Slingo

I noticed MSN Games has Slingo. The Slingo in SL is the same thing. Wouldn't there be a copyright infringement on the Slingo in SL

What was I suppose to get out of that link?

It's very curious.

Slingo was first created as an in-world SL game. It started in SL and spread from that. Now it's a whole brand of games.
When I started in Sl back in early 2007, Sligo was up there with Anse Chung as an example of people making it to big-time.

Now when I Google for the origins of Slingo, it seems that the SL origin has been erased.
SL simply isn't big enough compared to the multi-million reach that the Slingo marketing people are aiming at.

I guess that either that Microsoft doesn't own they copyright on Slingo or that one does need a license from Slingo, Inc. since the copyright cannot be considered to be in the public domain. I'm not sure how many Slingo machines are still in operation in Second Life since the wagering policy was implemented by Linden Lab (although it does violate the wagering policy Zyngo is not Slingo) but to the extent they are, unless the merchants have a license from Slingo, Inc. or one of its assignees, they are committing copyright infringement.

Slingo was created in 1995. Was Second Life up and running in 1995?

Slingo is much older than SL. Apparently it got its major start in AOL in the mid 1990's.

http://corporate.slingo.com/

Hmmmmm...

Now that I dig a bit, it seems I was remembering Tringo
http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2006/05/70945

Then I look for a reference to Tringo and Slingo together and find
http://thoughtfulmonkey.com/slgameslist/

"Touted as the "new Tringo", Slingo is basically Bingo, with 5 numbers called at a time. Numbers appear in a row, slot-machine style, and must be matched to the columns of the game board directly above them.

Despite the SL part of the name, it appears that Slingo has been around since 1996 on the PC platform."


Whatever......

But hey! All those in-world games that I didn't know about ..... I'll have to check them out

Some info about the game Slingo.

Your question struck me as if you thought the MSN game might be infringing on the SL game.

Presumably the "Sl" in "Slingo" comes from the word "slot" or "slots". The "ingo" comes from "Bingo".

Slingo appeared in 1995, Linden Lab was founded in 1999, and SL, so far as I know, appeared in 2002.

If you are suggesting that SL games named "SLingo" are infringing on the game you find at slingo.com, the yes, that is possible. The infringement is probably not copyright; if the name is infringing on something I'd think it would be a trademark infringement.

If the name had been constructed with the B from Bingo and the "ots" from "slots" the game's name would be "Bots", which might be just as confusing as Slingo".

---

I'll wager there's a tendency for SL users to use uppercase "SL" in non-SL related words by mistake, such as, "the roads are sure SLippery".

So considering this game has been around such a long time and that zyngo is pretty much the same game by a different name; is zyngo infringing their copyright?

I hear the zyngo creator makes a fair bit of $L so you'd think the original designers would interested in protecting their copyright and perhaps introducing their own version to SL.

The name Slingo is a trademark, not something copyrighted.

As for the "how to play", the rules of the game, Slingo, Inc. does have at least one patent.

Here's an url: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5647798/description.html

Patents, copyrights, and trademarks aren't the same thing.

The name is a matter of trademark law but programming is often the subject of copyright law. Whether the programming infringes is a matter for factual determination but the courts have come up with some pretty far fetched findings of fact in the past to capture programming under a copyright of claimant.

The trademark may be a moot point in SL since Slingo has been replaced by Zyngo but that's not a clear case either. The North Face trademark holder has a lawsuit against The South Butt. All joking aside about the likelihood of people confusing a face with a butt, the case is illustrative of how a different name in the same industry may still constitute infringement.