Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.

Last updated

Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.
Washington-western.png
Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Full case nameSpry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. et al.
DecidedOctober 29, 2012 (2012-10-29)
Citation(s)No. 2:12-cv-00147 (W.D. Wash., 2012)
Court membership
Judge sitting Richard A. Jones

Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00147 (W.D. Wash., 2012), [1] 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.

Contents

Despite the games having cosmetic differences with different settings, the similarities between the games were evidence that Yeti Town had illegally appropriated elements of Triple Town. The judge rejected a motion from 6waves Lolapps to dismiss the case, thus undermining their main defense, since the games did have several identical gameplay elements. In October 2012, the companies announced a settlement where Spry Fox would own the intellectual property for both games.

Background

In 2011, Spry Fox created Triple Town , where players build a city by matching tiles, and merging objects into larger ones. [2] Spry Fox approached Lolapps to help port the game to the iOS platform. [3] The parties signed a non-disclosure agreement granting access to the Triple Town assets. [4] Around this time, Lolapps merged with another social gaming company called 6waves to form 6waves Lolapps. [5] Within a few months, 6waves Lolapps announced that they would no longer work with Spry Fox. The company soon announced their plans to release their own tile-matching game, called Yeti Town. [2]

Both games have similar gameplay. They are both match-three games on a six-by-six grid. When three identical objects are placed next to each other on the grid, they transform into another object, such as combining shrubs into a tree. As the player tries to combine objects and increase their score, the game creates challenges by placing new objects that clutter the game grid. [4] Both games also have a marketplace with identical prices for analogous items, and similar language in their dialog boxes. However, there are cosmetic differences, particularly the titular Yeti playing the same role as Triple Town's bear, and Yeti Town being presented in 3D rather than the 2D presentation of Triple Town. [6]

Dispute

In January 2012, Spry Fox filed a copyright infringement claim against 6waves Lolapps in the Western District of Washington. [4] During the dispute, correspondence surfaced where 6waves Lolapps admitted that Yeti Town had a "similar match-3 style" to Triple Town. [7] Since copying is usually proved by showing that a potential infringer had access to the original work, 6waves Lolapps did not deny that they had acquired access, nor did they deny the validity of Spry Fox's copyright. [4] However, 6waves Lolapps asked the court to dismiss the case on the basis that the basic gameplay in Triple Town was not protected by copyright, based on similar rulings such as Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. from 1988. [6]

Publicly, Spry Fox's chief creative officer commented that "there are also people who have learned from history that cloning is a valid business model, and they’re going to build out entire companies around that concept". [8] In a statement, 6waves Lolapps responded that "the copyright infringement claims are unjustified" and that they respected intellectual property. [8]

Motion and settlement

Judge Richard A. Jones found that Yeti Town had appropriated many expressive elements of Triple Town, saying that a copyright issue "must focus on what is similar, not what is different, when comparing two works". Tripletownyetitown.jpg
Judge Richard A. Jones found that Yeti Town had appropriated many expressive elements of Triple Town , saying that a copyright issue "must focus on what is similar, not what is different, when comparing two works".
Order on motion to dismiss Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc. Order on Motion to Dismiss dated 18 September 2012 (Docket No. 24).pdf
Order on motion to dismiss

Judge Richard A. Jones ruled on 6waves Lolapps' motion for dismissal. [6] The court focused on the idea–expression distinction, where a party is entitled to copyright in the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. The court excluded some elements of Triple Town from copyright protection as " scènes à faire ", such as using coins to track the score and exchange for in-game advantages. The court also excluded some purely functional elements, such as the six-by-six game grid. The court also explained that copyright cannot protect the overall game "idea", particularly a game about matching objects, where some of those objects are ill-placed to obstruct the player. However, the court found that Yeti Town had appropriated many expressive elements of Triple Town, including the hierarchy of objects, and the presence of a wild creature that tried to foil the player's progress. This was despite the games' visual differences, including the pastoral versus snowy themes, and the overall distinct characters. [2]

