Two gamers have filed a lawsuit against Electronic Arts, alleging that the publisher's exclusivity agreements with the NFL, NCAA and Arena Football have led to anti-competitive practices. The focus of the suit, according to Gamespot, stems from EA's actions after sales of Take-Two's NFL 2K5 pushed the publisher to drop Madden 2005 from $50 to $30. Instead of competing with Take-Two, according to the suit, EA entered into multiple exclusivity agreements and was able to raise the price of Madden 2006 back to $50.

Additionally, the suit notes that should the EA-Take-Two acquisition come to fruition, it would "remove one of the few companies with the ability and expertise to compete in the market for interactive football software." The plaintiffs seek restitution for all those who purchased an EA football game after August 2005, "disgorgement of all profits made as a result of anticompetitive actions, and that the infringing agreements be declared null and void."

Friends, we have a traitor in our midst. Our very own Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, has given the enemy a point-by-point plan on how to regulate games. He thought we wouldn't find it on his personal blog, and many Bothans died to bring us this information, but here is a small sample of his treachery.

• "1. Forget the idea that you're only regulating games: If you want a regulation to stick, targeting one media without credible proof of the difference between that media and all of the other things kids are exposed to isn't going to fly. So, if you want to regulate games, the bill needs to also regulate movies, maybe music, and potentially even books. It needs to be a universal approach to put parents in control. ..."
• "5. Forget the 'AO' rating for games: The argument is often made that some games should be rated 'AO.' Forget it. An 'AO' rating is basically banning the game from sale, or classifying it with the most hardcore pornography. Unless the game is some sort of sexual simulation, it shouldn't garner an 'AO' rating. In general, the sexual content in an 'M' game falls short of what is in many R rated movies or even what is on television. Arguing that a game like GTA IV should be AO is just an effort in futility."
• "9. This should be a fine only offense, and only a fine against the store: It is the requirement of the store to perform their due diligence on each sale. Keeping that in mind, this isn't injecting heroin into the veins of children. The idea that it should be a criminal offense is just silly, and the idea that individual cashiers should be punished is equally inane. If a store has a problematic cashier, then the store should be held accountable and be allowed to deal with the cashier as they see fit."

There are six other points of treason! To reward Mr. Methenitis for his disloyalty we have dispatched our battle cats. May Cthulhu have mercy on his soul.

[Thanks, geonex88]

No sooner does Rockstar finally succeed in getting Manhunt 2 unbanned in the UK than another Rockstar game gets banned in another country. This time around it's Bully: Scholarship Edition that's been banned by a Brazilian judge, as the AP is reporting.

According to the report, the ban prevents the game from "being imported, distributed, sold or promoted on Web sites and stores" in the country. Brazilian distributors and retailers will have thirty days to comply with the ban, which came in response to a request from a Brazilian youth center. "The aggravating factor is that everything in the game takes place inside a school" said prosecutor Alcindo Bastas. "That is not acceptable."

A Take-Two spokesman said the decision "will not have a material impact on the sales of this popular title." We're relatively sure this is not the last we'll hear from the publisher about this matter.

A new Arizona bill aims to take on the entire media industry. House Bill 2660, which passed the state House of Representatives last month, aims to make a person "liable for damages if the person produces, publishes or distributes written, audio, video or digital material" that is deemed "dangerous or obscene." Such wording could apply to books, websites, video games, movies, TV shows and Numa Numa.

While the bill sounds ridiculous to the point of fiction, it is causing many to be concerned -- for example, who decides what is dangerous and obscene? The Video Game Voters Network has issued a call to action over the bill, and representatives for the MPAA and the Arizona Newspaper Associations have taken issue with it.

We at Joystiq aren't too worried. Should the bill pass, it would logically self-destruct, seeing as it is also dangerous and obscene written material.

[Via Game Politics]

The BBC today has a nice little summary of the ongoing legal battle between Blizzard, maker of World of Warcraft, and Michael Donnelly, maker of bot program MMO Glider. In short, Blizzard says MMO Glider violates its copyrights and the end-user license agreement that players agree to when they install the game. Donnelly says he isn't breaking copyright because he isn't selling a copy of the game client itself, and that no one reads those stupid end-user license agreements anyway (we may have made up that last part of Donnelly's defense, but that doesn't make it any less true!).

WoW Insider also has an update on the latest round of legal wrangling in the case, which seems to be a somewhat split decision that leans towards the side of the bot-makers. Ethical issues aside, we definitely don't have the legal acumen necessary to work out which side is in the right here. If any commenters out there think they can untangle this one, have at it.

