Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Creative vs. Corporate: Patent Infringement Awards Respawn the Debate over Patenting Video Games
This past May, a Texas jury awarded GREE Inc., developer of the game Fishing Star, $92 million in damages against Supercell Oy, the developer of the game Clash of Clans, based on allegations of patent infringement.
It is common for businesses involved in developing and bringing to market consumer products to go through the "it's all about the art" vs. "it all about the bottom line" conflict that invariably raises its head from time to time. This conflict tends to arise when individuals from the creative side of the house and individuals from the business side of the house get together with legal counsel to discuss strategies for protecting the fruits of their collective labor. Nowhere is this tension more apparent than in the world of video game development.
The basic tools available for protecting video game intellectual property are no different than those generally available for any field, and include patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Trademarks create brand identity and can be the first consumer-facing aspect of a product, making protection of trademarks vital. Copyrights protect the tangible creative writing, including computer code, artwork, music and other artistic elements of game development. They can be very valuable, but are generally limited to protecting the actual expression of the author, and infringement is generally limited to actual copying. Trade secrets can protect ideas (e.g., game story concepts and characters that are still in development and not yet made public), important algorithms, source code that is not readily accessible, etc. However, trade secrets are only afforded protection if kept secret, and if the secret is discovered through legitimate research, the protection can be lost.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.