Archive for the ‘Intellectual Property’ Category
Posted by Dan on
November 21, 2009
Joystiq reports that IP boutique Abington is considering a class action on behalf of Xbox Live subscribers banned recently from the service for using modded consoles. The firm alleges that the bans came as a money grabbing move timed after players would have purchased Halo 3:ODST and would have pre-ordered Modern Warfare 2. Mark Methenitis, over at Joystiq’s Law of the Game blog, astutely points out that this is probably a cash grab, but notes that there is a chance that there might be a kernel of legitimacy in the claim. Let’s mark this one up in the “probably not going anywhere” category.
Popularity: 18% [?]
Posted by Dan on
November 16, 2009
GamePolitics reported earlier this month on the battle between China’s Ministry of Culture and their General Administration of Press and Publication over control of the online game industry. According to reports, the GAPP has banned Chinese WoW operator NetEase from running The Burning Crusade in China, and is requiring that they stop taking new subscriptions and cease current subscription fees. Most previous regulation, including censorship, of the industry has recently come from the Ministry of Culture, and this appears to be a major turf war between the two organizations. The Ministry of Culture has approved WoW in China, launched this September, while the GAPP did not. For their part, NetEase has issued a press release stating that they believe they are in compliance with PRC law, and doesn’t indicate that they will be ceasing any operations. It also notes that they haven’t had any official “notice” of the ban, and that the announcement came from the GAPP’s website (rather than an official determination.) Earlier in the year, China banned FDI (foreign direct investment) into the gaming industry, and has increasingly cracked down on what it views as an opportunity for the expression of dissident viewpoints and “undesirable content.”
On a related note, I’m putting the finishing touches on a journal article regarding an international framework for protecting human rights in virtual worlds and MMORPGs. With this news, the topic only seems more relevant. Chinese gamers should be entitled to express dissident viewpoints in a virtual world without fear of censorship, and without fear that their avatars and virtual property will be at risk of seizure or deletion. Similarly, virtual worlds operators should be entitled to profit from their businesses without fear of government crackdowns like this. I’ll post the article here once the publication process is complete.
The NetEase press release reprinted in full below.
NetEase.com Announcement Regarding Statement by the General Administration of
Press and Publication With Respect to World of Warcraft(R)
BEIJING, Nov. 2 /PRNewswire-Asia/ -- NetEase.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: NTES), one
of China's leading Internet and online game services providers, today
announced that the General Administration of Press and Publication ("GAPP") of
the PRC government has posted on its official website a statement that the
current operation of the World of Warcraft(R) in China by NetEase's affiliated
company, Shanghai EaseNet Network Technology Limited ("Shanghai EaseNet"), is
being conducted without proper approval from GAPP. The statement further
indicates that GAPP is returning Shanghai EaseNet's application for approval
and Shanghai EaseNet should suspend charging users to play the game and not
allow new account registrations. GAPP also notes in its statement that it is
evaluating whether to impose administrative penalties on Shanghai EaseNet. As
of the time of this press release, neither NetEase nor Shanghai EaseNet has
been officially notified of GAPP's determination. Shanghai EaseNet licenses
World of Warcraft(R), a massively multi-player online role-playing game, for
operation in China from Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
NetEase and Shanghai EaseNet believe that they are in full compliance with
applicable PRC laws and are currently seeking clarification from the relevant
governmental authorities regarding this statement by GAPP. NetEase will
provide further updates on the statement by GAPP as appropriate.
About NetEase
NetEase.com, Inc. is a leading China-based Internet technology company
that pioneered the development of applications, services and other
technologies for the Internet in China. NetEase's online communities and
personalized premium services have established a large and stable user base
for the NetEase websites which are operated by its affiliates. In particular,
NetEase provides online game services to Internet users through the in-house
development or licensing of massively multi-player online role-playing games,
including Fantasy Westward Journey, Westward Journey Online II, Westward
Journey Online III, Tianxia II and Datang, as well as the licensed game World
of Warcraft(R).