You'd think the BBFC's official unbanning of an edited version of Manhunt 2 would officially end the battle over the game's release. You'd be wrong though, as Kent Online reports that Kent MP Julian Brazier is working to introduce a "public appeals process" to overturn BBFC decisions, like the one that paved the way for Manhunt 2's release.

Brazier's Private Members Bill to reform the BBFC was discussed and eventually stopped in Parliament late last month, but that hasn't stopped Brazier from trying to revive its political chances. Brazier insists that the eventual decision to release Manhunt 2 "shows once again that the BBFC and its appeals system do not meet the concerns of the public" and that "the public wants a significant tightening up in this vital area." Earlier this month, Brazier accompanied Gordon Brown in a meeting with Giselle Pakeerah, a mother who believes the original Manhunt contributed to her son's murder.

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

This week has seen a striking revival of 'video game legislation' stories, from Massachusetts to Minnesota to England. Given the sudden resurgence of the issue, it seemed like an appropriate time to dissect the legal issue of 'video game regulation' on the Law of the Game operating table. The concept of government regulation is as much a legal construct as it is a political one, and to date, it has been the legal system's role to strike down these regulations as a violation of free speech (although, it has recently been brought out that, at a minimum, Justice Scalia may not agree). The real issue at hand is where, if anywhere, a 'video game law' could fall in our legal system.

In broad terms, the US government gets to regulate many things, be that at the state or federal level. Just take a moment to think of all of the ways the government restricts your personal and professional life. If you want to drive a car without stealing it, you have to be at least 16 years old. If you want to buy certain 'products' from law-abiding establishments (the guy in the back alley doesn't count), the age restrictions are set at 18 or 21. If you want to sell a franchise concept, you have to make certain disclosures as required by the Federal Trade Commission and various state regulators. If you want to get philosophical, this is all part of the 'social contract,' and these restrictions are generally in place for the benefit of the public at large. But what about the games?

Yesterday was a busy legal day for the Guitar Hero franchise, what with Harmonix pulling a $14.5 million dollar royalty suit on the same day Activision decided to address a patent claim from its guitar partners at Gibson. Sure, we're not fancy lawyers with fancy pants, but it strikes us as particularly odd that Gibson managed to work up a deal with Activision – licensing its branding as well as the likenesses of some of its most iconic guitars – well before realizing that, hey! It's already patented this whole thing and owns the rights to a device whereby a "musician can simulate participation in a concert by playing a musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3D display that includes stereo speakers."

Turns out that while Gibson told its pals at Activision about the patent back in January, the Big A just filed a lawsuit yesterday asking the U.S. District Court for Central California "to declare Gibson's patent invalid and to bar it from seeking damages." Considering we're talking about a billion dollar franchise, we're sure Gibson's been seeing dollar signs. Perhaps it's afraid games like Guitar Hero are siphoning potential guitar sales away from, y'know, actual instruments ... or maybe it just figured why the heck not. Unless they make nice nice, we figure there's a chance we could see Fender-branded guitars in both guitar rhythm series going forward.

[Via Engadget]

Read – Activision's "Guitar Hero" violates patent: Gibson (Reuters)
Read – United States Patent Number 5,990,405

Capcom is looking to protect its right to kill hordes of zombies in a shopping center. In a legal complaint filed this week (PDF file via The Hollywood Reporter Esq.), the game publisher asserts that "humans battling zombies in a shopping mall" is a "wholly unprotectible idea" under today's copyright laws.

The reason for Capcom's fair use claim reportedly comes from a draft complaint sent to the company (as well as Microsoft and Best Buy) by The MKR Group, who claim intellectual ownership of both Dawn of the Dead films. Capcom's filing notes that the company unsuccessfully tried to discuss the matter and that the game features a disclaimer that reads, "This game was not developed, approved or licensed by the owners or creators of George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead."

It's time to conduct a very (ahem) scientific poll.

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:

Everyone remembers the now classic "You Stole My Cloudsong!" recording (warning: NSFW). What's less funny, if you're a MMORPG player, is that theft is a real occurrence in MMO worlds. So what happens if someone steals your hard earned gold or items? Do you have any recourse? According to the cops in Minnesota, the answer is no. However, a more progressive look at the issue would suggest that protection for your virtual assets is certainly coming, if it doesn't exist already. In fact, in China, a recent case declared that seizure of virtual assets had actual value with actual recourse. It's an issue that is often discussed at sites like VirtuallyBlind, TerraNova, and (shameless plug in 3-2-1) Law of the Game, among others. Of course, simply lumping in digital theft with ordinary theft is far more complex than one might think.

