Tecmo Japan Settles Overtime Suit, Readies for Merger

In an effort to tidy up its legal affairs, Tecmo has settled with two employees who claimed approximately $77,000 is unpaid overtime wages due to Tecmo's illegal "flexible hours" work schedule. In addition, the employees alleged that the company then covered it up with false accounting paperwork. The parties reached a judicial settlement.

"Flexible Hours" Tec' Mo' From Workers

Good to see a game company pay the fair amount for the hard work of their employees - too bad it took the legal system to make it happen.

SL User Files Suit Against LL, Other Avatar for TM Infringement of SLART

Richard Minsky, Second Life artist and owner of the trademark "SLART," has sued Linden Labs, Philip Rosedale (head of LL), Mitch Kapor (head of the board for LL), and an avator named Victor Vezina, claiming trademark infringement, TM dilution, and fraud. Apparently, Victor Vezina is using the SLART trademark without Minsky's approval and after LL would do nothing to protect his mark, he filed suit. For now, Minsky's claims are just claims...but the implications about TM enforcement in SL are huge. If he can win here, what will stop all of the other companies with valid TMs from suing LL for not removing infringing material?

SLART, a Sleeping Fart

Another interesting part was LL's reaction of trying to get Minsky to drop the rights to the mark by offering perks, such as a feature in the SL magazine. LL holds the mark to SL Art, which is different enough from SLART to warrant a unique TM. They were hoping to fold Minsky's mark into their own, but he refused.

Why not make the case that the mark is generic? Many people refer to art in SL as SLART, so it seems unfair for one user to hold dominion over the word (USPTO just cannot keep up!). I know that for many, SL is their livelihood and protecting their IP there is of the utmost importance, but this seems a bit ridiculous. And, I would love to hear the justification for the $1000/day "injury"...

Connecticut Court Dismisses WWE Suit Against THQ, Jakks

A Connecticut State Court dismissed all of WWE's claims against THQ and Jakks, the developer and licensee respectively, of WWE video games. WWE alleged bribery, anticompetitive behavior, conflicts of interest, and other dastardly deeds. The court dismissed the claims after reviewing the record: there is no antitrust injury and therefore no cause of action, and all of the federal claims were dealt with in the Federal Court's dismissal of the issue. WWE was hoping to nullify its licensing agreement as a result of the lawsuit, but it will not happen this time. WWE is appealing.

WWE gets the Smackdown

Sounds like WWE wants more money.

ESA Applauds the Capture of Pirates

The ESA would like to give a shout out to the justice system for actually catching some software pirates. Both of these criminals were found guilty of criminal copyright infringement for their extensive pirating practices. Kifah Maswadi, a distributor of consoles with 70 Nintendo games pre-loaded, got "fifteen months in prison, three years of supervised release, and fifty hours of community service, and must pay $415,900 in restitution." Bam! Kevin Fuchs, a key figure in certain warez sites, got eight months in prison, and eight months of home confinement. Still Bam!, (but not as much).

Yar! Me Ships Going Down

It is good to see that the targets of these federal investigations are not average joe six-chips, but legitimately harmful targets: like targeting the drug lords and not the poor man on the street just trying to get by...

Hillcrest Labs Sues Nintendo Over Waggle Technology

Oh, Nintendo...sued again....This is time, it is Hillcrest Labs, claiming that the Wii's motion sensing and graphical interface technology infringes on their patents. HL licenses it technology to other peripheral manufacturers, like Logitech, but did not fully disclose its licensing arrangements. As of the time of the story, Nintendo had not been served.

Hey Nintendo! Waggle This!

Once again, patent law is reprimanding the "innovator" for video games. Hillcrest may have valid patents, but it is so suspect how these companies wait years to file suit, after the big N has already made a ton of money. Coincidence? I think not...will the patent thicket ever be trimmed?

Game File-Sharer Ordered to Pay

The UK Patent Courts have ordered a British woman to pay about 16,000 pounds (approx. $30k) for illegally sharing games over the internet. The woman is paying Topware, makers of Dream Pinball 3D, for her copyright infringement of their protected work. Some believe this could be a landmark case in the VG industry's fight to control piracy.

Not Just Music Anymore!

It will be interesting to see if the industry will begin targeting file sharers a la the music industry. Personally, I do not think it is a great idea. Maybe for a littler guy like Topware, this approach would make sense, but the damage amount is so low, it would probably be a disservice to large game makers to go after individuals like this, only to have their customer base harangue them for it. Then again, you never know...

Ubisoft Sued for Breaching License Agreement to the Tune of $26 Million

ResponDesign, makers of Yourself!Fitness (thats the name...really?), is suing Ubisoft claiming a breach of their licensing agreement for failure to diligently pursue development of a game utilizing the license. ResponDesign believed that Ubisoft would create a game under their My Coach label that used the technology and software underlying RD's previous Yourself!Fitness (is this just a bad translation?). Instead Ubisoft created a competing product under the My Coach label, told them the licensed game would be called Yourself!Fitness, (which must have really stung!) and didn't even say sorry. Now RD has filed suit in Los Angeles seeking $26 million in damages, mostly from unrealized royalties.

My Suing Coach!

Hate to burst RD's bubble, but if they think they are getting anywhere near this amount they are crazy. Absolute figures aside, this case will be interesting to follow to see if courts will find/infer a right to have a game made when the main inducement for disclosing and sharing IP are proffered royalties. Without seeing the agreement, it is hard to know, but it is likely bad faith for Ubisoft to make a competing product.