Atari v. Amusement World

Last updated

Atari v. Amusement World
DistrictCourtMarylandSeal.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Full case nameAtari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc.
DecidedNovember 27, 1981
Citation 547 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md. 1981)
Court membership
Judge sitting Joseph H. Young

Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md. Nov. 27, 1981) 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.

Contents

Judge Joseph H. Young accepted that Atari had valid copyright protection in their game's symbols, movements, and sounds, but concluded that Amusement World's game did not infringe on any of these protected elements. Although Amusement World admitted that they appropriated Atari's idea, the court determined that this was not prohibited, because copyright only protects the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself.

This became one of the earliest legal rulings about copyright in video games, and one of the first 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 an idea.

Background

Co-developer Ed Logg standing next to a very rare gold Asteroids arcade cabinet. Ed Logg.jpg
Co-developer Ed Logg standing next to a very rare gold Asteroids arcade cabinet.

Atari, Inc. released Asteroids in November 1979, an arcade game where the player controls a spaceship traveling through rival spaceships and other space debris. [1] Asteroids was an immediate success upon release. It displaced Space Invaders by popularity in the United States and became Atari's best selling arcade game of all time, with over 70,000 units sold. [2] [3] Atari earned an estimated $150 million in sales from the game, and arcade operators earned a further $500 million from coin drops. [1]

Amusement World was a small company of five employees who mainly repaired coin-operated games. [4] Company president Stephen Holniker played Asteroids and felt that he could produce a game to compete in the marketplace. [5] [6] Meteors became Amusement World's first game, which drew the attention of Atari by March 1981. [4] Both games involved dodging and shooting space rocks, but a notable difference was that Meteors featured color graphics. [6] Soon after, Atari filed suit and sought to enjoin Amusement World from manufacturing or distributing Meteors. [7]

Ruling

The motion for injunctive relief was brought to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and was tried by district court judge Joseph H. Young. [4] The court denied the motion, based on the conclusion that Meteors had not infringed the Asteroids copyright. [7]

Atari alleged that Meteors was substantially similar to Asteroids, and therefore an infringement of their copyright. [7] Amusement World argued that granting Atari a copyright would effectively grant them a monopoly for any game about spaceships and asteroids. [7] Judge Young disagreed with Amusement World for this argument, granting copyright protection to Atari for "the symbols that appear on the display screen, the ways in which those symbols move around the screen, and the sound emanating from the game cabinet". [4] Still, the judge determined that this copyright would not create a monopoly, as anyone could potentially create a game about asteroids, so long as they adopted a different expression of that idea, with different symbols, movements, and sounds. [7]

After finding that Atari owned a valid copyright in their Asteroids game, Judge Young compared it to Meteors and found 22 instances where the games were identical or similar, as well as finding nine differences. [8] The similarities included that both games had exactly three sizes of space rocks, and that the rocks always split into two smaller, faster moving rocks. [5] The controls for the ships were functionally identical, and both games awarded the player an extra life if they scored 10,000 points. [5] The differences included that Meteors was a faster game, with differences in the movement of its rocks, as well as having color graphics compared to the black-and-white Asteroids. [7]

In Judge Young's analysis, he cited the principle of the idea-expression distinction from Mazer v. Stein in 1957, that "while one's expression of an idea is copyrightable, the underlying idea one uses is not." [9] The similarities between the games were determined to be intrinsic to the overall idea of shooting down space rocks with a spaceship, and thus could not be protected by copyright. [5] [10] Calling most of these similarities "inevitable", [4] Judge Young reasoned that the two games were different in terms of their overall feel, due to Meteors being faster, more difficult, and more graphically realistic. [8]

In his concluding remarks, Judge Young explained that Amusement World "based their game on plaintiff's copyrighted game; to put it bluntly, defendants took plaintiff's idea. However, the copyright laws do not prohibit this. Copyright protection is available only for expression of ideas, not for ideas themselves. Defendants used plaintiff's idea and those portions of plaintiff's expression that were inextricably linked to that idea. The remainder of defendants' expression is different from plaintiff's expression." [4] Thus, the court denied Atari's motion for a preliminary injunction, with Amusement World succeeding in their defense. [7]

Effects

This decision was part of the "Atari trilogy" of cases that helped define early video game law, including Atari v. Williams , and Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. [8] Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World was the first copyright case where the court compared the numerous similarities and differences between two video games, [7] as well as the first time that a court applied complex copyright principles to video games, such as the idea-expression distinction and scènes à faire . [5] 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. [7] Writing for the Vanderbilt Law Review in 1983, Steven G. McKnight argued that the judge's analysis of game "feel" was inadequate if they did not play the games in question. [8] In the University of Pennsylvania Law Review , Thomas Hemnes argued that the court "blurs the very distinction between idea and expression", highlighting more "particularized" implementations such as the same three sizes of rocks that split into two rocks upon destruction. [7]

Legacy

Intellectual property attorney Stephen McArthur notes that Atari v. Amusement World was the first of nearly a dozen rulings in favor of alleged video game clones, "pav[ing] the way for developers to create games closely resembling established and successful games", with courts only shifting nearly 30 years later in Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. and Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. [5] The line between a free idea versus copyrightable expression can be seen by contrasting this case with Tetris v Xio. [11]

