This is quite a hot one. Reading the document, EA do make a point about Zynga copying games. But then they all do. At no stage does Zynga rip-off any of the original's assets, all the graphics and code have been reconstructed, even if the game play is or is near identical.
I think Zynga did a better job of the graphics.
This is a copyright dispute where EA claim Zynga have a history of stifling innovation and creativity. I really hate EA with a passion and already boycott their products because they are ***** that stifle innovation and creativity. The hypocrisy of EA making the claim aside, I don't think they have a claim anyway.
Either way, the ruling on this one could set a dangerous precedent.
I'm of the opinion that commercial copyright should not exceed five years, because if you haven't turned a profit in five years, you never will. Therefore, I'd argue the game is not a rip off, it is merely a retelling of a common story-based game. (Which is based on the Game of Life board game anyway.)
If you wish to rule against making video game adaptions of board games, then that's so broadly stupid, you'd be banning how most video games go through prototyping.
Therefore, EA should focus on creating new games rather than rehashing old games endlessly.
(Which is what this lawsuit is all about, the exclusivity of sequels in a minimal innovation market.)