Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com Joystiq http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/http://www.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/<![CDATA[NovaLogic sues Activision over use of 'Delta Force']]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/17/novalogic-sues-activision-over-use-of-delta-force/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/17/novalogic-sues-activision-over-use-of-delta-force/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/17/novalogic-sues-activision-over-use-of-delta-force/#comments ImageNovaLogic, the developer behind 1998's PC FPS Delta Force and its subsequent sequels, has filed suit against Activision over the inclusion of its own "Delta Force" in Modern Warfare 3. As you can see in the tastefully photoshopped comparison image above, Acti's Delta Force logo (right) bears a striking resemblance to NovaLogic's - additionally, NovaLogic owns a trademark on the words "DELTA FORCE."

"Despite Activision's irrefutable knowledge of NovaLogic's superior trademark rights," reads the complain, "Activision created knockoff marks that are nearly identical [to] NovaLogic's design and word marks. Activision then shamelessly inserted these infringing marks throughout its competing first person military adventure video games." The complaint also makes reference to the various Modern Warfare 3-branded headsets, Xboxen and strategy guides in production that feature Activision's Delta Force logo.

Both NovaLogic and Activision's fictional Delta Force teams are based on the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, a counter-terrorism branch of the United States military. NovaLogic claims that Activision's inclusion of a Delta Force in MW3 has caused NovaLogic to lose millions, and that if "infringing practices are not discontinued quickly, it is likely that the damage to NovaLogic will grow exponentially, causing more confusion in the market place, and to the reputation for quality that NovaLogic has worked so hard to establish." The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and also calls for an injunction to protect against further trademark infringement.

JoystiqNovaLogic sues Activision over use of 'Delta Force' originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>Activisioncall-of-duty-modern-warfare-3delta-forcelawlawsuitlegalmodern-warfare-3NovaLogicThu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Motorola granted injunction against Xbox 360 sales in Germany, not as dramatic as it sounds]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/03/motorola-granted-injunction-against-xbox-360-sales-in-germany-n/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/03/motorola-granted-injunction-against-xbox-360-sales-in-germany-n/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/05/03/motorola-granted-injunction-against-xbox-360-sales-in-germany-n/#comments ImageA German court has granted Motorola Mobility an injunction against the sale and/or distribution of the Xbox 360 in Germany, as well as copies of Windows 7, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, following a ruling that some of Microsoft's products violate patents that pertain to the H.264 video codec and are held by Motorola.

Were Motorola to enforce this injunction, it would mean that Microsoft would lose the ability to sell its flagship products in Deutschland until the matter of Motorola's patents is settled, which would be a Very Big Deal[TM]. Thing is, though, Motorola is currently prohibited from enforcing the injunction due to a restraining order issued by an American judge in Seattle.

Microsoft argued that Motorola is abusing its "Frand-commitments," which are essentially a pinky swear that a massive company makes to the world when it is in possession of a universally required piece of technology, wherein it commits to providing licenses for said technology at "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" rates. Microsoft says that Motorola's asking price goes beyond fair and reasonable, so the judge issued the restraining order to prevent the injunction from happening until the case can be heard, which is currently scheduled to happen on May 7.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is also appealing the German court's decision, and thanks to the restraining order from the American judge, it'll be able to conduct business as usual during that process. Patent infringement cases like this are all about applying pressure on both sides until one of the companies involved cracks, so we doubt that Motorola ever actually expected that it'd be able to enforce a successful injunction. The fact that it happened at all, however, despite being nullified, adds another layer of trouble and stress to Microsoft's half of the situation.

It's a lot like vs. Dr. Mario, but with slightly more money involved.

JoystiqMotorola granted injunction against Xbox 360 sales in Germany, not as dramatic as it sounds originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 03 May 2012 14:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>germanyh-264injunctionlawlawsuitlegalmicrosoftMotorolaMotorola-MobilitypatentpcxboxThu, 03 May 2012 14:45:00 EST<![CDATA[New York State removes sex offenders from Xbox Live]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/05/new-york-state-removes-sex-offenders-from-xbox-live-more/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/05/new-york-state-removes-sex-offenders-from-xbox-live-more/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/04/05/new-york-state-removes-sex-offenders-from-xbox-live-more/#comments New York will be removing the state's registered sex offenders from several online gaming services, NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has announced. As part of "Operation: Game Over," over 3,500 of accounts have been removed from various gaming services run by "Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Disney, Warner Bros. and Sony."

The purge was done with the consent of each company. Xbox Live is the only service explicitly mentioned in the press release, though each company certainly has recognized services, including PlayStation Network, Origin, Game Center, Battle.net, etc.

The press release notes that New York law requires sex offenders to provide the state with email addresses and screen names, which can then "be made available to certain websites so they can purge potential predators from their online networks." This marks the first time the law has been applied to gaming services. Vice president and deputy general counsel Rich Wallis noted that the company is "supportive of Attorney General Schneiderman's efforts to make the Internet, including online gaming environments like Xbox LIVE, safer for everyone."

This isn't the first time that A.G. Schneiderman has delved into the world of video games. He also subpoenaed Sony regarding the PlayStation Network security breach last year.

Continue reading New York State removes sex offenders from Xbox Live

JoystiqNew York State removes sex offenders from Xbox Live originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>eric-schneidermangamecenteriosipadiphonelawlegalmacmicrosoftmobilenew-yorkpcplaystationplaystation-networkps3psnxboxxbox-liveThu, 05 Apr 2012 16:40:00 EST<![CDATA[Game on: NFL likeness lawsuit against EA moving forward]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/31/game-on-nfl-likeness-lawsuit-against-ea-moving-forward/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/31/game-on-nfl-likeness-lawsuit-against-ea-moving-forward/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/31/game-on-nfl-likeness-lawsuit-against-ea-moving-forward/#comments A motion filed by EA to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed against it by 6,000 retired NFL players has failed, reports Gamasutra. As you'll recall, the players that filed the suit claimed that their likenesses were used in Madden 09 without permission or compensation. While the player's names and numbers were changed, vital and identifiable statistics were left unchanged.

Rather than argue that it in fact didn't replicate real-world players without authorization, EA's motion to dismiss postulated that Madden 09's use of player likenesses was covered by the First Amendment, and therefore did not require consent or compensation. Since this motion was denied, the case will move on to court. Plaintiffs are seeking legal fees, damages and all profits generated through the use of said plaintiffs' likenesses.

JoystiqGame on: NFL likeness lawsuit against EA moving forward originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>class-actionClass-actionLawsuitdsEAlawlawsuitlegalMadden-09Madden-NFL-09microsoftnintendoplaystationps3pspsonywiixboxSat, 31 Mar 2012 14:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Timegate wins arbitration dispute against SouthPeak]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/28/timegate-wins-arbitration-dispute-against-southpeak/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/28/timegate-wins-arbitration-dispute-against-southpeak/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/28/timegate-wins-arbitration-dispute-against-southpeak/#comments Texas district Judge Keith Ellison has invalided an arbitrator's ruling that ordered Section 8 developer Timegate to repay the game's publisher, SouthPeak, $7.3 million in allegedly misused development funds. The ruling also rewrote Timegate's publishing contract with SouthPeak, granting SouthPeak a permanent license for Section 8's IP and its sequels.

The arbitrator's decision was thrown out on the grounds that the rewritten publishing contract did not match the intent of the original document. Arbitrators are allowed to rewrite legally binding agreements, but only so long as the resulting agreement matches the spirit of the original document. Timegate and SouthPeak's original publishing agreement was very clear that Timegate would retain all IP rights for the brand -- changing this was beyond the scope of the original contract's intent and was therefore inappropriate.

