Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.

Last updated

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMarch 2, 1982 (1982-03-02)
Citation(s)672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
Court membership
Judges sitting Harlington Wood, Myron L. Gordon, Jesse E. Eschbach

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982), 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.

Contents

Relevant copyright case law was limited at the time, disputing whether video game graphics even qualified as fixed audiovisual works, as seen in traditional games. Courts were consistently finding for plaintiffs, that games qualified for copyright protection, both as audiovisual works and for their underlying code. However, Atari Inc. v. Amusement World was a leading case where courts decided for the defendant, based on the idea-expression distinction that copyright cannot protect the idea for a game, only the game's unique expression.

In Atari v Philips, the district court refused Atari's motion to bar the sales of Munchkin. But Atari succeeded on appeal, with Judge Harlington Wood applying the abstraction test to find that Munchkin had likely copied the unique expression of Pac-Man, particularly the character design. The appeal court thus ordered a preliminary injunction, forcing Philips to bar sales of Munchkin for the duration of the case. Philips attempted to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but they refused to hear the case, by which point Philips had already published a sequel.

While the decision establishes that copyright protection does apply to expressive content in video games, it also noted that common ideas cannot be protected by copyright. This paved the way for cases such as Data East v. Epyx (1988) and Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. (1994), which found no infringement under the same idea-expression principle. With more recent cases such as Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. finding infringement once again, legal scholars have described the idea-expression distinction as easy to state, but difficult to apply.

Background

An exhibit filed by the plaintiff in 1981, illustrating some of the similarities between Pac-Man and the alleged clone, K.C. Munchkin! Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. Exhibit.jpg
An exhibit filed by the plaintiff in 1981, illustrating some of the similarities between Pac-Man and the alleged clone, K.C. Munchkin!

Facts

Around 1980, numerous arcade games were being adapted for home consoles. [1] Namco created the arcade game Pac-Man in Japan, which was adapted by Midway Manufacturing in America. [1] The game became a mass market success, leading to game sequels, merchandising, and a cartoon. [1] Just between October 1980 and December 1981, the game generated $150 million in sales. [2] Atari licensed the rights to produce a home version of Pac-Man for the Atari 2600. [1] Philips recognized the success of Pac-Man and attempted to create their own maze game, resulting in K.C. Munchkin! released in 1981. [1] K.C. Munchkin was released before Atari was able to publish their home version of Pac-Man, and highlighted the similarities to take advantage of consumer excitement. [3] When the home version of Pac-Man was panned by critics and consumers, both K.C. Munchkin and the Magnavox Odyssey 2 were bolstered by the news. [4]

Pac-Man featured four ghosts chasing the titular Pac-Man , a yellow circular character eating his way through a maze. [1] Pac-Man can eat hundreds of "dots" that line the pathways of a maze, as well as four larger dots called power capsules. Each round of play ends if one of the ghosts catches Pac-Man, but Pac-Man has a brief chance to eat a ghost if he consumes a power capsule. [1] The player's goal is to reach a high score by consuming dots, fruit, and power capsules. [1]

K.C. Munchkin! was inspired by Pac-Man, [5] with the programmer at Philips playing Pac-Man at least once before starting development. [1] Both are maze-chase video games where the player directs their "gobbler" character to consume dots while avoiding monsters. [1] Both games also allow the character to eat the monster after consuming a power capsule, [6] as well as similar scoring and game over conditions. [1] However, there were several differences between the games, where Munchkin's maze shifted during gameplay, and the power-up "dots" moved to avoid being eaten. [5] The games also feature different numbers and placement of dots, with Munckin featuring rectangular dots that are randomly placed. [1] There are additional design differences between the characters, with Munchkin's character having horns and eyes, and appearing green instead of yellow. [7] The monsters in Munchkins are also distinguished by their short antennae, though they have similar eyes and legs. [1]

Philips argued that K.C. Munchkin was "totally different". [1] Despite their differences, the public recognized many similarities between the games. [1] The advertising for Munchkin openly compared the game to Pac-Man, and private investigators found that retailers were making the same comparisons to their customers. [1] Both Atari and Midway sued Philips for copyright infringement, also filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt sales of Munchkin. [1] [7]

Law

In 1982, there were few other cases applying copyright law to video games. Copyright law had been applied more consistently to traditional games, with courts establishing that copyright law could extend to a game's graphics, but not utilitarian features such as rules of play. [2] At the time, it was unclear how to apply traditional game principles to video games, as their rules of play had been literally non-existent until a few years prior. [2]

