Erik Estavillo has been given a handful of nicknames by the press recently – he listed "Professional/PSN Plaintiff," "The Serial Suer" and a few others when he spoke with Joystiq this morning. He assured us though, time and time again, "That WoW lawsuit, that's my final lawsuit. So people know, I'm not suing any more companies." In case you missed it, Estavillo is currently engaged in four separate lawsuits – one with Microsoft, one with Nintendo, one with Sony (in both Federal and State court), and one with Activision Blizzard. "One lawsuit for each major console maker and one for the PC, so four total," he clarified to us.

Aside from seeking money (anywhere from as low as $180 to $1 million, depending on the case), we asked Estavillo what his intentions were behind launching the multiple lawsuits. "What I wanted to do was exploit the weakness of each console and show that they're not impervious to flaws ... each console has a flaw and they should fix it," he said. During the interview as well as in some of his court filings, Estavillo claimed to be suffering from a variety of psychological maladies, and has repeatedly stated that he uses online gaming as his primary form of communication. "I told this other interviewer and it's true – I actually have no friends. I rely on online gameplay for socialization."

Though he's yet to win a case, his first (by default) could come as soon as December 3 – the end of Sony's 30 days to respond to a summons. If he does, that would mean $180,000 and a "no contest" ruling against Sony. Though he said he'll keep some of the money he may win, he noted that, "Half the money I get is gonna go to God. I'm giving half the money I get to CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network], local churches, charities, or poor people on the street."

We talked to Estavillo about a variety of other topics – from what games he plays to why he's subpoenaing celebrities instead of experts – but due to sheer length we've broken the rest of the interview out after the break.

Update: Erik Estavillo emailed us this evening to say that Sony has responded to his summons, thus closing out the possibility of a default settlement. The first hearing will be in early 2010.

Serial suit launcher Erik Estavillo is making a little name for himself in the game space, as his latest complaint seeks $1 million in damages from Activision Blizzard over the design of World of Warcraft. GamePolitics reports on the complaint, which claims that the publisher maintains a "harmful virtual environment to many of its customers by forcing them to follow the game's sneaky and deceitful practices." Estavillo alleges that the "calculated slow pace" of the game makes turning quests in take longer and thus generates more subscription revenue for Activision Blizzard.

If that wasn't enough, Estavillo also subpoenaed actress Winona Ryder and Depeche Mode's Martin Lee Gore to testify on his behalf regarding alienation. He explains that his health issues, which apparently include OCD, agoraphobia, depression (and more), mean that he "relies on video games heavily for the little ongoing happiness he can achieve in this life."

Estavillo had previously sued Sony after being banned from PSN and also has another suit against Microsoft and Nintendo, for his Xbox 360's Red Ring of Death and Nintendo's disabling of the Homebrew Channel in an update. Perhaps he'll have more luck suing over the design of a game in which millions happily pay to participate.

Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
The term "professional plaintiff" is thrown out at the idea that some people make their living as someone who partners with an attorney to bring so many lawsuits that their entire livelyhood rests on suing people. Googling the term will bring up dozens of results in many different areas of the law, but a series of events this week made me wonder if the game industry might just be the next target of this kind of behavior. Specifically, the reports of a class action over Xbox Live bannings and reports that the same person who sued Sony over being banned in Resistance is now suing Microsoft over red rings and Nintendo over homebrew.

So how does this professional plaintiff idea work? Speaking extremely generally, to bring a lawsuit, someone has to have standing, that is they suffered an injury and are substantially related to the harm that caused that injury so that they can sue over it. Past allegations of professional plaintiffs have often been related to suits related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, such that one disabled person is suing multiple establishments because they have standing to sue based on the lack of compliance with the Act. I'm sure many readers are thinking, "But how would this work in gaming? There are no gaming statutes that could give gamers standing to sue like that." Well, it's a pretty straightforward answer, actually.

Datel announced that it has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, in response to Microsoft's lockout (via Xbox 360 firmware update) of the company's Max Memory Cards. We doubt this is the "remedy" for the lockout issue to which the company previously referred, but it's certainly one way to address it.

"Microsoft has taken steps to render inoperable the competing Datel memory card for no visible purpose other than to have that market entirely to themselves," Datel attorney Marty Glick explained in a press release. "They accomplished their recent update by making a system change that will not recognize or allow operation of a memory card with greater capacity than their own. We believe that with the power Microsoft enjoys in the market for Xbox accessories this conduct is unlawful."

In the press release, Datel goes on to say that the lawsuit is intended to "restore competition" which, the company suggests, is beneficial to consumers. It's now up to a federal court in San Francisco to determine whether the Max Memory-crippling Xbox update constitutes unlawful anti-competitive behavior on the part of Microsoft.

The last time Datel went to court, it viewed the experience from the other side. Sony filed suit against the peripheral maker over the "Lite Blue Tool," which would have enabled users to run unsigned code on PSP hardware.

In response to a possible class action lawsuit resulting from a recent round of Xbox Live bans, Microsoft has now asserted the legality of its position. A spokesperson has told the Financial Post that piracy is a violation of the company's terms of use and that Microsoft is "well within its legal rights" to ban users from its Xbox Live.

