MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al.

United States District Court, District of Arizona

Case No. 2:2006cv02555, Filed October 25, 2006

On October 25, 2006, MDY Industries, LLC (“MDY”) filed a declaratory judgment action against Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard”) and Vivendi, SA (“Vivendi”), Blizzard’s parent company, in the U.S. District Court in Arizona seeking, among other things, a decree from the court that MDY has not violated any of Blizzard’s intellectual property rights relating to the “World of Warcraft” video game.

MDY sells a software application called “WoW Glider” (also known as “Glider”) that essentially automates game play in Blizzard’s World of Warcraft. This automation, however, violates Blizzard’s Terms of Service for World of Warcraft, a fact that MDY actually admits in the “Frequently Asked Questions” portion of the Glider website. See http://mmoglider.com/FAQ.aspx#G3. In addition to allowing gamers to feel like lawless rebels, Glider appeals to World of Warcraft players because World of Warcraft is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which players must spend a great deal of time playing in order to “level up” their characters. Although it would seem strange that gamers would want to find a way to play less, the leveling in World of Warcraft is really only a part of the game, and a tedious part at that. Indeed, once a player reaches the maximum level, he or she can begin playing the “end game” content that is typically more challenging and dynamic than the other game content. Moreover, in addition to automating leveling, Glider also automates some of the other more tedious tasks in World of Warcraft, such as “grinding” reputation and “farming” gold, by automatically and repeatedly killing certain computer-controlled enemies. Glider accomplishes this automation by simulating the keystrokes and mouse movement that would normally be the control input from the player. Thus, instead of playing World of Warcraft for hours to level, grind, or farm, a player can configure Glider to perform whatever tasks he or she desires, and then leave Glider to play accordingly. As Blizzard sees it, however, Glider allows players to cheat by gaining an unfair advantage over others, thus detracting from everyone else’s gaming experience. Unfortunately for Blizzard, Glider was more than a mere demon that could be baninshed, and so they resorted to legal action to stop this alleged cheating.

According to MDY’s complaint, representatives for Blizzard and Vivendi appeared unannounced, (as if by magic?), at the private residence of Michael Donnelly, the sole member of MDY according to Blizzard, on the morning of October 25, 2006. At this confrontation, the Blizzard and Vivendi representatives allegedly accused MDY of copyright infringement, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) violations, and interference with the contractual relationships between Blizzard and World of Warcraft users. The Blizzard and Vivendi representatives also presented Donnelly with a complaint against him and MDY that included all of these charges, and threatened to file this complaint in a federal court in California if he did not comply with their demands. In imminent apprehension of being sued, MDY brought this declaratory judgment action against Blizzard and Vivendi the same day.

Notwithstanding whether Glider’s violation of the Terms of Service for World of Warcraft is interference with contractual relationships, the real issue in this lawsuit is whether Blizzard can prevent MDY from distributing Glider. Indeed, in February 2007, Blizzard filed an answer to MDY’s complaint in which Blizzard asserted counterclaims against MDY seeking injunctive relief and money damages. In these counterclaims, Blizzard argued that it is entitled to an injunction and money damages against MDY based on, among other things, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trafficking in technology designed for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection systems in violation of the DMCA. MDY filed an answer to Blizzard’s counterclaims in March 2007 in which MDY denied most of Blizzard’s accusations and raised various affirmative defenses to all of Blizzard’s counterclaims.

As of August 2007, this case is in discovery under a protective order and will remain in fact discovery until January 25, 2008. For now, World of Warcraft players can still use Glider to do their virtual dirty work (as long as they are willing to risk being banned from World of Warcraft for a Terms of Service violation, that is).

Thanks to Rajit Kapur for his assistance with the preparation of this case summary.

System and Method for Providing User Input to Character Animation

Issued on January 31, 2006, to Electronic Arts Inc.

Summary:

This patent issued to EA, discloses a system and method for providing real-time control over character animation. Basically this patent allows the user to change a character’s animation by real-time input into a joystick. For example in a golf game, the user can control the back swing, forward swing, the power or speed of the swing, whether the ball is hooked, sliced or straight, or whether or not the character takes a practice swing. The input from the joystick is monitored real time by a processor which converts motions in the joystick, such as pulling the joystick handle backwards into a back swing. Since the input is detected real-time, the user is able to change the animation continuously, i.e. the user can change the golf swing in the middle of the back swing, which might not improve your score.

