gamasutra.com
Additionally, the claims from the Tetris Company are very vague. "Geometric playing pieces formed by four equally-sized, delineated blocks." If other industries allowed this, we'd have nothing today. Imagine Dell suing IBM because IBM made a "portable computer with a screen attached to the keyboard by a hinge". Just because you can come up with words to describe something you've made doesn't mean you have the exclusive right to make that thing forever.
(I could come up with an example like this for nearly every real-life object I own, and every piece of software I use.)
Same train of thought here.
Most of their criteria could be applied to almost any 2d puzzle game in existence.
It was developed in the USSR and spread to the West, so the legal implications have always been a little bit muddy...
I got it as a gift with some magazine years ago (and lost it in the mean time) - but basically it tells the story about nintendo from the startup to the N64 era - quite many pages are related to tetris and negotiations with the Soviet Union.
Interesting story about IP in video games. I remember there was a discussion here and on gamedev I believe especially about tetris - how you could make a game and just call it something else than tris in the name and you'd be ok. Apparently not, even though OMGPOPs version from the screenshots looks like a blatant ripoff.
Edit: I don't mean to sound condescending, I am just explaining the reasoning behind either link or text, but not both.
Tetris has without a doubt been a huge leap for the puzzle-genre. But that was 24 years ago.
Should ID software be allowed to sue all other 3d shooter makers because they build on the Wolfenstein idea?
And how do you determine a clone, where do you draw the line? Is Dr.Mario a clone? What about the zillions of Bust-A-Move and Jewels variants (basically tetris in reverse)?