Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.

Last updated

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case nameATARI GAMES CORP. and Tengen, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. and Nintendo Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellees.
DecidedSeptember 10, 1992
Citation(s)975 F.2d 832
Holding
Atari was held liable for copyright infringement, affirming the district court's decision.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Raymond C. Clevenger, Edward Samuel Smith, Randall Ray Rader
Case opinions
Majority Randall Ray Rader

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992), is a U.S. legal case in which Atari Games engaged in copyright infringement by copying Nintendo's lock-out system, the 10NES. The 10NES was designed to prevent Nintendo's video game console, the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), from playing unauthorized game cartridges. Atari, after unsuccessful attempts to reverse engineer the lock-out system, obtained an unauthorized copy of the source code from the United States Copyright Office and used it to create its 10NES replica, the Rabbit. Atari then sued Nintendo for unfair competition and copyright misuse, and Nintendo responded that Atari had engaged in unfair competition, copyright infringement, and patent infringement.

Contents

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against Atari, and this was affirmed by the court of appeals. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit differed from the district court on whether reverse engineering could hypothetically be allowed, declaring that "reverse engineering, untainted by the purloined copy of the 10NES program and necessary to understand 10NES, is a fair use." [1] Thus, Atari was denied the fair use exception to copyright infringement, due to the illicit way they obtained Nintendo's source code.

One month after the decision, a similar ruling in Sega v. Accolade determined that reverse engineering was fair use. Several legal scholars have concluded that the main difference between the cases was that Atari had lied to obtain an unauthorized copy of Nintendo's code. Legal scholars have argued that reverse engineering has since been curtailed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2000, upsetting the balance established in the Atari and Accolade cases.

Background

The video game crash of 1983 was partially caused by the overabundance of games, seen in this 2014 excavation of a landfill used in the Atari video game burial. Atari E.T. Dig- Alamogordo, New Mexico (14036097792).jpg
The video game crash of 1983 was partially caused by the overabundance of games, seen in this 2014 excavation of a landfill used in the Atari video game burial.

Until 1980, the Atari VCS was the only major console on the market, with all games produced in-house, by Atari, Inc. [3] After several Atari employees left to found Activision in 1979, Atari sued them for violating a non-disclosure agreement, and attempted to prevent Activision from producing games for the Atari console. [4] [5] The court refused to grant an injunction against Activision, and the two companies settled out of court in 1982, leading to the first official third-party video games for the Atari VCS. [5] [6] Soon after, the United States saw the proliferation of video game consoles, as well as many low-quality games produced by third-party developers. [7] In 1982, the number of Atari games on the market grew from under 100 to over 400 by the end of the year, and experts began to warn of an oversupply. [8] The number of games over-saturated the market, and was a factor that led to the video game crash of 1983 in North America. [9]

Around this time, Nintendo was planning to enter the North American console market by launching a version of its Japanese Family Computer (Famicom) console. [10] To differentiate the Famicom from failed consoles in America, Nintendo rebranded it as the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and its cartridges as Game Paks, with a design reminiscent of a VCR. [10] [11] To limit the flood of games that led to the 1983 crash as well as bootlegging problems seen in Asia, Nintendo created the proprietary 10NES system, a lockout chip that would only allow the NES to play a cartridge with an authorized "key". [10] [12] [13] [14] Game developers were only authorized if they agreed to Nintendo's licensing terms, preventing any developer from releasing more than two games per year, and limiting "inappropriate" content such as religious themes or excessive violence. [10] This led Nintendo to add the Official Nintendo Seal of Quality to their games, signaling to customers that their games met a consistent standard. [15]

The strategy allowed Nintendo to avoid some of the mistakes of other consoles in the market, including the older Atari 2600. [10] According to Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi, "Atari collapsed because they gave too much freedom to third-party developers and the market was swamped with rubbish games." [12] Officially launched in 1985, the NES quickly became a commercial success outside of Japan. [16] By the end of the decade, it was estimated that Nintendo's products were in 15–20 million homes in America, [17] or 30% of American households. [18] Nintendo accounted for 80% of the video game market at an estimate $2.7 billion in sales per year, [19] which was more than the market for all home computer software. [20] [21] : 347 

Reverse engineering

In order for a game cartridge to function on the Nintendo Entertainment System, it needed to contain Nintendo's proprietary 10NES chip. Nintendo-10NES-Lockout-Chip.jpg
In order for a game cartridge to function on the Nintendo Entertainment System, it needed to contain Nintendo's proprietary 10NES chip.

