Activision has settled with John Tam and Corey Fong. The two have consented to a permanent injunction restraining the two from:

• distributing a demo created by TAM incorporating elements of Guitar Hero II;
• using or disclosing any Activision trade secrets;
• taking steps to develop drum, guitar or synthesizer-based games for the next year;
• “working on” a guitar controller for the XBox 360 version of Guitar Hero II for six months after release; and
• competing against an undisclosed list of peripheral devices for six months after Activision commercially releases them.

The two were also ordered to return all materials relating to Activision’s proprietary information.

As far as I’m aware, no settlement has thus far been reached with Jamie Yang, Reverb or TAC.

Dale’s Comment [written April 26, 2007]: On a personal note, I was one of the lucky one’s to pick up Guitar Hero II for the Xbox 360 on launch day. The local Best Buy had about 100 of them on the morning of the launch. As I understand it, they sold out within hours and, to the date of this writing (owing partially to extreme demand and problems with some versions of the initially released guitar peripheral), I still can’t find them for sale anywhere in Toronto. I would like to purchase a second guitar peripheral. I’m having a blast with this game. As one of the commentators in a recent Joystiq Podcast pointed out, my fingers ache and want to stop playing long before the rest of me does!

Sources: GameSpot | Gamasutra | GameIndustry.biz | 1Up.com | CVG | Kotaku

In what seems to be little more than another “look and feel” decision specific to the video game industry, the U.K. Court of Appeal upheld a prior Chancery Division decision ruling against Nova Productions in finding, yet again, that general ideas behind computer games, or in this case specific game mechanics, and other programs are not protectable under U.K. copyright:

“Merely making a program which will emulate another but which in no way involves copying the program code or any of the program’s graphics is legitimate,”

In this case, the court found no copyright in the “imagery” relating to either: (i) lines of dots indicating the direction of a pool shot; or (ii) an “in-time” mechanic that permits the player to alter the power of a simulated pool shot by timing the shot relative to a pulsing power level – see the images in the Annexes of the HTML version of the Chancery Division decision. Providing similar, but different, “imagery” to depict the same game mechanic idea is not infringing.

In the words of Lord Justice Jacob, when handing down the Court of Appeal decision:

“A series of drawings is a series of graphic works, not a single graphic work in itself. No-one would say that the copyright in a single drawing of Felix the Cat is infringed by a drawing of Donald Duck. A series of cartoon frames showing Felix running over a cliff edge into space, looking down and only then falling would not be infringed by a similar set of frames depicting Donald doing the same thing. That is in effect what is alleged here.”

In the Chancery Division decision, Mr. Justice Kitchen concluded that while the competitive games were inspired by Nova’s Pocket Money, no substantial part of the work was reproduced and therefor, no copyright infringement occurred.

“The ideas that Mazooma have taken have nothing to do with the skill and effort expended by the programmer. They do not constitute the form of expression of the computer program for Jackpot Pool. They are generalised ideas at a high level of abstraction. The features taken collectively or separately do not amount to a substantial part of the program.”

Justice Jacob’s Court of Appeal conclusions provide a particularly apt summary of the limited scope of copyright protection as applied to the video game industry:

“….Both sides submitted that this case had significance for the computer games (and computer program writing) industry. Mr Howe submitted that if the decision below is upheld there is no effective protection for games against copying of the game where a party copies the rules of a game but not its graphics. Mr Carr submitted that that not all things are covered by copyright, that most if not every work is, to some extent, influenced or derived from other works. So it is very important that copyright is not allowed to intervene to stifle the creation of works that are actually very different, as the individual games are here.

I agree with Mr Carr. If protection for such general ideas as are relied on here were conferred by the law, copyright would become an instrument of oppression rather than the incentive for creation which it is intended to be. Protection would have moved to cover works merely inspired by others, to ideas themselves.”

Other High Court Decision Commentary: Out-Law.com | TwoBirds.com | Davis LLP | SportandTechnology.com | Mondaq | EDRI.org

Other Chancery Division Commentary: IPKat | Clintons | Out-Law.com | IPRights

Crawford claims that Midway should have known about his screenplay and its premise because:

• he had set up websites with concept art;
• he attended the 2001 E3 to promote it.
• his company, Mindshadow Entertainment, had received media coverage for a possible  Psi-Ops movie project.
• he had registered “Psi-Ops” with the U.S. Copyright Office six years prior to Midway’s registration.

Crawford seeks an accounting and share of revenue made from “Psi-Ops” sales in an amount no less than $1.5 million.

