Slashdot Mirror
The History of Videogame Lawsuits
AsiNisiMasa writes "1UP is running an interesting piece detailing the history of lawsuits in the gaming industry. It reveals a bit about Nintendo's old strong-arm tactics, the origin of the third party developer, Electronic Art's employee abuse, and of course plenty of violent games being 'linked' to violent behavior. Jack Thompson gets an entire page to himself." From the article: "To show their appreciation, Atari took Activision to court, claiming that the company didn't have the right to develop Atari games. Atari lost, and more companies decided to follow in Activision's footsteps, creating the concept of third-party developers. It was a defining moment for video games."
Let's capitalize on all these video game lawsuits and design an entirely new game based on them: You're playing as one of the major game companies, and you have to do as many sneaky under-handed things as you possibly can before the sharks – er, lawyers representing players, EA employees, and concerned parents – catch up with you!
Creative misinterpretation is your friend.
Infogrames also made the Alone In The Dark Games. At least the first 2 or 3, when they were really good. Every game production company has their good games, and their bad games.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Jack Thompson gets an entire page to himself.
That's good. Just what the guy needs. More notoriety and attention.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Atari won a lawsuit against Sega in the mid-90s. I think it had to do with the fact that Atari had a copyright on certain types of scrolling backgrounds in games. Sega used a lot of scrolling backgrounds in their late 80s / early 90s games.
The Tramiels used the 90+ million dollars they won to keep Atari afloat until '96.
Sure, Windows PCs dominate the market. But so do cheap toupees.
They skim over the fact that when KC Munchkin lost to PacMan, there were dozens of other copycat games that were suddenly too risky to market, which contributed to the industrywide 'cold spell'.
as to how once nintendo beat off 3rd party developers with a stick, and now would love to see some 3rd party support, eh? eh? eh, nintendo?
MORTAR COMBAT!
Atari took no precautions to prevent third party games. The judge ruled that Atari didn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Nintendo took a look at the case and added a patented algorithm to their systems called the "Lockout Chip". Atari asked the patent office for the info on the lockout chip so that they could reproduce it without paying Nintendo royalties. Nintendo sued on patent infringment and won.
Nintendo was WAY more cut-throat than Atari ever was. Atari was just... bumbling.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
As someone who has personally been sued by a gaming company over intelectual property, i would say that gameing companies tend to be WAY overprotective of their intelectual property... http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/10/ 0347222&tid=211&tid=123
I owned and operated a website devoted to hacking and modding console games such as Soul Calibur 2 and Dead or Alive. These mods did nothing but add to the longevity of their games.
It doesn't take much to muscle someone around with our court system and ridiculous digital copyright laws... Chances are if you don't have enough money to fight back (like myself, being a college student) they will get their way regardless of weather or not they have a legitimate case against you.
-cypher35 [ninjazombie.net]
Scientology-Online:
Buy This and We'll Sue You
If only something like this would happen to Konami, instead making their overly borad patent on the DDR game pad design less valid so that there can be some real competition in the dance simulation game genre instead of it being an unsteady (legal-wise) battle bwteeen In the Groove, Dance DanceRevolution, and Pump it Up.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
This whole article reads like a 6th grade book report on the Steven Kent book.
1 34956685/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3046164-8793630?n =507846&s=books&v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761536434/qid=1
Get the book, it's a better read and a lot more detailed.
It is rare to see an article devoted to decades of lawsuits seriously covering this subject matter in such an enjoyable, highly readable and appropriately tongue-in-cheek way.
Bear that bookmark in mind as one piece to submit on upcoming calls for contenders to the crown of "online journalism of the year" awards...
We never said Nintendo has never done evil, we just ask that if Sony and Microsoft are going to do evil they not set the carpet on fire in the process
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Just going off what I know of Thompson, yes he was, but since the court case didn't go the way he wanted, he decided to pretend he was never involved.
The man is an attention whore, but only for positive attention.
He usually goes on the offensive when you call him on his BS though.
A persecution complex is like paranoia, it is flexible enough that anything negative you do/say to him can be incorporated into his mental framework.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
An interesting article, but seems to be missing a ton of research.
That article completely reversed the actual story on the Nintendo vs. Blockbuster lawsuit. Nintendo won part of their case against Blockbuster for copyright infringement because Blockbuster was handing out photocopied manuals with the games. After the lawsuit, BBV could only either hand out the original manual (which were often never returned or damaged) or a short generic instruction sheet.
The article also completely skips some of the more important lawsuits. Atari v Coleco (the mother of all emulation lawsuits), Nintendo v Prima (game maps ruled not copyright infringment), Nintendo v Color Dreams (an interesting case of clean-room reverse engineering), Sega v Accolade (another case of working around a lockout), Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft vs. Lik Sang (mod chips and flash carts), Sony vs. Bleem! (more emulation fun), and doesn't even begin to address the huge effects the DMCA had on the whole industry.