This all started back in the neolithic caveman days of 2009, when Timegate sued SouthPeak, claiming that the publisher had altered revenue reports in order to retain royalties meant for Timegate, which is embezzlement.

SouthPeak countersued, claiming that Timegate fraudulently misrepresented itself in order to convince SouthPeak (which acquired original Section 8 publisher Gamecock) to enter into the publishing agreement. It also claimed that Section 8's lackluster retail performance was solely Timegate's fault, and that Timegate had failed to contribute a required $2.5 million in development funds, misused the $7.5 million in development funds provided by SouthPeak, and failed to give SouthPeak revenue from Section 8's PC sequel and PS3 port.

This tale is likely far from over, however, as SouthPeak still has the ability to appeal Judge Ellison's ruling.

JoystiqTimegate wins arbitration dispute against SouthPeak originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>arbitrationlawlawsuitlegalmicrosoftpcplaystationps3Section-8southpeaktimegateTimeGate-StudiosxboxWed, 28 Mar 2012 22:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Politicians propose cigarette warning labels for games]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/21/politicians-propose-cigarette-warning-labels-for-games/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/21/politicians-propose-cigarette-warning-labels-for-games/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/21/politicians-propose-cigarette-warning-labels-for-games/#comments A bipartisan bill has been introduced that would, if passed, require cigarette-esque warning labels on video games. Authored by house reps Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Joe Baca (D-CA), the Violence in Video Games Labeling Act (H.R. 4204) would require all games rated "E" or higher, regardless of actual content, to bare a label that reads "WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior."

This isn't the first time Wolf and Baca have tried to introduce such legislation; "The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009" was essentially the same bill, although it only applied to games rated "T" and up. Its proposed warning label also made mention of "other violent media," which is absent from the dynamic duo's latest draft.

"Representative Baca's facially unconstitutional bill -- which has been introduced to no avail in each of six successive Congressional sessions, beginning in 2002 -- needlessly concerns parents with flawed research and junk science," says ESA representative Rich Taylor in a statement to Gamasutra.

Taylor goes on to say that the supporting evidence used by Baca in the past has been "exhaustively reviewed" by "numerous medical experts, research authorities, and courts across the country, including the United States Supreme Court," which collectively found the data "lacking and unpersuasive."

Baca's resolve, however, refuses to waiver. "The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families and to consumers to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products," Baca told The Hill. "They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility."

When asked to comment, a fictional ESRB representative said "What am I, chopped liver?"

JoystiqPoliticians propose cigarette warning labels for games originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>3dsdsFrank-WolfHR-4204joe-bacalawlegallegislationmacmicrosoftnintendopcplaystationplaystation-vitaps3pspsonyViolence-in-Video-Games-Labeling-ActvitawiixboxWed, 21 Mar 2012 17:45:00 EST<![CDATA[California out nearly $2 million on failed video game legislation]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/california-out-nearly-2-million-on-failed-video-game-legislatio/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/california-out-nearly-2-million-on-failed-video-game-legislatio/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/22/california-out-nearly-2-million-on-failed-video-game-legislatio/#comments When California agreed to foot the Entertainment Software Association's $950,000 legal bill accrued during its deconstruction of Brown v. EMA, we estimated the state's cumulative payout to the ESA at around $1,327,000. Once you factor in the state's own legal costs, however, California's total payout for attempting to regulate the sale of violent games to minors rings up at a cool $1.8 million, according to The Sacramento Bee.

Billable hours accrued by lawyers working for the state add an estimated $500,000 to the failed legislation's price tag, which has been slowly growing since the state decided to appeal the bill's initial injunction way back in 2007. Considering that California's budget deficit is projected to reach somewhere around $22 billion this year, two million bucks doesn't seem like all that much in comparison. It's like tossing a box of matches into a burning building: What are you gonna do, set it more on fire?

JoystiqCalifornia out nearly $2 million on failed video game legislation originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:15:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaEntertainment-software-associationESAlawlegalreimbursementWed, 22 Feb 2012 20:15:00 EST<![CDATA[Zynga sued for patent infringement]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/13/zynga-sued-for-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/13/zynga-sued-for-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/13/zynga-sued-for-patent-infringement/#comments Zynga is being sued again, but not for any of the reasons you're probably thinking of. Personalized Media Communications, an intellectual properties company that makes its living by licensing its plethora of patents to various technology companies, has filed suit against the social mogul, alleging that Zynga's headlining titles infringe upon four of its patents.

The patents in question cover a wide range of exceedingly vague situations, from "controlled access of media content" to "personalized content based on individual attributes" and "the use of control and information signals embedded in electronic media content to generate output for display that is personalized and relevant to a user."

If you're thinking "Well gosh, those sound like they could potentially apply to literally everything on the whole Internet," that's the whole point. After countless billable hours and several appeals, this will either end with Zynga signing a licensing agreement with PMC and paying a potentially substantial amount of back license fees determined by the court, or PMC's patents will be deemed as either inapplicable or too vague, at which point everyone goes home. Either way, some lawyers are getting paid.

JoystiqZynga sued for patent infringement originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>iosipadiphonelawlawsuitlegalmacmobilepcpersonalized-media-communicationsPMCzyngaMon, 13 Feb 2012 22:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Triple Town developer sues over iOS knock-off]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/29/triple-town-developer-sues-over-ios-knock-off/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/29/triple-town-developer-sues-over-ios-knock-off/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/29/triple-town-developer-sues-over-ios-knock-off/#comments Spry Fox, a social developer most recently known for its Facebook game Triple Town, has filed a copyright-infringement lawsuit against iOS development house 6Waves LOLAPPS (seriously) over Yeti Town, a mobile app that Spry Fox CEO David Edery claims is almost an exact duplicate of his company's product.

"We're not just talking about the game's basic mechanics here," Edery said in a statement made on his personal blog. "We're talking about tons of little details, from the language in the tutorial, to many of our UI elements, to the quantities and prices of every single item in the store." What's more, Spry Fox was in confidential, NDA-protected negotiations with 6Waves LOLAPPS to publish Triple Town, right up until the day Yeti Town was released.

As part of their negotiations, Spry Fox had given 6Waves months of private access to Triple Town during its closed beta test. "It's bad enough to rip off another company. To do so while you are pumping them for private information (first, our game design ideas, and later, after the game was launched on Facebook, our private revenue and retention numbers) is profoundly unethical by any measure."

Mobile rip-offs have become fairly commonplace these days, so its refreshing to see a small developer aggressively try to protect its intellectual property. The outcome of this case will be unlikely to set any legal precedents, but if the courts weigh in Spry Fox's favor, it could be enough to discourage iOS counterfeiting in the future.

[ER 09 via Shutterstock]

JoystiqTriple Town developer sues over iOS knock-off originally appeared on Joystiq on Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>6waves-Lolappsandroidfacebookiosipadiphonelawlawsuitlegalmacmobilepcspry-foxtriple-townyeti-townSun, 29 Jan 2012 19:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Microsoft files complaint over fake Halo 4 beta domain]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/28/microsoft-files-complaint-over-fake-halo-4-beta-domain/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/28/microsoft-files-complaint-over-fake-halo-4-beta-domain/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/28/microsoft-files-complaint-over-fake-halo-4-beta-domain/#comments Believe it or not, there are evil people on the Internet who use misinformation and deception to steal from the innocent and well-meaning. We know, we couldn't believe it either, but it's the truth, as recently demonstrated by an outbreak of fake Halo 4 beta test invites.

