Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.

Last updated

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedMarch 16, 1994 (1994-03-16)
Citation(s)1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 1994)
Court membership
Judge sitting William H. Orrick Jr.

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal, 1994) was a 1994 legal case related to the copyright of video games, where Capcom alleged that Data East's game Fighter's History infringed the copyright of Capcom's game Street Fighter II. It was revealed that the design documents for Fighter's History contained several references to Street Fighter II, leading Capcom to sue Data East for damages, as well as a preliminary injunction to stop the distribution of the infringing game. In spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not grant copyright protection where it would effectively give someone a monopoly over an idea.

Contents

Although early cases such as Atari v. Philips ruled against a game for infringing on the copyright of Pac-Man, they also noted that any standard elements of a game could not be protected by copyright. Courts would later expand on this principle, establishing that copyright did not protect generic concepts, functional rules, and scènes à faire. This included an earlier legal dispute, where Data East lost their case against an alleged video game clone of their game Karate Champ because none of the similarities were protected under copyright. Now years later, Data East found themselves on the other side of a similar dispute, and the court determined that the contents of Fighter's History were legally permissible. This trend of a more permissive approach to copyright continued until 2012, when rulings such as Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. and Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. ruled that more specific forms of copying are unlawful.

Background

Facts

In 1991, Game developer Capcom released Street Fighter II . Its popularity led to an explosion of interest in the fighting game genre. [1] [2] Other companies rushed to capitalize, and Data East released their own one-on-one fighting game called Fighter's History in 1993. [3] Even compared to other fighting games, there were many similarities between Fighter's History and Street Fighter II, with both games having similar character designs and artwork, as well as similar special moves and controls. [1] As it was later revealed, Data East created design documents that referred to Street Fighter II several times. [1] Several people noticed the similarities and raised the issue with Capcom, reaching the president, Kenzo Tsujimoto. [4] Capcom soon sued Data East for copyright infringements, in both America and Japan. [5] Capcom sought 623 million yen in damages, [6] as well as a preliminary injunction to stop Data East from distributing Fighter's History. [7]

There was some terrible evidence. I mean, the fact of the matter is the Data East artists were copying Street Fighter. The ultimate work wasn't a slavish copy — a pixel-by-pixel copy — but they had evidence that we were copying things. And our response was, well, what we were copying wasn't protectable. So for example, we might make a copy of one of their images, but then we'd change the image, change the background, change the fighter's stance, change the type of kick. But even then, there was a lot of similarity in the kicks and the moves. But of course our response was, "Well wait a minute. Those are conventional moves within the martial arts field. You can't own that."

— Claude Stern, trial counsel representing Data East [4]

Law

This dispute would depend on whether the copied elements of Street Fighter II were actually protected by copyright. [8] Data East called on expert witness Bill Kunkel, a game journalist who testified in Atari v. Philips that not all copying is infringing, such as the similarity between K.C. Munchkin! and Pac-Man . [1] The court ruled that K.C. Munchkin! did infringe the copyright of Pac-Man, because the games had substantial similarities. [9] However, the court also noted that several aspects of the games were standard or common, and thus not protected by copyright. [10]

By the late 1980s, courts began to take a more permissive approach with video game clones, deciding that many elements of creativity cannot be protected, such as generic concepts, functional rules, and scènes à faire. [8] One such ruling was the 1988 case Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. , where courts ruled that Epyx's game World Karate Championship did not infringe Data East's game Karate Champ, because none of the similarities were protected under copyright. [8] Now years later, Data East argued that their game Karate Champ was the first game in the fighting genre. [6] Data East also argued that the similarities between their game and Street Fighter II were not protected by copyright, as they were both inspired by the same form of game, and the same stereotyped characters in the public domain. Data East was confident in their argument, because Epyx had used the same argument against them in Data East v. Epyx, where courts found that copyright did not protect the general ideas in Karate Champ. [11]

Ruling

Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 18, 1994 Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 18, 1994 (Docket No. 243).pdf
Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 18, 1994

The trial took place on October 31, 1994. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. stated that there was strong evidence that Data East set out to imitate the success of Street Fighter II, noting similarities such as a "Chun-Li clone" (referring to Feilin) and several comparable special moves. [5] The court noted that "of the eight pairs of characters and twenty-seven special moves at issue, three characters and five special moves in Fighter’s History are similar to protectable characters and special moves in Street Fighter II". [12] Although the court determined that several moves were similar, the court also noted that "Street Fighter II has a total universe of twelve characters and six hundred and fifty moves. Capcom concedes, as it must, that the vast majority of the moves are unprotectable because they are commonplace kicks and punches." [12]