In 1986, Atari Games formed a subsidiary called Tengen to produce third-party games for the NES. [22] Meanwhile, Atari also attempted to reverse engineer the 10NES, which included monitoring communications between the console and cartridge chips, chemically peeling layers from the chip, and microscopically examining the code embodied in the chip's silicon. [13] [23] When Atari failed in their efforts, they negotiated to become an official Nintendo licensee in 1987. [24] In addition to complying with the 10NES lockout system, Atari agreed to a standard term where their games would be exclusive to Nintendo for two years. [1]

However, Atari continued their efforts to decipher the 10NES. [24] In 1988, Atari had its lawyers obtain the source code for the 10NES from the Copyright Office, by falsely alleging that a copy of the code was needed for litigation, even though no case was pending. [13] Atari used this copy to develop its replica of the 10NES, the Rabbit, which generated signals functionally indistinguishable from the 10NES. [23] [24]

In December 1988, Atari filed a lawsuit against Nintendo for unfair competition under the Sherman Antitrust Act. [24] Nintendo responded in November 1989, counter-suing Atari for unfair competition, as well as infringing both its copyright and patent for its cartridge authentication system. [24] [25] Both parties motioned for a preliminary injunction against the other, with Nintendo asking the trial court to stop Atari's infringement of the 10NES copyright, [13] and Atari asking the court to stop Nintendo's misuse of that copyright to commit antitrust violations. [1]

Ruling

The Howard T. Markey National Courts Building (formerly known as the National Courts Building) houses the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. United States Court of Federal Claims.JPG
The Howard T. Markey National Courts Building (formerly known as the National Courts Building) houses the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

District court

The two cases were consolidated by The District Court for the Northern District of California. [24] The court heard both parties' motions for preliminary injunctions, and Nintendo prevailed in both instances. [1] Nintendo argued that Atari infringed their copyright by copying their code from the Copyright Office, making an intermediate copy of their code during the reverse engineering process, and creating a program substantially similar to their code. [13] The court found that Atari had acquired the 10NES source code from the Copyright Office under false pretenses, and concluded that Nintendo was likely to succeed in their claim for copyright infringement, should the case proceed to trial. [13] Thus, Atari was enjoined from selling any unauthorized games until said trial. [24] Atari initially appealed both decisions, but decided to dismiss their own motion for a preliminary injunction. [1]

Appeal

The appeal was heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the lower court's injunction against Atari. [13] The appellate court found that the 10NES contained protected expression, [24] applying the precedent from Computer Associates International v. Altai to establish that the 10NES code was expressed in a unique way that is not inherent to the idea. [1] The court also ruled that Nintendo had proven a likelihood of success in their copyright claim, because Atari made unauthorized copies of the 10NES code from the Copyright Office, and that Atari's Rabbit program was also substantially similar to Nintendo's 10NES. [24]

However, the appeals court differed from the lower court's reasoning on the question of reverse engineering and fair use. [13] Determining that intermediate copying is not actionable in of itself, the appeals court stated that "reverse engineering, untainted by the purloined copy of the 10NES program and necessary to understand 10NES, is a fair use". [1] However, fair use in intermediate copying does not extend to commercial exploitation of protected expression. [24] Moreover, Atari could not invoke fair use because they used an unauthorized copy of the code, obtained from the Copyright Office under false pretenses. [13] Lastly, the court rejected Atari's defense that Nintendo was misusing its copyright, because Atari had "unclean hands" after lying to the Copyright Office. [24]

Effects

Nintendo later lost a 1992 lawsuit against Galoob involving the attachable Game Genie hardware, where Codemasters successfully reverse engineered the Nintendo Entertainment System. Game-Genie-NES.jpg
Nintendo later lost a 1992 lawsuit against Galoob involving the attachable Game Genie hardware, where Codemasters successfully reverse engineered the Nintendo Entertainment System.