Dale’s Comment: On a personal note, immediately following its release I purchased this game for the original Xbox. It was unplayable. Like several games of its era, it made me nausious within five minutes of firing it up. Too bad. It looked like a fun game.

Sources: GameSpot | gameindustry.biz | SoftPedia | Yahoo! Games | Kotaku | IGN | 1Up.com

Michael Donnelly created a ‘bot’ program called WowGlider (since renamed to simply “Glider” in response to Blizzard’s trademark complaints) that allows players of the wildly popular World of Warcraft (“WOW”) MMORPG to automate their game play and keep their character “playing” 24/7.

Using this bot the player can continue to level up and harvest gold 24/7 without actually having to play the game – an activity widely considered to be cheating. The use of such “bots” circumvent Blizzard’s security/anti-cheating measures and are prohibited by WOW’s EULA and terms of use.

In the fall of 2006 Blizzard (and its parent Vivendi) demanded Donnelly cease selling the bot. In response, On October 25, 2006 Donnelly’s company MDY filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Arizona seeking a Declaratory Judgment that it is not infringing any rights, copyright or otherwise owned by Blizzard and Vivendi.

Blizzard and Vivendi have now answered Donnelly’s complaint and filed a countersuit. Blizard summarizes the case as follows:

Donnelly is an individual responsible for the development and sale of “WoWGlider,” a software program that enables users to circumvent Blizzard’s security measures and infringe Blizzard’s intellectual property rights in its World of Warcraft® (“WoW”) software. WoWGlider’s unauthorized code then enables its users to cheat fellow players by completing in-game tasks and building characters with little or no human participation, thereby giving WoWGlider users significant unfair and contractually prohibited advantages over legitimate players. Via the website wowglider.com, MDY actively markets and promotes WoWGlider with knowledge that they are encouraging and enabling WoWGlider users to breach their contracts with Blizzard. MDY’s actions have unjustly profited Michael Donnelly while negatively impacting the experience of millions of legitimate WoW gamers and causing significant damage to Blizzard. The acts of MDY, described in more detail below, constitute tortious interference with the contracts between Blizzard and WoW users; contributory and vicarious infringement of registered copyrights in violation of the Copyright Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 501; trafficking in technology designed for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1); trademark infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; and unfair competition and unjust enrichment under the laws of the State of Arizona.

The countersuit contains the following seven counts/allegations:

1. Tortious Interference with Contract
2. Contributory Copyright Infringement
3. Vicarious Copyright Infringement
4. Violation of the DMCA
5. Trademark Infringement
6. Unfair Competition
7. Unjust Enrichment

Blizzard/Vivendi are seeking the following relief/court orders (amoung others):

1. preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoying MDY/Donnelly from: (i) infringing its copyrights; (ii) violating its anti-circumvention systems; and (iii) encouraging others to violate its EULA;
2. shutting down the WoWGlider.com website, assignment of the domain to Blizzard
3. ceasing further development, sale and distribution of WoWGlider
4. an accounting of all sales and monetary damages payment

Sources: Gamasutra | GamePolitics.com | Wow Insider | Tera Nova | The Forge | Markee Dragon| Glider’s Legal Forum | Glider FAQ

The complaint alleges:

“copyright infringement, trademark infringement, misappropriating trade secrets and confidential information, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and more. “

GameSpot is reporting that Activision has already obtained a temporary restraining order against the defendants restraining them from:

• distributing a demo created by TAM incorporating elements of Guitar Hero II;
• using or disclosing any Activision trade secrets, including: music licensing contract terms, in-game advertising, sales figures, marketing plans, product designs, and possible future songs and artists to be featured;
• developing a guitar controller for the XBox 360 version of Guitar Hero II for three months after release;
• soliciting Activision employees, partners or Asia-based manufacturing partners; and
• taking any steps to develop, market, manufacture, sell, or distribute any guitar or drum based video games.

As recently as December 27, 2006, Activision and Red Octane had settled a different dispute with TAC concerning the sale of unlicensed guitar peripherals. See here for details.

Sources: Gamasutra | GameSpot | Kotaku

Anyway, so RedOctane sued the Ant Commandos, claiming rights infringement on their popular Gibson SG brand of guitar controllers. The Commandos fired back claiming that the SG stepped all over their existing patents on technology for 3-button Guitar Freaks! guitars. Everybody was fingerpointing, it sucked.

While details of the settlement have not been disclosed a representative of Ant Commandos confirmed to GameSpot that its products would continue to be distributed. Jack Black and the Rightous Gods of Rock will be happy with this outcome!