The object hierarchy is similar. Progressing from grass to bush to tree to hut is similar to progressing from sapling to tree to tent to cabin. Perhaps more importantly, the object hierarchy coupled with the depiction of the field of play comprise a setting and theme that is similar to Triple Town's. A snowfield is not so different from a meadow, bears and yetis are both wild creatures. ... There are apparent differences between [the] games ... but a court must focus on what is similar, not what is different, when comparing two works. [1]

There were several major factors in the ruling. The court did not focus on what made the games different, focusing instead on what was similar. The court also noted the existence of a non-disclosure agreement, giving 6waves Lolapps access to the Triple Town assets. Although the game's names are not technically copyrighted, their similarity was relevant to the question of substantial similarity. [9] The court also accepted evidence from several online commentators that the games were substantially similar. [2] However, the court did not play either game, basing their opinion on screenshots and written descriptions of gameplay. [9] In the end, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the copyright claim. [2]

The ruling pushed the parties towards a legal settlement, since much of the legal strategy for 6waves Lolapps rested on the argument that copyright does not protect gameplay – an argument that the court rejected. [10] The parties soon settled out of court, resulting in Spry Fox owning the intellectual property for both games. [11]

Impact

Along with the 2012 copyright case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc. , this ruling indicates a legal system that is willing to protect original games from potential clones. Although the ruling was only on the motion to dismiss, it is notable that they found substantial similarity despite having distinguishable art assets, unlike the Tetris v. Xio case. [2] Legal scholars Elizabeth and Ronald Gard noted that the motion was decided days after the Tetris v. Xio decision, finding substantial similarity between the two games based on the look and feel instead of literal copying. [12] According to the Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, the Spry Fox decision shows that courts are willing to apply the reasoning in Tetris v. Xio, and rulings may be the product of a judge's greater experience with video games than rulings from decades prior. [13] Kyle Orland from Ars Technica also compared the case to Tetris v. Xio, and similarly argued that judges had evolved on video game copyright due to greater experience with the medium. [6] The visual differences between the games show that courts are willing to consider the possibility of copyright infringement where the games are not identical. [3]

According to legal scholar Alex Nealon, a major factor in the ruling was likely the existing relationship between the developers. [4] This was also the analysis of attorney of Jack C. Schecter, who noted that 6waves Lolapps had agreed to develop an iOS version of Triple Town before releasing their alleged clone. [10] [14] John Kuehl made similar comments for the Mitchell Hamline School of Law, noting that courts are more likely to find infringement where there was demonstrable evidence that the defendant was trying to imitate the plaintiff's game. [3]

In the book Video Game Law, Spry Fox is highlighted in a trend of video game clone lawsuits in the 2010s, and also noted for its similarity to the 1982 clone case Atari v. Philips. [15] Attorney Stephen McArthur noted that this pushed copyright law closer to protecting game mechanics and punishing clones, but cautioned courts to find a balance between shutting down egregious clones without giving monopolies to entire genres of games. [9] Eric Goldman felt that it would be difficult to ever find definitive guidance about copying, due to the difficulty around interpreting the idea–expression distinction. [16] Writing for Eurogamer, Rich Stanton cited Spry Fox to demonstrate that "fighting the cloners is not a war that can ever be 'won' ... [b]ut it's a battle worth fighting regardless, one where original work can be protected better." [17]

Related Research Articles

<i>Tetris</i> 1984 video game

Tetris is a puzzle video game created by the Soviet software engineer Alexey Pajitnov in 1984. It has been published by several companies for multiple platforms, most prominently during a dispute over the appropriation of the rights in the late 1980s. After a significant period of publication by Nintendo, the rights reverted to Pajitnov in 1996, who co-founded the Tetris Company with Henk Rogers to manage licensing.

<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.

<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.

<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>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.

