Davis LLP - Video Game Law Blog

FUS RO DAH!

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:37:00 PDT

Earlier this month, ZeniMax Media filed six US trade-mark applications for FUS RO DAH in association with online games and various merch. FUS RO DAH is a spell used in The Elder Scrolls, and on its own might not be protectable as a trade-mark. To be protectable, it actually has to be used as a trade-mark (i.e. used to distinguish the products and services of ZeniMax). ZeniMax will therefore want to start using FUS RO DAH as a brand, and not just as an element within the game. The same is true for game characters.  Game companies might have copyright protection for their characters, but to protect the characters as a trade-mark requires use of the characters as a brand. That means using the character’s name or image consistently on merch or on splash screens as more than just ornamentation. In any case, no corresponding applications for FUS RO DAH have shown up on the Canadian trade-mark database yet, although ZeniMax may be taking advantage of an international convention which gives applicants up to six months to file their foreign trade-mark applications. As long as ZeniMax files in Canada within that six-month period, ZeniMax’s Canadian priority filing date will be backdated to the date of the US application. That means ZeniMax’s applications will have priority even if someone else files a conflicting application in the meantime.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

New German e-commerce law affects game companies

Sat, 10 Mar 2012 06:30:00 PST

A new e-commerce law has been enacted in Germany, which will have a major impact on all e-commerce companies doing end-consumer business in Germany. It is especially relevant for all online gaming companies. The new law is nicknamed the "button-solution". It obligates all providers of e-commerce services to label the last button of an order process clearly with the words "zahlungspflichtig bestellen" ("order requiring payment") or something similar. The wording "Bestellung absenden" ("send order") which currently is widely used will no longer be sufficient. In addition, the consumer has to be clearly informed about the costs of products, delivery costs and the minimum term right before the purchase. All agreements with consumers violating this rule will be void. A breach of this obligation can lead to warning letters by competitors and consumer protection bodies. The new rule applies only for transactions concluded under German law. It is not possible to avoid this obligation by agreeing to a different legal system in the Terms and Services of the contract if the consumer is German and the business is targeted at the German market. --- This was a guest posting from Dr. Andreas Lober at Schulte-lawyers.com

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

EA denied SSX.com

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:29:00 PST

Qj.net has reported that Electronic Arts. Inc. lost its legal battle before the National Arbitration Forum against Abstract Holdings International Ltd. for the rights to the SSX.com domain name. In fact, as appears from the National Arbitration Forum’s decision, the SSX.com domain name was allegedly first registered in connection with the acquisition of a number of “generic three-letter acronyms” and was acquired by a company called Abstract Holdings International Ltd., along with many others, in October of 2011. EA submitted to the Forum that it holds SSX as a registered Trademark, that the mark has been in use since 2000 in connection with its computer game of the same name, and that the domain name in question is obviously identical to the registered mark. EA further argued, inter alia, that Abstract Holdings International Ltd. had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, that it was trading off the good will generated by EA’s mark, and that the registration and use of the domain name was in “bad faith”. The relief sought by EA was that the domain name be transferred from Abstract Holdings International Ltd. to EA. Further to its analysis of the parties’ submissions, the National Arbitration Forum found, inter alia, that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the SSX.com domain name and that it did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Forum therefore found that EA failed to establish each of the three elements required under the ICANN Policy to have the domain name transferred or cancelled and denied the relief sought. For the full National Arbitration Forum decision:  <a href="http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1415905.htm">http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1415905.htm</a>.   Coverage at: <a href="http://www.qj.net/ps3/news/ea-loses-ssx-domain-in-legal-battle.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+qj%2Fxbox+%28QJ.NET+-+Xbox+360%29">http://www.qj.net/ps3/news/ea-loses-ssx-domain-in-legal-battle.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+qj%2Fxbox+%28QJ.NET+-+Xbox+360%29</a>

