Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ubisoft Sues Apple and Google Over Distribution of Alleged 'Ripoff' Game
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Had to look up this one. If I'm guessing right are you implying this is a clone of Zelda? I've never played Zelda before. Maybe Nintendo has their hands full with their old user accounts being hacked and with such a demand for the Switch during this crisis lockdown their more than happy. If another version copies or 'inspired' from another Zelda game, Nintendo may pull the trigger.
I only owned a GameCube and was far too hooked on Sphynx, Spyro and Metroid Prime/Prime Echos
The app store has been a cesspit of knock off clone games for many years. That was GameLoft's entire business model for over a decade.
Ubisoft is acting a little bit crazy here.
As long as a game doesn't take sales away from other games because of sketchy tactics such as copying a brand name and pretending to be something that is not, I don't see any problem.
If games could be banned based on similarities with other games, there would be 20 games in the whole app store instead of several thousands.
By Ubisoft's own way of reasoning, not even Rainbow Six should be allowed to exist in a world with literally hundreds of tactical first-person shooter games.
As long as a game doesn't take sales away from other games because of sketchy tactics such as copying a brand name and pretending to be something that is not, I don't see any problem.
If games could be banned based on similarities with other games, there would be 20 games in the whole app store instead of several thousands.
By Ubisoft's own way of reasoning, not even Rainbow Six should be allowed to exist in a world with literally hundreds of tactical first-person shooter games.
Properly notified of what? That Ubisoft feels AF2 is a knockoff before an infringement ruling? That will sound absurd to a judge. If that burden of proof could be satisfied by confidently announcing, “See?? They look almost the same!!” then Apple would’ve trounced Samsung in round one back in 2011. After Ubisoft demonstrates in court that AF2 legally infringes, then they can request its removal. Ubisoft is transparently going after the easy, and wealthy, targets. If the responsible party for selling things that are felt to be knockoffs is the sales channel instead of the manufacturer, then Amazon had better watch its a$$. (And, ironically, if that precedent were set Apple probably would be first in line to sue it.)
Last edited:
But they’d probably totally leave whoever created the product with the infringing IP alone, right?
They’d ONLY go after Ubisoft, the unwitting accomplice, and leave the ACTUAL criminal at large, free to move on & bring their stolen product to a different distribution channel??
See how stupid it sounds when you extrapolate it out a bit?
Even if it was a American court, Ubisoft doesn't stand a strong chance. Look up Capcom(street fighter) vs data east (history fighter) https://kotaku.com/the-fighting-game-capcom-tried-to-get-pulled-from-arcad-1831460432
This is false. I have had many apps removed for alleged copyright infringement. Allow me to use all caps for emphasis: PERSONALLY and WITHOUT a court judgement. I was able to successfully fight off larger companies making copyright infringement claims, but it became not worth the effort and had dozens of apps removed over the years. Apple gets a complaint from a major company against a tiny developer. Apple sides with the major company. All without any court involvement. It does appear that Apple has a tendency to simply side with the larger company on IP disputes.
Additionally Apple's developer terms for the App Store include language that developers must not infringe on the copyright, IP, etc. of third parties. So your contention that Apple follows their rules and not copyright does not make sense as copyright is part of their rules.
If you believe Apple doesn't remove apps for copyright, you should make a small fortune distributing Disney movies through your $4.99 app (just base your company somewhere without an extradition treaty to the US).
They're not, but a store must take reasonable measures to ensure the products they're selling are legal.
This isn't true.
In practical terms, how is this supposed to happen? Or is there some citation stating this is Apple's responsibility.
6 years later and mobile apps are still trash. I rarely even go to App Store anymore unless I’m looking for a specific vendor app looool.
So much for the “iPad replacing the PC” prophecy looool
So much for the “iPad replacing the PC” prophecy looool
It wound't have mattered if Ubisoft filed a DMCA takedown request first, and they very well may have. It's up to the service provider to evaluate whether the request is legit. But, DMCA was intended to combat actual piracy, not copying of ideas or look and feel. If I were Apple or Google, I would have rejected the DMCA takedown request as inapplicable.
Meanwhile I constantly find new and useful apps. That's the great thing about it, we each find what we're want most. You find trash, I find nuggets.
[automerge]1589732136[/automerge]
I couldn't find any such notice trawling through Lumen.
Just like it happened in this story. Stage 1. Ubisoft notified them of their claim of IP infringement. At that point, both had to verify to the best of their ability, the veracity of the claim. Apparently, based on their reaction to Ubi's notification (not taking the app down), they didn't think the claim was valid.
Stage 2. Ubi thought their claim was valid and both companies were hosting infringing content. They sued to get them to remove the offending app. That's how we ended up where we are now, with possible court involvement.
Had Ubi produced convincing enough evidence in Stage 1, Apple and Google could have removed the app without court intervention. As I've said all along, they don't need the courts to remove an app. This could have been resolved among the three parties at Stage 1. It wasn't, which led to Stage 2... because Ubi didn't get a satisfactory result at Stage 1.
Apple can remove it if they want. It's simple Apple doesn't care because they want to make more (not lose it in a law suit) money and they know no one wants a court fight. I will note when I had my scuffle with Apple's App store I never had the same lawyer email me twice. Every time it was like starting all over again and essentially talking to a brick wall.
The capitalist world is a funny world, sue the same people who are your business partners like Apple battling Samsung in court while still buying iphone screens from them.
That being said, copy cat games have existed forever, maybe from the pacman days so why is Ubisoft upset now?
That being said, copy cat games have existed forever, maybe from the pacman days so why is Ubisoft upset now?
Ubisoft claims they copied an "expression of an idea". That would be copyright infringement. Copyright infringement can occur from copying of design elements. It doesn't have to be actual piracy of the bits.
I agree with what you have posted but, if Apple or Google have ever taken down apps from their apps stores in the past without a court indicating infringement then, they might have a problem in court. Consistency in application of a companies policies is key to fairness. I believe a typical example is with landlords. If you allow one renter to pay late then, you have to let all pay late. Otherwise, discrimination creeps in and is used to keep or evict certain kinds of tenants. Knowing the importance of China to Apple and Google's future profits I suspect that at the very least they want to make sure China knows they were forced to do this by the American government. This way Apple and Google can blame someone else and keep on good terms.
Fine. Let Ubisoft prove it’s a knock-off in court. Only after it’s proven counterfeit can they go after to remove it. Before that, the seems-to-us-that-it’s-unfair argument won’t go very far. Ubisoft is putting the cart before the horse, and the obvious reason is that the horse is Chinese and thus protected from IP litigation by its government.
Seems reasonable. Apps aren’t checked for copyright violations upon submission. I didn’t think your original post said that. Apple has to be notified.
Until UbiSoft proves in court that the game violates their copyright, Apple and Google have no way of knowing whether or not the game violate's UbniSoft's copyright by being too close of a copy.
As for the DCMA, UbiSOft can't claim they are the copyright holders of the material.
Just because there are millions of apps doesn't mean Apple isn't responsible for distribution of infringing content.
You don't lose your responsibilities because you got big.