Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Nintendo sued, yet again, for Wii remote patent infringementhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/21/nintendo-sued-yet-again-for-wii-remote-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/21/nintendo-sued-yet-again-for-wii-remote-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/21/nintendo-sued-yet-again-for-wii-remote-patent-infringement/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Another lawsuit has been filed against Nintendo for alleged patent infringement in the Wii remote, according to Bloomberg. Maryland-based Hillcrest Labs filed the suit in Greenbelt, Maryland, and has also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission seeking to block imports of the Wii console and remote. Hillcrest's technology, dubbed Freespace, is reportedly used by Logitech International and Universal Electronics.

There have been numerous lawsuits and patent claims on Nintendo's Wii and DS interface technology. We're wondering if any of these companies who are suing Nintendo for patent infringement will ever sue each other for the same violations. We won't be seeing the lawsuit go to court anytime soon, however, as it's been put on hold while the ITC investigates. According to Bloomberg, that could take about 15 months.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>hillcresthillcrest-labslawsuitlegalnintendopatentpatent-infringementRoss Miller2008-08-21T10:20:00+00:00Jim Brown sues Sony, EA over Madden likenesshttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/01/jim-brown-sues-sony-ea-over-madden-likeness/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/01/jim-brown-sues-sony-ea-over-madden-likeness/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/01/jim-brown-sues-sony-ea-over-madden-likeness/#commentsFiled under: ,

You'd think most football players would be overjoyed to be named to the Madden's "All Browns Team." Not hall-of-fame running back Jim Brown, though. Bloomberg reports that Brown filed suit against Electronic Arts and Sony yesterday in a New York court, alleging that he "never signed away any rights that would allow his likeness to be used.''

What makes Brown different from the hundreds of other current players represented in the game? According to the lawsuit, Brown alleges that when he played in the '50s and '60s, "the NFL had league wide policy that players shall have no lawyers or agents when negotiating compensation." Even if he had had a lawyer, Brown argues, "video games were not invented yet and no union to obtain rights from [them] existed.'

It's a decent argument, but we'd like to think that some forward-looking '60s lawyer could have foreseen the invention of video games and included them in his contract negotiations. After all, today's sports contracts routinely contain clauses for holosim royalties (No, not really).

[Via GameDaily]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>cleveland-brownsEAEA-sportselectronic-artsjim-brownlawsuitlegalMaddenSonyKyle Orland2008-08-01T12:35:00+00:00Itagaki practices legal ninjitsu in case against Tecmohttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/24/itagaki-practices-legal-ninjitsu-in-case-against-tecmo/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/24/itagaki-practices-legal-ninjitsu-in-case-against-tecmo/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/24/itagaki-practices-legal-ninjitsu-in-case-against-tecmo/#commentsFiled under: ,

Former head of Tecmo's Team Ninja and leather aficionado, Tomonobu Itagaki, is proving himself to be quite the legal eagle hawk whatever bird a ninja might keep as a pet in his ongoing lawsuit against his old employer. In addition to upping his claim for damages from 148 million yen ($1.3 million) to 164m yen ($1.6m) for bonuses and salary not paid, the Dead or Alive creator delivered a blow to accusations by Tecmo president Yoshimi Yasuda that he was never promised bonuses in the first place.

The evidence: an audio recording of Yasuda specifically stating that a legal document known as a ringi, which outlined the contested bonus plan, had in fact been approved by Tecmo's board of directors. Take that! If that didn't sting, Itagaki said (in what we're guessing was a stern voice): "I am prepared to reveal this evidence as the need arises for the sake of greater justice." Hear that? Greater justice. Everything the guy does is intense.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>itagakilawsuitlegalteam-ninjatecmoRandy Nelson2008-07-24T18:15:00+00:00EA sued by gamers over football exclusivityhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/12/ea-sued-by-gamers-over-football-exclusivity/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/12/ea-sued-by-gamers-over-football-exclusivity/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/12/ea-sued-by-gamers-over-football-exclusivity/#commentsFiled under: ,

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."