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

EA lawsuit - further thoughts

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:26:00 PST

We <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/video-game-law/preemptive-strike-ea-using-the-freedom-of-expression-to-block-potential-trademark-infringement-suit/">posted recently</a> about how EA has brought a pre-emptive lawsuit seeking judicial confirmation that it has a constitutional right to depict real-world helicopters in its games. This lawsuit is another example of the issues involved in depicting real-world brands and objects in video games. We discussed this topic in more detail some time ago: see <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/publication/video-game-law-how-real-is-too-real/">here</a>. The EA dispute is interesting because apparently the helicopter manufacturer demanded that EA cease depicting its helicopters in the Battlefield 3 game, and the parties could not reach a resolution. EA then filed its pre-emptive lawsuit on freedom of speech and nominative fair use grounds. (Nominative fair use is a US trade-mark principle that says it's OK to refer to a third-party trade-mark in order to identify that party's products, services or business, so long as you do not suggest an endorsement or affiliation.) Presumably the helicopter manufacturer takes the position that its choppers are distinctive, that it has trade-mark rights in them, and that any unauthorized depiction of them infringes these rights. The strength of this position is not clear, and EA's lawsuit, if it proceeds, will shed more light on the legality of depicting real-world objects in video games.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Fallout from Bethesda-Interplay lawsuit dissipates

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:46:00 PST

Bethesda and Interplay have settled a long-running dispute over the Fallout IP.  Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise from Interplay in 2007, but licensed back to Interplay certain rights to sell pre-existing Fallout games and to develop and operate a Fallout-based MMO.  The MMO portion of the licence contained various conditions, including that Interplay secure funding and start full-scale development of the MMO within 2 years, and launch the MMO within 4 years. In 2009, Bethesda launched a lawsuit against Interplay for trade-mark infringement (on the basis that Interplay was not complying with the trade-mark provisions of the 2007 licence in its activities relating to the pre-exising Fallout games) and breach of contract (on the basis that Interplay had not begun developing the MMO). Reports are that the settlement includes the cancellation of the MMO licence and the reversion of all MMO-related rights to Bethesda, the cancellation of any other Fallout-related IP rights granted to Interplay, and a $2 million payment by Bethesda to Interplay. Coverage of the historical dispute <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39643/Gamasutra_takes_stand_on_SOPA.php?story=25226">here</a> (Gamasutra); coverage of the settlement <a href="http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/bethesda-settles-all-fallout-ip-related-lawsuits/">here</a> (JoyStiq).

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Preemptive Strike: EA Using The Freedom Of Expression To Block Potential Trademark Infringement Suit

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:46:00 PST

<a href="http://kotaku.com/5874076/ea-invokes-first-amendment-protection-for-video-games-in-trademark-dispute-with-helicopter-maker">Kotaku </a>is reporting that Electronic Arts has filed a lawsuit asking the US federal court to hold that it has a constitutional right to depict helicopters based on real-life models in its video games. EA’s Battlefield 3, a multiplayer first person shooter game that allows players to step into the shoes of various modern military characters, includes depictions of real-life helicopter models manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc. After talks between EA and Textron about licensing the helicopters broke down, EA brought a lawsuit to preempt a trademark infringement claim that Textron might have for the use of its helicopters in Battlefield 3. EA argues that in the games, there are countless elements that combine visual, audio, plot and programming, of which the helicopters are a minute detail. The work, as a whole, is a combination of each of these elements and not of the elements individually. What is interesting about this case is that it is one in a string of cases that have invoked the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">First Amendment </a>to protect the content of video games. A federal court in New Jersey recently ruled that the <a href="http://kotaku.com/5838921/ea-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-depict-real-college-football-players-judge-rules">unlicensed use of a college football player </a>was permissible under the First Amendment (read the decision <a href="http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=139661421569798734&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">here</a> and previous coverage <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/video-game-law/college-athletes-sue-for-video-game-revenues/">here</a>), as was the <a href="http://kotaku.com/5369702/federal-judge-rules-video-games-are-protected-expressive-works">depiction of a professional player </a>in EA’s Madden NFL series (previously covered <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/video-game-law/freedom-of-speech-and-use-of-likenesses/">here</a>). The Supreme Court of the US also had the opportunity to address the First Amendment in June of 2011 when it ruled that <a href="http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-defeat-california-in-supreme-court-battle-over-violent-video-games">restrictions on selling violent games to minors </a>violate the first amendment (previously covered <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/video-game-law/Supreme-Court-Strikes-down-California-Ban-on-Violent-Video-Game-Sales-or-Rental-to-Kids/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/video-game-law/industry-issues-statement-on-california-law/">here</a>). The case established that video games have the same protection as any other expressive work, such as books, paintings or movies.  What makes this case noteworthy is the potential implication for trademark infringement suits that result from a trademarked product's use in a video game. The mere use or resemblance of a trademarked, or otherwise copyright, element is subject to a rigorous analysis under the First Amendment. There is no automatic protection for these elements, especially where those elements are peripheral, or merely a detail compared to the work as a whole. In this case, EA alleges that the use of the helicopters is protected by the First Amendment because the helicopters are not an essential element or the main focus of the game. The same may not true for elements that are, like EA’s Need for Speed, where the cars featured are the main focus of the game (and EA has licensed the vehicles to appear in that game).  It will be interesting to see how the California federal court will treat EA’s right to creative expression, using trademarked helicopters, and what that will mean for future game developers who would otherwise have to negotiate licensing rights to use trademarked products in their games.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Microsoft and Datel finally make nice: Xbox 360-related lawsuits settled