The first video game cases raised the issue of whether a video game's graphics counted as a fixed work, an essential first step for copyright protection. Courts consistently ruled for the plaintiffs, that copyright indeed protected games as audiovisual works, more than protecting the underlying code. [2] However, Atari Inc. v. Amusement World was a notable early case for its deeper analysis of twenty-two design similarities between Asteroids and its alleged clone, Meteors. Despite these similarities, the court ruled that these features were not protected by copyright, as they were essential to the overall idea of shooting down space rocks with a spaceship. [8] At the time, it was one of the only cases to rule in favor of the defendant, based on the idea-expression distinction that copyright does not protect broad ideas, only the unique expression. [2] In the case of Pac-Man and Munchkin, the court would need to examine the audiovisual elements of Pac-Man and determine which parts counted as protectable forms of expression. [9]

Ruling on motion

Atari appealed the trial motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, pictured above. Dirksen Federal Building.jpg
Atari appealed the trial motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, pictured above.

At trial, game journalist Bill Kunkel was called as an expert witness, testifying on behalf of Philips that Munchkin was not infringing. [10] The trial court denied Atari's motion for a preliminary injunction, deciding that Atari had not proven a likelihood of success at trial. [1] As there was no evidence that Philips had directly copied Pac-Man, Atari would need to prove copying by showing that Philips had access to Pac-Man and that the two games were substantially similar. [1] Since the question of access was not contested, the case would hinge on whether K.C. Munchkin was substantially similar to the legally protected parts of Pac-Man. [1]

Atari appealed the motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, [1] with the appeal decided on March 2, 1982. [9] This time, the court ruled in Atari's favor, explaining that "it is enough that substantial parts were lifted; no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." [5] Judge Harlington Wood applied idea-expression principles from a notable film case, Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. , including what he referred to as the "abstractions test". [9]

While Atari cannot prevent competitors from making any maze-chase game, the court established that Atari could prevent competitors from making games that are substantially similar in expression to Pac-Man. [1] This meant that Atari could not protect broad ideas such as opponents chasing a character through a maze, let alone other elements essential to that idea, such as scoring, dots, or tunnel exits. [1] However, copyright protection was granted to non-essential elements, such as the Pac-Man "gobbler" character, as well as the design of the ghost monsters. [1] The court concluded that an "ordinary observer" would see that Munchkin had copied from Pac-Man, and infringement did not require an exact reproduction. [1] This led them to reverse the decision of the lower court, ordering a preliminary injunction against the continued infringement on the copyright of Pac-Man. [9]

Effects

After the injunction was granted by the United States Court of Appeals, Philips was legally barred from selling K.C. Munchkin. [5] Since the appeal court awarded the injunction based on their finding that Atari was likely to succeed at trial, [9] this finding typically leads to the end of a legal dispute. [1] Philips attempted to appeal the order to the Supreme Court of the United States, [11] [12] [13] but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [14] [15] By this point, the developers of K.C. Munchkin had already released a successor called K.C.'s Krazy Chase . [15] Meanwhile, other Odyssey games were modified to avoid any potential infringement, such the game Pickaxe Pete , initially modelled after Donkey Kong. [16]

Though Atari had been unsuccessful in barring an alleged Asteroids clone in the case Atari v. Amusement World, they vowed that they would use their "war chest" to protect their games from infringement. Midway likewise announced that they would chase down any look-a-like games. [12] In similar pre-trial motions, Courts would later bar other clones of Pac-Man, including Packri-Monster by Bandai, Puckman by Artic International, and another similar game called Mighty Mouth. [1] Meanwhile, Atari and Online Systems settled a dispute out of court, negotiating a licensing agreement that allowed them to continue selling their maze-chase game, Jawbreaker. [17] Some game critics would note that K.C. Munchkin was a better game than the Atari-port of Pac-Man, leading to increased sales in the collector's market even after its removal from stores. [18] [19]

In 1982, the magazine Video Games Player noted the increasing number of video game clones and the lawsuits against them, especially Pac-Man, and argued that eliminating low quality clones would be good for consumers. [11] The same year, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review noted Atari v. Philips as the leading decision about copyright in video games, but warned that the injunction risked an "all-or-nothing" approach, suggesting an alternative remedy where a defendant simply removes the infringing expression. [2] The University of Miami Law Review commented that there was a lack of legislation on new technology, forcing judges to establish the law as it applies to video games. [20] Activision president Jim Levy agreed that both legislative and judicial attention was needed over what constitutes a knock-off, comparing the growing video game industry to his experience in the more mature recording industry. [21] Entertainment lawyers noted that challenging derivative games could also discourage smaller companies from making games that might be similar, particularly if they cannot afford the potential legal fees. [15]