Exemplary Claim:

A system for providing user input for animated character display on an animation display system comprising:

an analog input module configured to receive user analog input related to animated character display and to normalize the user analog input, thereby creating normalized user analog input;

a control state machine module configured to receive normalized user analog input from the analog input module and create a time-based state based on the received normalized analog input, the time-based state modeling an intent of the user with respect to the animated character, and

an animation state machine module configured to receive the time-based state from the control state machine module and to create a list of animations and at least one blending percentage for combining the list of animations based on the time0based state, and providing the list of animations and at least one blending percentage to the animation display system.

Bingo Game Method

Issued on December 8, 1995 to Inventor Gary Weingardt

Summary:

This invention attempts to reinvigorate the classic game of Bingo and lure the gamblers away from video poker, slot machines and table games by providing larger bingo jackpots. The invention includes a bingo card with different colored squares, or a board readout that displays the numbers and their associated colors. The colors may be Blue, Red, Green, and Yellow, etc., and specific jackpots or progressive payouts are associated with each color. For example, a player could obtain the largest Bingo by getting a Bingo of all Blue numbers. The next highest payout might be a Green Bingo, followed by a Red Bingo and then a Yellow Bingo. The smallest payout would then go to a multi-colored Bingo. In this example, there would be the smallest amount of numbers designated as Blue, the next smallest as Green, a larger amount of Red, and the remainder of numbers would be Yellow. There may even be a payout for a “Case Bingo” meaning a Bingo which the player has missed by one number.

Exemplary Claim:

The method of playing a game of bingo comprising:

a) providing a player with a bingo card having a plurality of numbered spaces;

b) providing a plurality of bingo balls each having individual numbers corresponding to the numbered spaces on the bingo card;

c) providing an electronic number reader bingo board having a plurality of numbered spaces corresponding to the number of bingo balls used in the bingo game;

d) a player making a wager to be eligible for the bingo game;

e) randomly designating a portion of the numbered spaces on the bingo board with a first designated marking;

f) designating the remaining numbered spaces on the bingo board as a second designated marking;

g) randomly selecting consecutive bingo balls;

h) if the player achieves a predetermined winning combination on the bingo card of selected numbers having only the first designated marking, awarding the player a first preselected amount.

[Editor's Note: based on the breadth of that claim, at first blush it appears that the claim would read on a Bingo game in which there is a "four corners" bingo in addition to the usual bingo methods. That having been said, I have not read the entire specification or reviewed the prosecution history.]

I have a client that I am helping to get into the Guinness Book of World Records. For what? Well that has to wait until the record is published, but suffice it to say that it got me wondering about world records as intellectual property. Ok, I know they're NOT technically IP, but I've always had a fascination with getting world record, so I figure helping someone else do it would be good enough... for now. My day will come.

In any event, I ran across this article describing the exploits of DK'ers (Donkey Kong'ers) setting world record after world record at the game. An interesting read. But a warning, there is a documentary about attempts to break the Donkey Kong world record, and the article is essentially a spoiler to the movie (in case you planned to watch it).

An Illinois man was sentenced to two years in prison for violating copyright law through the unauthorized sale of video games on his Web site, the U.S. Department of Justice announced late Thursday, August 2, 2007.

Timothy W. Hall, of Mount Vernon, Ill., pleaded guilty May 8 to one count of criminal copyright infringement for his unlawful distribution of hundreds of thousands of copyright works on his Web site, Morbidbackups.net. Hall advertised the sale of hundreds of video games, for Xbox, GameCube, PlayStation 2, and other platforms, on recordable CDs. Hall also offered DVDs containing movies and television programs, the DOJ said.

Video game crime doesn't pay!

Read more here.

Well its not a video game lawsuit, but interesting nonetheless. And, yes, this post could be considered shameless self-promotion. Nonetheless, I was recently quoted in USA Today in an article regarding the Facebook lawsuit, and it's even a good sound bite! Usually quotes get taken out of context or they use the quote that you wish you never said (remember the "work hard, play hard" debacle?) In any event, I thought it noteworthy, so enjoy...

Battle Method with Attack Power Based on Character Group Density

Issued May 4, 2004, assigned to Koei Co., Ltd.

