This LGJ looks at Blizzard's latest use of copyright infringement to thwart cheaters.
I did want to note, after a few comments about this, that I unfortunately haven't had a chance to play StarCraft II (other than the beta), so I didn't talk specifically about the cheats built into that game. The end is more a big picture analysis of inclusion of cheats, not a condemnation of Blizzard as some have taken it.
Read on!
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawsuit. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Thursday, July 2, 2009
LGJ: The new meaning of 'player vs player'
This week, we talk about lawsuits between players. A new Craigslist-based verdict puts a serious damper on many possible avenues.
Read on!
Read on!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Law of the Game on Joystiq: RIP Consumer Rights
There's a lawsuit in progress that all consumers of entertainment media need to know about, and it's covered in this week's Law of the Game on Joystiq.
Read on.
Read on.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Epic vs. Skilcon Knights: The Saga Continues
When last we left our heroes, Silicon Knights ("SK") and Epic, the motion to dismiss had been denied and discovery was on the horizon. Shacknews is reporting that a number of Unreal 3 licensees have been subpoenaed with respect to their license agreements. This is an interesting move that could turn the tide of battle.
Since the facts are widely being reported, I thought I would attempt to offer a little insight on the possible strategy behind this move. Of course, I'm not privy to any actual inside information, so this is all speculative. SK's theory seems to be proving a systematic lack of support of the Unreal 3 licensee while Epic developed Gears of War, including specific failures with respect to promises in the agreement.
So, here we have SK requesting the license agreements used with other developers. SK, I assume, is hoping for one of a few possible positive outcomes for them:
1. The other contracts lack the promises that SK is claiming, which can be argued that Epic therefore never intended to keep with respect to SK.
2. The other contracts are identical, and the other developers received the same support that SK did, showing a pattern of failure.
3. The other contracts are identical, and other developers received more than SK did, showing that SK was in fact neglected in terms of support.
4. The other contracts contain the same promises on a different timeline, evidencing that SK's contract was perhaps entered into improperly.
5. The contracts and support were identical, and other developers are in the same position, showing a pattern that the level of support has held back development universally.
Generally speaking, no matter how the contracts are similar or different, SK's counsel should be able to make an argument to support their case based on the contracts. Of course, on the flip side, Epic has a few possible arguments of their own:
1. If the contracts and support were identical and other developers made more progress, then Epic can argue that SK lacked the resources or know-how to make use of the engine.
2. If the contracts show a changing timeline over time, it could be argued that certain delays gave Epic a better idea of a realistic delivery date as time went on (and, assuming that the other contracts had provisions for reasonable delays, this could show SK hasn't been patient enough).
3. If the contracts were the same and support for SK was greater than other developers, with other developers making similar or more progress on their projects than SK on Too Human, it could again be argued that the issue was on SK's end.
There are many permutations of these arguments, but that should provide a pretty good idea of the possible result of these other contracts entering the record. Of course, I would still like to see the contracts to be able to weigh in more thoroughly, but as other sources have pointed out, it is likely those records will be sealed before anyone outside the case gets to review the documents.
[Via Joystiq]
Since the facts are widely being reported, I thought I would attempt to offer a little insight on the possible strategy behind this move. Of course, I'm not privy to any actual inside information, so this is all speculative. SK's theory seems to be proving a systematic lack of support of the Unreal 3 licensee while Epic developed Gears of War, including specific failures with respect to promises in the agreement.
So, here we have SK requesting the license agreements used with other developers. SK, I assume, is hoping for one of a few possible positive outcomes for them:
1. The other contracts lack the promises that SK is claiming, which can be argued that Epic therefore never intended to keep with respect to SK.
2. The other contracts are identical, and the other developers received the same support that SK did, showing a pattern of failure.
3. The other contracts are identical, and other developers received more than SK did, showing that SK was in fact neglected in terms of support.
4. The other contracts contain the same promises on a different timeline, evidencing that SK's contract was perhaps entered into improperly.
5. The contracts and support were identical, and other developers are in the same position, showing a pattern that the level of support has held back development universally.
Generally speaking, no matter how the contracts are similar or different, SK's counsel should be able to make an argument to support their case based on the contracts. Of course, on the flip side, Epic has a few possible arguments of their own:
1. If the contracts and support were identical and other developers made more progress, then Epic can argue that SK lacked the resources or know-how to make use of the engine.
2. If the contracts show a changing timeline over time, it could be argued that certain delays gave Epic a better idea of a realistic delivery date as time went on (and, assuming that the other contracts had provisions for reasonable delays, this could show SK hasn't been patient enough).