343 Industries' creative director David Ellis was quick to debunk the bogus site, but the URL used in the phishing scam (halo4beta dot net) is still out there, tempting fate with its Halo-oriented name and un-Microsoftness. Who knows what nefarious maleficence the domain could be used for if left in the wild, so Microsoft has filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum in order to have the domain name transferred to its ownership.

In situations like this, the company filing the complaint has to be able to prove that the domain in question was registered maliciously in order for the Forum to decide in its favor. Under the circumstances, we feel like global fraud will probably be malicious enough to sway things in Microsoft's favor.

JoystiqMicrosoft files complaint over fake Halo 4 beta domain originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>343-Industriesbeta-invitesdomainfakehalo-4halo-4-betalawlegalmicrosoftnational-arbitration-forumxboxSat, 28 Jan 2012 19:00:00 EST<![CDATA[EA claims First Amendment protections against expected helicopter lawsuit]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/ea-claims-first-amendment-protections-against-expected-helicopte/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/ea-claims-first-amendment-protections-against-expected-helicopte/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/ea-claims-first-amendment-protections-against-expected-helicopte/#comments Electronic Arts is seeking First Amendment protections in an upcoming legal dispute with the maker of military helicopters featured in Battlefield 3. Kotaku reports that Textron, the parent company of Bell Helicopters, asked EA on December 21 to cease the depictions of three of its aircraft found in Battlefield 3. Last Friday, EA did a pre-emptive tactical suit against Textron, saying the helicopters are "protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use."

EA states that the Bell helicopters aren't highlighted or given any great distinction in the game. The publisher also claims the aircraft are just "a few of countless creative visual, audio, plot and programming elements that make up EA's expressive work, a first-person military combat simulation."

The publisher won a similar suit last year against Ex-Rutgers University quarterback Ryan Hart, who believed his likeness was used in NCAA Football without consent. The judge felt EA's First Amendment rights to free expression outweighed Hart's right to protect his likeness, despite the character in the game having "Hart's physical attributes, sports statistics, and biographical information in mind."

Speaking of First Amendment protections, Electronic Arts claims it has no individual position on SOPA, but wants the law to bail it out here ... mmm, chewy irony.

JoystiqEA claims First Amendment protections against expected helicopter lawsuit originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:16:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>battlefield-3bell-helicoptersBusinessEAElectronic-Artslawlawsuitmicrosoftpcplaystationps3textronxboxMon, 09 Jan 2012 21:16:00 EST<![CDATA[Bethesda settles all Fallout IP related lawsuits]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/bethesda-settles-all-fallout-ip-related-lawsuits/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/bethesda-settles-all-fallout-ip-related-lawsuits/http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/bethesda-settles-all-fallout-ip-related-lawsuits/#comments Bethesda Softworks and Interplay have reached a settlement in their protracted dispute over the rights to the Fallout IP, specifically in regards to an MMO, which Interplay announced five years ago. Bethesda states that as part of the settlement the "license granted to Interplay to develop the Fallout MMO is null and void, and all rights granted to Interplay to develop a Fallout MMO revert back to Bethesda, effective immediately."

Bethesda parent company ZeniMax will pay Interplay $2 million "as consideration in the settlement," each side will pay its own legal fees, and Bethesda will retain rights to the Fallout intellectual property. Interplay has no ongoing right to the Fallout brand nor any Fallout intellectual property.

Finally, Interplay's rights to sell Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics will expire in December 2013, along with any other merchandising rights it had in association with those properties.

Continue reading Bethesda settles all Fallout IP related lawsuits

JoystiqBethesda settles all Fallout IP related lawsuits originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bethesda-softworksfallout-onlineinterplaylawmicrosoftpcplaystationps3xboxzenimax-mediaMon, 09 Jan 2012 17:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Apple and Microsoft join Nintendo et al in support of Internet-censorship bill]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/20/apple-and-microsoft-join-nintendo-et-al-in-support-of-internet-c/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/20/apple-and-microsoft-join-nintendo-et-al-in-support-of-internet-c/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/20/apple-and-microsoft-join-nintendo-et-al-in-support-of-internet-c/#comments Initially we though Apple and Microsoft had come out in support of sopaipillas, the delicious and flaky fried pastry treat served in parts of Central and South America, as well as the North American Southwest. Imagine our surprise when we discovered that what they're actually supporting is the far less scrumptious SOPA, or "Stop Online Piracy Act" which Nintendo, EA and Sony have already put their weight behind.

The supporting statement didn't come from Apple or Microsoft directly, but rather through the Business Software Alliance; a trade group that represents both Apple and Microsoft, as well as other tech giants such as Adobe, McAfee, Dell and Symantec. Meanwhile, Internet-technology companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Zynga have taken a vocal anti-sopaipilla anti-SOPA stance, going so far as to purchase a full-page ad in the New York Times.

We're pretty worried this bill is going to pass, truth be told, so we're going to take this opportunity to say everything we won't be able to say once Internet censorship becomes the norm. Okay, ready?

Hey Internet, [REMOVED].

JoystiqApple and Microsoft join Nintendo et al in support of Internet-censorship bill originally appeared on Joystiq on Sun, 20 Nov 2011 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>applebilllawlegalmacmicrosoftmobilenintendopcSOPAstop-online-piracy-actSun, 20 Nov 2011 13:30:00 EST<![CDATA[EA facing class-action lawsuit over lack of BF 1943 in BF3]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/19/ea-facing-class-action-lawsuit-over-lack-of-bf-1943-in-bf3/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/19/ea-facing-class-action-lawsuit-over-lack-of-bf-1943-in-bf3/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/11/19/ea-facing-class-action-lawsuit-over-lack-of-bf-1943-in-bf3/#comments Remember how EA originally planned to include a free copy of Battlefield 1943 with every new PS3 copy of Battlefield 3? So do a lot of other people, and they're so upset over EA's replacement "bonus" that they've filed a class-action lawsuit against the publisher, according to Kotaku.

Rather than monetary compensation, the firm representing those involved with the lawsuit (Edelson McGuire) is looking only for the free copies of Battlefield 1943 originally advertised; a promise which EA "could not, and never intended, to keep," according to the firm. As is the way with any legal proceeding involving the entertainment industry, it'll likely be years before any sort of progress is made in either direction.

JoystiqEA facing class-action lawsuit over lack of BF 1943 in BF3 originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>battlefield-1943battlefield-3BF3class-actionDLCEAlawlawsuitlegalplaystationps3Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Supreme Court delegates Brown v. EMA expenses ruling to Ninth Circuit]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/04/supreme-court-delegates-brown-v-ema-expenses-ruling-to-ninth-ci/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/04/supreme-court-delegates-brown-v-ema-expenses-ruling-to-ninth-ci/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/04/supreme-court-delegates-brown-v-ema-expenses-ruling-to-ninth-ci/#comments Legal representation ain't cheap, especially when your squad of top-notch lawyers are defending your industry/community's constitutional rights of expression. Apparently, setting legal precedent racks up a $1.4 million tab, and the Entertainment Merchants Association has requested that the bill be covered by the state of California, since they lost and everything.

Now that all the fun important history making stuff is over, though, it seems the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than figure out whose millions of dollars belong to which lawyers. As a result, the task of approving/denying the EMA's request has been delegated to the Ninth Circuit Court.

Now that we think about it, does California even have $1.4 million to lose at this point? Call us crazy, but dine-and-dashing on the Supreme Court probably isn't possible.