NetEase also offers online advertising on its websites which enables
advertisers to reach its substantial user base. In addition, NetEase has paid
listings on its search engine and web directory and classified advertising
services, as well as an online mall, which provides opportunities for e-
commerce and traditional businesses to establish their own storefront on the
Internet. NetEase also offers wireless value-added services such as news and
information content, matchmaking services, music and photos from the Web which
are sent over SMS, MMS, WAP, IVR and Color Ring-back Tone technologies.
Other community services which the NetEase websites offer include instant
messaging, online personal advertisements, matchmaking, alumni clubs and
community forums. NetEase is also the largest provider of free email services
in China. Furthermore, the NetEase websites provide various channels of
content. NetEase aggregates news content on world events, sports, science and
technology, and financial markets, as well as entertainment content such as
cartoons, games, astrology and jokes, from over one hundred international and
domestic content providers.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains statements of a forward-looking nature. These
statements are made under the "safe harbor" provisions of the U.S. Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these
forward-looking statements by terminology such as "will," "expects,"
"anticipates," "future," "intends," "plans," "believes," "estimates" and
similar statements. The accuracy of these statements may be impacted by a
number of business risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those projected or anticipated, including risks related
to: the risk that Shanghai EaseNet will not be able to continue operating
World of Warcraft(R) or other games licensed by it for a period of time or
permanently due to the position of GAPP or other governmental actions; the
risk that Shanghai EaseNet or NetEase will be subject to penalties or
operating restrictions imposed by governmental authorities in the PRC
resulting from the operations of their online games, including suspension of
their Internet service or other penalties; and other risks outlined in
NetEase's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. NetEase does
not undertake any obligation to update this forward-looking information,
except as required under applicable law.
For further information, please contact:
NetEase.com, Inc.
Brandi Piacente
Investor Relations
Email: brandi@corp.netease.com
Tel: +1-212-481-2050
Li Jia
Email: liddyli@corp.netease.com
Tel: +86-10-8255-8208
SOURCE NetEase.com, Inc.
Brandi Piacente, Investor Relations, brandi@corp.netease.com, +1-212-481-2050;
or Li Jia of NetEase.com, Inc., liddyli@corp.netease.com, +86-10-8255-8208
Popularity: 9% [?]
Posted by Dan on
September 21, 2009
In breaking news, the estate of Jack Kirby, co-creator of a range of successful comic franchies from Captain America, X-Men, Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and more, has served notice to Marvel and Disney, and their film studios (Sony, Universal, Paramount, and 20th Century Fox) terminating their copyright in these IPs. The estate has also retained veteran IP litigator Marc Toberoff to go after any future claims.
There doesn’t appear to be any immediate danger for EXISTING games based on those IP’s, however, future games might be in jeopardy. According to comic news outlet bleedingcool, his copyright claim would exist from 2014. This would mean Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 is safe, but look out Marvel Ultimate Alliance 4. Toberoff has experience in this realm, he’s been successful on an identical claim on behalf of the Siegel estate, regaining copyright in Superman material. This is something we’ll obviously be following very closely, as the financial implications from forced licensing (let alone the IP issues) could have huge effects on some very popular game franchises.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Posted by Dan on
September 17, 2009
In an interesting move, Eros LLC, a maker of Second Life virtual sex products, has sued Linden Labs, the developer and publisher of Second Life, for a bevy of causes of action including trademark infringement, copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and tortious interference. Eros, who some readers may remember as the plaintiff in a previous sex bed case, is claiming that Linden is profiting immensely from the sale of illegally copied goods protected under Eros’ marks. The difference this time lies with the defendant; while Eros was previously going after the individual copiers, this time they’re going after Linden themselves. Stephen Wu, who will be presenting a discussion at Engage! Expo/Digital Law Conference entitled “Intellectual Property Megasuit: Could it Happen to You” suggests that Eros may be seeking to replicate Viacom’s successes against Youtube and Google. “It’s hard to judge, but perhaps you’ll see some better activity on behalf of Linden’s to reform their system, and maybe get a settlement in exchange.”