Legacy

Atari v Philips found that K.C. Munchkin had likely infringed the copyright of Pac-Man, [9] establishing that expressive content in video games does qualify for copyright protection, while excluding generic elements as free from protection. [22] In the late 1980s, the Emory Law Journal cited the Atari v Philips as evidence that "only a moderate degree of similarity need be required to support a claim of infringement". [23] However, the case was also cited in decisions that found no copyright infringement between games, despite noticeable similarities, such as Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. in 1988. [22] By 1993, Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal noted these different rulings about the "look and feel" of software, leading to conflicting advice from the Copyright Office. [24]

In the 1999 book Legal Battles That Shaped the Computer Industry, Lawrence Graham writes that Atari v. Philips "helped to establish that copyright law does not protect video games as such, but does protect the particular expressive content in video games." He explains that later cases further developed the boundary between an unprotectable idea and a protectable expression, such as Data East v Epyx in 1988. [1] In his book 2001 book Copyrights and Copywrongs, Siva Vaidhyanathan suggests that the ruling had a chilling effect on competition for Pac-Man, despite the court stating that copyright did not control the idea of a maze-chase game. [7]

In 2012, Wired compared Atari v. Philips to a similar ruling of infringement in Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., as well as a 1994 ruling of non-infringement in Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp. The conflicting rulings illustrate the challenges of the idea-expression distinction, that distinguishing between an idea and its expression may be "simple to state" but "difficult to apply". [5] Screen Rant writes that the case "set a major precedent for copyright cases within video games as a whole", [25] while 1up.com highlighted the case for its importance in video game law, noting that the high quality of the game had no impact on the legal question of copyright infringement. [26]

Related Research Articles

<i>Pac-Man</i> 1980 video game made by Namco

Pac-Man, originally called Puck Man in Japan, is a 1980 maze action video game developed and released by Namco for arcades. In North America, the game was released by Midway Manufacturing as part of its licensing agreement with Namco America. The player controls Pac-Man, who must eat all the dots inside an enclosed maze while avoiding four colored ghosts. Eating large flashing dots called "Power Pellets" causes the ghosts to temporarily turn blue, allowing Pac-Man to eat them for bonus points.

<i>Ms. Pac-Man</i> 1982 video game

Ms. Pac-Man is a 1982 maze arcade video game developed by General Computer Corporation and published by Midway. It is the first sequel to Pac-Man (1980) and the first entry in the series to not be made by Namco. Controlling the title character, Pac-Man's wife, the player is tasked with eating all of the pellets in an enclosed maze while avoiding four colored ghosts. Eating the larger "power pellets" lets the player eat the ghosts, who turn blue and flee.

<i>Jr. Pac-Man</i> 1983 video game

Jr. Pac-Man is an arcade video game developed by General Computer Corporation and released by Bally Midway on August 13, 1983. It has the same gameplay as prior entries in the series, but the maze in Jr. Pac-Man scrolls horizontally and has no escape tunnels. The bonus item which moves around the maze changes dots into a form which slows Jr. Pac-Man as they are being eaten.

<i>K.C. Munchkin!</i> 1981 video game

K.C. Munchkin!, released in Europe as Munchkin, is a maze game for the Magnavox Odyssey 2. Its North American title is an inside reference to then president of Philips Consumer Electronics, Kenneth C. Menkin.

<i>Super Pac-Man</i> 1982 video game

Super Pac-Man is a 1982 maze chase arcade game developed and published by Namco. It was distributed in North America by Midway Games. Super Pac-Man is Namco's take on a sequel to the original Pac-Man; Midway had previously released Ms. Pac-Man, which Namco had little involvement with. Toru Iwatani returns as designer.

<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.

<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>Pac-Man</i> (Atari 2600 video game) Atari 2600 version of Pac-Man

Pac-Man is a 1982 maze video game developed and published by Atari, Inc. under official license by Namco, and an adaptation of the 1980 hit arcade game of the same name. The player controls the title character, who attempts to consume all of the wafers while avoiding four ghosts that pursue him. Eating flashing wafers at the corners of the screen will cause the ghosts to turn temporarily blue and flee, allowing Pac-Man to eat them for bonus points.

<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.

<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.

<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.

<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.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.</i> Legal dispute between Atari and Nintendo

Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 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.

