a little more in-depth now I actually can't believe that EA hasn't filed suit earlier. Maybe they were waiting and building a stronger case? Sim City was the definitive game of the late 90s - early 2000s, CityVille is a direct rip. Now with The Ville they are ripping off even more EA products.

By no means do I like the direction EA has gone in the past few years, they are very poorly regarded game company with bad leadership, but their IP is blatantly being ripped off.

I'm glad they're fighting back and if this goes to a jury trial, which I certainly hope it does, Zynga will be done. However, I think Zynga will most likely be taken off the NASDAQ long before a trial, their assets liquidated and the company will file for bankruptcy protection.

It's a shame so many investors, VCs, and etc. invest in companies like Zynga, but they're cashing out so it's a sound investment for them.

They were waiting for the easiest case to win.

EA knows this type of litigation is probably a waste of time, in terms of shutting down a particular game. But, it is probably at least partially a PR stunt to drive down Zynga's flailing stock price and hurt the long term outside capital outlook for Zynga. Smart move EA.

Zynga has been orienting its lawyers toward this eventuality as long as EA has been waiting for them to step into their trap.

Here's the trailer for The Ville: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXX6XvGBj4w

It definitely has a 'Sims' vibe to it.

Between choosing EA vs Zynga, I'll choose to side with the Lawyers on this one.

I'd flip a coin and then shoot myself.

Without-a-doubt Zynga is at fault here. Those who know the way Zynga works know this was intentional, you only have to look back on the plethora of allegations against Zynga about copying other people's games and Facebookatising them to make money. As much as I loathe EA these days, nobody should have their hard earned work ripped off like that, I hope Zynga pays dearly for this. The RGB skin colour argument alone will be the end of them.

Whoever wins, we lose.

Seriously. A shitty company suing a shitty company using a shitty law.

It would be impossible for me to muster any less care about these two.

There is popcorn and schadenfreude available at the concession stand. Would that help?

Let me point out that the only people EA seems to screw over are the people dumb enough to work for them. Zynga goes out and rips off independent third parties.

So, I would lean toward rooting for EA on this one, but not because I like EA.

"the only people EA seems to screw over are the people dumb enough to work for them."

Or buy from them, but yes. They only screw you over if you choose to associate with them first.

I'm not sure who to root for in this case...

I believe it's called "casualties".

The best possible outcome IMO would be for Facebook to back Zynga and have EA and Zynga/Facebook sue each other into oblivion :D

Zynga is vile. But they're the good guys here, without argument. The idea that you can protect a game genre is nonsense, and terribly damaging. Imagine if Id sued Epic or Valve to kill Unreal and HL2? Imagine if Blizzard killed all the competing RTS? Imagine if Sony killed WoW?

Read the complaint. It's about blatant, element-for-element theft of creative expression, not about claiming ownership of a game genre.

This isn't about stealing from 'The Sims' franchise. It's stealing from the Facebook game, 'The Sims Social'. It's direct, not a matter of genre copyright.

It's not the genre that was copied, it was the exact behavior and appearance of the game.

Read this, or at least view the comparison images: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101954002/EA-v-Zynga-Complaint-Fin...

Wow, that's pretty remarkable. They even copied the RGB values for the possible character skin tones.

I find myself rooting for the lawyers involved on both sides, which makes me slightly uncomfortable.

I have an idea for a new game called 'Sue City', where you play the role of an office junior in a legal firm and have to complete tasks and make social and professional connections in order to earn promotions and eventially become a lawyer in a top corporate case involving two companies called Arpel and Sumsang.

Any takers?

Thanks for the idea. By the way, have you heard of my new product, Sue Ville?

I'm rooting for my popcorn.

Actually I just realized they can claim prior art. Zynga have been ripping off other games for so long without consequences that they can now claim this process is prior art...

Prior art is a concept in patent law, not copyright law.

yes I know - was just making a small joke, probably not apt as you point out!

Wonder if real life counts as prior art.

I think EA should also sue Zynga for its CityVille's resemblance to SimCity.

Except EA's new SimCity Social copies CityVille's "gameplay" exactly. It's like two snakes eating each other's tails.

SimCity Social was released almost a year before Zynga's game.

I'm reading that SimCity Social was released about six weeks ago; is that wrong or were you thinking of something else?

I made a mistake when answering. I should have written "The Sims Social". It was released a year ago and is the one EA claims Zynga copied.

I wonder if this is EA's (aggressive) opening to a Zynga acquisition.

I feel like Coke could probably make the same argument about Pepsi. There are plenty of examples of very similar products competing with one another in today's marketplace.

It seems like EA winning this could lead to a lot of anti-competitive activity down the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com