Dale’s Comment: Until I discovered that neither the Ant Commando nor the RedOctane controllers will work with the PS3, one of the primary reasons I wanted to purchase a PS3 was to play Guitar Hero. I had hoped that like most PS2 games, it would be playable on the PS3. Happily, Guitar Hero 2 is coming to the XBox 360 so I won’t need to purchase a PS2 in order to finally play this game.

Sources: Gamasutra | GameSpot | 1UP.com | GameIndustry.biz

Viacom-owned XFire has sued News Corp subsidiary IGN alleging the GameSpy Comrade "Buddy Sync" feature included with the hot title Battlefield 2142, infringes its copyrights. Comrade Buddy Sync accesses a user's friends lists from third party instant messaging programs (including XFire and AOL Instant Messenger) thereby allowing the gamer to see which friends are online and facilitating friend invites into games – a feature that is directly competitive with XFire's core functionality. District Court Judge Susan Illston denied Xfire's request for a preliminary injunction.

Dale's Comment: I haven't found the pleadings online. As I understand it the case alleges copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. Proving copyright infringement is difficult because a successful case requires a finding of significant copying of underlying source code – something that is highly unlikely to have occurred. Noting about how XFire works seems to be a trade secret. How XFire works is common knowledge in the industry. If it was a trade secret then how did GameSpy find out about it? Barring some kind of fiduciary or contractual duty to keep XFire's trade secrets secret, I don't know how XFire can make out a case on this basis. 

Sources: GameSpot | GameIndustry.biz

Related Posts:

• XFire Sues GameSpy Over Battlefield 2142's Buddy Sync Feature (October 31, 2006)
• Yahoo!, Xfire Settle Lawsuit (February 9, 2006)
• Xfire, Yahoo! Near Terms of Patent Dispute Settlement (November 23, 2005)
• Xfire Countersues Yahoo! (March 11, 2005)
• Yahoo! Sues Xfire for Patent Infringement (February 4, 2005)

Sources: GameSpot | Xbox 360 Net | Yahoo! Games

Jack Thompson, apparently not quite understanding the character editor distinction, sent off a cease and desist letter to Midway, the game’s publisher, with the following contained therein:

“It has today come to my attention that the newly recently Mortal Kombat: Armageddon contains an unauthorized commercial exploitation of my name, photograph, image, and likeness within the game.”

“You are commanded to cease and desist immediately from the distribution of this game because of this unauthorized, illegal content…”

“It would appear that your company has done this at least in part because I sued you all in the Paducah school massacre case and further because I appeared on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 when your company came out with your profane, violent, and idiotic Blitz: The League.”

To be clear, there is no crusading Florida lawyer character that is shipped with the game. On the presumption that Jack Thompson is aware of the Marvel v. NCSoft decision (see linked posts below) which is on point, this demand will likely just fade away once Mr. Thompson realizes what has happened here. The mere inclusion of a character editor does not, in itself, infringe anyone’s IP or personality rights any more than the manufacture and sale of Etch-a-Sketches does.

Sources: GamePolitics.com| Gaming Target | Gamasutra | joystiq | The Inquirer | GameSpot | EuroGamer | GWN | Pro-G | igniq.com

Sources: GameSpot | Gamasutra | Next Generation | Kotaku | Joystiq | IGN | Silicon Era | GameDaily.biz

Sources: GameSpot | Gamasutra | Next Generation | Kotaku | ars technica | joystiq

Text of Complaint

• Blizzard/Vivendi Settle WoW Unofficial User Guide DMCA Dispute (June 9, 2006)
• Blizzard/Vivendi Sued for Blocking Sales of Unofficial “WoW” Guide (March 24, 2006)
  

• Cheatcc.com and Crave Online Media Settle Cheat Codes Dispute (April 12, 2006)
• Cheatcc.com and Crave Online Media in Cheat Codes Dispute (December 1, 2005)
  

Sources: Gamasutra | GameSpot NextGen.biz | 1Up.com | GameDaily | IGN | Houston Chronicle

Source: GameGirlAdvance.com

Sources: gameindustry.biz | Wired | EFF’s Marvel v. NCSoft Page | City of Hero’s Developer, Cryptic Studios, Responds

Sources: Gamasutra | PRNewswire

Related Posts:

• eGAmes, MVP Software and Webfoot Settle Hasbro Litigation (September 7, 2000)
• Hasbro Files Suit (Februrary 7, 2000)

Sources: Gamasutra | About | PRNewswire | EVG Nexus | Hasbro Press Release | Adrenaline Vault | CNNMoney
Related Posts:

• eGAmes, MVP Software and Webfoot Settle Hasbro Litigation (September 7, 2000)
• Hasbro Files Suit (Februrary 7, 2000)