<i>Atari Games Corp. v. Oman</i> 1992 court case regarding video game copyright law

Atari Games Corp. v. Oman was a series of court cases where Atari, a video game developer, challenged the United States Copyright Office for refusing copyright registration for their arcade game Breakout. The Register of Copyrights first rejected Atari's registration in 1987, determining that Breakout lacked sufficient creativity to qualify as an audiovisual work. Atari twice appealed the register's decision before their copyright was granted. Decided in 1992, the case affirmed that video games are protected from clone developers who mimic a game's audiovisual aspects.

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>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 1984 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>Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.</i> 1994 legal case

Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp., 1994 WL 1751482 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.

<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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Graham, Lawrence D. (1999). Legal Battles that Shaped the Computer Industry. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN   978-1-56720-178-9.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hemnes, Thomas M. S. (1982). "The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 131 (1): 171–233. doi:10.2307/3311832. JSTOR   3311832.
  3. ↑ "Illegal Games". Hardcore Gamer Magazine. Vol. 5, no. 1. June 2009. p. 26.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ↑ Green, Earl (September 2000). "By Any Other Name: The Odyssey 2 Challenger Series". Classic Gamer Magazine: Volume 1, Issue 5. p. 35.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "CourtVille: Why Unclear Laws Put EA v. Zynga Up for Grabs". Wired. August 8, 2012. ISSN   1059-1028 . Retrieved 2021-05-30.
  6. ↑ Hancock, William A. (2001). Corporate Counsel's Guide to Copyright Law. Business Laws. ISBN   978-1-56789-080-8.
  7. 1 2 3 Vaidhyanathan, Siva (2001-08-01). Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity. NYU Press. ISBN   978-0-8147-8834-9.
  8. ↑ "Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". www.gamasutra.com. 27 February 2013. Retrieved 2021-05-30.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-05-30.
  10. ↑ "The Fighting Game Capcom Tried To Get Pulled From Arcades". Kotaku. 3 January 2019. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  11. 1 2 "Video Game Wars". Video Games Player: Vol 1, No 1. September 1982.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. 1 2 "Eye On". Videogaming Illustrated. August 1982. p. 8.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  13. ↑ "K.C. Munchkin". How to Win at Home Video Games. Consumer Guide. 1982. p. 31.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. ↑ "Briefs: Atari v. Coleco & Imagic; This Means War!". Video Games: Volume 1 Number 6. March 1983. p. 80.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  15. 1 2 3 Burkow, Steve (April 1983). "The Law of the Videogaming Jungle". Videogaming Illustrated. pp. 11–12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  16. ↑ Green, Earl (March 2001). "Bob "Rosha" Harris: Behind the Odyssey, Part II". Classic Gamer Magazine: Volume 1, Issue 6. p. 21.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ↑ "Pac-Man Bites K.C. Munchkin!". Electronic Games: Volume 01, Number 05. July 1982. p. 9.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  18. ↑ Weiss, Brett (2011-12-20). Classic Home Video Games, 1972-1984: A Complete Reference Guide. McFarland. ISBN   978-0-7864-8755-4.
  19. ↑ "Atari's VCS vs. Odyssey - Pick 'em". Video Games: Volume 1, Number 1. August 1982. p. 75.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  20. ↑ Rosen, Dan (1984-09-01). "A Common Law for the Ages of Intellectual Property". University of Miami Law Review. 38 (5).
  21. ↑ "Videogaming Illustrated People: Activision President Jim Levy". Videogaming Illustrated. August 1982.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  22. 1 2 Nelson, scott (2016-04-06). "8:Intellectual Property Pong:Three Classic Matches That Affect Your Play Today". In Eyman, Douglas; Davis, Andréa D. (eds.). Play/Write: Digital Rhetoric, Writing Games. Parlor Press LLC. ISBN   978-1-60235-734-1.
  23. ↑ Yen, Alfred C. (1989). "A First Amendment Perspective on the Idea-Expression Dichotomy and Copyright in a Work's "Total Concept and Feel"". Emory Law Journal. 38.
  24. ↑ Russo, Jack; Nafziger, Jamie (1993-01-01). "Software Look and Feel Protection in the 1990s". Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal. 15 (3).
  25. ↑ "The Most Controversial Video Game Lawsuits". ScreenRant. 2018-07-14. Retrieved 2021-05-30.
  26. ↑ Oxford, Nadia (2005-12-14). "History of Video Game Lawsuits". 1up. Archived from the original on 21 Feb 2006.
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.