JoystiqSupreme Court delegates Brown v. EMA expenses ruling to Ninth Circuit originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>9th-circuit-court-of-appealsbrowncaliforniaEMAema-v-brownentertainment-merchants-associationlawlegalninth-circuit-courtSupreme-CourtTue, 04 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Bethesda denied restraining order against Fallout MMO co-dev Masthead]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/24/bethesda-denied-restraining-order-against-fallout-mmo-co-dev-mas/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/24/bethesda-denied-restraining-order-against-fallout-mmo-co-dev-mas/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/24/bethesda-denied-restraining-order-against-fallout-mmo-co-dev-mas/#comments Legal battles, while academically interesting, are totes boring, even when they carry heavy implications for the future of a franchise, or even the industry as a whole. The monotony can turn something interesting into something no one cares about, so we're thankful that the Honorable John F. Walter has delivered an atomic buster's worth of smackdown to the ongoing case of Bethesda v. Everyone Else.

Bethesda had sought a temporary restraining order against Fallout Online co-developer Masthead Studios, claiming that the company had illegally sublicensed Bethesda's intellectual property from Interplay. The court disagrees, however, and has denied Bethesda's ex-parte application, with Judge Walter essentially telling Bethesda that it's made its bed, and now it's going to lie in it:

"Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably prejudiced if the requested ex parte relief is not granted, or that it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief. Indeed, Plaintiff was aware as early as February 2011 that Masthead was potentially infringing its copyrights. ... Yet, Plaintiff waited seven months to apply for ex parte relief. The Court finds that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking relief, and that the emergency that allegedly justifies a TRO is self-created."
Yowch. Considering that this is the second injunction request denied of Bethesda since this whole thing began, things are starting to look pretty good for Fallout Online. Is anyone else weirded out by the United States Government actively defending a series based on its complete and total destruction? Just us? Okay.

JoystiqBethesda denied restraining order against Fallout MMO co-dev Masthead originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bethesdaBethesda-Softworksfallout-onlineInterplaylawlawsuitlegalmastheadmasthead-studiospcsmackdownSat, 24 Sep 2011 11:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Australia finally getting its R18+ rating]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/10/australia-finally-getting-its-r18-rating/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/10/australia-finally-getting-its-r18-rating/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/10/australia-finally-getting-its-r18-rating/#comments
Australia is finally getting an R18+ classification for video games, meaning that games deemed unacceptable for minors under 15 can be sold in the country. Minister for Justice Brendan O'Connor announced today that the New South Wales Attorney-General, who was the only censorship minister to abstain from last month's vote, has given his "in-principle support" for the new rating.

"I am delighted that NSW has decided to support what is not just a practical public policy, but a very popular policy," said O'Connor. "Once introduced, the new classification will also afford adults the opportunity to view material designed for adults."

Draft guidelines presented at the prior meeting have since been amended, requiring approvals from some jurisdiction's cabinets. The government is moving forward to introduce the new classification, which it had previously hoped to have available by year's end.

[Thanks, Shane.]

JoystiqAustralia finally getting its R18+ rating originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>australialawmicrosoftnintendopcplaystationps3r18wiixboxWed, 10 Aug 2011 10:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Minecraft studio threatened with suit by Bethesda over 'Scrolls' title]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/05/minecraft-studio-being-sued-by-bethesda-over-scrolls-title/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/05/minecraft-studio-being-sued-by-bethesda-over-scrolls-title/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/05/minecraft-studio-being-sued-by-bethesda-over-scrolls-title/#comments Not exactly unexpectedly, about four hours ago Markus "Notch" Persson -- creator of Minecraft and head of Mojang Specifications -- received a letter from a Swedish law firm representing Bethesda Softworks. It claimed that his company's trademark of the word "Scrolls" for use with a currently-in-development game was infringing on Bethesda's own trademark, "The Elder Scrolls," and requested "a pile of money up front" before things could proceed. But Notch could've guessed it was coming.

Writing on his Tumblr page, Notch explains that "about half a year ago," his company's legal team suggested registering "Minecraft" as a trademark. In the process, Mojang also filed to register "Scrolls," killing two birds with one stone. Notch writes that "A while later, out of the blue, we got contacted by Bethesda's lawyers. They wanted to know more about the 'Scrolls' trademark we were applying for, and claimed it conflicted with their existing trademark 'The Elder Scrolls.'" At the time, Mojang responded by offering what Notch calls a compromise: "We'd agree to never put any words in front of 'Scrolls,' and instead call sequels and other things something along the lines of 'Scrolls - The Banana Expansion.'" In his piece, he says that he's not sure if Mojang ever heard back.

Fast-forward to this afternoon, and a "15-page letter" from a Swedish law firm, on behalf of Bethesda, arrives for Notch (pictured above). He says it's threatening a lawsuit if Mojang refuses "to stop using the name 'Scrolls,'" and that Bethesda will sue should that be necessary. Regardless of the current situation, Notch notes at the top of his piece, "I love Bethesda. I assume this nonsense is partly just their lawyers being lawyers, and a result of trademark law being the way it is." Here's hoping that compromise works out, and Notch is somehow legally bound to name the first Scrolls DLC "The Banana Expansion."

Update: This piece was originally headlined "Minecraft studio being sued by Bethesda over 'Scrolls' title," and has since been amended to more accurately reflect the situation.

JoystiqMinecraft studio threatened with suit by Bethesda over 'Scrolls' title originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bethesdabethesda-softworkslawlawsuitlawyerslegalmarkus-perssonmojangmojang-specificationsnotchscrollstrademarkFri, 05 Aug 2011 16:20:00 EST<![CDATA[USA Today: EA could lose over $1B in NCAA athlete suit]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/03/usa-today-ea-could-lose-over-1b-in-ncaa-athlete-suit/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/03/usa-today-ea-could-lose-over-1b-in-ncaa-athlete-suit/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/03/usa-today-ea-could-lose-over-1b-in-ncaa-athlete-suit/#comments USA Today has calculated that Electronic Arts could face $1 billion in damages if it eventually loses a class-action lawsuit brought against the publisher and the NCAA by former college athletes. The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for two years, revolves around compensation for athletes' likenesses being used in EA's NCAA football and basketball games.

The Cliff's Notes version of the math works a little something like this: the law apparently says each player can be awarded $1,000 per likeness, per platform. This ends up being about $305.5 million for all the football players and $29 million for basketball players, a total of $334.5 million. Now, if the judge decides EA and the NCAA were "knowing, willful or intentional" in their compensation violation, the amount can be tripled under the Indiana publicity rights statute for damages over a billion dollars.

EA's official statement, provided by EA corp. comm VP Jeff Brown: "We could lose billions more if a giant meteor hits the earth. We're not planning for either outcome."

JoystiqUSA Today: EA could lose over $1B in NCAA athlete suit originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 03 Aug 2011 22:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>damagesEAElectronic-ArtslawlawsuitmicrosoftNCAAplaystationps3samuel-kellerxboxWed, 03 Aug 2011 22:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Trenched Euro release struggles continue, lawyer explains background]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/13/trenched-euro-release-struggles-continue-lawyer-explains-backgr/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/13/trenched-euro-release-struggles-continue-lawyer-explains-backgr/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/13/trenched-euro-release-struggles-continue-lawyer-explains-backgr/#comments The trademark holder of Trench plans to keep on fighting to protect the name, which has prevented Microsoft and Double Fine's XBLA title, Trenched, from being released in "select" European territories. The legal wrestling involves Trench, a board game (pictured) that's being turned into a video game. Trench completed its trademark filing in 2009 for Europe and 2010 for the United States, almost a year before Trenched applied in May 2011.

