A sort of oddly opinionated article despite having little citation to it and being rather vague on events and timelines compared to some other pieces out there. I’d love to know why for example, the author finds it so clear that Pajitnov should not have won a copyright. I don’t have any stake in it myself, the claim just isn’t supported in the article. I think this is the 4th or 5th retelling of this story I’ve come across now.
Oh sure, I don’t necessarily disagree at all. I was mostly hoping for more detail in why - was the original court’s decision that the game’s production as work material or work hours wasn’t valid because it was in Soviet Union and that was either no longer in existence, or perhaps there was some other line of reasoning. I also think there’s been a tendency to create a bit of a narrative out of the whole situation, and I appreciate another view. I have heard of Gerasimov, you might like this short article (Edit: also linked below and quoted as I was typing this up, sorry) he wrote from I don’t remember how long ago, but I think I’ve read it before. For his part, he seems to feel here that pajitnov cut him out unfairly.
It's worth your time reading and comparing the earliest version of Garasimov's account, as it has been edited over the years under pressure from the other parties involved.
Most notably, when The Tetris Company decided to change the year of creation of Tetris, they requested Garasimov change it on his page, which he confirmed by email to somebody who asked about the reason.
I'm not sure this is the absolute earliest, but you get the idea <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060821183909/https://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20060821183909/https://vadim.ove...
And the earliest mention I can find of the dates if conception (not creation) is in A Japanese interview from 1989 before the facts started to be changed <a href="https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2025/02/03/tetris-date-of-conception-is-1984/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2025/02/03/tetris-date-of-co...
Jwillacyd · · focus · HN ↗
331c8c71 · · focus · HN ↗
And the copyright on tetris pieces is just ridiculous given the Colomb's publication and probably others.
I personally appreciated the write-up as it presents an alternative to the glossed up candy narrative that I have read and seen more than once.
Didn't know about Gerasimov either (who single-handedly coded up the DOS version it seems).
Jwillacyd · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm" rel="nofollow">https://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm
msephton · · focus · HN ↗
Most notably, when The Tetris Company decided to change the year of creation of Tetris, they requested Garasimov change it on his page, which he confirmed by email to somebody who asked about the reason.
I'm not sure this is the absolute earliest, but you get the idea <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060821183909/https://vadim.oversigma.com/Tetris.htm" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20060821183909/https://vadim.ove...
And the earliest mention I can find of the dates if conception (not creation) is in A Japanese interview from 1989 before the facts started to be changed <a href="https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2025/02/03/tetris-date-of-conception-is-1984/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.gingerbeardman.com/2025/02/03/tetris-date-of-co...