/zing!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Nintendo lost the lawsuit, however; the only thing Blockbuster could be nailed for was including original, copyrighted instruction booklets with their rented games. Blockbuster simply switched over to photocopied booklets, or handed out a card that explained the game's basic premise and controls to the player. Despite threats to rental kiosks and retailers who sold multiple copies of certain games, video game rentals were free to prosper, and still do.
I'd like an explanation of this. How is the inclusion of the booklet a no-no while the game isn't? The booklet is just as copyrighted as the game.
"But then Nintendo took Atari to court for creating third-party games for the NES and somehow got the opposite result. I do wish there were penalties for paying off judges in the United States."
Different Atari. The Atari that took Activision to court (mainly because Activision was made up of ex-Atari programmers whose games had mainly been coded on "Company" aka Atari time before they left). That was the unified Atari Inc. which encompassed both the arcade division and the consumer (home videogames and computers) divisions. Post-1984 Atari was split into two different companies when Warner sold out to try to stop Rupert Murdoch (who later bought Fox) from taking over Warner. The consumer division became Atari Corp., owned by Jack Tramiel (well, 75% owned by them and 25% by Warner, later known as TimeWarner), and the arcade division called Atari Games Corporation (75% owned by Namco of Japan and 25% by Warner). Atari Games Corp. owned the rights to the name "Atari" for arcades only; Atari Corp. controlled the rights to the brand for home videogames and computers. Thus when Atari Games wanted to get into the home gaming business, they named their division "Tengen" and signed up to become an NES licensee. They then reverse engineered the NES authorization chip and tried to be an independent third party developer because they claimed Nintendo shorted them authorized cartridges to the benefit of Nintendo's other favored third party developers. TimeWarner jumped back in and bought out Namco, and then proceeded to try to get Atari Games and Atari Corp. to work together (and they tried reacquiring Atari Corp. too) which led to the cross licensing of post-1984 Atari Games Corp. arcade titles which then appeared for the Atari Lynx game system. Atari Games Corp. sued Nintendo for monopolizing the home videogame industry in America (which they did) based upon the exclusive contracts regarding supplying authorized cartridges whereas Atari Corp. sued Nintendo on antitrust grounds for prohibiting the NES licensees from porting their titles to non-Nintendo game systems (such as the Atari 7800, the Sega Master System, and the NEC TurboGrafx-16). Somehow Atari Corp. lost their side of the case, and then proceeded to hit Nintendo upside their heads over patent infringement and they settled for nearly $200 million.
Funny how modern day Nintendo fanbois forget how vile Nintendo conducted its business back in the mid 80s to the early 90s...and its also helps to remember that once Nintendo was essentially forced to clean up its act, it lost its industry dominance to first Sega, and then Sony.
As for Atari, its the name of Infogrames American division. It is comprised of all of the American interests of Infogrames as well as the properties that Hasbro Interactive had acquired before selling out to Infogrames (including the brand, titles, and intellectual property of the former Atari Corp as of 1996). The Atari Games Corp. was sold off to WMS Industries in 1996/97 when TimeWarner rejected a bid by Nolan (King Pong, founder of Atari) Bushnell to take over the company. WMS spun off its videogame interests (the former Williams and Bally-Midway arcade companies and the formerly TradeWest home game company) into what is now known as Midway Games. Which is why you'll see such (post-1984) Atari specific classic arcade games such as "Gauntlet" comprised (and or updated) in Midway's Greatest Hits titles even though they weren't Midway titles back in the day...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"Atari took no precautions to prevent third party games. The judge ruled that Atari didn't have a legal leg to stand on."
That's because there was no such thing as a third party video game company when the Atari 2600 VCS originally debuted in 1977. The renegade Atari employees who created Activision founded the third-party industry. The same industry that pretty much caused the 1982-84 videogame industry collapse that ruined Atari which it never truly recovered from which is why "carpet-bagging" companies like Sony and Microsoft now control the industry. Nintendo put a lock-out chip in the NES to prevent games like *Custer's Revenge* from ever appearing on their console. They wanted to restrict the third parties to ensure quality. At least that's what they told the public; the monopoly power was an alleged side-effect of that behavior. It should be remembered that Atari gained a 90% controlling interest in the earlier gaming industry without such tactics.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"Coleco also paid royalties on their VCS emulator / expansion module. Atari made tons of money off of the bad games since they got a royalty from everyone basically. The myth got started because the settlements were non-disclosed. Atari was the first collectors of licesenses and they didn't care how bad the games were as long as they got their cut. And Atari had some of the most tennacious lawyers in the business. A month wouldn't go by before some lawsuit was announced from Atari-Warner.
What - you think Atari became as large as they did so fast because of sales of Pac Man and ET?"