The lawsuit finally reached a settlement in 1994, with Atari Games paying Nintendo for damages and use of several intellectual property licenses. [26] Atari and Nintendo had several contemporaneous lawsuits, including a dispute over the rights to publish Tetris . [22] [27] Nintendo successfully sued Atari Games subsidiary Tengen, establishing their exclusivity over the Tetris license, and hastening the decline of Tengen's business. [28]

Other companies were able to circumvent the 10NES lockout system, but they faced barriers to selling those games in stores, unlike Atari. [29] In the book The Video Game Explosion, Dominic Arsenault noted that Atari could afford an expensive legal battle with Nintendo, while most developers simply agreed to Nintendo's terms. [14] Research professor Casey O’Donnell concluded that this allowed Nintendo to sell their consoles at a loss, while using enforced scarcity to keep the price of games higher for Nintendo and their authorized developers. [29]

Although Nintendo succeeded in court due to Atari's foul play, the company faced a trend of litigation over unfair business practices and other monopolistic behavior. [27] [30] Atari Corporation (a wholly separate company from Atari Games) also sued Nintendo for seeking to monopolize the game business, but Nintendo was exonerated of any unfair business practices. [30] Under further legal pressure, Nintendo soon began to shift their legal strategy. [27] When Nintendo was accused of fixing their prices with retailers, Nintendo settled with the Federal Trade Commission without admitting to any wrongdoing, offering to $5 million in legal costs and millions of $5 coupons to their past customers. [31] Nintendo began to ease their licensing restrictions to avoid accusations of monopoly. [27] By the early 1990s, Nintendo began losing developers to the Sega Genesis, and the competition forced Nintendo to make further concessions to developers. [10] Nintendo later lost a lawsuit against Galoob over the Game Genie, [28] signalling a change in the legality of third party game products of all kinds. [32] Nintendo also sued Blockbuster to prevent them from renting their games, [28] but could only prove copyright infringement in their photocopied game manuals, allowing the game rental business to continue. [33]

Legacy

A similar case was decided a month later, when Accolade successfully invoked fair use while reverse engineering the Sega Genesis (pictured above). Sega-Genesis-Mod1-Bare.jpg
A similar case was decided a month later, when Accolade successfully invoked fair use while reverse engineering the Sega Genesis (pictured above).

The case was decided one month before Sega v. Accolade, another video game case about reverse engineering. [27] The Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal compared the Sega and Nintendo cases, as both courts acknowledged that reverse engineering qualified as fair use, but Atari had infringed copyright by using a "purloined" copy of Nintendo's source code. [13] Ernie Smith at Vice Magazine asserted that the courts could have decided Atari v. Nintendo the same way as Sega v. Accolade, and "would have favored Atari Games had the company not, you know, committed fraud." [27] Other legal scholars have highlighted this as the main distinction between the Sega and Nintendo cases. [29] [35]

Writing for the Duke Law Journal, Maureen A. O'Rourke analyzed both reverse engineering cases, arguing that companies may respond by using shrinkwrap agreements to prohibit reverse engineering. [36] Allan M. Soobert of the UIC Law Review reacted by calling for balanced legislation, to protect copyrighted software from piracy and unauthorized copying, while also protecting the right to reverse engineering. [37]

David L. Hayes of the UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy also reacted that if disassembly was interpreted as copyright infringement, then "copyright law would, in effect, provide the equivalent of a patent monopoly." [38] Intellectual property lawyer S. Gregory Boyd notes that copyright has a longer duration than patent protection, limiting all rivals who might copy their technology for the next century. [25] Susan Dallas of the Denver Law Review argued that patent protection would be too expensive for most software developers, and that the Atari case narrowed copyright protection by saying that reverse engineering could hypothetically be fair use, in obiter dicta. [24] Meanwhile, Mark L. Gordon of the Journal of Computer and Information Law reacted that the narrowing copyright protection would "lessen the tension between copyright exclusivity and antitrust policy", and "promote growth in the computer technology field". [39]

Multiple legal scholars have criticized the 2000 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for upsetting the balance struck in the Atari and Accolade cases. [40] [41] In the Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Joe Linhoff criticized the DMCA for including anti-circumvention rules that make it impossible for competitors to create alternative compatible platforms. [40] Craig Zieminski of the Journal of Technology Law & Policy also criticized the DMCA, arguing that "the unprecedented shifts in copyright doctrine – idea protection, ancillary market protection, and contract law's usurpation of copyright law – are warning signs" that the right to reverse engineering is being curtailed. [41]

Related Research Articles

The video game crash of 1983 was a large-scale recession in the video game industry that occurred from 1983 to 1985, primarily in the United States. The crash was attributed to several factors, including market saturation in the number of video game consoles and available games, many of which were of poor quality. Waning interest in console games in favor of personal computers also played a role. Home video game revenue peaked at around $3.2 billion in 1983, then fell to around $100 million by 1985. The crash abruptly ended what is retrospectively considered the second generation of console video gaming in North America. To a lesser extent, the arcade video game market also weakened as the golden age of arcade video games came to an end.