"Because the application is barely 2 months old, the USPTO hasn't issued any actions on the Trenched filing. More than likely, the Trenched mark won't grant without some resolution to the Trench mark issue in the US," Law of the Game on Joystiq columnist -- and actual lawyer -- Mark Methenitis explains.

"Here's where this gets a little tricky. The Trench mark is filed as a 1(b) mark, which is an 'intent to use.' That is, they plan to use the mark, but aren't using it yet. From the notice of allowance (issued March 15 2011), they have six months to use the mark, request an extension for six more months. The maximum time they have to get a product to market is 3 years. So they only have until March 15, 2014, at the latest. But if they miss a response deadline, the application is abandoned, and then they don't have grounds from that application to stop the Trenched application."

Continue reading Trenched Euro release struggles continue, lawyer explains background

JoystiqTrenched Euro release struggles continue, lawyer explains background originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:06:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>double-fineeuropelawmicrosoftmicrosoft-studiostrademarktrenchtrenchedxblaxboxWed, 13 Jul 2011 09:06:00 EST<![CDATA[Senate Bill 978 not much of a danger to YouTube game runthroughs]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-not-much-of-a-danger-to-youtube-game-runthroughs/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-not-much-of-a-danger-to-youtube-game-runthroughs/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/06/senate-bill-978-not-much-of-a-danger-to-youtube-game-runthroughs/#comments When we're too busy to actually play Gitaroo Man, we happily resort to watching "Let's Play" runthrough videos of Gitaroo Man. Unfortunately, an addendum to federal copyright laws currently working its way through our country's legislative channels seeks to make streaming videos of copyrighted content just as illegal as pirating films -- the penalties for which are displayed every time you start up a video. Fortunately, This is My Next has explained why this law wouldn't find much traction in stopping these kinds of nostalgic walkthroughs from being uploaded.

The statute can only be enforced in instances where uploaders are "willfully" infringing on a copyright with intent to make money, and is only punishable if said uploader makes (or the game company loses) over $2,500. That's probably not true about a vast majority of the walkthroughs on streaming video sites, meaning our vicarious Gitarooing should continue unabated.

JoystiqSenate Bill 978 not much of a danger to YouTube game runthroughs originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>copyright-infringementlawlegislationpoliticssenatesenate-bill-978Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:30:00 EST<![CDATA[LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/04/lgj-on-brown-v-entertainment-merchants-assn/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/04/lgj-on-brown-v-entertainment-merchants-assn/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/07/04/lgj-on-brown-v-entertainment-merchants-assn/#commentsMark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

I believe I likely owe you an apology. LGJ should have covered this decision the day it was issued, but unfortunately, sometimes clients have to come first. So here we are, a few days after the decision, and the topic has been covered in great detail. I have read the decision, but have largely avoided other coverage of the case so that I could give you my opinion without being impacted by other analysis. Since I imagine most coverage has largely been focused on the majority opinion alone, I will also be discussing the concurring and dissenting opinions. As always, this is simply my opinion on the decision, and to that end, there is some room for people to disagree.

This was, in short, about the best possible outcome, both for the game industry and for the public at large, that could have been expected. It was also an opinion that was the most consistent with existing case law and contemporary First Amendment legal theory. The most important aspect to this case was the court stating fairly unequivocally that new and different forms of media shouldn't be treated any differently simply because they are new and different forms of media. Ultimately, obscene content is obscene content, and though some media may have an easier time crossing the line than others, that doesn't mean the line moves.

Continue reading LGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

JoystiqLGJ: On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaemalawlaw-of-the-gamelaw-of-the-game-on-joystiqlawsuitlgjSchwarzenegger-v-EMAscotussupreme-courtMon, 04 Jul 2011 18:45:00 EST<![CDATA[Interplay says Bethesda knew Fallout MMO would, in fact, be a Fallout game]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/29/interplay-says-bethesda-knew-fallout-mmo-would-in-fact-be-a-fa/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/29/interplay-says-bethesda-knew-fallout-mmo-would-in-fact-be-a-fa/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/29/interplay-says-bethesda-knew-fallout-mmo-would-in-fact-be-a-fa/#comments Just a couple of days after watching our nation's highest legal officers debate the impact of video games across this great country, it's time for us to return to a much sillier gaming lawsuit. Gamasutra obtained a June 23 court filing issued by Interplay regarding the developer's legally troubled Fallout MMO. The filing comes as a response to a preliminary injunction filed by Bethesda which attempted to prevent Interplay from using the franchise's story, setting and characters in their online opus.

Interplay's counter-filing explains, "For at least four years, Bethesda has known that Interplay interpreted its right to create the Fallout-branded MMOG to include copyrighted content from the Fallout universe in order to make the MMOG a recognizable Fallout game." We don't know, guys -- that seems a little unreasonable. When we heard Interplay was working on a Fallout MMO, we just assumed it would be a massively multiplayer online puzzle-platformer set in a colorful, kid-friendly version of ancient Rome.

JoystiqInterplay says Bethesda knew Fallout MMO would, in fact, be a Fallout game originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>bethesdafalloutfallout-onlineinterplayiplawlawsuitlegalmmopcpoliticstrademarkWed, 29 Jun 2011 14:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-courts-brown-v-ema-opinions-a-digest/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-courts-brown-v-ema-opinions-a-digest/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-courts-brown-v-ema-opinions-a-digest/#comments Between the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions published in today's Supreme Court decision on Brown v. EMA, there's a good 92 pages of legalese for enthusiastic gaming activists to pore over. If you don't feel like flipping through a novella of legal documents in search of relevant, easily digestible bits, feel free to check out some highlights from each opinion, which we've compiled after the jump!

Continue reading Supreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest

JoystiqSupreme Court's Brown v. EMA opinions: A digest originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179brown-v-emacaliforniacourtecaemaesaesrblawpoliticsSchwarzeneggerSchwarzenegger-v-EMAscotussupreme-courtMon, 27 Jun 2011 19:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/analysis-what-todays-supreme-court-decision-means-to-us/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/analysis-what-todays-supreme-court-decision-means-to-us/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/analysis-what-todays-supreme-court-decision-means-to-us/#comments In 2005, California state legislature passed Assembly Bill 1179, a law penned by Democratic state senator Leland Yee which prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. The law mandated the application of special stickers to titles deemed too violent, and slapped retail employees who sold those games to anyone under the age of 18 with a maximum $1,000 fine. The law was signed by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but was struck down by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California before it could be enforced.

Following an unsuccessful appeal of that decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the law's progenitors petitioned for a hearing in the United States Supreme Court. The petition was successful, the case was argued last November and, earlier today, seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices decided to uphold the decision of the lower courts: California Assembly Bill 1179 violates the First Amendment rights afforded to all forms of media in the United States.

This decision obviously doesn't just affect Californian teenagers with a penchant for video games above their maturity level. It represents a vote of confidence in games and the non-governmental agency (see: The ESRB) which regulates their sale.

Continue reading Analysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us

JoystiqAnalysis: What today's Supreme Court decision means to us originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:45:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179censorshipecaesafirst-amendmentlawleland-yeepoliticsSchwarzeneggerSchwarzenegger-v-EMAscotussupreme-courtMon, 27 Jun 2011 12:45:00 EST<![CDATA[Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-game-banning-california-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-game-banning-california-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-strikes-down-violent-game-banning-california-law/#comments The Supreme Court of the United States has issued its opinions on Brown v. The Entertainment Merchants Association, a case which argued the Constitutionality of a (since struck down) California state law which banned the sale of "violent" video games to minors. The majority opinion, decided upon by seven of the court's nine Justices, is to once again strike down the law.

