The ongoing legal battle between publishing powerhouses Activision and Electronic Arts (“EA”) has come to a head. EA’s last ditch effort to remove itself from Activision’s crosshairs fell short when Judge Elihu Berle of the Los Angeles Superior Court denied EA’s motion for summary judgment on December 21, 2011. What does all this mean? Judge Berle felt that the facts alleged in Activision’s complaint provided a basis on which a jury could reasonably find that EA intentionally interfered with the employment contracts of certain Activision employees. The trial is set to begin on May 7, 2012.

Read more

Reports on social network game developer Zynga usually concern its stock price. However, over the past few weeks, it has gotten more attention for the source of ideas than for its games.

Developer NimbleBit, creator of the popular iOS game Tiny Tower, released an open letter to Zynga’s entire staff outlining how its upcoming game, Dream Heights, is very similar to Tiny Tower.  Since the letter was released, the video game community and Zynga have debated publicly over whether copying games is a bad thing for the industry, and how much is appropriate or expected.

Read more

Do you answer to your WoW avatar name? Do you steal (and murder) from 81-year old women to pay for your MMOG subscription? (True story – Vietnam, 2007) If your answer is yes, you may be addicted to online gaming.

Back in 2007, Jump Up Internet Rescue School, an Internet addiction camp fully backed by the government, opened in South Korea. Children of all ages attended the camp (tuition free), often forced by their parents. They engaged in outdoor activities and obstacles courses that are often the stuff of team-building activities at corporate retreats; except with one wrinkle – Blackberries, iPhones and other Internet ready devices were not allowed.
Read more

Wednesday, March 28, 2012
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.
185 West Broadway, Event Space

Interested in a career in the video games? Curious about where the highest grossing entertainment industry is headed in the near future?

Our discussion will center on both of these questions as panelists discuss how they became successfully
involved in the field and what they believe the future holds. So whether you’re unsure about your plans
but are in law school and enjoy Mario Kart, or you’re an avid reader on everything tech, you will be sure to
leave this event with more direction towards you career.

Speakers Include:
Brian Pyne ‘09, Attorney for the ESRB and Former Counsel of Take-Two Interactive.
Janelle C. Bonanno ’09, Executive Director of the Video Game Bar Association and Business Development Manager for Themis Group.
Patrick Meyers, Esq., Intellectual Property and Patent Attorney for Proskauer Rose LLP.

Moderated by:
Professor Gregory Boyd, Video Game and Intellectual Property Attorney with Davis &Gilbert LLP and Adjunct Professor, New York Law School.

Refreshments will be served. Networking Reception to follow.

To RSVP, please e-mail Naomi Allen at naomi.allen@nyls.edu by Monday, March 19, 2012

Internet file sharers and the various governments of the world are in a seemingly endless array of legal back and forth, each side seeing strong wins followed by crushing defeats. From the internet blackout against SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, to the takedown of Megaupload, it is hard to tell what side is “winning” the war. The most recent major news story dealt with perhaps the best known copyright infringing website, The Pirate Bay, and its three founders, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Svartholm.

The case, filed back in January of 2008 in Sweden, centered on a large number of criminal and civil charges from various intellectual property rights holders. Led by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, an organization representing the interests of the recording industry worldwide, 34 cases of copyright infringement were brought against Pirate Bay. The video game industry has taken a strong interest in the outcome of the case, even though only four of the 34 cases of infringement dealt with video games (Warcraft, F.E.A.R., Diablo II, and Call of Duty 2).

Read more

Dance!  Ok, maybe not THAT kind of dancing, but one thing is for sure: ever since the Wii came out, game developers have tried to use motion capture technology to get people off the couch and moving when they play games, while also providing a new kind of gaming experience.  This gives gamers a completely different perspective on how they play games, as well as a brand new target audience for those who only see video games as something that teens who fear the sun would want to do.  Including the dance game genre’s initial entrant, Dance Dance Revolution, there are a slew  of different but all too similar titles out there appealing to all kinds of music preferences.  That being said, it was only a matter of time before a pair of industry rivals would step into the court room and tango over intellectual property rights.

