LG vs Sony: court battle over PS3 seizures due tomorrow

UPDATE: Sony was able to lift apparently all restrictions against it and LG was ordered to pay it substantial damages.  More here.

Sony and LG are set to go to court in Holland tomorrow over a court order apparently obtained last week by LG for the seizure of reportedly tens of thousands of PlayStation 3s.  This appears to be a separate strand to the patents battle ongoing between Sony and LG over the PlayStation 3 among other devices.

Florian Mueller over at Foss Patents has all the details.  Here’s my view of the highlights:

  • It seems that, at around the same time that LG secured a temporary ban on the importation of PS3s into Holland, it also obtained a seizure order over PS3s stores in a Sony warehouse in Holland.  As I said, media reports suggest tens of thousands of PS3s may have been seized.
  • Sony was not given advance notice of the seizure (apparently because the judge ruled Sony the opportunity to move its PlayStations out of that warehouse ahead of confiscation).  However, Sony was given permission to appeal against the seizure – which is now set for a court hearing in The Hague tomorrow (10th March).
  • Sony will of course be wanting to have that seizure order overturned, whereas LG will want to extend it – much like the position regarding the temporary importation ban (no news on that, by the way).
  • The court documents filed in support of this seizure order set out interesting details about LG’s explanation why this litigation started up in the first place. 
  • Basically, it seems that LG and Sony were in discussions late last year about giving each other licences over technology underlying a whole range of products.  LG wanted to give Sony only a licence over Bluray technology (and leave the other products for another licence(s), but Sony wanted a licence to cover everything. 
  • LG says that, when these discussions failed, Sony then launched legal action in the US and LG responded with its own legal action in Europe and the US.

So, what’s the current state of play?

(1) Sony and LG will go to court tomorrow over the seizure order – watch this space for more.  In the meantime, bear in mind that the seizure order does not mean conclusively that LG was right and Sony was wrong.  It simply means that the judge felt that LG’s case is sufficiently convincing to warrant the seizure ahead of a full court hearing – but the judge won’t have been able to come to a full decision yet.
(2) The temporary ban on importing the PS3 into Holland is still in place but I suspect is soon to run out – which will mean another court hearing soon.
(3) What impact will the seizure of the PS3s have on PS3 stocks in Europe?  Will it change analysts’ assessments that stocks won’t run low anytime soon?
(4) If in due course a judge finds that LG was wrong to have obtained the importation ban or the PS3 seizures, it would in principle be liable to pay potentially substantial compensation to Sony.
(4) We’ve yet to hear Sony’s side of the story…

Again, go to Foss Patents for all the details.  I’ll write another update when I hear more.

Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our email updates here

Analysis: the LG vs Sony PS3 lawsuit

The big news in the console world last week was LG obtaining a temporary ban on the importation of PlayStation 3s into Europe. I spoke with BBC Radio 4 about this issue (you can listen here at 42 mins if you’re keen!) and wrote a feature on Gamesindustry.biz, now reproduced below:


This case is a ‘first’ for the games industry in several respects: the first time a patent has been used to obtain a console importation ban; the first time a console has been blocked from entering Europe; and the first time a (modern) outside electronics manufacturer has sued over a console. I’m going to discuss why this lawsuit came about, what practical consequences this might have for Sony (though talk of a ‘loophole’ is misguided – more on that later) and what might happen next. Lastly, at the end I set out some key points from this case for all businesses in the games industry.


The rivalry between Sony and LG – both of whom are of course Asian giants in electronic consumer products – has been going on for some time. But it really came to the fore when, in December 2010, Sony took legal action to block the importation of LG mobile phones in the US. LG has since responded with legal action in both the US and Europe, alleging that Sony has infringed a number of LG patents over Blu-ray DVD technology, including the Blu-ray tech in the PS3 – which is what has led directly to this battle.


A patent is a form of intellectual property right – it is essentially a temporary monopoly over the exploitation of a new invention. The legal rationale is that if you have created something useful for society, you are rewarded by the exclusive right to profit from that invention for a limited period of time – provided that afterwards anyone can use that invention freely.

Broadly speaking, in Europe patents are awarded over hardware/physical inventions, not over software. They are therefore mainly of interest to hardware manufacturers, such as console or peripherals manufacturers in the games industry.