It was reported earlier this month that the law firm AlbingtonIP is "investigating" the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over the bans. The firm argues that timing of the bans -- shortly after the release of Halo 3: ODST and just prior to the launch of Modern Warfare 2 -- was designed to get as much money from Xbox Live subscriptions as possible. In other words, the firm believes that Microsoft personally waited for a time when many people -- modders in this case -- would be purchasing Live subscriptions for popular games -- money that probably wouldn't be refunded after a ban.

Joystiq's Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, classified the suit as a likely "cash grab," explaining that anyone savvy enough to mod an Xbox would know to stay well away from Xbox Live. We might add that major releases, like ODST and Modern Warfare 2, are the biggest targets for piracy, and likely correspond with rises in illegal downloads. And that just might have something to do with the timing of the bans in question.

[Via Kotaku]

After being banned from the PlayStation Network for hateful comments stated in Resistance's online community, Erik Estavillo launched not one, but two, lawsuits against Sony for infringing on his "first amendment rights" -- an argument that was shot down by Judge Ronald Whyte simply because "Sony is not part of the government."

However, what Estavillo lacks in civil online discourse, he makes up for with sheer determination and persistence. In addition to Sony, he now has both Microsoft and Nintendo in his sights. Estavillo is seeking $75,000 from Microsoft for the "undue stress" and "sadness" caused by his Xbox 360's RROD. "Microsoft should have to bear the burden that is now put on the shoulders of this disabled plaintiff," his claim states -- a burden that is equivalent to the sum of 375 Xbox 360 systems, apparently. Nintendo is being sued for interfering with Estavillo's "pursuit of happiness." And how exactly is Nintendo doing that? "Deleting, blocking or prohibiting the Homebrew Channel and Ocarina applications" via a system update.

We're hoping you can see the sheer brilliance of Estavillo's strategy. He's offering the perfect opportunity for PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo fans to agree on something for once.

Boutique law firm AbingtonIP is "investigating" what it considers the "convenient" recent Xbox Live bannings. The firm posits that the "tens of thousands" of banned Xbox Live subscribers who used modded consoles deserve recompense due to the timing of the action. The firm believes that said timing -- i.e., after Halo 3: ODST and shortly before Modern Warfare 2's releases -- was executed to net Microsoft as much money as possible out of potential Xbox Live subscribers before banning the modded devices. The class action lawsuit would attempt to obtain a refund for the prorated sums left on the banned Xbox Live subscriptions.

According to Joystiq legal columnist Mark Methenitis' analysis: "To me, this certainly sounds a lot like a cash grab directed at a company with deep pockets, but perhaps there are more facts than they are letting on." He explains that a user savvy enough to have a modded console would also know not to connect it to Live without "serious risk." Methenitis concludes, "If, in fact, Microsoft is inducing people to buy a service only to terminate them, then there's certainly a deceptive business practice concern. But this seems far more cut and dry than that."

[Thanks, C. Carl Carlston]

On November 10th, Bareis Technologies, LLC filed a lawsuit against Ubisoft, Sony Computer Entertainment, Electronic Arts and Disney Interactive Studios, claiming that various games, including Tom Clancy, SOCOM and NASCAR titles, infringe upon a patent filed in 1996. "Optical disk having speech recognition templates for information access" describes a process "integrating automatic speech recognition technologies into optical disk players for command and control purposes."

As is typical with lawsuits of this nature, the plaintiff is seeking "no less than a reasonable royalty" for the supposed use of this "stolen" technology. Should the case make it to court, the plaintiff will have a few hurdles to overcome. Primarily, lawyers will have to prove how a patent largely targeted towards accessing specific music tracks on audio CDs is applicable to the video games in question.

Considering it's been over seven years since the debut of the first SOCOM game, it's surprising that the plaintiff has waited so long to file this suit. Perhaps it's telling that the company going forward with the lawsuit has done so little in the thirteen years since filing the trademark that it has no web presence whatsoever.

[Via GamePolitics]

As if, in this world of economic hardship and international strife, you need another thing to worry about. iPhone developer Storm8 has been accused of stealing the phone numbers of players that downloaded its apps like Vampires Live and Zombies Live in a suit filed in San Francisco on behalf of Lynnwood, WA resident Michael Turner.

The company acknowledged the number harvesting in August, calling it a "bug," though the suit claims only specific code could have recorded and transmitted the numbers. So ... apparently that's a thing that happens. Have a great Saturday!

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
Well, after the incident with Courtney Love and Kurt, it looks like the whole issue of famous musicians in games is back in the press with No Doubt suing Activision over Band Hero. A one time event is an anomaly, but twice in just a few months suggests something else. Of course, both of these all tie back to the contract, and since I'm a transactional attorney who spends the majority of most days negotiating and drafting agreements like these, I'm hoping I can shed a little light on what might be causing the problems. Since I wasn't involved in these particular negotiations nor have I read these contracts, all of what I'm presenting is speculation.