Read more

Ubisoft has earned itself a reputation for its aggressive digital rights management (DRM).  This includes such limitations as the number of times a game can be installed on PCs (aka “install limits”), as well as requiring that certain games have a constant connection to the internet to allow Ubisoft’s servers to confirm a game as an authentic copy in order for it to be played.  This latter policy, referred to as “always on” internet connection, is not aimed at games that need to be played online, but rather games like Assassin’s Creed, which is a single-player game for the PS3, Xbox 360, or PC.

As one might expect, there were potential pitfalls to the “always on” requirement.  For instance, on February 7, Ubisoft transitioned its data servers to “better serve” its customers, while at the same time completely preventing (some of) them from playing their legitimately purchased games.  This is an unintended consequence of Ubisoft’s aggressive and oft-criticized DRM requirement of an “always on” internet connection to verify authenticity via Ubisoft’s servers, as a means to prevent piracy.  However, since all of Ubisoft’s servers will be down from February 7 until the shift to new servers is complete, there will be nothing for the games to connect to – effectively denying gamers the chance to play a legitimately bought game.

Read more

Playing video games used to be one of the most private activities one could engage in. If you told someone that video games were one of your hobbies, they might automatically assume that you were anti-social; while they might have been right at one point, today such assumptions may simply be wrong. In what may be one of the biggest 180’s the world has seen during the past decade or so, video games have transformed from a private affair to one of the most social activities available. However, there are consequences to such a transformation. A multitude of privacy concerns are stemming as a result of video games going social. Contrary to what many might expect, these concerns are not solely applicable to the pure social-networking games you might play on Facebook.

In the gaming context, analytics essentially uses game data and information gleaned from the gamers’ actions throughout a game as a method of studying gamers’ behavioral patterns while they play. In the case of a game displaying advertisements, analytics can even report how long a gamer viewed a specific advertisement. In the case of a Triple-A title like “Call of Duty,” Infinity Ward (the developer) uses analytics to track gamers’ actions and uses this data to improve future games and updates. Larry Mellon, former analytics lead for titles such as “The Sims Online,” confessed the importance of analytics for a developer: “where you’re continually improving the game over years, it’s invaluable to see how people play the game today, when you’re trying to plan for tomorrow.” Sounds great, right? Maybe not if you take a minute to consider exactly how analytics software can acquire this information.

Read more

“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” – Neil Armstrong.

That is probably how consumers, developers, manufacturers, and the like all felt when the first “Television Gaming Apparatus,” the Magnavox Odyssey, and the game PONG were introduced and jumpstarted the video game industry. Since then, the industry has become more competitive in their patenting tactics which could consequently delay or potentially ruin future innovative ideas that try to build on past concepts. This probably isn’t surprising because, as a simple rule, patent owners of gameplay mechanics should profit off of their creations. However, when a broad patent description is submitted and filed, the effect becomes so overly-inclusive that it prohibits other developers from creating something that may even slightly resemble the patented concept. So are these software patents reasonable or absurd?

Remember Sega’s Crazy Taxi where the key to arriving at your customer’s chosen destination is to follow that bright green arrow atop the playing screen? Well, that bright green arrow is also known as U.S. Patent No. 6,200,138. Unfortunately for Fox Entertainment, EA, and Radical Games, their use of a similar floating arrow in the Simpson’s Road Rage resulted in a lawsuit from Sega, which was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Read more

The timing of Sony’s addition of a binding arbitration clause to the PlayStation Networks Terms of Use (“PSN Terms”) is, in no doubt, directly correlated the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T v. Concepcion 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). In that case, the Court upheld a contract which barred class-action suits and forced arbitration to all users of the service provided.

A quick explanation of the case is necessary. Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) says that a “contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction… shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract” (9 U.S.C. §2). The Supreme Court in Concepcion clarified that any grounds that exist in law or equity for revocation of any contract include fraud, duress, mutual mistake or unconscionability.   Read more