The majority opinion, in clear terms, states:
Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas-and even social messages-through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, "esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority."
The decision falls in line with other decisions of the lower courts regarding video game-banning legislation, such as the respective decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, both of which found the law unconstitutional. There was, of course, a dissenting opinion (in this case, representing the concerns of Justices Thomas and Breyer) which states:
The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
We're sure to hear more from the Entertainment Software Association and other games lobbying groups in the coming hours, but the word from the highest court in the land is a promising one: Games, regardless of content, deserve the same First Amendment protections afforded to all other forms of expression in the United States.

Continue reading Supreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law

JoystiqSupreme Court strikes down violent game-banning California law originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 27 Jun 2011 10:21:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaesafirst-amendmentlawpoliticsSchwarzenegger-v-EMAscotussupreme-courtMon, 27 Jun 2011 10:21:00 EST<![CDATA[Supreme Court decision on Schwarzenegger v. EMA possibly coming this week [update]]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/06/supreme-court-decision-on-schwarzenegger-v-ema-possibly-coming/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/06/supreme-court-decision-on-schwarzenegger-v-ema-possibly-coming/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/06/supreme-court-decision-on-schwarzenegger-v-ema-possibly-coming/#comments According to SCOTUSblog, a site dedicated to tracking the activity of the head of our nation's Judicial Branch, a decision on November's hearing of Schwarzenegger v. EMA (now Brown v. EMA, reflecting California's new, assumedly punier governor) will be released this week. The hearing was held to review a California law which prohibited the sale of mature games to minors -- a law which was attacked due to its ambiguity in defining what constituted a mature game.

The blog expects the court to either issue its opinion on Brown v. EMA today or Thursday -- we'll make sure to let you know where they come down. Personally, we really hope they decide in favor of the EMA, as this would be a kind of a bummer of a week for video games to be totally outlawed. (That's probably not going to happen.)

Update: Though the Supreme Court was expected to rule this week, it looks like they'll be holding their decision for a later date. The SCOTUS session ends the week of June 27, and though the court could conceivably extend the session, a decision is expected before then.

JoystiqSupreme Court decision on Schwarzenegger v. EMA possibly coming this week [update] originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179courtlawlegalpoliticsSchwarzenegger-v-EMAsupreme-courtMon, 06 Jun 2011 12:20:00 EST<![CDATA[Canadian firm proposes class action against Sony to the tune of $1B in damages]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/04/canadian-firm-proposes-class-action-against-sony-to-the-tune-of/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/04/canadian-firm-proposes-class-action-against-sony-to-the-tune-of/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/05/04/canadian-firm-proposes-class-action-against-sony-to-the-tune-of/#comments A proposed class action lawsuit filed in Ontario, Canada against Sony over the PlayStation Network breach is shooting for the jackpot. The suit claims damages "in excess of $1 billion" for the breach of consumer privacy, in part to cover the costs of credit monitoring and fraud insurance over two years for the estimated 1 million PSN and Qriocity users living in Canada.

Toronto law firm McPhadden Samac Tuovi has proposed the class action against Sony Japan, Sony USA, Sony Canada and other Sony "entities," and added in its press release, "While Sony has advised American users about the availability of free credit reports, it has yet to advice Canadian users about credit reports."

Filed on behalf of representative plaintiff Natasha Maksimovic, the claim alleges Sony exposed its customers to identity and financial theft, in addition to "fear, anxiety (and) emotional distress," according to The Canadian Press.

Maksimovic, 21, of Mississauga, Ont., has been described by the law firm as "an avid PlayStation user for years," who signed up for PSN and Qriocity for use on her PSP and Sony e-book. "If you can't trust a huge multinational corporation like Sony to protect your private information, who can you trust?" she asked in the firm's release. "It appears to me that Sony focuses more on protecting its games than its PlayStation users."

Sony has 20 days to file a statement of defense in Canada and additional time to do so in the US and elsewhere.

Continue reading Canadian firm proposes class action against Sony to the tune of $1B in damages

JoystiqCanadian firm proposes class action against Sony to the tune of $1B in damages originally appeared on Joystiq on Wed, 04 May 2011 11:25:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>canadaclass-actionlawlawsuitlegalmcphadden-samac-tuoviontarioplaystationps3psnpsn-outage-2011pspqriocitysonyWed, 04 May 2011 11:25:00 EST<![CDATA[SouthPeak settles in SEC violation dispute]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/23/southpeak-settles-in-sec-violation-dispute/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/23/southpeak-settles-in-sec-violation-dispute/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/04/23/southpeak-settles-in-sec-violation-dispute/#comments Two Worlds publisher SouthPeak Interactive ended up in some hot water with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last November, when the government agency announced it would bring a civil injunction against the publisher's chairman, Terry Phillips. The reason for the SEC suit was SouthPeak's failure to properly document a loan given to the publisher by Phillips in early 2009. Rather than drag out the investigation, SouthPeak decided to settle with the SEC earlier this week on unspecified terms.

SouthPeak CEO Melanie Mroz explained in a statement that the publisher cooperated with the SEC since it brought the investigation before them last year. She added, "In the end, however, it made the most sense for the company and Terry to negotiate an acceptable settlement that does not require us to admit any wrong-doing and close this chapter as we constantly strive to improve our processes, systems and personnel to meet our obligations as a public company."

JoystiqSouthPeak settles in SEC violation dispute originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>businessindustrylawlegalloansecsouthpeaksouthpeak-gamesSat, 23 Apr 2011 15:30:00 EST<![CDATA[Ubisoft prevents THQ from hiring more of its Montreal employees with court order]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/31/ubisoft-prevents-thq-from-hiring-more-of-its-montreal-employees/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/31/ubisoft-prevents-thq-from-hiring-more-of-its-montreal-employees/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/31/ubisoft-prevents-thq-from-hiring-more-of-its-montreal-employees/#comments The Superior Court of Quebec has granted Ubisoft an injunction that prevents THQ from obtaining any more of Ubisoft's employees in ye olde city of Montreal. Game Informer (following up on a report by Rue Frontenac) received an official statement from Ubisoft, in which the publisher requested that the court place an injunction order on THQ based on the "non-solicit clause" included in Ubisoft Montreal employee contracts.

"This procedure aims to protect Ubisoft Montreal in a breach of contract situation," said the statement, "and to defend the long-term financial and creative health of the studio." Translation: Ubisoft hit the panic button following a talent drain that started when creative bigwig Patrice Desilets left Ubisoft to form his team at THQ Montreal, which included several other Ubisoft folks. In obtaining the injunction, Ubisoft even used a Joystiq article from January as evidence of a breach of contract. In that post, THQ exec Danny Bilson admits to hiring three Ubisoft employees (who were bound to a non-compete clause) on retainer.

Given that several major publishers are moving to Canada, THQ is just one of Ubisoft's home turf concerns. Ubisoft probably has the lawyers working overtime to legally add a "restraining order clause" to employee contracts, forcing them to stay 100 meters away from any competitors' employee.