But before I begin, I suppose I should answer the simple question, "What is a contract?" I assume that most people reading this have at least some idea, but just in case, it's worth describing in detail. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties to perform certain promises in the future. In theory, to form a contract there are five elements: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and formalities. In reality, it's fairly simple. The parties must have a meeting of the minds, that is agree to the same terms, which is often viewed as an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Each party must put up something of value, called consideration, for the contract to be valid. The parties must intend to enter into a contract, and be of the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement. And then the agreement is generally recorded in writing, as most jurisdictions have rules that require written agreements, which is then signed by the parties. And that is how a contract is born, in theory anyway.

The multi-platinum rock band No Doubt has filed a lawsuit against Activision in a L.A. County Superior Court claiming its likeness was "transformed" into a "virtual karaoke circus act" in over sixty songs in the recently released music title, Band Hero. According to TMZ, No Doubt claims gamers were only supposed to be able to use their likeness with three of its own tracks; however, the band is available as playable characters through the game's entire music catalog.

Of particular note is lead singer Gwen Stefani's displeasure that her likeness can be used to sing "Honky Tonk Woman" by the Rolling Stones -- a song which references sex with prostitutes -- using a male voice and mannerisms. For its "circus act" inclusion, No Doubt is seeking an injunction to halt the "unauthorized use" of the band's name and likeness, as well as an unknown amount of damages (aka mad monies). Seems like Activision can't keep rock stars happy, dead or alive.

[Via TeamXbox]

THQ announced today that World Wrestling Entertainment has extended a deadline that allows the publisher to renew its licensing contract. The extension lasts until December 21, 2009 -- the original deadline was November 1. If signed, the agreement would be good through December 31, 2014.

THQ is cool with the WWE, but it's not very chummy with JAKKS Pacific, its longtime partner in the WWE licensing venture. The wounds also run deep between JAKKS and the WWE. When asked for comment on the license renewal and further details regarding the three-way deal, a THQ representative told Joystiq that the publisher plans to renew its contract with the WWE, and then added, "Beyond that, I cannot comment."

The business, politics and legal issues are certainly complicated. We spoke with Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter who laid out multiple scenarios, but in the end he believes the most likely outcome is that the joint venture between THQ and JAKKS will be terminated. If JAKKS enforces its (believed to be one-year) non-compete clause, then no WWE games can be produced. Neither side would benefit from that, however.

Pachter suggests that the WWE's renewal deadline was extended to give THQ and JAKKS time to settle their issues. What it sounds like to us: THQ and WWE want to move forward as a couple, and the previous arrangement, featuring JAKKS as the third wheel, has worn out its welcome. Check out Pachter's complete analysis after the break.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Erik Estavillo made headlines in the gaming blogosphere last summer for his $55,000 lawsuit against Sony, launched in retaliation for being banned from the PlayStation Network. As predicted, the judge dismissed his case after determining the First Amendment did not apply to Estavillo's claim.

Estavallo isn't going to be stopped by a mere district judge's ruling, though. In addition to filing an appeal, Estavillo is also filing another lawsuit against Sony -- this time, a civil suit seeking $180,000 in damages; more than three times the amount of his original, dismissed suit. According to GamePolitics, Estavillo will once again opt out of using a lawyer, choosing to represent himself for both upcoming cases. We wish Estavillo the best of luck.*

*Ed.'s Note: While we'd normally end on a punchline, our fear of irrational and baseless lawsuits prevents us from doing so.

The infighting between Fallout's father and newly adopted guardian continues. According to a forum post by supposed Interplay stockholder frymuchan, Interplay has been given a 10-day extension to answer a preliminary injunction filed by Bethesda, which claims Interplay no longer holds rights to sell the original titles in the series. Following the release of Fallout 3, Interplay began selling the original titles across multiple PC-based digital distribution services.

Previous court filings by Bethesda claimed that Interplay's plans to develop a Fallout MMO -- codenamed Project V-13 -- were no longer valid because Interplay did not commence development prior to an agreed date of April 4, 2009. According to the post by RagingBull forum user "frymuchan" -- who claims to have received the information from official court documents -- Interplay claims it did issue a letter to Bethesda prior to the April date outlining details of a Fallout MMO, but Bethesda told it "for no apparent reason" that Interplay was no longer allowed to develop the game. Interplay believes that Bethesda's interference with licensing agreements to make the original titles in the series available digitally is unreasonable based on the current contracts in place.

Frymuchan also claims that Interplay has filed a countersuit versus Bethesda over statements it made to third party companies to whom it was attempting to license the original titles. According to the post, Bethesda released statements to companies such as GameTap and Good Old Games, claiming Interplay had no rights to license Fallout 1, 2 or Tactics for sale on its services. Interplay's counterclaim maintains this "unreasonable interference" puts Bethesda into breach of contract and makes the license sale "null and void," therefore reverting the agreement back to a sub-licensing deal between Interplay and Bethesda. In short, Interplay claims Bethesda now only holds rights to Fallout 3 with options for a fourth and fifth game in the series.

It's an argument of apocalyptic proportions and we're expecting more details when the extension expires next week.

[Via GamePolitics and Destructoid]