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:04:00 PST

Datel Design & Development and Microsoft have buried the hatchet, settling their respective anti-trust and patent-infringement lawsuits against each other in relation to the Xbox 360 system. The companies have been battling it out in the courts since 2009. In November 2009, Datel (based in the UK) sued Microsoft after the Seattle-based software giant released an updated Xbox 360 - a version which did not allow for non-Microsoft authorized storage devices and third-party memory cards. Datel, creator of the popular Max Memory cards, accused Microsoft of "predatory conduct", and filed an anti-trust suit in San Francisco, claiming that Microsoft had "deliberately harmed competition", and had attempted to render inoperable the Max Memory card for "no visible purpose other than to have that market entirely to themselves", according to a press release issued by Datel at the time. Microsoft turned around and filed a patent suit against Datel the following year in Seattle federal court, claiming that Datel's Turbofire and WildFire controllers infringed Microsoft's Xbox 360 controller patent (which covered a protocol for peripheral devices used with a wireless gaming console). Datel subsequently stopped importing its TurboFire2 Xbox 360 Wireless version into the US (which had also been the subject of a complaint before the US International Trade Commission), and also redesigned the offending controllers. In August 2011, Microsoft withdrew its suit against Datel - though it still sought compensatory damages for Datel's past infringement. The terms of the settlements are obviously confidential, though a Microsoft spokesperson reportedly stated that the terms were "to the satisfaction of both parties". For more info, go to <linkhere xbox_360_memory_card_antitrust_suit_gets_settled_out_of_court.php=""><a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/39471/Xbox_360_memory_card_antitrust_suit_gets_settled_out_of_court.php" target="_blank">Gamasutra </a>and <linkhere a="" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/microsoft-tilaknagar-macy-s-apple-intellectual-property-1-.html"><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/microsoft-tilaknagar-macy-s-apple-intellectual-property-1-.html" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a>.</linkhere></linkhere> <linkhere xbox_360_memory_card_antitrust_suit_gets_settled_out_of_court.php=""><linkhere a="" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/microsoft-tilaknagar-macy-s-apple-intellectual-property-1-.html"></linkhere></linkhere> <linkhere xbox_360_memory_card_antitrust_suit_gets_settled_out_of_court.php=""><linkhere a="" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/microsoft-tilaknagar-macy-s-apple-intellectual-property-1-.html"> </linkhere></linkhere> <linkhere xbox_360_memory_card_antitrust_suit_gets_settled_out_of_court.php=""><linkhere a="" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-04/microsoft-tilaknagar-macy-s-apple-intellectual-property-1-.html">         </linkhere></linkhere>

