Well, the issue probably isn't as clear-cut as the title implies. Very little is clear-cut when it comes to copyright. This iOS game might or might not infringe, but nobody knows, not Atari, not the game writer, until a court gives a verdict, and the appeals settle. There aren't any real rules, just court judgements. This might qualify as fair use, or maybe even just "not infringing". The latter might be the case under a very strict "idea vs implementation" dichotomy.
This vagueness makes copyright claims into the ideal weapon for "rightsholders" like Atari. Copyright claims are also a bonanza for specialist lawyers, as they get paid either way the judgement turns out.
You are right. Life is easier for large companies.
I was only focusing on what I perceived as a slight bias in the reporting (both summary and link to what is one side's presentation of the facts).
Put it differently: everyone is a rightsholder. Imagine an hypothetical HN story about a California-based indie developer who witnesses his iOS game ripped off and cloned to the point of consumer confusion by Chinese development workshops as soon as he has a little bit of success. I may assume that the HN consensus would be that Apple shouldn't force him to go to court before removing the offending copycats from the app store, and that Apple would not be removing them quickly enough.
Justice is not about rooting for the guy that most resembles you.
Personally I'd apply the same logic in that case: copyright covers specific expressions/implementations of an idea, not the idea itself. I agree with you that the law (or in this case vague approximations to the law as implemented by random and capricious App Store policies) should remain the same no matter who you apply it to.
This vagueness makes copyright claims into the ideal weapon for "rightsholders" like Atari. Copyright claims are also a bonanza for specialist lawyers, as they get paid either way the judgement turns out.