Technology companies like Sony and LG tend to amass large portfolios of patents for two key reasons: (1) patents are valuable in their own right; and (2) they can be a useful shield in any patent case brought against you.

That last point needs a little explanation. Let’s say Company A and Company B are both in the electronics industry and both own several patents. Company A sues Company B for patent infringement. Because Company B also owns a patent portfolio, it may be able to use that portfolio to bring its own patent infringement claim against Company A. Hence why owning a patent portfolio can be a shield in patent cases – in fact, having your own portfolio might even stop your rival from suing you in the first place, for fear of an immediate counterclaim.

However, this logic doesn’t work all the time – clearly in this case there has been enough at stake for Sony and LG to go to litigation despite the inevitable counterclaims on either side.


As I said, once Sony had started the ball rolling, LG commenced legal action in the US and Europe over Blu-ray tech in Sony products – in particular the PS3. So far, we haven’t seen any substantial reported action on the US front.

However, LG was able to score a big win in Europe by going to the Dutch legal authorities and obtaining this temporary ban (for those who are interested, LG used an EU law on customs action against goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights).

Why Holland? Reports indicate that PS3s are brought over in container ships from the manufacturing base in Asia to the European distribution base in Holland, from which onwards distribution to the different European national markets is organised. So, by obtaining the temporary ban in Holland, LG has disrupted Sony’s European distribution network.

As to the practical impact of the ban on Sony, opinions on this differ. Some reports suggest that, since most retailers have 2-3 weeks supply of PS3s already, the impact would be muted. On the other hand, the longer this drags on, the greater the potential for it to become a real problem.

In the meantime, it’s not completely plain-sailing for LG for two reasons:

(1) The ban is only temporary – typically ‘up to ten days’ under the normal rules in these cases. LG will need to go back to the Dutch legal authorities if it wants to extend the ban, while Sony will of course be seeking to end the ban.

(2) If a judge later finds that LG was wrong to seek the ban in the first place (ie its patent infringement claim is wrong), then it will in principle be liable to Sony for financial damages to compensate Sony for the harm caused by the ban – quite apart from the PR blow that LG would suffer.

On the other hand, if a judge ultimately rules in LG’s favour, then in principle Sony would be liable to pay LG effectively to compensate it for Sony’s patent infringement.


Some press reports suggested that there is a loophole for Sony, ie the temporary ban applies only to Holland and therefore Sony could simply get the PS3s into Europe through other ports. This is technically correct legally because the current ban only applies to Holland, but I suspect a ‘loophole’ is unlikely in reality:

(1) It is much easier said than done for Sony to change its entire European distribution network. It takes weeks for container ships to reach Europe, then they have to be sent to the right kind of port, which also has to have on-shore distribution facilities. All of that is currently set up in Holland and it can’t be easily replicated elsewhere. I suspect it would be difficult to fly substantial amounts of PS3s into Europe on any economic scale.

(2) In any event, even if Sony was able to make alternative temporary distribution arrangements, that would be treating the symptom (the Dutch ban) not the cause (the dispute with LG). LG could potentially just go to each European port and seek a similar ban (albeit we don’t know if they would have the same success). One last point: the Daily Mail reported yesterday that the PS3 importation ban has been extended to the UK, but that has not been corroborated so far as I’m aware by HMRC, Sony or LG.


It’s impossible to predict the twists and turns a lawsuit can go through, but some things are clear:

  • The case may or may not settle at any time of course, if the parties are able to resolve their differences. If it doesn’t, Sony and LG will need to go back before the Dutch legal authorities regarding the current ban there in the next few days.
  • If LG wants to pursue its patent infringement case in Europe further, it will likely need to do so in each European country – there isn’t a simple pan-European patent framework for it to rely upon.
  • The legal action in the US is ongoing and could catch up with Europe at any time – which could cause headaches for both LG and Sony.
  • If the lawsuit does drag on, and if stocks of PS3s are affected, then it could quickly affect everyone in the PS3 supply chain – from Sony to its developers to the consumer.


  • Hardware manufacturers should pay attention to this case and consider how well their intellectual property rights, particularly their patents, are protected.
  • Don’t just look at your home market(s) – issues in other European countries can quickly affect you too.
  • Don’t assume that your legal issues will occur just within the games industry itself.
  • Everyone should be aware that these kinds of bans/freezing orders aren’t restricted to patent infringement – they can in principle be obtained where there has been other IP infringement or possibly even if there is just a contract dispute.

Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our email updates here

Hacker jailbreaks PS3, pwned by Sony

Last week news emerged that a group of hackers, led by one George Hotz, have jailbroken the PS3 – in other words, they had successfully circumvented the security measures put in place by Sony to prevent users from running whatever programs they like on the PS3.  
This has caused shockwaves to say the least, particularly given Sony’s previous claims regarding the impregnability of the PS3.  You can read more about what happened regarding the hack itself via the BBC or have a look at Rob Fahey’s editorial about it on Gamesindustry.biz.
Ofc, I’m interested in the legal aspects of this incident.  As, it seems, are the handful of my readers who emailed me to ask what might happen to George Hotz as a result of his hacking escapades.  And the answer is….Sony are suing him.
As Gamesindustry.biz reports:
“[Sony] alleges the defendants “circumvented effective technological protection measures” for the PlayStation 3 and other copyrighted works, and “trafficked in circumvention technology, products, services, methods, codes, software tools, devices, including but not limited to the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm Keys, encryption and/or decryption keys, dePKG firmware decrypter program, Signing Tools, 3.55 Firmware Jailbreak, and/or any other technologies that enable unauthorized access to and/or copying of PS3 Systems and other copyrighted works.
Sony alleges the defendants have violated the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Copyright Act and related state and common laws covered by the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, according to legal filings published by Hotz.  “
A DCMA action was pretty much inevitable once word of this got out.  For non-US readers: the DMCA makes it illegal for you to try to circumvent technological protection measures which a software company puts in place to protect its software (the equivalent in the UK is in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – you can read more about that here in the context of modchips).  One example is The Warden, the anti-bot program used in World of Warcraft (and recently in the court’s spotlight as part of the WoW Glider case).  Another is the technical measures put in place by Sony in the PS3 which Hotz has now broken.  Difficult for me to see how Hotz will be able to avoid a successful DMCA claim, personally.

UPDATE: Jono793 points out that there could be complications in Sony’s DMCA argument given that it was only a flaw in Sony’s security which allowed Hotz to jailbreak the PS3 in the first place.  I imagine this would mean an enquiry into the arcane detail of the DMCA in order to determine whether that is a problem for Sony.  However, it seems to me that if the court allowed a loophole for circumvention devices which do not work properly, it would be opening the floodgates to that argument in every DMCA case going forward – perhaps unlikely therefore.

Then there are some other claims being advanced by Sony.  The copyright claim is another no-brainer and goes hand-in-hand with the DMCA claim.  I imagine the copyright argument goes something like this: the PS3 console software is a copyright work, which you are only allowed to use in accordance with a EULA.  If you jailbreak that software, you are outside the scope of the EULA and therefore likely committing copyright infringement.  Which is a Bad Thing – not least because, in the USA, it can lead to huge damages awards against the infringer.

UPDATE: As Artfunkel notes in the comments below, the copyright claim might not be that straightforward to run.  After all, a jailbroken PS3 runs the same software – the same games – as a vanilla PS3.  Sony could ofc argue that a jailbroken PS3 is a breach of the EULA and therefore automatically copyright infringement – but that argument didn’t get very far in the WoW Glider appeal recently.  If this case fights, there could be some complex legal argument here.
Lastly, there is what looks like a claim over the act of hacking itself.  Again, no surprises there: generally it is illegal to hack software belonging to someone else, regardless of what you do with the fruit of that hacking – whether it  be private use or public dissemination.  Sony is of course using a Californian statute; for those who are interested, the principal UK equivalent is the Computer Misuse Act 1993, which you can read more about here.
So, all in all, no great surprises here – Sony really had no choice but to take these actions.  In practical terms, it seems they are applying for a restraining order and injunction against Hotz, which if successful would at least stop him distributing the hack.  Good luck to them.
Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our email updates here

Sony brings landmark modchips lawsuit in Australia

Sony is bringing a potentially landmark lawsuit against a PS3 modchip seller over the legality of modchips in Australia. Most recently, Sony secured a temporary injunction against the seller, Ozmodchips.com, banning them from selling any modchips while the lawsuit proceeds. In this guest post, Melchor Raval comments on the lawsuit and what it could mean for modchips Down Under…