The baseline question that needs to be answered is: What is theft? According to Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), theft is "the felonious taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of depriving the true owner of it; larceny." Simple enough, but going back into the common law, many jurisdictions traditionally limited larceny (the root of theft) to tangible personal property. It's only more modern interpretations, especially in the US, that include intangible property in the grander concept of "theft." However, even assuming you can include intangibles in "theft," there are much bigger problems with trying to apply this concept to in-game theft.

The seemingly never-ending fight to get Manhunt 2 onto British shelves might be coming to an end. As reported by Eurogamer, the Honourable (and aptly named) Judge Justice Mitting said the Video Appeals Committee made "a clear error of law" when they decided 4-3 that Manhunt should be granted a classification by the BBFC.

Rockstar, unsurprisingly, was not happy with the decision, saying in a statement that they "do not understand the court's decision to expend further public resources to censor a game that contains content well within the bounds established by the British Board of Film Classification's18-plus ratings certification."

The game's chances aren't quite dead yet. The judge gave the VAC two weeks to review their decision with an eye towards "potential harm" rather than just "actual harm," as Eurogamer put it.

For those who might not remember, the game was banned by the BBFC, appealed for by Rockstar, banned again, appealed again (successfully), and then counter-appealed up to the British high court in December.

Subpoenas have been issued to multiple licensees of Unreal Engine 3 to testify in the ongoing litigation between UE3 maker Epic Games and Too Human developer Silicon Knights, according to Shacknews. Though no licensees are specified, developers who use the engine include Electronic Arts, 2K Boston/Australia, SOE, Square Enix, Ubisoft and the U.S. Army.

Said Rein to Shacknews, "I'm leaving the litigation to the lawyers but, if this is the case, I'd like to apologize to any of our licensees who Silicon Knights have inconvenienced." Should license contracts be submitted as unsealed court evidence, there is a chance the licensing fees and other trade secrets could become public record, though Epic's lawyers can move to seal court documents.

In late July, Silicon Knights filed a lawsuit against Epic Games over what it felt was inadequate support for its Unreal Engine 3 that harmed development of Too Human. Epic responded and filed a countersuit. In November, Epic's motion for dismissal was denied.

A few days ago, former Midway employee Patrick Goschy released a video he made in 1999 depicting a motion-based controller of his own design, with the intention of highlighting what he believed to be a direct inspiration for the Nintendo Wii remote. The Chicago-based Fox affiliate ran the story* and our sister site Engadget later managed to obtain pictures of the prototype. We had a chance to speak with Goschy over the phone to learn some new details about the creation of not one but two prototypes, as well as the circumstances surrounding the patent ownership.

(* Note: About one third of the way through the Fox news footage, you can glimpse someone's hands playing the Wii. The shirt is unmistakably Joystiq, and the hands ... wow, that's Chris Grant from a CNN video dated December 2006! Congratulations Chris, you've become archived footage! You're immortal!)

A Pennsylvania company has filed suit against Nintendo and Sony for allegedly violating its patent held for a "hand held computer input apparatus and method." The Wiimote, Nunchuk, Sixaxis, and PS3 Blu-ray remote were all named in the lawsuit filed last month in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Copper Innovations Group claims that these devices infringe on its 1996 patent for a method of sorting devices connected to a system by number identification.

Copper is after a cut of Wii's lucrative profits and PS3's (once there are some), seeking payment for damages, with interest, and legal fees. Copper is also calling for a permanent injunction that would prohibit Nintendo, Sony and 3rd-party manufacturers from further infringing on the patent.

Activision's let our pals at GameDaily know that a federal judge in Detroit has denied The Romantics request to halt sales of Guitar Hero Encore Rocks the 80s over its use of a cover of their track "What I Like About You." Though the judge said the publisher followed the proper copyright procedures in their use of the track, he has yet to announce what, if any, damages will be awarded to the former 80's stars.

Activision was predictably pleased with the judge's decision, saying the suit was "without merit" and that they had a "long history of supporting artists from a range of entertainment fields." No word from The Romantics though we think it's safe to assume you'll never have a chance to play any of their other singles in rhythm game form ever. Hope those radio royalties are paying the bills, fellas.