The broader issue, Wu warns, is what effect this may have on other virtual worlds and MMOG owners. Already faced with one landscape changing mega-litigation to watch (the NCSoft/Worlds.com patent suit), virtual worlds owners will now have to “get their houses in order” as far as IP and DRM are concerned, lest they become the next targets. “There is risk for other virtual world owners. If they don’t have their own protections for copyright and trademark owners, they may see themselves getting sued from this firm [KamberEdelson] or a similar plaintiff,” says Wu. KamberEdelson, according to Wu, is on the hunt for what they perceive to be unfair business practices — they were involved in the recent Amazon suit over the pulling of digital copies of Orwell’s 1984 from Kindle owners. In closing, Wu warns, “This is not a one-off event. This is going to be a prime form of litigation in the near future.”
For further analysis, Patent Arcade is tracking the suit as well. The complaint can be viewed in full here.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Posted by Dan on
September 10, 2009
We’ve previously reported on Zynga’s misleading advertisement litigation against Playdom. Now it seems that Zynga is ready to throw down for real. Zynga has sued Playdom in California Superior Court for a laundry list of causes of action, including tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with economic advantage, breach of duty of loyalty (and an inducement cause), breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secret, and unfair competition. Zynga alleges that former employees were stolen from them by Playdom, bringing with them a so-called “playbook” of documents and know-how. Zynga goes into great detail to describe how important the playbook is to them, but to be honest, the analogy is perfect anyway. Imagine how earth-shattering it would be if the New York Jets got a hold of the Miami Dolphins playbook. Now imagine that they got it by actively soliciting Dolphins players to leave their contracts, take the playbook with them and sign with the Jets.
Zynga seems to have quite a bit of very in-depth information on what the former employees allegedly stole and how they did it, which seems to imply that they had some sort of monitoring or internal security software installed. It’s obviously far too early to speculate how this one is going to play out, but given that Zynga essentially forced Playdom to change their deceptive advertising practices earlier this year, there’s a good chance that this is part of a greater trend of bad behavior by Playdom. We’ll be anxiously waiting to hear the Answer on this one.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Posted by Dan on
September 1, 2009
An update to our prior discussions on the trademark scandal surrounding Dr. Tim Langdell: as of yesterday, Dr. Langdell has resigned from the IGDA board. This obviously invalidates the need for the special meeting and vote to remove him. We will continue to discuss the trademark issues surrounding the incident at our PAX panel, and representatives from both sides of the removal debate have confirmed that they will be in attendance. We’ll keep you updated if there is a statement from Dr. Langdell.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Posted by Dan on
September 1, 2009
Ignoring how terribly passé Top (x) lists are, I have to call this one out for being one of the worst of the bunch. MMORPG.com, which I’ve always considered to be an otherwise decent site, has released an abysmal list of the “Five Silliest MMO Lawsuits“, written by someone with a below-average understanding of the law in general. (Actually there aren’t just five, they include an “honorable mention).
(UPDATE: After receiving my criticism from this article, the author has changed the name from Five Silliest MMO Lawsuits to “Five Memorable MMO Lawsuits”. The factual inaccuracies remain the same, however.)
Here’s the rundown:
- Mythic v. Auran: This one wasn’t even a lawsuit; it was apparently a C&D over a clearcut case of trademark infringement. What’s silly about this, you may ask? The author of the article doesn’t understand what a trademark is. “Mythic coined a term and wanted to hang on to it. I just don’t necessarily understand why they would want to stop other companies from using it. It’s not like they have the idea behind RvR trademarked.” Well, duh. You don’t trademark an idea. The whole point of a trademark is to protect a mark associated with YOUR good from being used by other companies to associate with THEIR good, and thus lose its distinctiveness as being recognizable as yours. When you think of RvR, what do you immediately think of? Mythic games. You think Warhammer Online, or I guess Dark Age of Camelot if you’re old school. To top it off, the author doesn’t understand likelihood of confusion, by way of the line “Even sillier than the time Mythic sued “Mythica” over its name. Mythica was eventually cancelled by Microsoft in 2004.” Yes, god forbid Mythic protect it’s own brand name from another mark that is confusingly similar (to the point of only being 1 letter different).