Uhm, excuse me. Atari had a 90% stake in the industry before 1982, which was before the 2600 versions of Pac-Man and E.T. debuted. Atari sued because it held a ton of intellectual property which was something they learned to do because Ralph Baer and Sanders/Philips sued all the game companies based upon the intellectual property they had from the original Odyssey system. So if you want to blame the litigation trend on anyone, dump it on the doorstep of Ralph Baer because he couldn't handle the fact that his games essentially sucked and Atari did it better. Activision paid royalties to Atari because most of the early Activision games were created when the programmers had worked at Atari and took the stuff with them when they defected and founded Activision. Why do you think tech companies like Apple today insist upon coding rights to anything an employee of theirs created during their employment at Apple even if it was on their off-hours?
The whole debacle on E.T. was because of Warner Communications. You can read about it in the biography of Steve Ross, the chairman of Warner Communications who was the first media person to see the value of videogames and multimedia (he bought Atari back in 1976), and later spearheaded the merger of Time and Warner before dying of prostate cancer. Ross wanted to get Steven Spielberg away from Lew Wasserman of MCA/Universal. So Ross did things like befriending Steven, having Warner pay for his house and moving costs, and then instructing Atari Inc. from above (and above Atari's objections) to pay Spielberg $25 million for the videogame rights to E.T. The gamble worked because Spielberg then decided to make half his movies for Warner Bros. and the other half still for MCA/Universal based upon personal loyalty to Wasserman. However, the gamble contributed to the collapse of Atari and the game industry (because E.T. sucked due to its rushed production) which hurt Warner's stock and triggered Rupert Murdoch's hostile takeover attempt which in turn prompted Warner to jump the gun and sell Atari way too cheaply just to get its bad news from continuing to depress the Warner share value.
Remember...before Netscape, Atari was the fastest growing company in the history of American business. In 1980, Atari wanted to build a $500 million campus to consolidate itself in a central location in Silicon Valley instead of being spread through 75 different buildings at the time. Warner rejected the Company's request.
Had Warners administered Atari a little more independently, today, the computer and videogame industries would be dramatically different, in my humble opinion. We certainly would not be running Microsoft Windows on the majority of computers sold today, for one...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
That's because there was no such thing as a third party video game company when the Atari 2600 VCS originally debuted in 1977.
It's even more complex than that. The VCS was only intended to play the dozen or so games released at launch. The idea of a truely generic console hadn't entered anyone's mind yet. Activision was one of the driving forces behind the idea that the VCS could be used generically.
he renegade Atari employees who created Activision founded the third-party industry. The same industry that pretty much caused the 1982-84 videogame industry collapse that ruined Atari which it never truly recovered from which is why "carpet-bagging" companies like Sony and Microsoft now control the industry.
Atari killed Atari. Sure, they were making a pretty penny off the VCS, but they assumed the revenue and continuously overspent. The market crash thus creamed Atari, but didn't kill them. Atari still released the 7800 post-crash, but wasn't able to convince the market to pick it. Further mis-management caused Atari to miss the boat on licensing the Nintendo, causing them to get their asses handed to them on a plate in the market.
Sony gained control of the market much later thanks to a screwup by Nintendo which left Sony with Nintendo's next-gen hardware. (i.e. The Playstation) Microsoft just forced their way into the market, and hasn't had anywhere near the success as they'd have people believe.
Nintendo put a lock-out chip in the NES to prevent games like *Custer's Revenge* from ever appearing on their console.
That's only half the story. Nintendo definitely didn't want another Custer's Revenge (which didn't stop a few from coming along anyway), but they realized that the real problem was the glut of games. Quality suffered because there was no incentive to produce a good seller. So Nintendo restricted licensees to only 5 games per year. This restriction was mostly effective, and didn't produce problems similar to the crash of '83 until late into the Nintendo's life. The fight with the Genesis and the release of the Super Nintendo both headed off another crash.
It should be remembered that Atari gained a 90% controlling interest in the earlier gaming industry without such tactics.
Atari had competition from the Channel F (VES) before it ever released the 2600. However, the market was still fresh at the time, and the two consoles didn't directly compete like consoles do today. (Remember, the Atari 2600 was created only for a few games. It wasn't intended to be generic.) The Video Game crash of 1977, however, caused the Channel F to exit the market, leaving Atari with a 100% market share. That share would later be challenged by the more expensive Intellivision and Colecovision, but those two consoles would suffer heavily in the '83 market crash, again giving Atari the lead.
The 7800, BTW, also had a lockout system to prevent a situation like the '83 crash.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The article needs more fact checking. I'm not a video game historian, but some errors jumped out here -
Blockbuster wasn't sued for renting out manuals (don't libraries do that?) They were sued for photocopying the manuals and keeping the originals. Copyright violation.
"Data East's 1984 arcade game" was not "The Way of Karate" - it was "Karate Champ."
Obese individuals DIDN'T sue McDonalds and win - they sued Mcdonalds and lost. The author is confusing that lawsuit with the woman who was served a cup of lava; she sued and won.