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Nintendo Wins Early Victory in Patent Suit

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:52:00 PDT

According to a Reuters report, the US International Trade Commission has ruled in favour of Nintendo Co. in a patent infringement claim brought by Motiva LLC. In a notice issued by Judge Robert K. Rogers, Jr. following judgement, the judge found that Nintendo’s Wii does not infringe two Motiva patents and that there was no industry in the U.S. which exploited the patents in question. The decision is subject to review by the six-member commission in Washington, D.C. and a final decision will be made by March, 2012. Motiva claimed that Nintendo's Wii system infringed on its patents, explaining that it holds a patent for a "human movement measurement system" that uses wireless hand-held or body-worn controllers to track a user's position in three-dimensional space. Nintendo General Counsel Rick Flamm said in an email statement, "Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others. Nintendo is confident that, if the full International Trade Commission reviews the decision, it will reach the same outcome." Motiva has not yet made a public comment on the ruling. Coverage is available <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-nintendo-patent-idUSTRE7A187520111102">here </a>and <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-02/nintendo-wins-ruling-in-itc-patent-case-over-video-game-systems.html">here</a> and a link to the notice is available <a href="http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/337_743_ID.pdf">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Time for a "dance off"?

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:11:00 PDT

Court denies Ubisoft's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against OG's "Get Up and Dance" Though it's likely that most self-styled "hard core" gamers (myself included) tend to eschew dance-based video games, their popularity is undeniable, as is the fact that they continue to produce huge profits for video game developers and publishers.  Currently leading the charge is Ubisoft and its <a href="http://just-dance-thegame.ubi.com/just-dance-3/en-GB/home/index.aspx">Just Dance</a> franchise, which launched on the Wii in 2009 and continues to be a big seller with the cross-platform release of Just Dance 3 in October.  Unsurprisingly given the success of the genre, a number of competitors have entered the market (most notably, Microsoft/Harmonix's <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dance-central/critic-reviews">Dance Central</a> which has been hailed by many critics as the best game for the Kinect ). <linkhere a="" href="http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/dance-central/critic-reviews"><linkhere a="" href="http://just-dance-thegame.ubi.com/just-dance-3/en-GB/home/index.aspx">During E3 2011, OG International Ltd. announced that it too would be entering the dance-based game market with its own entry, Get Up and Dance.  Following this announcement, Ubisoft began corresponding with OG regarding possible claims of copyright and trade dress infringement and indicated that it would file suit no later than October, 2011.  OG then filed suit for declaratory judgment on October 7, 2011, following which Ubisoft countered with a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction requesting that the court enjoin the release of Get Up and Dance prior to its scheduled release in early November, 2011.  In particular, Ubisoft claimed that OG has violated its copyrights and trade dress in Just Dance by copying two key visual elements that Ubisoft argued distinguish the Just Dance series from other dance-based video games on the market, namely, its "avatar" and "instructor" elements.  In a decision delivered on October 26, 2011, Justice Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court denied Ubisoft's request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, holding that "Ubisoft has failed to make a clear showing that it is entitled to such extraordinary relief.  While its claims are not implausible, it has not demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits, nor a clear showing of irreparable harm.  Moreover, the balance of the hardships do not clearly favor Ubisoft, thus even serious questions on the merits are not sufficient to grant injunctive relief." The full text of the decision can be found <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv04980/246409/45/">here</a>.     </linkhere></linkhere>

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Virtual Property: still crazy after all these years