In the end, Capcom lost the case on grounds that the copied elements were excluded from copyright protection, as generic scènes à faire. [13] Judge Orrick applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not extend copyright protection if it effectively gives someone a monopoly over an idea. The court affirmed that "copyright protection does not encompass games as such, since they consist of abstract rules and play ideas. It follows, therefore, that audiovisual works like the two presently before the Court are largely unprotectable games." [12]

Legacy

As a historic ruling, Capcom v. Data East expanded on the principle that generic similarities between games are allowable under copyright law. [10] Data East established that Fighter's History was not infringing based on the precedent from Data East v. Epyx, which Nadia Oxford of 1UP.com noted as "ironic" because Data East lost the older case. [14] Courts continued this approach for many years, ruling in favor of most video game clones until enforcing some limits in the 2012 case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive . [10] Tetris v. Xio found that copyright does protect a game's more specific elements from infringing copies, compared to the ruling in Capcom v. Data East that suggests a more skeptical view towards copyright protection for video games. [12]

John Quagliariello argues that this was one of several cases that made it near impossible for a video game copyright holder to win a lawsuit against a potential infringer, especially considering the cost of a lawsuit versus the risk of an unfavorable ruling. [15] Chris Kohler of Kotaku argues that this ruling prevented a chilling effect on game creation, allowing video game genres to develop through imitation and iteration. [1] Attorney Stephen C. McArthur mentioned it among several rulings that were permissive of clones, such as Atari v. Amusement World and Data East v. Epyx, a pattern that changed in 2012 with Tetris v. Xio and Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc . [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capcom</span> Japanese video game company

Capcom Co., Ltd. is a Japanese video game company. It has created a number of multi-million-selling game franchises, with its most commercially successful being Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Street Fighter, Mega Man, Devil May Cry, Dead Rising, Ace Attorney, and Marvel vs. Capcom. Established in 1979, it has become an international enterprise with subsidiaries in East Asia, Europe, and North America.

A fighting game is a genre of video game that involves combat between two or more characters. Fighting game combat often features mechanics such as blocking, grappling, counter-attacking, and chaining attacks together into "combos". Characters generally engage in battle using hand-to-hand combat—often some form of martial arts. The fighting game genre is related to, but distinct from, the beat 'em up genre, which pits large numbers of computer-controlled enemies against one or more player characters.

Clean-room design is the method of copying a design by reverse engineering and then recreating it without infringing any of the copyrights associated with the original design. Clean-room design is useful as a defense against copyright infringement because it relies on independent creation. However, because independent invention is not a defense against patents, clean-room designs typically cannot be used to circumvent patent restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Epyx</span> Defunct video game developer and publisher

Epyx, Inc. was a video game developer and publisher active in the late 1970s and 1980s. The company was founded as Automated Simulations by Jim Connelley and Jon Freeman, originally using Epyx as a brand name for action-oriented games before renaming the company to match in 1983. Epyx published a long series of games through the 1980s. The company is currently owned by Bridgestone Multimedia Group Global.

<i>Karate Champ</i> 1984 video game

Karate Champ, originally known as Karate Dō, is a fighting game developed by Technōs Japan and released in arcades by Data East in 1984. A variety of moves can be performed using the dual-joystick controls using a best-of-three matches format like later fighting games. The game was commercially successful, especially in the United States where it was the highest-grossing arcade game of 1985 and the best-selling home computer game up until 1989. Karate Champ established and popularized the one-on-one fighting game genre, for which it is considered one of the most influential games of all time.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240, was the first time an appellate level court in the United States held that a computer's BIOS could be protected by copyright. As second impact, this ruling clarified that binary code, the machine readable form of software and firmware, was copyrightable too and not only the human-readable source code form of software.

<i>International Karate</i> 1985 video game

International Karate is a fighting game developed and published by System 3 for the ZX Spectrum in 1985 and ported to various home computers over the following years. In the United States it was published by Epyx in 1986 as World Karate Championship.

<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">The Tetris Company</span> American video game company

The Tetris Company, Inc. (TTC) is the manager and licensor for the Tetris brand to third parties. It is based in Nevada and is owned by Tetris creator Alexey Pajitnov and Henk Rogers. The company is the exclusive licensee of Tetris Holding LLC, the company that owns Tetris rights worldwide.

<i>Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman</i> American legal case

Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, is a legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit held that Omni Video Games violated the copyright and trademark of Scramble, an arcade game marketed by Stern Electronics. The lawsuit was due to a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal appellate court to recognize a video game as a copyrighted audiovisual work.