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>eaelectronic-artslawlawsuitlegalmaddennfl-2k5suittake-twoRoss Miller2008-06-12T11:53:00+00:00Betrayal! Law of the Game columnist explains how to pass game legislationhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/#commentsFiled under:


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]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lawlaw-of-the-gamelaw-of-the-game-on-j...legallegislationmark-methenitisAlexander Sliwinski2008-05-08T20:58:00+00:00Brazil bans Bullyhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/10/brazil-bans-bully/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/10/brazil-bans-bully/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/10/brazil-bans-bully/#commentsFiled under: ,

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>banbrazilbullycontroversyjudgelegalKyle Orland2008-04-10T18:25:00+00:00Arizona bill would hold content creators liablehttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/07/arizona-games-bill-would-hold-content-creators-liable/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/07/arizona-games-bill-would-hold-content-creators-liable/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/04/07/arizona-games-bill-would-hold-content-creators-liable/#commentsFiled under: , ,

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]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>arizonabook-burningcensorshipcontenthb-2660hb2660lawlegalmpaaRoss Miller2008-04-07T13:30:00+00:00Blizzard locked in legal battle with WoW bot makerhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/26/blizzard-locked-in-legal-battle-with-wow-bot-maker/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/26/blizzard-locked-in-legal-battle-with-wow-bot-maker/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/26/blizzard-locked-in-legal-battle-with-wow-bot-maker/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>battleblizzardbotcheatcheaterscheatingcourtlegalworld-of-warcraftWoWKyle Orland2008-03-26T13:30:00+00:00British MP continues fight against Manhunt 2http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/20/british-mp-continues-fight-against-manhunt-2/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/20/british-mp-continues-fight-against-manhunt-2/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/20/british-mp-continues-fight-against-manhunt-2/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>BBFCbritainbritishcontroversykentlawlegalmanhunt 2Manhunt2MPparliamentrockstarKyle Orland2008-03-20T22:00:00+00:00Law of the Game on Joystiq: Video game laws (abort/retry/fail)http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/#commentsFiled under:

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?

When it comes to games, it is more about content restriction than restriction on an actual, quantifiable 'evil.' Taking parts of the previous list, alcohol sales are restricted because of the actual dangers of drinking (expect on your birthday!), tobacco sales are restricted because of the actual risk of cancer, and franchise sales are restricted because of an actual risk of major fraud. Video games have been, at best, nebulously linked to behavioral issues in studies that have been disputed by similar studies with contrary findings. Until there is a conclusive medical publication that shows video games trigger, say, homicidal psychosis, the cry for regulation is really a call for a content restriction, just as practically every new media has faced (i.e., rock and roll, comic books, and even movies and television).

In the broadest sense, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, that is, it bars content restrictions on speech. To quote Justice Thurgood Marshall, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." Drilling down into the specifics of the case law, however, the government does have some ability to limit the sale of 'obscene' material. However, the definition of 'obscene' is pretty limited in the US based on the 'Miller test.'

The Miller Test has 3 elements for obscenity: whether an average person, using the community standards, would find the work as a whole appeals to the prurient (generally, sexual) interest; whether the work depicts in a graphic way sexual activities; and whether the work lacks 'SLAPS' (serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific) value. Given that the obscenity test is almost purely based on sexual content, it would apply to few games. Moreover, as games have become a more accepted medium of expression, the artistic value of those expressions has increased. Finally, any game which is judged to be a political statement would have even greater protection under 'free speech' law, as political speech is generally only subject to time, place and manner restrictions. While certain people have argued that games are 'obscene,' evidence has yet to be presented to prove this point. The overwhelming majority of games does not have content that exceeds what is allowed on network television, much less R-rated movies.

