We’ve talked in previous posts about what a contract is, how to structure it and how to read and write one. This post is about understanding what clauses in a contract, and the contract overall, means. This is known in the law as contract ‘interpretation’ or ‘construction’. (more…)
Lulzsec, hacking and the Computer Misuse Act 1990
Be the first to commentRemember all those stories back in 2011 about Lulzsec, the hacker group behind a number of hacking attacks – including one against Sony as well as various government bodies, including possibly the CIA? It hasn’t ended well for at least some of their members – a number of whom have pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the UK, according to the BBC.
I thought I’d write a quick post about this just to emphasise that these examples show that hacking attacks, including DDoS (distributed denial of service) are illegal (in the UK at least anyway). It’s set out in the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (amended, for those who care, by the Police and Justice Act 2006) which, as it happens, was the subject of one of the very first blog posts on Gamer/Law,.. (more…)
Games Workshop and the Space Marine trademark spat
Be the first to commentThe Internet recently has been full of stories about trade mark action being taken the Games Workshop, a British company well-known for creating the “Warhammer” and “Warhammer 40k” series of table-top and computer games. Specifically, it has been seeking to protect its claimed trade mark rights in the name “Space Marine”, an iconic character in the Warhammer 40K universe, against the author of a Kindle ebook called “Spot the Space Marine”. The Internet, in the main part, was scathing.The EFF, for example, called Games Workshop a “trademark bully”. (more…)
Looking back: Gamer/Law’s 10 predictions for 2012
Be the first to commentWay back on 2 January 2012, now lost in the mists of time, I made ten predictions for interactive entertainment law in 2012. How did I do?
Games law update, October 2012
Be the first to commentHi everyone – I’m sorry there’s been a few months gap since the last games law update, but it’s been pretty busy in my personal life and I’m afraid my assiduous squirreling away of useful links for you suffered. Here’s October 2012 in brief to help make amends… (more…)
The use and legal status of virtual goods and currency
Be the first to commentIt’s conference season right now, so guess what? I have more slides for you! Last month I spoke at Social Gaming 2012, a conference bringing together the gambling industry and a few select figures from the interactive entertainment industry…including me. I was asked to give a presentation on the use and legal status of virtual goods and currency, which led to me speaking for an hour or so about why virtual goods and currency are popular and a summary of the current legal developments regarding them around the world. (more…)
The games tax break doesn’t mean Grand Theft Auto: Weston-Super-Mare!
Be the first to commentEarlier today I wrote a quick update on where we are with the UK games tax break. A few well-intentioned Twitter followers of mine immediately joked that games being required to go through a ‘cultural test’ to gaint the tax break would result in red telephone boxes throughout games, etc etc.
This is a bit like the Guardian’s Charles Arthur’s joke that the games tax break might lead reducing Grand Theft Auto games to using British provincial towns like Weston-Super-Mare instead of New York etc. All of which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the cultural test will work – a mistake which, albeit understandable, is so pervasive in the industry I thought I’d write a quick post about it specifically. (more…)
The UK games tax break – a quick update
Be the first to commentIt’s been a while now since the UK government made the surprising but welcome announcement in March 2012 that it would introduce a tax break for the games industry. What’s happened since then?
Consultations, consultations, consultations…
The government announced that it would hold a consultation process with stakeholders, to be split into two parts. The first, run by HM Treasury, would be a discussion of the overall structure and qualifying conditions of the tax break and the second, run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”), would be about the ‘cultural test’ aspect of the tax break. More below… (more…)
What you need to know about the UK patent box
Be the first to commentMy colleague Clare Nicholson of Osborne Clarke has put together a great presentation on the UK’s patent box regime – a tax efficient structure for holding patents in the UK. I thought you might find it interesting… (more…)
Spry Fox settles with 6Waves – does it matter?
Be the first to comment
Spry Fox and 6Waves have settled their legal dispute over allegations that 6Waves had cloned Spry Fox’s game Triple Town. News of the lawsuit received great attention and no small amount of oppobrium directed at 6Waves. News of the settlement has received similar fanfare. But does this really matter to the wider games or software industry? I don’t think so – not from a purely legal perspective anyway.
The background:
I wrote about the case briefly back in January 2012 and the full details are on VentureBeat. Here’s the bare bones: Spry Fox, a games developer, developed Triple Town while also holding discussions with 6Waves, a games publisher, about 6Waves publishing the game. The discussions were conducted under a Non Disclosure Agreement. 6Waves subsequently broke off those discussions abruptly and released a game called Yeti Town, which Spry Fox argued was effectively a clone of Triple Town. Spry Fox commenced proceedings, arguing both for copyright infringement and breach of contract among other things.
What’s happened now:
The parties have announced a settlement between them, the terms of which are confidential save that Yeti Town will become the property of Spry Fox. The settlement followed an attempt by 6Waves to dismiss the lawsuit, which failed. Litigators, and long-time readers of this blog, will know that failing to knock the other guy’s case out of court is often a cause for settlement (because you can tell in which direction the lawsuit is heading – and it isn’t favourable to you).
Why this case doesn’t really matter for the games industry
Supporters of Spry Fox made the argument that this lawsuit needed to happen because clones should not go unpunished, that there should be a case establishing legal recourse for developers whose products are cloned. I agree. But this case isn’t it.
Firstly, because it was settled on confidential terms and therefore: (a) we don’t really know what was agreed between the parties (though the fact that Yeti Town is now Spry Fox’s suggested that they got the upper hand); and (b) it has no legal precedent value.
Secondly, and more importantly, the law on cloning has already moved on since this case was started. In the USA, the US case of Tetris v Xio Interactive (which I wrote about here) already provides a modern legal precedent against game cloning. By contrast, in the EU the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in SAS v World Programming (which I wrote about here) has pretty much shut the door on any kind of legal cloning argument.
In other words, from a purely legal perspective, the Spry Fox lawsuit was trying to solve a problem that has since been solved (albeit the US and EU are moving in different directions on what that solution should be).
I’m still sympathetic to Spry Fox ofc, and I think Triple Town is a really great game. They should be commended for having the courage to commence legal action to protect their position. But my point is that we need to look elsewhere for cases which will have a lasting effect on cloning in the games industry.
And, lastly, there is the caveat we always need to make regarding games (and software) cloning – having a clear legal position is important but ultimately it is not going to solve the cloning issue on its own. Engagement by the various distribution platforms, as well as the natural evolution in distribution and business models already underway, will have as much – if not greater – effect than change in the law.
Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our email update shere