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…”

Today the Free Software Foundation released version 3 of the GNU General Public License. The new version of the license contains a lengthy patent license provision, copied below, that users should be aware of. Given that GNU GPLv3 might apply to some code used in your game, you should read it and make sure you understand all its ramifications. Give us a call if you need legal representation regarding open source contract issues, and we can discuss your situation.

---cut here---

11. Patents.

A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor's “contributor version”.

A contributor's “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.

A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.

---end of provision---

If you're looking for copies of patents, here are a few resources to help you out:
1) The USPTO web site. Great for getting text searchable copies
2) Google's patent site. Great for searching patents and reviewing text searachable results
3) www.PatentMonkey.com. Free searching and PDF copies of patents.
4) www.PatentRetriever.com. Free searching and PDF copies of patents.

I recently wrote a short article regarding Film Sanitization, the practice of removing objectionable content from a movie without the copyright owner's consent. Groups remove the sex, violence, nudity, language, drug use, etc., to create versions suitable for "families and children." This raises various copyright issues, discussed in my article, which you can download and read here. The initial conclusion is that those who sanitize films without the copyright owner's consent do so at their own risk.

Similar issues could very well arise with respect to video games, except that it's harder to remove just the objectionable content from a video game without the help and assistance of the game's developer, as evidenced by the "Hot Coffee" exploit for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. In any event, some issues to ponder, and you might just find the attached article an interesting, if brief, read.

FilmSanitization.pdf

Ok, consider this post shameless self-promotion. Steve Chang and I were recently interviewed by a writer at Entrepreneur.com, and are showcased in an article about playing video games at work.

Link to Article.

Well it was really only a matter of time. When an industry gets large enough, we need awards to distinguish the good from the bad. MMOs and Virtual Worlds are the latest addition to the awards fray, with "live" ceremonies to be held in Second Life and Entropia Universe.

Read more here.

I guess it's true: IP begets IP.