<i>Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.</i> U.S. Court of Appeals case

Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc., 704 F.2d 1009, was a legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that Artic violated Midway's copyright in their arcade games Pac-Man and Galaxian. The lawsuit was part of a trend of "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s, with courts recognizing that a video game can qualify for protection as a copyrighted audiovisual work.

Analytic dissection is a concept in U.S. copyright law analysis of computer software. Analytic dissection is a tool for determining whether a work accused of copyright infringement is substantially similar to a copyright-protected work.

<i>Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.</i> 1988 legal case

Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 was a court case between two video game manufacturers, where Data East claimed that their copyright in Karate Champ was infringed by World Karate Championship, a game created by Epyx. Data East released Karate Champ in arcades in 1984, and the game became a best-seller and pioneered the fighting game genre. The next year, Epyx published World Karate Championship for home computers, which sold 1.5 million copies. Data East sued Epyx, alleging that the game infringed on their copyright and trademark.

The Ville is a defunct game by Zynga released on June 30, 2012 in which the object was to earn experience points by building a house and talking with neighbors.

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>Fighters History</i> (video game) 1993 video game

Fighter's History is a 1993 arcade fighting game developed and published by Data East. It's the inaugural game in the Fighter's History series. The main unique feature of the Fighter's History is its weak point system, which allows the player to temporarily stun an opponent by repeatedly hitting their weak point.

<i>Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.</i> 2012 legal case

Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F.Supp.2d 394, was a 2012 American legal case related to copyright of video games, confirming that a game's look and feel can be protected under copyright law. Tetris Holding is a company that holds the copyright to the original Tetris game from 1985 and licenses those rights to game developers. Xio Interactive is a game developer that released Mino in 2009, a mobile game based on the gameplay of Tetris. Mino was downloaded millions of times, and Tetris Holding filed a DMCA notice and eventually a lawsuit against Xio for copyright infringement.

<i>Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.</i> 2012 American legal case

Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00147, was a court case between two video game developers, where Spry Fox alleged that the game Yeti Town, developed by 6waves Lolapps, infringed on their copyrighted game Triple Town. While the case was settled out of court, preliminary opinions by Judge Richard A. Jones affirmed that a video game's "look and feel" may be protected by copyright, affirming the federal district court decision in Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. from earlier the same year.

<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.

<i>Atari v. Amusement World</i> 1981 legal case

Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc., 547 F.Supp. 222 is a legal case in which the United States District Court for the District of Maryland held that Amusement World's arcade game Meteors did not violate Atari's copyright in their game Asteroids.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "The Fighting Game Capcom Tried To Get Pulled From Arcades". Kotaku. January 3, 2019. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  2. ↑ DeMaria, Rusel (December 7, 2018). High Score! Expanded: The Illustrated History of Electronic Games 3rd Edition. CRC Press. ISBN   978-0-429-77139-2.
  3. ↑ "話題のマシン (Game machine in the news)", ゲームマシン (Game Machine) (in Japanese), vol. 446, アミューズメント通信社 (Amusement Press Inc.), p. 20, April 1, 1993
  4. 1 2 "Street Fighter 2: An Oral History (Chapter 4)". Polygon. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  5. 1 2 "Capcom, Data East in Fighter's Fight". GamePro . No. 59. IDG. June 1994. p. 182.
  6. 1 2 "Capcom sues Data East over Street Fighter II". Play Meter. Vol. 20, no. 1. January 1994. p. 16.
  7. ↑ Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
  8. 1 2 3 4 "Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". www.gamasutra.com. February 27, 2013. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
  9. ↑ Lampros, Nicholas M. (2013). "Leveling Pains: Clone Gaming And The Changing Dynamics Of An Industry" (PDF). Berkeley Technology Law Journal . 28: 743–774. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  10. 1 2 3 Eyman, Douglas; Davis, Andréa D. (April 6, 2016). Play/Write: Digital Rhetoric, Writing Games. Parlor Press LLC. ISBN   978-1-60235-734-1.
  11. ↑ Wolf, Mark J. P. (May 24, 2021). Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, 2nd Edition [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. ISBN   978-1-4408-7020-0.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Dean, Drew S. (2016). "Hitting reset: Devising a new video game copyright regime". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 164 (5): 1239–1280. JSTOR   24753539. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019. Retrieved January 19, 2021.
  13. ↑ Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. 1994 WL 1751482 (N.D. Cal. 1994). Analysis at Patent Arcade accessed June 18, 2009.
  14. ↑ Oxford, Nadia (December 14, 2005). "History of Videogame Lawsuits from 1UP.com". 1UP.com. Archived from the original on May 26, 2006. Retrieved January 8, 2023.
  15. ↑ Quagliariello, John (2019). "Applying Copyright Law to Videogames: Litigation Strategies for Lawyers" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. 10: 263.
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.