A regional lockout is a class of digital rights management preventing the use of a certain product or service, such as multimedia or a hardware device, outside a certain region or territory. A regional lockout may be enforced through physical means, through technological means such as detecting the user's IP address or using an identifying code, or through unintentional means introduced by devices only supporting certain regional technologies.

Accolade, Inc. was an American video game developer and publisher based in San Jose, California. The company was founded as Accolade in 1984 by Alan Miller and Bob Whitehead, who had previously co-founded Activision in 1979. The company became known for numerous sports game series, including HardBall!, Jack Nicklaus and Test Drive.

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

Tengen Inc. was an American video game publisher and developer that was created by the arcade game manufacturer Atari Games for publishing computer and console games. It had a Japanese subsidiary named Tengen Ltd..

<i>Tetris</i> (Atari Games) 1988 video game

Tetris is a puzzle game developed by Atari Games and originally released for arcades in 1988. Based on Alexey Pajitnov's Tetris, Atari Games' version features the same gameplay as the computer editions of the game, as players must stack differently shaped falling blocks to form and eliminate horizontal lines from the playing field. The game features several difficulty levels and two-player simultaneous play.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video game clone</span> Video game that resembles another video game

A video game clone is either a video game or a video game console very similar to, or heavily inspired by, a previous popular game or console. Clones are typically made to take financial advantage of the popularity of the cloned game or system, but clones may also result from earnest attempts to create homages or expand on game mechanics from the original game. An additional motivation unique to the medium of games as software with limited compatibility, is the desire to port a simulacrum of a game to platforms that the original is unavailable for or unsatisfactorily implemented on.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sega Genesis</span> Home video game console

The Sega Genesis, also known as the Mega Drive outside North America, is a 16-bit fourth generation home video game console developed and sold by Sega. It was Sega's third console and the successor to the Master System. Sega released it in 1988 in Japan as the Mega Drive, and in 1989 in North America as the Genesis. In 1990, it was distributed as the Mega Drive by Virgin Mastertronic in Europe, Ozisoft in Australasia, and Tectoy in Brazil. In South Korea, it was distributed by Samsung Electronics as the Super Gam*Boy and later the Super Aladdin Boy.

In video gaming parlance, a conversion is the production of a game on one computer or console that was originally written for another system. Over the years, video game conversion has taken form in a number of different ways, both in their style and the method in which they were converted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video game console emulator</span> Program that reproduces video game consoles behavior

A video game console emulator is a type of emulator that allows a computing device to emulate a video game console's hardware and play its games on the emulating platform. More often than not, emulators carry additional features that surpass limitations of the original hardware, such as broader controller compatibility, timescale control, easier access to memory modifications, and unlocking of gameplay features. Emulators are also a useful tool in the development process of homebrew demos and the creation of new games for older, discontinued, or rare consoles.

<i>Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.</i> 1992 American court case on copyright

Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a 1992 legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that there was no copyright infringement made by the Game Genie, a video game accessory that could alter the output of games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The court determined that Galoob's Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's exclusive right to make derivative works of their games, because the Game Genie did not create a new permanent work. The court also found that the alterations produced by the Game Genie qualified as non-commercial fair use, and none of the alterations were supplanting demand for Nintendo's games.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

A fan game is a video game that is created by fans of a certain topic or IP. They are usually based on one, or in some cases several, video game entries or franchises. Many fan games attempt to clone or remake the original game's design, gameplay, and characters, but it is equally common for fans to develop a unique game using another as a template. Though the quality of fan games has always varied, recent advances in computer technology and in available tools, e.g. through open source software, have made creating high-quality games easier. Fan games can be seen as user-generated content, as part of the retrogaming phenomena, and as expression of the remix culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nintendo Entertainment System</span> Home video game console

The Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) is an 8-bit third-generation home video game console produced by Nintendo. It was first released in Japan in 1983 as the Family Computer (FC), commonly referred to as Famicom. It was redesigned to become the NES, which was released in American test markets on October 18, 1985, and was soon fully launched in North America and other regions.