Speaking of movies and television, they are an example of two different realms of content regulation. In case anyone is not familiar, the following links contain more information about the MPAA's movie rating system and the TV rating system. At a broad level, it is important to know that the movie system is not enforced by the government, while the TV system is. Why is there a difference? The TV rating system is imposed by the FCC, which is a government regulatory agency, based on the fact that any TV station has to be licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves. Because of the FCC's control of the broadcast spectrum, they have leverage with which to enforce content restrictions. The MPAA, on the other hand, is a private, industry organization and no such license is required for a movie theater to show any given movie. To put things into perspective, the ESRB is a private organization and games are shown in private residences. Games are, in that respect, no different than movies.

This, of course, begs the question: Why games? There are a lot of theories about this particular issue, but I see it as a combination of factors: fear of new things, an easy target, unscrupulous politicians, and a largely uneducated public. Legislators love to find something like video games; something they can use to exploit the public's misconceptions and fears in order to make it appear as if they've remedied a great evil without actually having to tackle a hard-hitting or divisive issue. Almost no one opposes legislation 'to protect the children,' even if no children are actually being protected.

If the idea of 'video game regulation' were left entirely in my hands (that's right, vote Methenitis!), I would simply leave the issue wholly untouched by the government. While I may not go as far as a complete anti-Jack and say that anyone should be able to play anything at any time, I do think that the government should be left out of a decision that has been effectively left to parents for years. Media consumption, be it books or movies or television or video games, can only be controlled to the degree espoused by some of the game industry's most vocal opponents in a 'nanny-state,' where personal responsibility has taken a back seat to 'big brother.'

Until a definitive ruling is handed down from the Supreme Court, the public becomes more educated on the facts at hand, or the gamer generation becomes the majority player in politics, we will continue to see opportunist legislators attempt to use video games as their grand platform to 'save the children.' The most unfortunate part is that taxpayer dollars -- your money -- and legislative efforts are being wasted on this trivial non-issue rather than on many of the more important issues that face both the US and the world at large.

Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.

The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lawlaw-of-the-gamelegallegislationpoliticsregulationsMark Methenitis2008-03-19T18:00:00+00:00Activision files lawsuit after Gibson claims Guitar Hero patenthttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/12/activision-files-lawsuit-after-gibson-claims-guitar-hero-patent/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/12/activision-files-lawsuit-after-gibson-claims-guitar-hero-patent/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/12/activision-files-lawsuit-after-gibson-claims-guitar-hero-patent/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,


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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ActivisionBreakingNewsGibsonGuitar-HeroGuitar-Hero-IIIlegalChristopher Grant2008-03-12T19:58:00+00:00Dead Rising, Dawn of the Dead similarities spark legal filingshttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/14/dead-rising-dawn-of-the-dead-similarities-spark-legal-filings/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/14/dead-rising-dawn-of-the-dead-similarities-spark-legal-filings/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/14/dead-rising-dawn-of-the-dead-similarities-spark-legal-filings/#commentsFiled under: ,

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.

View Poll

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>capcomdawn-of-the-deaddead-risinglegalmkr-groupRoss Miller2008-02-14T08:00:00+00:00Law of the Game on Joystiq: Call the cops, he stole my Cloudsong!http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/06/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-call-the-cops-he-stole-my-cloudsong/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/06/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-call-the-cops-he-stole-my-cloudsong/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/06/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-call-the-cops-he-stole-my-cloudsong/#commentsFiled under:

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:
lolcat
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 biggest problems with MMO theft are ones of value and enforcement. Value is a tricky issue, and it's one where, unfortunately, dollars speak louder than effort; largely because the majority of the populous doesn't completely understand the MMO. Say I had a Wyrm Slayer. If I went to the police because someone stole my Wyrm Slayer, they would likely begin an investigation by asking me the value of the item. If I simply told them, "It took me 50 hours to get it," the investigation would probably end there with funny looks and a "Have a nice day, sir." The issue is that unless the game is tied to real currency, then determining a value for the game's items is nearly impossible. And while a site like IGE may give you an idea, it's technically a black market. Think of it like this: If you went to the police because someone stole a kilo of heroine from you, and you put the value as the 'street value,' what do you think would happen? (This isn't the best analogy because there's basically no equivalent in the real world for being allowed to own, but not sell something.)