Summary:

Although the Sam Fishers, John Matrixs, Solid Snakes, and John Rambos of the world would gladly demonstrate how false this premise is, this patent contends a soldier’s attack and defense strength synergizes with the number of surrounding support soldiers. For example, a bow soldier’s attack strength is increased according to the number of surrounding bow soldiers transverse to the enemy’s army. Therefore, five archers in a line parallel to the enemy’s army would have an attack strength greater than five archers in a line perpendicular to the enemy army. This causes individual soldiers within a formation to have a variable attack/defense strength (displayed to a user by the soldier’s color). The differences in the attack/defense strength are due to changes in the soldier’s support area. The support area is defined by their relative position in the overall formation, the predefined size and shape of the support area, and the type of soldiers in the current soldier’s support area (e.g., archer, foot soldier, etc.). Additionally, different types of soldiers have support areas of different shapes. Interestingly, the patent manages to offend a plethora of game characters by capping a soldier’s attack/defense strength at a maximum value to prevent it from exceeding the strength of “an actual person.”

Exemplary Claim:

A character group battle method in which a plurality of characters that are displayed in a three-dimensional virtual space form groups of friends and enemies that battle against one another, comprising the steps of:

calculating the position of each of the characters in the three-dimensional virtual space;

calculating the character number of the other one or more friend characters existing in a predetermined region about the character; and

calculating at least one of an attack or a defense value respectively expressing at least one of an attack power or a defense strength of the character on the basis of the character number.

Courts have held that artists' copyright protection can extend beyond their literal pictorial works, and some courts have even insinuated that an artist can receive copyright expression for their artistic style, e.g., Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Inc., 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that cover artist for The New Yorker's copyright protection extended beyond literal copying of his work, and that poster for Moscow on the Hudson infringed his copyright).

The Simpsons, a popular TV show, video game, and now movie, are easily recognizable for the cartoonish style originated by its creator, Matt Groening:


Well now you, too, can look like the Simpsons. Yes, that's right, at SIMPSONIZEME.COM you can upload a picture of yourself and see what you would look like in Springfield, AS (AS=AnyState). In case you're curious, here I am in simpsonized form:

We previously reported that Konami Corporation sued Roxor Games, Inc. in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, and trade dress infringement, under both Federal and Texas law, regarding Konami's game Dance Dance Revolution. It appears that we won't see trial or a decision on this case, as they settled out of court as of last autumn (ok, I'm a little late posting on this... sorry). The settlement gives Konami full control of In the Groove's intellectual property rights.

More details here.

Judge Kosinski opens his opinion by positing the most poignant of questions: “Duke Nukem routinely vanquishes Octabrain and the Protozoid Slimer. But what about the dreaded Micro Star?” Duke Nukem 3D, the well known first person shooter that was distributed and owned by FormGen Inc., included an editor that enabled players to create their own levels [Editor’s Note: I once created a map duplicating two decks of a Carnival cruise ship. Regrettably, it didn’t make it onto the CD at issue]. Player-created levels could be posted onto the Internet for download by other players. Micro Star acquired 300 user-created levels, placed them onto a CD, and sold that CD commercially as Nuke It, whose packaging displayed screen shots of the new levels. FormGen threatened to sue, so Micro Star sought a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of FormGen’s copyrights in the game, while FormGen counterclaimed for a preliminary injunction against future copyright infringement by Micro Star. While the district court did grant a preliminary injunction as to the use of the screen shots, it also held that Nuke It was not a derivative work and therefore did not infringe FormGen’s copyright.

On appeal, Kozinski focused on whether Micro Star copied FormGen’s protected expression. Ultimately, the Court disagreed with Micro Star’s arguments that Nuke It was not a derivative work because the MAP files, which contain the instructions defining the custom levels, did not incorporate in a concrete or permanent form any of Duke Nukem 3D’s protected expression (i.e., the artwork rendered onto the screen). Instead, the Court found Nuke It to be a derivative work in concrete or permanent form because it was embodied onto a CD and the MAP files described in detail the audiovisual display that appears on the computer monitor. Additionally, Micro Star’s motive of financial gain worked against their position and foreclosed their ability to assert fair use protection. By selling Nuke It, the Court held, Micro Star “impinged on FormGen’s ability to market new versions of the Duke Nukem 3D story” and “only FormGen [as the owner of the copyright] has the right to enter that market.” FormGen, therefore, did not abandon their right to profit commercially from new levels by granting a license to players to freely distribute new levels to other players. Thus, FormGen received a preliminary injunction as to Nuke It’s commercial distribution. Now if only 3D Realms would hurry up and release Duke Nukem Forever, because we’re all getting a little tired their mantra “it’s done when it’s done…”