Once upon a time, Australian gamers could brag to US and UK gamers that they had the right to modify their consoles using a modification chip (mod chip) [Jas: you can read more on modchips here and here]. At the moment, Australian gamers can basically install these chips into their consoles to circumvent the system’s capabilities of regional coding, digital rights management (DRM), and install an alternative operating system to completely re-purpose the console. However, recent amendments in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 introduced a stricter regime which could potentially ban mod chips (more on this below). Yet despite some recent fines obtained by Nintendo to manufacturers and distributors of the R4 modchip device – no actual case has actually confirmed that the changes ban modchip. In effect, as far all Australian gamers are concerned, the mod chip is still legal because the amendments are yet to be interpreted by a judge.

But this may not last for long since Sony is now bringing a test case against modchip distributor, OzModChips, to the Australian Federal Court in which it argues that the distribution of mod chips are illegal under the Australian law and therefore OzModChips must cease its modchip distribution. Before we get into the legal details, let’s backtrack for a bit.

The PS3 Mod Chip

On August 25, OzModChips.com uploaded three Youtube videos online which proved that the first ever claimed working PS3 ‘mod chip’, called PS Jailbreak, actually worked. The mod chip is not actually a ‘chip’ like ye olde PS2 mod chips but is actually a simple USB stick that can simply be plugged into the PS3 USB ports. The device hacks the PS3 console and (for now) only allows the backing up of games into the PS3 hard drive, but the developers claim that it will open up the possibility of running homebrew software on the PS3 as well (such as emulators). The device was initially planned to be sold by the end of September 2010 by OzModChips with the hefty price of $170 Australian dollars.

Fearing that the PS Jailbreak could mean a repeat of the PS2 mod chip and piracy debacle, Sony succeeded on in obtaining a temporary injunction through the Federal Court of Australia on August 27 2010, to block the importation and sale of the device. In order to keep the ban permanent, Sony will have until September 3 2010 to convince the Court of the illegality of the mod chip. In a nutshell, Sony needs to prove to the Court that the device will be solely used to infringe Sony’s copyright works. OzModChips on the other hand argues that the device can be used for legally backing up games and homebrew applications (as they all do).

The Legal Rules

Sony’s and OzModChip’s totally different perspectives are not surprising since similar cases in the past, regardless of jurisdiction, have presented the same arguments. Australia gamers however have had the advantage because of the 2006 High Court decision in Sony v Stevens, which legalised the mod chip on the grounds that Sony’s technological measures did not prevent or inhibit infringement because the infringing activity (such as copying the game using your PC) precluded the use of the mod chip anyway. The mod chip only allowed access to the infringing game, but was not actually the cause of the infringement, which Sony’s technical measures needed to prevent. (See more on that here  – which explains it all in layman terms).

In spite of this short-lived victory for Australian gamers, Australia amended the Copyright Act 1968 in 2006 which obligated Australia to align their copyright rules with the far stricter American DMCA through the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement. The changes are very long and complex, but it can be summarised in this nifty comparative table:

The Arguments

(1) SONY

Though very simplistic, the table illustrates that Australian gamers might not be lucky this time for a number of reasons:

I. Sony can claim that the PSJailbreaker device is a circumvention device that circumvents the technological measures of the PS3 to allow the unauthorised backing up of games, which infringes s.10 (1) of the Act because access to these backed up games are not “in the normal course” of the PS3’s operation. Note the emphasis on the term effective because if reading literally from the actual provision, there is actually no requirement that the TPM needs to be effective in controlling access of work.

II. Sony can also bring a claim that the sale, manufacture and marketing of such devices are illegal because the device has no purpose other than to enable or facilitate the circumvention of the PS3’s TPM. Also note that emphasis is added on the lack of an effective technicality.

III. Any arguments contrary to the above two regarding the mod chips ability to allow the backing up of games can be nullified because of the explicit limitation brought about by s.110AA.

The third argument is perhaps the most disturbing because there is a lack of awareness in part by Australian gamers that backing up of games is NOT actually allowed since S. 110AA ONLY allows an individual to copy a videotape into electronic form for personal and domestic use. In fact, the Attorney-General’s Copyright Department (which can be read here) recently announced that no amendments will be made to the private copying exceptions for computer games!! So tough luck Oz gamers – backing up isn’t actually allowed at all, but could potentially tantamount to an illegal reproduction.