<i>Sega v. Accolade</i> 1992 American court case

Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied American intellectual property law to the reverse engineering of computer software. Stemming from the publishing of several Sega Genesis games by video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled Genesis software in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega, the case involved several overlapping issues, including the scope of copyright, permissible uses for trademarks, and the scope of the fair use doctrine for computer code.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CIC (Nintendo)</span> Security lockout chip used in Nintendo game consoles

The Checking Integrated Circuit (CIC) is a lockout chip designed by Nintendo for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) video game console in 1985; the chip is part of a system known as 10NES, in which a key is used by the lock to both check if the game is authentic, and if the game is the same region as the console.

<i>Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.</i> Decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation, 203 F.3d 596 (2000), is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the copying of a copyrighted BIOS software during the development of an emulator software does not constitute copyright infringement, but is covered by fair use. The court also ruled that Sony's PlayStation trademark had not been tarnished by Connectix Corp.'s sale of its emulator software, the Virtual Game Station.

The protection of intellectual property (IP) of video games through copyright, patents, and trademarks, shares similar issues with the copyrightability of software as a relatively new area of IP law. The video game industry itself is built on the nature of reusing game concepts from prior games to create new gameplay styles but bounded by illegally direct cloning of existing games, and has made defining intellectual property protections difficult since it is not a fixed medium.

<i>Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp.</i> Court case

Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. is a 1989 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Blockbuster agreed to stop photocopying game instruction manuals owned by Nintendo. Blockbuster publicly accused Nintendo of starting the lawsuit after being excluded from the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act, which prohibited the rental of computer software but allowed the rental of Nintendo's game cartridges. Nintendo responded that they were enforcing their copyright as an essential foundation of the video game industry.