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:11:00 PDT

Like all video game lawyers, we're interested in the wacky world of virtual property -- in-game characters and property -- and the questions that surround it, such as who owns virtual property, whether players have rights in virtual property, whether players can (or should) buy or sell virtual property for real money, etc. Sadly, these questions have not really been answered in a court of law. Not so sadly, bright minds continue to tangle with virtual property and the thorny issues it raises. The most recent example is an interesting article by Justin Kwong in the William Mitchell Law Review titled "Getting the Goods on Virtual Items: A Fresh Look at Transactions in Multi-User Online Environments" (link to PDF <a href="http://www.wmitchell.edu/lawreview/Volume37/documents/Kwong.pdf">here</a>). One of the article's main arguments is that virtual property is acquired by licence, and that "purchases" of virtual property are "licenses to access certain features of an ongoing service, rather than acquisitions of goods where there is a formal transfer of title". The article draws an analogy to mug clubs, where a pub patron can pay a membership fee and get a personal mug (that stays in the pub) that only the patron can use. The patron pays money for a separate and identifiably item and has almost exclusive possession of it -- but not actual ownership, because the pub still owns the mug. Virtual property is the same, argues the paper, with virtual property being the mug and the game provider being the pub. The article has received some coverage and has generated some interesting discussion (for example, at <a href="http://www.gamepolitics.com/2011/10/25/do-you-actually-own-your-virtual-property-your-favorite-online-game">GamePolitics</a>, <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/10/24/1335252/is-online-property-real-lawyer-says-sort-of">SlashDot</a>, and the <a href="http://www.twincities.com/ci_19167421?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com">St. Paul Pioneer Press</a>). The author has also contributed to some of that discussion at his own blog (<a href="http://virtualnavigator.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/is-your-online-game-gold-real/">here</a>). It's good to see people continuing to engage these issues critically and in depth. Virtual property is a fascinating subject (to us, at least, and apparently others), and while we may not have a lot of direct judicial guidance about virtual property, this kind of discussion means that courts will be well-equipped if they do have to address virtual property issues in detail.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Bethesda Scrolls Down to Injunction Decision

Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:37:00 PDT

Mojang, the creator of Minecraft, is in a trade-mark tussle with Bethesda Softworks and has won the first battle. Bethesda, who publishes the "Elder Scrolls" series, objected to Mojang's plans to call its next game "Scrolls" and Mojang's filing of a trade-mark application to protect that name. Posturing ensued and eventually Bethesda launched a lawsuit. There was an early interim injunction application, and Mojang now reports that it was successful and therefore can keep using the "Scrolls" name for its game as the lawsuit progresses. Mojang blames the dispute partly on "lawyers being lawyers", which we're not sure how to take, but the case highlights the fact that it's useful to do some trade-mark searches before choosing a brand, and also that brands consisting of common words are usually harder to protect and enforce than brands consisting of more distinctive words. Coverage at GameSpot <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6340823/minecraft-dev-wins-interim-injunction-in-bethesda-battle">here</a>, <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6336941/minecraft-bethesda-fight-going-to-court">here</a> and <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6327427/minecraft-studio-target-of-legal-action-from-bethesda">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Full throttle on games?

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:50:00 PDT

Rogers, one of Canada's leading telecommunication providers, acknowledges that the internet traffic management techniques that it uses to slow down and prioritize certain kinds of network traffic may be affecting on-line games. Rogers originally admitted in March that its "throttling" practices could affect World of Warcraft, and took steps to address that problem. Now, after further complaints from gamers and questions from regulators, Rogers has said that other games could still be affected in certain circumstances (which it says are unlikely to occur and can be avoided by gamers taking steps such as not running peer-to-peer applications when they are gaming). Canadian gamers remain unimpressed, and continue to lobby regulators for ways to improve the system. <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/06/technology-rogers-games.html" target="_blank">Coverage at the CBC</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Germany and Doom: The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:48:00 PDT