(2) OzModChips.com

On the other hand, OzModChip could argue for the interoperability exception under s 116AN. This exception basically allows users to circumvent technological measures to install independent programs (i.e. homebrew) to devices without the authorisation of the owner.

The interoperability exception is quite a tricky legal technicality because it has not been tested in Australia. On the other hand, American case law (including Sony v Gamemasters and Sony v Divineo) have ruled out the application of their version of the interoperability exception as a defense for mod chips because the courts literally interpreted that the mod chip “bypassed, removed, deactivated or impaired a technological measure in the console without the authority of the copyright owner”. Moreover, interoperability must also be necessary under the DMCA and this becomes doubtful when console manufacturers have released official interoperable programs which can legally access the console without illegal circumvention (see here).

Under Australian copyright law however, there is a distinct lack of requirement that interoperability must be necessary. As such, OzModChips may argue that the development of independent homebrew applications interoperable with the PS3 is not totally dependent on whether it is actually necessary in the first place. Hence developers can develop independent apps interoperable with the PS3, such as an emulator, which can be useful but otherwise ‘unnecessary’. And if Sony argues that interoperability should only be allowed when it is necessary, well they pretty much proved that the using the PSJailbreak is necessary to create interoperable application since Sony removed the Linux compatibility option.

However, the ability of the dongle to play “infringing” games could weigh more than its non-infringing applications. This is to be decided by the court if they do a proportionality test –that is – whether the proportion of users who will use it for homebrew will actually be significant enough to warrant its legitimacy. Otherwise, if more gamers use it to pirate games then the defense will be useless.

So who will win?

Since this is the first time the amendments will be tested, the case will be decided on how the court interprets the provisions in question. My bet is that Sony will probably win this time because any backing up arguments will be rejected by the court, and it seems that the defendant will solely rely on this argument for the legitimacy of the device. The homebrew argument could also come off too weak since the court could potentially question whether the proportion of users who will use the device for legitimate home brewing might (and will) be outnumbered by eager pirates.

It is certain that the gaming industry have stepped up their battle against the mod chip manufacturers (as witnessed from the recent Playables case in the UK) and Sony has a lot riding in this case because the potential of piracy with their flagship console already spell big problems with their software sales, evident from the lack of developer support for the PSP. This is the one case for the industry and gamers to watch closely.

Melchor Raval is a current PhD Candidate at Monash University of Australia, writing his dissertation about the persistence of modification devices in the new generation of gaming consoles and the legislations that affects the legitimacy of the device. His previous article, which is a comparative analysis of the Australian amended Copyright Act 1968 and the DMCA regarding the mod chip, is pending for publication with a number of academic journals.

Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our email updates here

Teen convicted of crashing PlayStation site in banhammer

In March this year we wrote about a Pennsylvania teenager who pleaded guilty to criminal offences over his hacking and crashing of a Playstation web site in 2008, which he did in revenge for being kicked out of a tournament for the PS2 game SOCOM US Navy Seals for using a cheat mod.  
Now, Nukezilla reports that the teenager has been sentenced to a $5,000 fine as well as 250 hours of community service and 12 months probation.  So that’s that then.

It’s worth bearing in mind that in the UK and EU he would have faced similar criminal proceedings.  In the UK for example there are specific criminal penalties under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.  We wrote about Runescape and the Computer Misuse Act some time ago, check it out for more info

Follow us at http://www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here

Judge dismisses God of War copyright lawsuit against Sony

A US judge has rejected a lawsuit claiming that Sony’s God of War infringed copyright in a series of film scripts written by two Californian screenwriters.

The screenwriters, Jonathan Bissoon-Dath and Jennifer Dath, claimed they had written two treatments and two screenplays concerning a Spartan attack on Athens and other events in ancient Greece, which they claimed were copied by Sony in making the God of War game (source: THR).

God of War is of course an PS2 action game set in ancient Greece in which the hero Kratos, a Spartan, kicks various classical ass on the way to replacing Ares as the eponymous god of war.

The case

The writers commenced legal action against Sony and one of its developers, David Jaffe, in February 2008, but subsequent attempts to settle the lawsuit failed.  Sony clearly felt that they had a strong case, because they then applied for summary judgment.  In other words, they argued that the court should rule in their favour and dimiss the lawsuit because the writers had no legal case to stand on (in the words of the judge, there were “no genuine issues of material fact” and the applicant is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law“).