The enforcement issue has two sides: one legal, one logistical. A court has to have jurisdiction to address an issue, that is, there has to be a sufficient set of circumstances to grant the court the ability to decide the case. Generally, in a criminal context, jurisdiction exists where the crime is committed. But think of a hypothetical MMO case: The victim lives in Dallas, the criminal lives in New York, the game company is in Los Angeles, and the game server being used is in Idaho. Where did the crime occur? The victim experienced the crime in Dallas, but the actual theft occurred on the server in Idaho, which was actually committed from New York.

Even if you resolve the jurisdictional issue, which has been addressed in other cases involving online transactions, for something that occurs as frequently as MMO crime, it becomes almost a logistic impossibility for enforcement. Take the previous example: If the crime were held to be in Texas, New York officials would have to arrest and extradite the criminal to Texas. If the crime were held to be in New York, the victim would likely have to be flown to New York for trial. And if the crime were held to be in Idaho, then both parties would have to travel. Ultimately, I'm sure neither the parties nor the taxpayers want to foot that bill.

Of course, crime in the digital realm also has a few unique features that real world crime does not. If someone stole an actual sword I owned in the real world, it would either have to be recovered or replaced, and replacement would require raw materials, time and effort. If someone stole an Archeus from me (assuming they found some way around the bind on pickup system), there would be no cost to me or Blizzard to put another one in my inventory. Digital items are infinitely replicable without cost. There's no law of conversation conservation of matter in digital worlds. (Edit: Excuse the typo.) Assuming that crime can be accurately identified, the victim can be put back to their position pre-crime with little effort.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere certain, unfortunately. Depending on whether the trend moves more in the World of Warcraft direction, where the company tries to prevent the sale of their goods, or the Second Life direction, where the economy is tied to real currency, the results may vary. Under the World of Warcraft model, unless you can squash the entire black market or cause all items to bind on pickup (which would basically destroy the in-game economy), criminals won't feel worse about stealing to sell an item in the black market. On the other hand, if in-game transactions are allowed, then there is a high risk of fraud to recapture (or duplicate) high value items, either as a scam or "seller's remorse." However, in the case of games with real currency ties, it might be more feasible to get a cybercrime or identity theft investigator to look into the issue, since actual money is involved.

Is there an easy solution to this issue? It would seem the answer is no. However, I would anticipate that the actual solution will be one created by the game designers and online community, rather than the established law enforcement authority.

Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.

The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>columnscrimeFinal-Fantasy-XIlawLaw-of-the-GameLaw-of-the-Game-on-JoystiqlegalMMORPGSecond-LifetheftWorld-of-WarcraftMark Methenitis2008-02-06T16:00:00+00:00British High Court upholds Manhunt 2 banhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/25/british-high-court-upholds-manhunt-2-ban/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/25/british-high-court-upholds-manhunt-2-ban/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/25/british-high-court-upholds-manhunt-2-ban/#commentsFiled under: , ,

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>BBFCbirtaincontroversyhigh courtHighCourtlawlegalmanhunt-2rockstarVACKyle Orland2008-01-25T15:00:00+00:00Subpoenas place other UE3 licensees in midst of Epic, Silicon Knights lawsuithttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/subpoenas-place-other-ue3-licensees-in-midst-of-epic-silicon-kn/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/subpoenas-place-other-ue3-licensees-in-midst-of-epic-silicon-kn/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/subpoenas-place-other-ue3-licensees-in-midst-of-epic-silicon-kn/#commentsFiled under:

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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>epicepic-gameslawsuitlegalsilicon-knightstoo-humanunrealunreal-engineunreal-engine-3Ross Miller2008-01-24T12:55:00+00:00Joystiq interview: Patrick Goschy talks about Midway, tells us he 'made the Wii'http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/16/joystiq-interview-patrick-goschy-talks-about-midway-tells-us-h/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/16/joystiq-interview-patrick-goschy-talks-about-midway-tells-us-h/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/16/joystiq-interview-patrick-goschy-talks-about-midway-tells-us-h/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

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!)

In 1999, while working as a Development Systems Technician at Midway, Goschy created his first motion-controlled device. "Quake II was huge," he said, "I wondered why you couldn't pull yourself through the game and shoot on screen like in Time Crisis." Goschy's creation was an accelerometer placed in what is essentially a light gun. As he explained it, a button was used to change the motion controls from character movement to aiming on screen. The next invention was the two-handed motion controls seen in the video demonstration by Goschy playing Ready 2 Rumble on Sega Dreamcast. That video was produced in June of 2000. Both devices listed above were part of patent filings in 1999.

In 2000, according to Goschy, Midway came up with a bonus compensation plan which would reportedly supplement him for royalties on a third patent. "[The document was] written up so they can pay anything and fire anytime," said Goschy. He sought advice from an attorney who advised against signing it. They sent back a modified copy but didn't hear back. Goschy was laid off five months later in March of 2001.

Goschy signed a separation agreement saying that he "will not talk about anything [he and Midway did] and he will not reveal anything" in return for a month's pay. He cited the recent dot-com bubble burst, no job prospects and a lack of college degree as reasons he signed off on it. Goschy became a field service technician and, in summer of 2002, received a package from Midway that included the patent he didn't sign. Still turning down the bonus compensation, he did not sign it.



While having no concrete evidence, Goschy said he suspects Midway and Nintendo have a deal for the patent rights. He said the video demonstration was sent out to lots of people, and likely made its way to Nintendo.

Goschy, who now works as a consultant as well as the director of R&D for Computer Assisted Living, said his intention was to earn recognition for what he feels is a major part of the Wii remote. "Considering how many units have been sold and the fact that this device has changed the way that video games will be played forever, yeah money would be great, but the main reason is that I did it and I wanted people to know it."

So, does he have a case? There are two US patents, both filed in 1999, that cite Goschy as an inventor (6315673, 6545661) - the latter was referenced by Nintendo in a patent filed in April 2003 for a "game device changing sound and an image in accordance with a tilt operation," laying the foundation for the Wii remote. It should be noted that there are a total of 110 U.S. patents and nine foreign patents that are reference by Nintendo. Goschy's patent is also referenced by Apple (7307228) and Nikon (6727885).

As noted in the Fox news video by patent attorney Richard Beem, Goschy made these while at Midway, giving the rights to his work to the company. "Invent for an employer, you invent for a paycheck," he said. "The rights go to the employer." Beem further concluded that, in his opinion, the Wii remote -- which besides an accelerometer also uses IR sensors for motion detection -- is "an advance over and above and beyond what Mr. Goschy came up with." In other words, no deal.



Mark Methenitis, creator of the site Law of the Game and an attorney (though not specializing in patent law), told us that all filed patents must list all prior art, which encompasses all patents prior to the filing that might be relevant to the patent's claim of originality. That means when Nintendo filed the patent, the patent offices were explicitly made aware of Goschy's prior work. "While I won't deny that Goschy's patent certainly seems like the predecessor," he said, "the Wii-mote is clearly a full step beyond any other filed patent. In fact, the Wii patent wouldn't have been issued if it lacked the 'novelty' to be patentable."

Midway declined to comment for this story. Nintendo gave us a statement identical to what Fox news received: "Mr. Goschy did not invent this technology or its use with video games ... it is irresponsible to report or suggest that this invention relates in any way to the Wii system."

Still, Goschy is adamant. "I made the Wii," he told us, later in the interview adding, "It kills me every time I see the video [for it]."

