Is Flappy Bird Patented? Unraveling the Legal Status of the Addictive Game
The short answer is no, Flappy Bird was not patented. While the game’s creator, Dong Nguyen, did file for trademarks related to the game’s name, there is no evidence that he ever sought or obtained a patent for the game’s mechanics, code, or design. Let’s delve deeper into the fascinating, albeit short-lived, saga of Flappy Bird and its intellectual property status.
The Rise and Fall of a Mobile Phenomenon
Flappy Bird, developed by the Vietnamese game developer Dong Nguyen of .GEARS Studios, soared to unprecedented heights of popularity in early 2014. Its simple yet infuriatingly addictive gameplay quickly captivated millions, making it a global sensation. The game involved tapping the screen to make a bird flap its wings and navigate through a series of green pipes. The objective was simple: avoid hitting the pipes. The execution? Not so much.
However, this success was fleeting. Overwhelmed by the game’s addictive nature and the intense media attention, Nguyen made the shocking decision to pull Flappy Bird from app stores in February 2014. This act only fueled the game’s legend, creating a frenzy among those who had already downloaded it and sparking a wave of similar games hoping to capture a piece of the Flappy Bird magic. The dramatic removal of Flappy Bird illustrates the complex interplay between game design, market demand, and the personal well-being of developers, topics often explored at conferences like those hosted by the Games Learning Society.
Understanding Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright
To understand why Flappy Bird wasn’t patented (and likely couldn’t be), it’s crucial to distinguish between different types of intellectual property protection:
- Patents: Protect inventions, including new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. Patents give the inventor the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the invention for a set period (typically 20 years from the date of application).
- Trademarks: Protect brand names and logos used to identify and distinguish goods and services. Trademarks prevent others from using confusingly similar marks.
- Copyright: Protects original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, and certain other intellectual works. Copyright gives the author the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, display, and create derivative works.
In the case of Flappy Bird, Nguyen pursued trademark protection for the name “Flappy Bird” to prevent others from using the same name for similar games. This is why you often see disclaimers like “Flappy Bird: Remake” being careful to not infringe on any potential intellectual property rights. Copyright law would have automatically protected the game’s source code and artistic assets (like the bird’s sprite and pipe designs). However, the game mechanics themselves – the core gameplay loop of tapping to flap and avoid obstacles – are generally not patentable.
Why Not a Patent?
The reason Flappy Bird wasn’t patented boils down to the nature of patent law. To be patentable, an invention must be:
- Novel: It must be new and not already known to the public.
- Non-Obvious: It must not be an obvious modification or combination of existing technologies.
- Useful: It must have a practical application.
While Flappy Bird was certainly popular, its core mechanics were arguably not novel or non-obvious. Games with similar one-button gameplay and obstacle avoidance had existed before. Think of helicopter games or similar arcade-style challenges. Therefore, obtaining a patent for Flappy Bird would have been highly unlikely.
The Aftermath: Clones and Controversy
The removal of Flappy Bird from app stores created a vacuum that was quickly filled by countless clones. These games often mimicked the gameplay, art style, and even the name of Flappy Bird, leading to a surge of copyright and trademark infringement claims. While Nguyen could pursue legal action against games that directly copied his copyrighted assets (like the bird sprite), he couldn’t prevent others from creating games with similar gameplay mechanics. This highlights the limitations of intellectual property protection in the rapidly evolving world of mobile gaming. The legal and ethical dimensions of game development are important areas of study at institutions and are often explored in research presented at events supported by the GamesLearningSociety.org.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Flappy Bird and Intellectual Property
1. Did Dong Nguyen, the creator of Flappy Bird, attempt to get a patent?
There’s no publicly available information indicating that Dong Nguyen applied for a patent related to Flappy Bird. He primarily focused on trademark protection for the game’s name.
2. What kind of intellectual property protection did Flappy Bird have?
Flappy Bird had trademark protection for the game’s name (which was pending but never fully registered). It also had automatic copyright protection for its source code and artistic assets.
3. Can gameplay mechanics be patented?
Generally, gameplay mechanics are difficult to patent. Patent law typically focuses on novel and non-obvious inventions. Simple gameplay loops, like jumping and avoiding obstacles, are often considered too basic to qualify for patent protection.
4. What is considered copyright infringement in video games?
Copyright infringement occurs when someone copies a substantial portion of a copyrighted work without permission. In video games, this could include copying source code, art assets (characters, backgrounds, music), or even storylines.
5. How can game developers protect their intellectual property?
Game developers can protect their intellectual property through a combination of methods: trademarks for brand names and logos, copyright for source code and artistic assets, and patents for truly novel and non-obvious inventions.
6. Are “clone” games illegal?
Clone games are not inherently illegal. However, they can infringe on copyright or trademark law if they copy protected assets or use confusingly similar names.
7. What happened to the Flappy Bird trademark applications?
Although Dong Nguyen filed trademark applications for “Flappy Bird,” they remained pending. It’s likely that the applications were abandoned after Nguyen removed the game from app stores.
8. Why was Flappy Bird removed from app stores?
Dong Nguyen cited the game’s addictive nature and the overwhelming media attention as the reasons for removing Flappy Bird from app stores.
9. Is it legal to sell a phone with Flappy Bird installed?
While it might seem like a lucrative idea, selling a phone with Flappy Bird installed can be problematic. Most app store terms of service prohibit the transfer of apps. Furthermore, platforms like eBay often require devices to be factory reset before being sold.
10. How much were phones with Flappy Bird selling for?
At the height of the Flappy Bird craze, phones with the game installed were listed for exorbitant prices on eBay, sometimes reaching thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.
11. What are some games similar to Flappy Bird?
Many games attempted to replicate Flappy Bird’s addictive gameplay, including “Ironpants,” “Flappy Bee,” and “Splashy Fish.”
12. Did Nintendo sue Flappy Bird for its similarities to Super Mario?
No, Nintendo did not sue Flappy Bird. Despite some visual similarities, the gameplay mechanics were different enough to avoid any legal action.
13. How much money did the creator of Flappy Bird make?
At its peak, Flappy Bird was reportedly generating $50,000 per day in advertising revenue for Dong Nguyen.
14. What is the rule for Flappy Bird?
The main rule of Flappy Bird is to tap the screen to make the bird flap its wings and avoid hitting the pipes.
15. What makes a game addictive?
Several factors can contribute to a game’s addictive nature, including simple gameplay, a sense of progress, immediate feedback, and a constant challenge. Flappy Bird, with its easy-to-learn but difficult-to-master mechanics, perfectly embodied these elements.
In conclusion, while Flappy Bird did not have a patent, its success (and subsequent removal) serves as a compelling case study in intellectual property, game design, and the unpredictable nature of the mobile gaming market.