Greg Lastowka states that the idea-expression dichotomy established in Asteroids was difficult to apply in the Spry Fox and Tetris Holdings disputes from 2013. He compared the Amusement World case to other early copyright cases, questioning "what made a video game involving spaceships and space rocks an unprotected idea", while contrasting it with the court in Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. , which gave copyright protection to Pac-Man 's "pie-shaped gobbler and four ghost monsters as a particularized form of expression". [12] Writing in 2018, Tori Allen says this case represents the rudimentary composition of early video games that made it difficult to discern between idea and expression, with video games progressing in their expression to allow more copyrightable game elements. [10]

Related Research Articles

<i>Asteroids</i> (video game) 1979 video game

Asteroids is a space-themed multidirectional shooter arcade video game designed by Lyle Rains and Ed Logg released in November 1979 by Atari, Inc. The player controls a single spaceship in an asteroid field which is periodically traversed by flying saucers. The object of the game is to shoot and destroy the asteroids and saucers, while not colliding with either, or being hit by the saucers' counter-fire. The game becomes harder as the number of asteroids increases.

<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.

1980 saw the release of a number of games with influential concepts, including Pac-Man, Battlezone, Crazy Climber, Mystery House, Missile Command, Phoenix, Rally-X, Space Panic, Stratovox, Zork, Adventure, and Olympic Decathlon. The year's highest-grossing video game was Namco's arcade game Pac-Man, while the best-selling home system was Nintendo's Game & Watch. The Atari VCS also grew in popularity with a port of Space Invaders and support from new third-party developer Activision.

<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>Space Race</i> (video game) 1973 arcade game

Space Race is an arcade game developed by Atari, Inc. and released on July 16, 1973. It was the second game by the company, after Pong (1972), which marked the beginning of the commercial video game industry along with the Magnavox Odyssey. In the game, two players each control a rocket ship, with the goal of being the first to move their ship from the bottom of the screen to the top. Along the way are asteroids, which the players must avoid. Space Race was the first racing arcade video game and the first game with a goal of crossing the screen while avoiding obstacles.

<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>Cosmic Camouflage</i> 1988 video game

Cosmic Camouflage is a multidirectional shooter for the BBC Micro and Acorn Electron. It was released in 1988 as the sequel to Acornsoft's Meteors. Both games are clones of the 1979 Atari, Inc. arcade video game Asteroids.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantial similarity</span> Standard in US copyright law

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

<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>Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonalds Corp.</i> 1977 copyright infringement lawsuit

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1977) was a case in which puppeteers and television producers Sid and Marty Krofft alleged that the copyright in their H.R. Pufnstuf children's television program had been infringed by a series of McDonald's "McDonaldland" advertisements. The finding introduced the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic tests to determine substantial similarity.

Delrina Corporation v. Triolet Systems Inc, 2002 CanLII 11389, 58 OR (3d) 339, also known as Delrina II, is a 2002 Ontario Court of Appeal case which established the existence of the merger doctrine in Canadian copyright law. The plaintiff, Delrina Corp., sued Triolet Systems Inc. and Brian Duncombe for infringing its copyright of the computer program Sysview by designing similar software, called Assess. The plaintiffs were awarded an interlocutory injunction but ultimately lost at trial. Delrina Corp.’s appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.

<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 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>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>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.

References

  1. 1 2 "The Making of Asteroids" (PDF). Retro Gamer . No. 68. Imagine Publishing. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 19, 2013. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
  2. ↑ Brett Alan Weiss. "Asteroids". allgame. Macrovision. Archived from the original on March 8, 2009. Retrieved June 6, 2009.
  3. ↑ Wolf, Mark J.P. (2008). The video game explosion: A history from Pong to Playstation and beyond. Greenwood Press. ISBN   978-0-313-33868-7.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Atari, Inc. v. Amusement World, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 222 (D. Md. 1981)". Justia Law. Retrieved September 19, 2021.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". Game Developer . February 27, 2013. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved November 18, 2021.
  6. 1 2 Sarkar, Samit (December 17, 2012). "Working arcade cabinet of Meteors, Asteroids clone, unearthed three decades later". Polygon. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022. Retrieved November 7, 2021.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.
  8. 1 2 3 4 McKnight, Steven G. (October 1983). "Substantial Similarity Between Video Games: An Old Copyright Problem in a New Medium Problem in a New Medium". Vanderbilt Law Review. 36: 1277–1312.
  9. ↑ Dean, Drew S. (2016). "Hitting Reset: Devising a New Video Game Copyright Regime" (PDF). University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 164 (5): 1239–1280. JSTOR   24753539.
  10. 1 2 Allen, Tori (April 2018). "What's in a Game: Collective Management Organizations and Video Game Copyright". UNLV Gaming Law Journal. 8 (2): 209–231 [216–217].
  11. ↑ Velzen, Andrew. "Palworld: Friend or Foe?". JD Supra. Retrieved June 9, 2024.
  12. ↑ Lastowka, Greg (October 1, 2013). "Copyright Law and Video Games: A Brief History of an Interactive Medium". SSRN   2321424.
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.