Guest posting by Dr. Andreas Lober For nearly two decades, "Doom" has been considered evil in Germany: The game was "banned" or, more precisely, "indexed" in Europe's biggest market for PC games. In 1993, the Bundesprüfstelle - a governmental body - found the game was adult content, i.e. harmful to minors. In 1994, "Doom II" suffered the same fate. At the time, the Bundesprüfstelle suspected that the games appealed mainly to sadists. As of August 31, 2011, both games have been removed from the "index". The Bundesprüfstelle followed ZeniMax' arguments and held that by today's standards, "Doom" and the German version of "Doom II" are no longer harmful to minors. The games were rated "16+" the same day by USK, the German Age Rating Authority. Already several weeks earlier, the Bundesprüfstelle held that "Gears of War 3" was not adult content, i.e. not to be indexed. The original international version of "Doom II" remains on the "index", as it contains levels from another "indexed" game. The case is a novelty: While the Bundesprüfstelle has removed several other media from the "index" in a similar procedure, games so far had been removed generally only after the 25 years period of the initial decision had elapsed, and "Doom" was probably the most prominent of all games "indexed" in Germany. The economic interest of the original "Doom" game may be limited today, but the brand remains on of the most valuable games brands of all time. When the game was "indexed", each mentioning of the name in Germany was close to being a criminal offense: In fact, advertising or promoting an "indexed" game in Germany is criminal, and there is no clear line between using a game's name and promoting it. This was a guest posting by <a href="mailto:Andreas.lober@schulte-lawyers.com?subject=Germany%20and%20Doom%3A%20The%20beginning%20of%20a%20beautiful%20friendship%3F">Dr. Andreas Lober </a>who represented ZeniMax before the Bundesprüfstelle. This article expresses his personal views only, and not necessarily ZeniMax's views.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Frivolity Continues in Zynga-Vostu Battle

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:29:00 PDT

We reported a couple of months ago about game developer Zynga (developer of the super-popular Farmville and Cityville games) suing Brazil-based social game developer Vostu (see <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Video-Game-Law/2011/06/20/Tables-Turn-as-Zynga-Files-Infringement-Lawsuit" target="_blank">here</a>) for alleged IP infringement. Zynga launched actions in California and Brazil. Vostu accused Zynga of launching a frivolous suit, and eventually countersued in California. However, Zynga has won an early skirmish and been granted a preliminary injunction relating to four of Vostu's games by the Brazilian court. This is not to say the battle is anywhere near over. Vostu maintains that Zynga is bringing meritless claims in order to freeze out competition. Coverage at <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36400/Judge_Grants_Zynga_Injunction_Against_Vostu.php" target="_blank">Gamasutra</a>and <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/zynga-sues-google-over-vostu-dispute/" target="_blank">TechCrunch</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

ww.daClass-Action lawsuit against Zoo Entertainment filed by stockholders

Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:01:00 PDT

Submitted by Brigitte Lenis A class-action lawsuit was reportedly recently filed in the Southern District of Ohio against Zoo Entertainment (indiePub Games). Indeed, the company's stockholders are supposedly accusing the company's executives of issuing "materially false and misleading statements to investors", by overstating net income by up to 660 percent and shareholder equity by over $250 000. According to Gamasutra, the accusations stem from an April 15, 2011 press release in which Zoo admitted that an internal audit had revealed errors in the company's unaudited consolidated financial statements in 2010. This revelation allegedly caused a plummet of Zoo's stock price by 34.3 percent in one day, from which it has not recovered. The lawsuit is reportedly seeking unspecified compensatory damages for all investors that held Zoo stock between May 17, 2010 and April 15th 2011. View the <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36308/ClassAction_Lawsuit_Accuses_Zoo_Entertainment_Of_Misleading_Statements.php" target="_blank">Zoo Entertainment class-action lawsuit coverage online</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

EA Scoops Up PopCap

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:08:00 PDT

Electronic Arts (EA) has made a splash in the social gaming marketplace once again. After acquiring social game developer Playfish in 2009, EA announced on July 12, 2011 that it is in the process of adding PopCap Games - responsible for Plants vs. Zombies and Bejeweled, among other notable titles - to its stable. The $750M US cash/shares transaction (along with a possible $550M US earn-out) is slated to close in August 2011. PopCap Games has <a href="http://www.popcap.com/ea?icid=ea_HP_PLARGE_pc_EN">this</a> to say about the transaction. Gamasutra coverage <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35828/Electronic_Arts_Confirms_750M_PopCap_Acquisition.php">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Jane Does Sued over Copyright Infringement