JoystiqUbisoft prevents THQ from hiring more of its Montreal employees with court order originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:10:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>injuctionlawlegalmicrosoftmontrealnintendoplaystationps3THQthq-montrealUbisoftubisoft-montrealwiixboxThu, 31 Mar 2011 12:10:00 EST<![CDATA[PS3 shipments blocked in Europe as LG wins preliminary injunction]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/28/ps3-shipments-blocked-in-europe-as-lg-wins-preliminary-injunctio/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/28/ps3-shipments-blocked-in-europe-as-lg-wins-preliminary-injunctio/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/28/ps3-shipments-blocked-in-europe-as-lg-wins-preliminary-injunctio/#comments The struggle between hardware manufacturing juggernauts Sony and LG -- the latter of which claims that the PS3 infringes on a number of its patents relating to Blu-ray technology -- has finally drawn some blood. The civil court of justice in the Hague has granted LG a preliminary injunction for customs to seize and confiscate all PS3s coming into Europe (from manufacturing plants, etc.) for up to ten days. The Guardian reports that the collected consoles are temporarily being kept in Dutch warehouses until the case moves forward.

According to the Guardian, retailers are expected to have enough PS3s to last two to three weeks. Sony has the right to file an appeal to the patents office -- but far more than some boxed-up consoles collecting dust is on the line. Should the court ultimately rule in favor of LG, the console maker would be forced to compensate the company for every single PS3 sold around the world. We've contacted Sony for a comment.

JoystiqPS3 shipments blocked in Europe as LG wins preliminary injunction originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>blu-rayeuropehagueinjunctionlawlawsuitlgplaystationpoliticsps3sonyMon, 28 Feb 2011 15:05:00 EST<![CDATA[Paypal accounts for World of Warcraft gold sellers now on notice]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/paypal-accounts-for-world-of-warcraft-gold-sellers-now-on-notice/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/paypal-accounts-for-world-of-warcraft-gold-sellers-now-on-notice/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/paypal-accounts-for-world-of-warcraft-gold-sellers-now-on-notice/#comments Blizzard recently took action to hit World of Warcraft gold sellers right where it hurts: Their wallets. Well, the online services they use to transfer intangible funds from other people's wallets to their wallets, but you know what we mean. The developer has successfully petitioned Paypal to issue notices to the major names in gold selling, warning them that if they didn't stop selling WoW's virtual currency for non-virtual currency, their accounts would be irreversibly suspended.

Paypal appears to accept Blizzard's argument that these sales represent an intellectual property violation -- though this area has proven nebulous in the past, as suggested by the WoW Glider lawsuit from last year. Regardless, we hope they find some success with this venture. We don't understand why people can't earn gold the honest way: By buying everything off of the auction house and selling it back for three times its original price.

JoystiqPaypal accounts for World of Warcraft gold sellers now on notice originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>blizzardgold-sellinglawlegalmmopaypalpcWorld-of-WarcraftWoWSat, 29 Jan 2011 22:00:00 EST<![CDATA[ESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow moves on]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/esa-general-counsel-kenneth-doroshow-moves-on/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/esa-general-counsel-kenneth-doroshow-moves-on/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/29/esa-general-counsel-kenneth-doroshow-moves-on/#comments The Entertainment Software Association has confirmed to Gamasutra that its General Counsel, Kenneth Doroshow, has left the organization to join forces with Burford Group, an investment advising firm based in Washington D.C.. You might remember Doroshow for his work in the Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court hearing last November, in which -- we think we can all agree -- the dude dunked all over the opposition's legal representatives. Like, he slam dunked it in their faces, and was all like, "Booyah," basically.

We wish Doroshow the best of luck with his new position, and hope the remainder of his career is marked by multitudes of equally boombastic, totally nasty slamma-jammas.

JoystiqESA General Counsel Kenneth Doroshow moves on originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 29 Jan 2011 03:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179emaesageneral-counselkenneth-doroshowlawpoliticsSchwarzenegger-v-EMAsupreme-courtSat, 29 Jan 2011 03:00:00 EST<![CDATA[LGJ: Morrowind Mod Mayhem]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/22/lgj-morrowind-mod-mayhem/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/22/lgj-morrowind-mod-mayhem/http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/22/lgj-morrowind-mod-mayhem/#commentsMark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
There's been quite the uproar over the past few weeks over Morrowind 2011, the now defunct project which collected and harmonized some 4GB of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind mods to make the game "appealing" to a current audience. To some this sounded like a way to pass the time until Skyrim released, to others this was "illegal." Let's see if we can piece together some of the story here to explore just where the rights of modders lay, both with respect to the original developer and with respect to one another.

The most complete account I've been able to find is here, which boils down to the person who compiled and released Morrowind 2011 didn't have permission from any of the people who created the original mods in the package. I suggest everyone read both the article and the comments, as they summarize most of the points made by both sides of this debate. He did go to great lengths to put the package together and, more importantly, all of the documentation on how to make the mods work together, as apparently Morrowind mods can be a bit unruly. When credits were added to the package, the mod makers were still unhappy, and many words like "illegal" were thrown out on the table.

The mod pack has been pulled, but there's been quite a bit of legal analysis thrown out by both the Morrowind 2011 side and the mod makers side. Since mod rights can be a complex issue, this seemed like a good time to discuss the mod issue.

Continue reading LGJ: Morrowind Mod Mayhem

JoystiqLGJ: Morrowind Mod Mayhem originally appeared on Joystiq on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 02:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>columnslawlaw-of-the-gamelaw-of-the-game-on-joystiqlgjmark-methenitismorrowindmorrowind-2011pcThe-Elder-Scrolls-3-MorrowindSat, 22 Jan 2011 02:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Activision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/31/activisions-george-rose-calls-out-supporters-of-california-viol/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/31/activisions-george-rose-calls-out-supporters-of-california-viol/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/31/activisions-george-rose-calls-out-supporters-of-california-viol/#comments Activision Blizzard vice president and chief public policy officer George Rose has once again sounded off against attacks on his industry's First Amendment protections. This time, it's in the form of an editorial for the San Francisco Chronicle which tears down the supporters of AB-1179, the California law which prohibited the sale of "excessively violent" games to minors. The law will not go into effect in 2011 due to its repeal by the federal courts -- but that didn't prevent Rose from venting some steam regarding the former law's endorsers.

"Sadly, supporters will accept nothing less than more laws, subbing for parents, that the state can't afford to enforce," Rose wrote. "So to whip up drama and hysteria where none justifiably exists, zealots supporting this movement cite the worst of the worst by harking back to video game dinosaurs like 1997's Postal." Rose argues that no other medium is judged based on one title, so doing so is "disingenuous" in the case of games. Ironically enough, you know what movie we'd use to pass judgment on the movie industry? Postal. Convenient, right?

JoystiqActivision's George Rose calls out supporters of California violent game law originally appeared on Joystiq on Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179activisionactivision-blizzardcaliforniaeditorialgeorge-roselawpoliticssupreme-courtFri, 31 Dec 2010 01:00:00 EST<![CDATA[Xbox-modder trial underway, no plea bargain offered [update: case dismissed!]]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/02/xbox-modder-trial-underway-no-plea-bargain-offered/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/02/xbox-modder-trial-underway-no-plea-bargain-offered/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/02/xbox-modder-trial-underway-no-plea-bargain-offered/#commentsThe landmark jury trial of Matthew Crippen, indicted on two federal counts last fall for running a side-business in which he modded Xbox 360s at his home, began yesterday with opening statements in a Los Angeles court. Wired's colorful report of U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez's colorful reaction to the prosecution's case suggested that the government could be headed toward a deal with Crippen during an early-afternoon recess.

"I really don't understand what we're doing here," Gutierrez apparently "roared," as he ripped into the prosecution. The judge questioned government prosecutors' use of two witnesses who may have broken the law themselves and prosecutors' instructions to the jury that it was unnecessary to prove Crippen had knowingly breached the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge apparently backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited a "fair use" defense (i.e., modding for back-up or homebrew purposes). "The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology," Gutierrez said. "How about back-up games and the homebrewed?"