In response to Engadget's suggestion of creating a new video, Goschy said he would have to find a working Dreamcast first. As for a video demonstration of the gun used with Quake II, he said, "I don't even know if I have the gun anymore ... that would be tougher." When asked about his apparent lack of pants in the footage, Goschy explained, "I came up with the idea during the summer, and it gets hot in Chicago during the summer, those are shorts and sandals that I am wearing. Midway was a pretty casual environment."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>goschylawlegalmidwaynintendopatentpatrick-goschywii-remotewiimoteRoss Miller2008-01-16T13:45:00+00:00Nintendo, Sony sued for alleged patent infringementhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/11/nintendo-sony-sued-for-alleged-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/11/nintendo-sony-sued-for-alleged-patent-infringement/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/11/nintendo-sony-sued-for-alleged-patent-infringement/#commentsFiled under: , ,

patent suit
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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>blu-ray-remotelawsuitlegalnunchukpatentsixaxiswiimoteJames Ransom-Wiley2008-01-11T13:15:00+00:00Judge sides with Activision in Guitar Hero 80s lawsuithttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/20/judge-sides-with-activision-in-guitar-hero-80s-lawsuit/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/20/judge-sides-with-activision-in-guitar-hero-80s-lawsuit/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/20/judge-sides-with-activision-in-guitar-hero-80s-lawsuit/#commentsFiled under:


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.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ActivisionBreakingNewsGuitar-HeroHarmonixlegalRed-OctaneThe-RomanticsChristopher Grant2007-12-20T21:30:00+00:00Square wins plagiarism case against Korean music videohttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/11/square-wins-plagiarism-case-against-korean-music-video/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/11/square-wins-plagiarism-case-against-korean-music-video/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/11/square-wins-plagiarism-case-against-korean-music-video/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Imitation isn't only the sincerest form of flattery, it's also the most legally actionable. At least it is to Square Enix, which recently won a plagiarism case against South Korean music video producer Fantom to the tune of 16 million won (approx. $17,400).

The case centers on the video for the song Temptation Sonata, in which live actors recreate a scene from Square Enix's animated movie, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. According to a judge for the Seoul Central District Court, the video "illegally used 80% of the storyline, setting, characters and their styles of dress and their demeanors," from the movie scene. We're not sure how the judge came to such an exact statistic, but who are we to argue with such an official sounding pronouncement?

A comparison of the videos (both viewable below the break) shows much more than a passing similarity between the two, and Square was definitely within its rights taking legal action. That said, we have to wonder what Square Enix felt it had to gain from a court case. Is this video really hurting the company's ability to milk insane amounts of money out off the Final Fantasy franchise? Does seeing the video makes someone less likely to buy a copy of Advent Children? What's next, a legal case against the makers of College Saga? We just hope the negative PR associated with this case is worth the massive $17,000 pay day Square Enix made off of it.

Scene from Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

Music Video for Ivy's "Temptation Sonata"

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>advent childrenAdventChildrencourtenixfinal fantasyFinal Fantasy VIIfinal fantasy7FinalFantasyFinalFantasy7FinalFantasyViikorealawlegalplagiarismsquaresquare enixSquareEnixKyle Orland2007-12-11T14:45:00+00:00Lawsuit targets MS and Bungie for 'faulty' Halo 3http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/29/lawsuit-targets-ms-and-bungie-for-faulty-halo-3/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/29/lawsuit-targets-ms-and-bungie-for-faulty-halo-3/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/29/lawsuit-targets-ms-and-bungie-for-faulty-halo-3/#commentsFiled under: , ,

A new lawsuit has been filed by a San Diego resident against Microsoft and Bungie concerning Halo 3. According to Information Week, the suit alleges the game "consistently causes the Xbox 360 to crash, freeze, or lock up while the game is being played."

The plaintiff, Randy Nunez, also asserts the problem is widespread and that Microsoft and Bungie "have failed to recall Halo 3 or otherwise remedy its failure to function on the Xbox 360." He is seeking class action status and unspecified damages.

We're not lawyers, but we don't think the problem is inherently Halo 3 so much as hardware issues that Microsoft has tried to address (to the tune of over $1 billion). Of course, he could be talking about scratched Legendary Edition discs, which Microsoft also took action to fix. It's hard to tell how these fancy schmancy legal proceedings will play out; perhaps the whole mess can be resolved over a friendly game of capture the flag.

[Via GameDaily]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>bungiehalohalo-3halo3lawsuitlegalmicrosoftrrodRoss Miller2007-11-29T11:52:00+00:00