<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>Triple Town</i> 2010 video game

Triple Town is a freemium strategy puzzle video game with city-building elements. It is available for social networks and mobile devices and was developed by Seattle-based Spry Fox.

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.

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC is a copyright case in which the United States District Court for the Central District of California, by granting partial summary judgment, denied most parts of the copyright claims presented by Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) against Dish Network (Dish) for its service, a DVR-like device that allowed users to record programming that could be accessed later through any Internet-connected device. The service offered by Dish also allowed users to record any or all Fox's prime-time programs and to automatically skips commercials (AutoHop).

<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.

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.

Shanghai MOONTON Technology Co. Ltd., commonly known as MOONTON Games, is a Chinese multinational video game developer and publisher owned by the Nuverse subsidiary of ByteDance and based in Shanghai, China. It is best known for the mobile multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) game Mobile Legends: Bang Bang released in July 2016.

<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, 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 "Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc". Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. September 18, 2012. Archived from the original on March 10, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Dean, Drew S. (2016). "Hitting Reset: Devising a New Video Game Copyright Regime". University of Pennsylvania Law Review . 164. Archived from the original on August 7, 2019. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  3. 1 2 3 Kuehl, John (2016). "Video Games and Intellectual Property:Similarities, Differences, and a New Approach to Protection". Cybaris . 7 (2). Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Nealon, Alex (March 26, 2020). "Bears Versus Yetis the Triple Town Copyright Infringement Case". Lexology. Banner Witcoff. Archived from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  5. ↑ Takahashi, Dean (July 18, 2011). "Lolapps merges with 6waves to build social gaming powerhouse". VentureBeat . Archived from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 4, 2021.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Orland, Kyle (October 3, 2012). "Legal landscape gets tougher for blatant game clones". Ars Technica . Archived from the original on November 11, 2020. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  7. ↑ Rose, Mike (January 29, 2012). "Triple Town's Spry Fox sues Yeti Town dev 6Waves Lolapps". Gamasutra . Archived from the original on August 24, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  8. 1 2 Chen, Brian (March 11, 2012). "For Creators of Games, a Faint Line on Cloning" (PDF). The New York Times. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 12, 2023. Retrieved March 12, 2023.
  9. 1 2 3 McArthur, Stephen (February 27, 2013). "Clone Wars: The Five Most Important Cases Every Game Developer Should Know". Gamasutra . Archived from the original on May 2, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  10. 1 2 Chalk, Andy (October 11, 2012). "6waves Settles Yeti Town Cloning Lawsuit". The Escapist . Archived from the original on November 29, 2018. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  11. ↑ Pearson, Dan (October 15, 2012). "Spry Fox wins ownership of Yeti Town as part of Triple Town settlement". GamesIndustry.biz . Archived from the original on March 30, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  12. ↑ Gard, Elizabeth Townsend; Gard, W. Ronald (January 12, 2017). Video Games and the Law. Taylor & Francis. pp. 58–60. ISBN   978-1-351-80598-8.
  13. ↑ Quagliariello, John (2019). "Applying Copyright Law to Videogames: Litigation Strategies for Lawyers" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law. 10: 263. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 5, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  14. ↑ Pearson, Dan (October 12, 2012). "6Waves and Spry Fox settle out of court". GamesIndustry.biz. Retrieved March 12, 2023.
  15. ↑ Boyd, S. Gregory; Pyne, Brian; Kane, Sean F. (June 28, 2018). Video Game Law: Everything you need to know about Legal and Business Issues in the Game Industry. CRC Press. p. 23. ISBN   978-0-429-89239-4.
  16. ↑ Goldman, Eric (September 27, 2012). "Recent Ruling in Triple Town/Yeti Town Game App Dispute Provides Cautionary Lessons for Both EA and Zynga". Forbes . Archived from the original on February 25, 2021. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
  17. ↑ Stanton, Rich (February 4, 2012). "Can the Clone War Ever Be Won?". Eurogamer.net. Retrieved March 12, 2023.
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.