3. If the contracts were the same and support for SK was greater than other developers, with other developers making similar or more progress on their projects than SK on Too Human, it could again be argued that the issue was on SK's end.
There are many permutations of these arguments, but that should provide a pretty good idea of the possible result of these other contracts entering the record. Of course, I would still like to see the contracts to be able to weigh in more thoroughly, but as other sources have pointed out, it is likely those records will be sealed before anyone outside the case gets to review the documents.
[Via Joystiq]
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Latest Microsoft Bandwagon Lawsuit: Halo 3 is Defective
Information Week is reporting that a San Diego resident is suing Microsoft and Bungie because Halo 3 "consistently causes the Xbox 360 to crash, freeze, or lock up while the game is being played." I have a number of problems with this allegation and this suit. First and foremost, if Halo 3 were truly "defective" or caused the problems alleged, it seems reasonable to assume that message boards and blogs alike would have been exploding with those types of complaints since October. I dare say it might have broken the internet due to the volume of vocal complaints. However, this is the first time I have seen any such allegation, between the Rooster Teeth forums, Bungie forums, and Xbox.com forums or anywhere on the gaming blog circuit. The suit states: "Although faced with repeated and mounting consumer complaints and inquiries concerning this operational flaw in Halo 3, the defendants have failed to recall Halo 3 or otherwise remedy its failure to function on the Xbox 360." I would love to see a full version of the complaint and/or the "mounting consumer complaints" that are being referenced therein.
This brings me to the second issue. What the plaintiff is describing sounds far more like the well publicized problem with the Xbox 360 console rather than any problem with the game. And if that is the case, then the plaintiff should be taking advantage of the warranty repair process rather than filing a lawsuit. Which brings me to the third and final point, that given the available evidence, this seems like a rather simplistic attempt to profit from the game that set the new single day sales record. I have no problem with using the legal system to remedy actual problems, but at first glance, this suit seems like it's either misplaced blame or a shot in the dark. Once the pleadings make their way onto the internet in full, hopefully some more light will be shed on this case.
[Via Joystiq]
This brings me to the second issue. What the plaintiff is describing sounds far more like the well publicized problem with the Xbox 360 console rather than any problem with the game. And if that is the case, then the plaintiff should be taking advantage of the warranty repair process rather than filing a lawsuit. Which brings me to the third and final point, that given the available evidence, this seems like a rather simplistic attempt to profit from the game that set the new single day sales record. I have no problem with using the legal system to remedy actual problems, but at first glance, this suit seems like it's either misplaced blame or a shot in the dark. Once the pleadings make their way onto the internet in full, hopefully some more light will be shed on this case.
[Via Joystiq]
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Epic v. Silicon Knights: The Countersuit
It was likely inevitable that Epic would launch a stout countersuit of Silicon Knights with regard to the Unreal 3 Engine issue. GameDaily.biz is reporting that such a suit has been filed, and makes a number of references to the text of the suit and the motion to dismiss Silicon Knight's suit without posting the entire text publicly.
This is, however, also pretty common in the legal world, just as Silicon Knight's original claim is relatively common in the realm outside the game industry. From what I have read, Epic is counter-claiming that Silicon Knights has has everything to gain from seeing the Unreal 3 code, and moving to dismiss based on their assertion that they wanted Silicon Knights to succeed as that would lead to greater income for Epic. This first issue touches on one of the most complex issues in the industry, whereas the second seems mildly flawed.
The first issue is about code, and it exceptionally complex. Code can be copyrighted, and it can also be patented (sometimes), and it can be protected by trade secret provisions. Much of this will come down to comparing the Unreal 3 and Silicon Knights engines, and the analysis will certainly be complex. In fact, it's so complex I'm not sure I can adequately explain it in the blog. To far over-simplify the matter, depending on how it is protected, different aspects of the engine are protected (the code itself, the idea of the code, the specific method, etc.), and the comparison will determine if Silicon Knights gained an unfair advantage by seeing the Unreal 3 code.
The motion to dismiss claims that Epic would profit from Silicon Knight's success, which is true. However, there is a fault with the argument. Epic would probably always profit more from selling their own game (Gears of War) than the small royalty/license fee they would get from any Silicon Knights project. Moreover, if you imagine that the game buying public can only expend X dollars per season, having titles that all profit Epic compete is bad for business. This is a little complicated as an example, so bear with me.