- Esther Leong v. Square Enix: They don’t even manage to get the first line right on this one. “Looking only back to June of this year, we saw a lawsuit from a lone individual named Esther Leong against Square Enix…”. Except, it wasn’t from a lone individual. It was a class action on behalf of all FFXI players similarly situated. “This begs the question: How many accounts did this woman have?” Facepalm. They also go on to get the merits wrong while having them right in front of their face. “Please, oh please, tell me that this person didn’t file a suit claiming to have not known that there was a fee to play the game, and then not knowing that the company would apply rules to their game and reserve the right to stop letting you play if you didn’t pay your fee.” As a matter of fact, no. They filed suit because Square advertised one fee, then presented another with hidden charges, and made it nearly impossible to actually cancel your account, all while upping your fee if you payed late; as well as a complaint that they were not clearly informed that they did not actually purchase the game (and all ownership rights appurtenant thereto), but a license. “It can’t possibly be that ridiculous, could it? COULD IT?” No. No it wasn’t. 0 for 2 MMORPG.com.
- Kohnke Communications v. Perpetual Entertainment: They don’t even bother to justify this one as being silly: in fact, MMORPG.com straight up admits that it was a cut and dry breach of contract and that Kohnke (now TriplePoint PR) got screwed out of money they were owed. 0 for 3.
- Garriott v. NCsoft: “Jokes aside, the facts around the suit actually see Garriott suing his former company for 27 million dollars in money lost in stock options when, he claims, his firing was internally re-structured to look like a resignation.” Another one where they don’t attempt to justify how silly it is that someone got screwed out of their money. 0 for 4. Not good MMORPG.com. Not good.
- Blizzard v. MMO Glider: Before I go any further, WTF? This is a case that actually had some legitimate precedential value to determine what constitutes copying of data into RAM under the MAI standard. And once again, there’s no justification for what makes the lawsuit actually silly. Glider, under Blizzard’s argument, was costing Blizzard money and not to mention that the broader issue of “Do you own the MMORPG software you buy” was implicated (as it was in the Leong case above). Even the EFF got involved on this one. 0 for 5.
- Finally, Worlds.com v. NCsoft: In the very first sentence “Speaking of bone headedly stupid trademark based lawsuits…” …. this is a patent suit, not trademark. But keep going: “Now, as stated previously, I’m not a legal expert,” (ed. No, really?) “but this describes the most simplistic and basic workings of an MMO.” Congratulations. You’ve discovered that patents require a description of how things work. Since Worlds.com claims to have been the first to invent the 3d MMO (though there is a dispute as to whether there is prior art), there is nothing unusual about that claim. MMORPG.com then goes on to get the date of the patent wrong, (it has priority dating to 1996, not 2000, though the confusion may have been justified as there are two patents in question here). 0 for 6. Incidentally, we’ll be discussing Worlds.com with Ross Dannenberg of Patent Arcade on our panel at PAX this year.
It’s not unusual for a site to make factual errors in an article. We’ve been guilty of it before too. It IS, however, unusual for an entire article to be wrong both in premise and every single one of the 6 segments that constitute it. Shame on you MMORPG.com. For shame.
Updated: Italicized quotations for clarity, clarified that there are intentionally 6 items on the list.
Popularity: 34% [?]
Posted by Dan on
July 17, 2009
As some of you may have heard, there has recently been a row over some trademark issues involving Tim Langdell, who was recently elected to the IGDA Board. The crux of the issue is that Tim holds a trademark in various uses of the mark “Edge” as used in relation to gaming. Tim has allegedly been aggressive about acquiring and enforcing his trademarks, which have allegedly resulted in at least one iPhone gaming with the word Edge in the title being removed from the Apple Store. Tigsource has compiled a very comprehensive list of articles involving Tim and the use of the mark.
There is now a petition to remove Tim from the board. The petition’s author, well known narrative designer Corvus Elrod, had this to say:
I have started a survey which requires you to enter your IGDA
membership number when you vote. Once we have “yes” votes from 10% of
the membership (about 1400), I will bring it to the board directly and
force them to call a special meeting of the membership to vote on Tim
Langdell’s removal.