<i>Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.</i> 1982 legal case

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, is one of the first legal cases applying copyright law to video games, barring sales of the game K.C. Munchkin! for its similarities to Pac-Man. Atari had licensed the commercially successful arcade game Pac-Man from Namco and Midway, to produce a version for their Atari 2600 console. Around the same time, Philips created Munchkin as a similar maze-chase game, leading Atari to sue them for copyright infringement.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975F.2d832 (Federal Circuit1992).
  2. ↑ "Diggers Find Atari's E.T. Games in Landfill". Associated Press. April 26, 2014. Archived from the original on April 26, 2014. Retrieved April 26, 2014.
  3. ↑ Ernkvist, Mirko (2008). "Down many times, but still playing the game: Creative destruction and industry crashes in the early video game industry 1971-1986". In Gratzer, Karl; Stiefel, Dieter (eds.). History of Insolvancy and Bankruptcy. Södertörns högskola. pp. 161–191. ISBN   978-91-89315-94-5.
  4. ↑ Weiss, Brett (April 4, 2011). Classic Home Video Games, 1972_1984: A Complete Reference Guide. McFarland. p. 28. ISBN   9780786487554. Archived from the original on January 22, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  5. 1 2 Reeves, Ben. "Activisionaries: How Four Programmers Changed The Game Industry". Game Informer. Retrieved January 18, 2023.
  6. ↑ "Stream of video games is endless". Milwaukee Journal. December 26, 1982. pp. Business 1. Archived from the original on March 12, 2016. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  7. ↑ Jones, Robert S. (December 12, 1982). "Home Video Games Are Coming Under a Strong Attack". The Gainesville Sun . Archived from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  8. ↑ "Stream of video games is endless". Milwaukee Journal. December 26, 1982. pp. Business 1. Archived from the original on March 12, 2016. Retrieved January 10, 2015.
  9. ↑ Kleinfield, N.R. (October 17, 1983). "Video Games Industry Comes Down To Earth". The New York Times . Archived from the original on September 13, 2018. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cunningham, Andrew (July 15, 2013). "The NES turns 30: How it began, worked, and saved an industry". Ars Technica . Retrieved September 21, 2018.
  11. ↑ O'Kane, Sean (October 18, 2015). "7 things I learned from the designer of the NES". The Verge. Archived from the original on October 19, 2015. Retrieved May 25, 2020.
  12. 1 2 Takiff, Jonathan (June 20, 1986). "Video Games Gain In Japan, Are Due For Assault On U.S." The Vindicator . p. 2. Archived from the original on February 2, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Coats, William S.; Rafter, Heather D. (1993). "The Games People Play: Sega v. Accolade and the Right to Reverse Engineer Software". Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal. 15 (3): 558–559, 564–566, 569.
  14. 1 2 Arsenault, Dominic (2008). Wolf, Mark J. P. (ed.). The Video Game Explosion: A History from PONG to Playstation and Beyond. ABC-CLIO. pp. 111–113. ISBN   978-0-313-33868-7.
  15. ↑ Velasco, J.J. (July 15, 2013). "Historia de la Tecnología: 30 años de NES". hipertextual (in Spanish). Archived from the original on September 19, 2020. Retrieved June 2, 2020.
  16. ↑ Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World . Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. ISBN   0-7615-3643-4.
  17. ↑ Ramirez, Anthony (December 21, 1989). "The Games Played For Nintendo's Sales". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  18. ↑ "Fusion, Transfusion or Confusion / Future Directions In Computer Entertainment". Computer Gaming World. December 1990. pp. 26–28.
  19. ↑ Ramirez, Anthony (December 21, 1989). "The Games Played For Nintendo's Sales". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  20. ↑ "The Nintendo Threat?". Computer Gaming World. June 1988. p. 50.
  21. ↑ Kent, Steven L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World . Roseville, California: Prima Publishing. ISBN   0-7615-3643-4.
  22. 1 2 Nichols, Shaun. "Happy 30th anniversary, Tengen! Your anti-DRM NES chip fought the law, and the law won". The Register. Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  23. 1 2 Linhoff, Joe (2004). "Video Games and Reverse Engineering: Before and After the Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law. 3: 209–237.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dallas, Susan E. (January 1994). "Computer Copyright Protection Narrows as Video Game Giants Battle in Atari v. Nintendo". Denver Law Review. 71 (3).
  25. 1 2 Boyd, S. Gregory (November 11, 2005). "Nintendo Entertainment System – Expired Patents Do Not Mean Expired Pr". Game Developer. Retrieved December 9, 2022.
  26. ↑ "Atari's Full-Court Press". GamePro . No. 59. IDG. June 1994. p. 184.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Smith, Ernie (March 18, 2017). "How Third-Party Game Devs Reverse-Engineered Their Way Onto Your Consoles (and Into Your Heart)". Vice. Retrieved December 9, 2022.
  28. 1 2 3 Oxford, Nadia (December 14, 2005). "History of Videogame Lawsuits from 1UP.com". 1UP.com. Archived from the original on May 15, 2006. Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  29. 1 2 3 O'Donnell, Casey (July–September 2009). "Production Protection to Copy(right) Protection: From the 10NES to DVDs". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 31 (3): 54–63. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2009.49. S2CID   14026551 – via IEEE Computer Society.
  30. 1 2 Weber, Jonathan (May 2, 1992). "Jury Sides With Nintendo in Suit Brought by Atari". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 9, 2022.
  31. ↑ Potts, Mark (April 11, 1991). "NINTENDO TO PAY REFUNDS". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  32. ↑ Fisher, Lawrence M. (July 6, 1991). "Nintendo Loses Court Case On Video-Game Enhancer". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved August 26, 2022.
  33. ↑ Gilbert, Henry (February 4, 2014). "Lawsuits that altered the course of gaming history". Games Radar. Retrieved October 21, 2022.
  34. ↑ Aguilar, Julie (1993). "Intellectual Property - Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.: Setting the Standard on Software Copying in the Computer Software Industry". Golden Gate University Law Review. 23 (1): 269–278. Archived from the original on October 13, 2014.
  35. ↑ Cohen, Julie. "Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of "Lock-Out" Programs" . Retrieved October 28, 2013.
  36. ↑ O'Rourke, Maureen A. (1995). "Drawing the Boundary Between Copyright and Contract: Copyright Preemption of Software License Terms". Duke Law Journal. 45 (3): 479–558. doi:10.2307/1372890. JSTOR   1372890.
  37. ↑ Soobert, Allan M. (Fall 1994). "Legitimizing Decompilation of Computer Software under Copyright Law: A Square Peg in Search of a Square Hole". J. Marshall L. Rev. 28 (1).
  38. ↑ Hayes, David L. (Fall 1993). "The Legality of Disassembly of Computer Programs". UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy. 12 (1).
  39. ↑ Gordon, Mark L. (Fall 1996). "Copying to Compete: The Tension Between Copyright Protection & Antitrust Policy in Recent Non-Literal Computer Program Copyright Infringement Cases". UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law. 15 (1).
  40. 1 2 Linhoff, Joe (2004). "Video Games and Reverse Engineering: Before and After the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (PDF). Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law. 3: 210–237.
  41. 1 2 Zieminski, Craig (December 2008). "Game Over for Reverse Engineering?: How the DMCA and Contracts Have Affected Innovation". Journal of Technology Law & Policy. 13 (2).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.