Say in Universe A, Gears of War and Too Human were both out last holiday season.
Say the average 360 owner can afford 2 titles for the holidays, and that both Gears and TH scored a respectable review of 9.5.
Many people will buy one, or the other, but not both. Why? There are many, many other games available.
Say in Universe B, Gears came out last year and TH was pushed to, say, June.
Say the average 360 owner can afford 2 titles at the holidays, and one more by June.
Many people will get both (especially given the summer drought), and Epic will likely see more total income as they are not having two Unreal 3 products in the market launching at the same time.
It's not an all-encompassing example, but it shows the basic element of the flaw. Competing against yourself isn't good for business.
Also remember that this case could end up with rulings for both parties, which typically offset each other to some extent. They may both owe each other money when the judge hits the gavel the last time. It will certainly be interesting to see who walks away with what as a result of the suit. There's also a distinct possibility of a settlement, as most cases never actually make it to trial. We will have to wait and see what Silicon Knight's next move is in this legal battle.
This is, however, also pretty common in the legal world, just as Silicon Knight's original claim is relatively common in the realm outside the game industry. From what I have read, Epic is counter-claiming that Silicon Knights has has everything to gain from seeing the Unreal 3 code, and moving to dismiss based on their assertion that they wanted Silicon Knights to succeed as that would lead to greater income for Epic. This first issue touches on one of the most complex issues in the industry, whereas the second seems mildly flawed.
The first issue is about code, and it exceptionally complex. Code can be copyrighted, and it can also be patented (sometimes), and it can be protected by trade secret provisions. Much of this will come down to comparing the Unreal 3 and Silicon Knights engines, and the analysis will certainly be complex. In fact, it's so complex I'm not sure I can adequately explain it in the blog. To far over-simplify the matter, depending on how it is protected, different aspects of the engine are protected (the code itself, the idea of the code, the specific method, etc.), and the comparison will determine if Silicon Knights gained an unfair advantage by seeing the Unreal 3 code.
The motion to dismiss claims that Epic would profit from Silicon Knight's success, which is true. However, there is a fault with the argument. Epic would probably always profit more from selling their own game (Gears of War) than the small royalty/license fee they would get from any Silicon Knights project. Moreover, if you imagine that the game buying public can only expend X dollars per season, having titles that all profit Epic compete is bad for business. This is a little complicated as an example, so bear with me.
Say in Universe A, Gears of War and Too Human were both out last holiday season.
Say the average 360 owner can afford 2 titles for the holidays, and that both Gears and TH scored a respectable review of 9.5.
Many people will buy one, or the other, but not both. Why? There are many, many other games available.
Say in Universe B, Gears came out last year and TH was pushed to, say, June.
Say the average 360 owner can afford 2 titles at the holidays, and one more by June.
Many people will get both (especially given the summer drought), and Epic will likely see more total income as they are not having two Unreal 3 products in the market launching at the same time.
It's not an all-encompassing example, but it shows the basic element of the flaw. Competing against yourself isn't good for business.
Also remember that this case could end up with rulings for both parties, which typically offset each other to some extent. They may both owe each other money when the judge hits the gavel the last time. It will certainly be interesting to see who walks away with what as a result of the suit. There's also a distinct possibility of a settlement, as most cases never actually make it to trial. We will have to wait and see what Silicon Knight's next move is in this legal battle.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Cell Suit: Parallel Processing v. Sony
Another new lawsuit was recently filed against Sony, this one by Parallel Processing. While I am still searching for a freely available version of the 5 page complaint, reports are that the infringement suit is based on a parallel processing system from a patent dated October 8, 1991 (which I assume is patent 5,056,000). This is, of course, how the Cell processor works.
The patent case claims irreparable harm, and demands the impounding and destruction of all infringing devices. While this is a legitimate claim to remedy, it seems extremely unlikely that a court would grant anything more than money damages in this case. So I, and the other PS3 owners, can rest easy knowing that a judge won't be impounding our systems as a result of this case.
The bigger question is whether Sony actually did infringe on this patent to create the PS3, and if so, how many Immersion type incidents can Sony handle?
The patent case claims irreparable harm, and demands the impounding and destruction of all infringing devices. While this is a legitimate claim to remedy, it seems extremely unlikely that a court would grant anything more than money damages in this case. So I, and the other PS3 owners, can rest easy knowing that a judge won't be impounding our systems as a result of this case.
The bigger question is whether Sony actually did infringe on this patent to create the PS3, and if so, how many Immersion type incidents can Sony handle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