Corvus expanded further at Man Bytes Blog:
My feelings about Tim Langdell are of little consequence here, but I do feel like emphasizing that I feel calling his actions “trademark protection” is rather like claiming the aristocracy went on fox hunts to protect the hen house. It may be legal, but to base the financial success of your studio on predatory IP manipulation is ass-hattery of the worst degree. The fact that Langdell’s studio is surviving in this economy without having released a game in well over a decade is astounding. That it can even afford to litagate over the use of the word ‘EDGE’ when the big publishers are closing entire studios rather than suffer thinner-than-average profit margins is a danger to every single developer-independent or affiliated.
This is obviously a huge issue, especially for a very troubled IGDA. There have been recent questions in mainstream blogs and those of several high profile industry members questioning what exactly IGDA is providing to its members. The trademark issue further fans the flames of allegations that IGDA isn’t doing enough, and it’s being talked about by key industry figures, such as IGDA board candidate Darius Kazemi and board member Tom Buscaglia.
To be fair, the petition is not a slam job against Tim: as Corvus states “You’ll notice, I’ve included a “no” vote. I know members who do not wish to vote Tim Langdell off the board. If 10% of the IGDA membership is dead against this, it’s only fair they have a voice too.”
We’ll be tracking this issue further as it develops, and I’m hoping to discuss it at this year’s PAX 2009 Legal Issues in Gaming panel (which you should all attend!).
FULL DISCLOSURE: The author is a student member of IGDA and an IGDA GDC Scholar.
CORRECTION: The author of the petition is Covus Elrod, not Michael Lubker as originally reported.
Popularity: 9% [?]
Posted by Dan on
July 17, 2009
Earlier this week, Judge Manuel Real summarily dismissed Guardian Media Technologies’ patent infringement claim against Nintendo. The suit alleged that Nintendo infringed their patents relating to V-chip content censoring technology. Nintendo’s prevailed by countering that while the Wii does have parental controls, Guardian’s patent was limited to movies and TV shows — things that Wii doesn’t offer. Guardian appears to be something of a patent troll — according to Business Week, they’ve sued “a slew” of tech companies after receiving the patents from the original inventor, but only two of the companies have settled. Nintendo was just one of around forty defendants Guardian sued for various patent infringement claims – the cases against thirty-eight other defendants remain ongoing.
UPDATE: In a statement, SVP and General Counsel for Nintendo of America Rick Flamm elaborated slightly. “Nintendo vigorously defends patent lawsuits … At the earliest stages of this case, Nintendo convinced the court to dismiss this case as Guardian’s patent had nothing to do with Nintendo’s products.” The case information, in case anyone is interested, is Guardian Media Technologies Ltd. v. Coby Electronics Corp., 08cv8439, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
Popularity: unranked [?]
Posted by Dan on
July 7, 2009
For those of you not taking the summer Game Design Concepts course that everyone on the internet seems to be taking….why not? As if there weren’t enough reason to, you can study the Legal Issues for Game Developers section that I developed for the course. Here’s a quick snippet.
At this point, some of you may be thinking that by posting your game
to the forum, you run the risk that someone will Steal Your Great Idea.
How can you protect yourself from the threat of someone taking your
basic idea, turning it into a working, sellable game, and leaving you
with nothing?
Remember, ideas are not copyrightable, they’re not
trademarkable, not trade secretable, and both difficult and
prohibitively expensive to patent. You can’t protect them anyway, and
you shouldn’t try — instead you should try to come up with new ones,
and start working on the good ones. Don’t freak out when you see
things like Game Jams, or this course and think “Ian says I should post
my work to the discussion forum, but I came up with a Great Idea(tm)
and I don’t want other people to steal it.” Ideas are commonplace in
games, and the value of your idea is nothing compared to the value of
the implementation of that idea, your expertise and hard work in
developing it into something that’s going to make you real money. But
most importantly, our industry is very lateral, very tight-knit, very
collaborative. You’ll find people sharing their ideas at GDC, doing
collaborative projects between studios, or using inspiration from one
game’s mechanics to improve another. Don’t fight it. That’s the way
things work, and by embracing that open atmosphere, you’ll be far
better off.
Popularity: 2% [?]