However, prosecutors returned from recess yesterday determined to convict Crippen, 28, on two counts of violating the DMCA (for a maximum sentence of ten years) by proving he knew he was breaking the law. ESA investigator Tony Rosario was called to the stand to recount how he had visited Crippen's Anaheim, Calif. home in 2008 and paid the defendant $60 to mod an Xbox 360. Rosario secretly videotaped the procedure -- which the defense argues is a violation of the state's privacy law -- though he did not capture video evidence of Crippen allegedly playing a pirated game on the modded console (nor did he include this supposed fact in his original report or sworn declarations). Still, the prosecution offered up a pile of a 150 pirated games, apparently seized by authorities from Crippen's home, which it hoped would show jurors that the defendant had a clear understanding that he was involved in illegal activity.

Rosario is expected to return to the stand today, followed by two additional prosecution witnesses: a federal agent, who also allegedly paid Crippen to mod a 360, and a Microsoft employee, a so-called expert on Xbox security (and self-admitted modder in his younger days). The defense is scheduled to begin its case tomorrow.

Follow the drama on Wired's Threat Level blog. Update: Prosecutors dismissed their case today, Wired reports, saying their decision was "based on fairness and justice" (read: they made errors). "It still has not hit me yet," Crippen said outside of the courtroom.

[Pictured: Matthew Crippen; photo credit: David Kravets/Wired.com]

JoystiqXbox-modder trial underway, no plea bargain offered [update: case dismissed!] originally appeared on Joystiq on Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>allen-chiucallie-steelecopyrightdmcaesafair-usehackerhackingken-mcgraillawlegallos-angelesmatthew-crippenmicrosoftmoddermoddingmodsphilip-gutierrezpiracytony-rosariotrialus-district-courtxboxThu, 02 Dec 2010 15:22:00 EST<![CDATA[ESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/esa-confident-its-case-was-heard-in-supreme-court-argument/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/esa-confident-its-case-was-heard-in-supreme-court-argument/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/esa-confident-its-case-was-heard-in-supreme-court-argument/#comments Following today's oral arguments session in the U.S. Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. EMA, representatives from the Entertainment Software Association (they're on the EMA side) held a conference call to discuss how they thought things went. ESA president Michael Gallagher was optimistic, saying, "Today was a historic day, not only for the computer and video game industry, but for the First Amendment." He added, "I think that in court today, you heard every single argument the industry has made, articulated not just by Paul [Smith] ... but by the justices themselves."

"ESA is very, very proud of the work that was done by Paul," Gallagher said. "The argument today was very lively, the justices were very informed and the dialogue clearly established that video games are entitled to the same treatment as movies, music, books and other forms of entertainment."

Jenner and Block counsel of record Paul Smith, who presented the EMA's arguments during today's hearings, was similarly optimistic. He offered his opinion that the representative from California's arguments didn't satisfy the "strict scrutiny" requirements needed to revoke video games' First Amendment protections. He added, "Though there's obviously a great deal of complexity in the whole thing -- and it's very difficult to come away knowing with any sense of confidence where the court's going to come down specifically -- we do feel pretty good about having all of our arguments aired, and getting a lot of traction."

ESA general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow echoed Smith's confidence, saying, "It was gratifying to hear all of the themes we had presented in our papers echoed by one or more justices at various times throughout the day. We feel very confident that our case was heard as thoroughly and carefully as it can be."

"There's really no way to know for sure how this is going to come out," Doroshow said, "but we at least feel good that the best case possible was put forward for the industry and our position."

JoystiqESA confident its case was heard in Supreme Court argument originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 16:42:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaemaesalawpoliticsSchwarzeneggersupreme-courtTue, 02 Nov 2010 16:42:00 EST<![CDATA[Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/transcripts-from-supreme-courts-violent-game-case-available-now/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/transcripts-from-supreme-courts-violent-game-case-available-now/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/02/transcripts-from-supreme-courts-violent-game-case-available-now/#comments You've read about the stakes, you've read about the procedure -- now it's time to read about exactly what went down in the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today, when representatives from the Entertainment Software Association and the state of California butted heads over the contentious Schwarzenegger v. EMA case. The Supreme Court's official website recently posted a complete transcript of the oral arguments from both parties -- you can pore over an embedded version of it below.

The 72-page document is quite a read -- we'll update this post periodically with highlights from the proceedings. Click past the jump for more!

Continue reading Transcripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now

JoystiqTranscripts from Supreme Court's violent game case available now originally appeared on Joystiq on Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:05:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179banlawpoliticsSchwarzeneggersupreme-courtTue, 02 Nov 2010 13:05:00 EST<![CDATA[ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/esa-general-counsel-lays-out-game-industry-argument-to-the-supre/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/esa-general-counsel-lays-out-game-industry-argument-to-the-supre/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/esa-general-counsel-lays-out-game-industry-argument-to-the-supre/#comments When the clock strikes 10 a.m. tomorrow morning in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. By now, you know how the results of this landmark case will affect the video game industry and its consumers -- but who's actually going to bat for the industry in tomorrow's hearings? More importantly, how does that litigatory sausage get made?

Entertainment Software Association general counsel and senior vice president Kenneth Doroshow is one such batter (or sausage-maker, depending on which of the previous metaphors you followed). A media law heavyweight in his own right, Doroshow has served as an executive for the Recording Industry Association of America and as senior counsel the U.S. Department of Justice before joining the ESA in September 2008. Tomorrow, he'll be one of the legal representatives for the Entertainment Merchants Association, responsible for helping it make its side of the argument to the Supreme Court.

Doroshow broke down the specifics of that argument for us earlier today. To learn about the case the ESA is presenting in court tomorrow -- as well as the possible repercussions of the Supreme Court's decision -- check out our Q&A with Doroshow after the jump.

Continue reading ESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court

JoystiqESA General Counsel lays out game industry argument to the Supreme Court originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:08:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaemaentertainment-merchants-associationEntertainment-software-associationesafirst-amendmentkenneth-doroshowlawleland-yeepoliticsSchwarzeneggersupreme-courtMon, 01 Nov 2010 20:08:00 EST<![CDATA[How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers]]>http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/how-tomorrows-supreme-court-violent-game-case-could-affect-cons/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/how-tomorrows-supreme-court-violent-game-case-could-affect-cons/http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/01/how-tomorrows-supreme-court-violent-game-case-could-affect-cons/#comments Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will convene to hear oral arguments for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association -- a case most gamers are likely familiar with. The court will decide whether or not to overturn the decisions of the Northern District of California Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- both of which found California law AB 1179, which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors, to be unconstitutional.

According to Entertainment Consumers Association vice president and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, there's a lot more at stake in this case than whether or not mature titles will be legally withheld from Californian teenagers. Much, much more, in fact -- should the Supreme Court overturn the ruling of the two lower courts, certain First Amendment protections currently afforded to video games (and, by association, other forms of entertainment media) could be abolished, completely changing the landscape of the industry.

Mercurio sums it up nicely: "I'd say it's clearly the most important and influential decision that the video game industry has ever faced."

Continue reading How tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers

JoystiqHow tomorrow's Supreme Court violent game case could affect consumers originally appeared on Joystiq on Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:40:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments]]>ab-1179californiaecafirst-amendmentgovernmentjennifer-mercuriolawleland-yeeSchwarzeneggersupreme-courtviolenceMon, 01 Nov 2010 15:40:00 EST