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 06:00:00 PDT

It has been reported that game publisher Square Enix has filed suit against 15 unknown defendants, alleging copyright infringement over the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The dispute arose after Square Enix arranged for members of the video game press to access a preview of the game through Valve Software's Steam digital distribution service. Allegedly, an unauthorized copy of the preview was leaked from the Steam account belonging to a journalist from Italian gaming magazine Giochi per il Mio computer ("GMC"). Valve has concluded that the computer belonging to the GMC journalist did not match the computer that leaked the preview, suggesting that a third party had unauthorized access to the GMC account. Square Enix is seeking an order forcing Steam to release additional information relating to the account that leaked the preview and is claiming damages in excess of $5,000 from the unknown defendants. For additional coverage, please click <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35685/Square_Enix_Files_Suit_Over_Deus_Ex_HR_Leak_Valve_Caught_In_Middle.php" target="_blank">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Video Game Law in Canada

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 07:25:00 PDT

Global News recently quoted from our article on the constitutionality of Canadian video game legislation <a href="http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/Video+game+Canada/5013169/story.html">Video Game Law in Canada</a>, as part of a story on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling on the consititutionality of California's video game law. Our blog posting on that story is <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Video-Game-Law/2011/06/27/Supreme-Court-Strikes-down-California-Ban-on-Violent-Video-Game-Sales-or-Rental-to-Kids">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

Supreme Court Strikes down California Ban on Violent Video Game Sales or Rental to Kids

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:45:00 PDT

Submitted by Brigitte Lenis According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal appeals court decision to strike down a 2005 California law that would have prohibited the selling or renting of violent video games to minors, reportedly voting 7-2 that the said law violates the First Amendment. The law was supposedly based on legislative findings that such games stimulate "feelings of aggression", reduce "activity in the frontal lobes", and "promote violent antisocial or aggressive behavior". The law therefore would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being. The questions dealt, inter-alia, with how far the constitutional protections of free speech and expression can be applied to children. Video game makers and sellers appear to have argued that the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge their appropriateness, while on the other hand, the State apparently tried to defend its legal obligation to protect children from graphic interactive images, when the industry has failed to do so. The High Court reportedly held that as far as the First Amendment goes, the viewing of violent video games is essentially the same as reading books, and explained that there is no tradition in the United States of restrictions on children's access to depictions of violence, even pointing out violence in many children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White. Courts have seemingly refused to permit government regulation of minors' access to any form of entertainment, except in regards to sexual content and obscenity. Coverage <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-to-rule-monday-on-california-ban-on-sale-rental-of-violent-video-games-to-kids/2011/06/27/AGRjA2mH_story.html?hpid=z1" target="_blank">here</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/" target="_blank">, here</a> and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411571732346148.html?mod=googlenews_wsj" target="_blank">here</a>.

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo

EA Beats John Dillinger's Heirs Thanks to Marilyn Monroe and the First Amendment

Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:42:00 PDT

Video game developer Electronics Arts ("EA") was reportedly sued by the descendents of John Dillinger, a bank robber who was killed by FBI agents in 1934 after a 14 month crime spree. EA developed the popular "Godfather" and "Godfather II" games in which a weapon, similar to a Thompson submachine gun, was named "The Dillinger". It has been reported that Dillinger's family argued that they control their relative's right of publicity, citing a 2006 case regarding the retroactivity of Indiana's 1996 right-to-publicity statute. It has been also reported that EA countered this argument with a 2007 New York case in which it was found that similar publicity rights could not be granted to the descendants of Marilyn Monroe because she died before the law was enacted. Ultimately, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana has reportedly ruled against Dillinger's descendants and has found that the Indiana Supreme Court would likely rule that Indiana's right-of-publicity statute does not apply to personalities that died before it became law. The judge has also reportedly ruled that references to Dillinger in pop culture have increased his association with the Thompson submachine gun and, consequently, EA's use of the name is considered to be free speech protected by the First Amendment. Coverage at <a href="http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/article_9dc7ee26-49cb-58d3-a28a-a25681584480.html" target="_blank">NWItimes.com</a>

Bookmarks: Delicious, Digg , Facebook, Google, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Yahoo