The trial before Judge Marilyn Hall Patel focused on the writers’ copyright infringement claim, for which the judge said that they had to show:

(1) that they had created and owned valid copyright works; and

(2) protected elements of those works had been copied by Sony.

The writers had to prove this by: (i) presenting direct evidence of copying by Sony, or (ii) by showing that Sony had access to their works and that there is a substantial similarity between the writers’ works and God of War.

In order to establish these arguments, both parties took Judge Patel through their respective works, meaning  presumably she had the opportunity to play God of War all the way if she so chose, though actually it seems that she just relied upon the lawyers’ legal submissions rather than cracking through the game herself.  Shame.  (Actually, it seemed reasonably clear that Judge Patel was not familiar with games when she initially described God of War as a “multi-hour video game“.  A what?)

Having gone through the evidence, the judge found in favour of Sony.  She said that:

An examination of articulable similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings,

pace, characters and sequence of events of God of War and plaintiffs’ works reveals far less
similarity than would be required to overcome summary judgment, even if plaintiffs had proven access [to the scripts]”.

She acknowledged that “there is some degree of similarity between the plots at an extremely generalized level” – the main similarity being that both were set in Ancient Greece and dealt with a battle between men and the Greek Gods.  However, citing previous caselaw she said “No one can own the basic idea for a story. General plot ideas are not protected by copyright law; they remain forever the common property of artistic mankind.”  (This is of course an appliation of the basic principle that copyright law protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.)

As a result, she held that “No reasonable trier of fact could conclude that God of War is substantially similar to any of plaintiffs’ works” and therefore dismissed the lawsuit against Sony.

No doubt this will come as a great relief to Sony, which of course is about to release God of War III.

Legal thoughts

Reading the judgment, it seems that this was an ambitious claim by the writers from the outset.  They had written film scripts about events taking place in Ancient Greece and sought to argue that Sony had copied those scripts when it developed God of War even though the judge went on to find that:

  • There was no evidence of direct copying by Sony
  • There was no evidence that Sony had even access to the scripts
  • The writers sought to bring the claim based on “general plot ideas” and “stock elements that have been used in literary and artistic works for years, if not millennia“, none of which are capable of being protected by copyright law
  • In fact, there was little similarity in the “plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings, pace, characters and sequence of events” in the scripts and God of War.

Perhaps the writers thought the lawsuit would settle early on, but as it turned out it fought all the way to trial (which is admittedly fairly rare, certainly in the UK anyway).  The judgment does not disclose what the writers actually wanted from Sony, but I would imagine that it included substantial financial damages as well as (potentially) a temporary or permanent injunction against future sales of God of War. Well, no chance of that now (unless they appeal, of course). 

Lessons from the lawsuit

The lawsuit reinforces some important lessons about copyright law and how far it goes to protect any copryight work, including games:

  • Firstly, copyright law exists to protect the expression of an idea, which you have created through your own skill and labour.  It does not give you any ownership of the idea itself.  So, writing a script based on an ancient Greek story gives you copyright over that script but does not give you copyruight over the underlying ancient Greek story.
  • Secondly, even if you do have a copyright work and you think it has been copied, you have to prove to a judge that there has been “substantial copying” of your copyright work. 
  • Thirdly, copyright lawsuits are exercises in detail and precision.  The claim for copyright infringement needs to be established in very precise, concrete terms by reference to specific elements of your work.  Just generic references to similarities (in this case, to plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings, pace, characters and sequence of events) generally won’t cut it.
  • Fourthly, copyright lawsuits can be much more complex even than this case.  For example, although this lawsuit didn’t get that far, there are entirely separate issues regarding defences to copyright infringement and how to assess loss.

And there’s also some lessons about lawsuits generally here:

  • If you think you have a lawsuit against someone, or might be defending one from someone else, then consider your options seriously and get legal advice early on.
  • Your lawyers will then be able to advise you on your legal prospects of success and what steps you can take to protect your position.  In this case, Sony’s lawyers advised them to apply for summary judgement to get the case disposed, and it seems that was the right route to take.

We’ve written more about games lawsuits and what you can do about them here.

The views expressed in this post are the author’s own personal views and not his employer’s!

Follow us at www.twitter.com/gamerlaw or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter here