lawsuit posts (Subscribe to this feed)
TimeGate sues SouthPeak for alleged breaches in publishing agreement
In legal documents obtained by Joystiq, TimeGate also alleges that this SouthPeak T-shirt promotion was unauthorized, that the publisher had mislead TimeGate about sales figures and that the publisher has stated it should not have to adhere to TimeGate's original agreement, as it had been made with Gamecock, which SouthPeak purchased in late 2008. We've reached out to SouthPeak for comment.
If you prefer your language far more formal, the lawsuit puts it like this: "[SouthPeak] failed to provide a sufficient sales report, withheld royalty payments and did not adhere to the obligation to act in good faith and fair dealing when they established the sham transaction in order to deprive TimeGate of royalties despite the special relationship between the parties and being in a position of trust."
No specific amount is mentioned in the suit, with TimeGate asking only for "compensatory damages in an amount to be determined" following an independent audit of Section 8's sales.
THQ pins WWE license down for 8 years

Not coincidentally, THQ has also settled its legal issues with WWE toy producer Jakks Pacific. THQ and Jakks will dissolve their venture using the other universal solvent: money. THQ has agreed to pay the company $20 million, along with previously earned royalties, and will pay the WWE $13.2 million.
All of the companies found this agreement preferable to the previous offer, wherein WWE and Jakks would hit THQ with folding chairs while the referee mysteriously looked away.
Hasbro suing Atari over alleged breach in D&D licensing agreement
Hasbro's main complaint in the suit is that Atari might have taken part in an "unauthorized sublicensing relationship" with Namco Bandai during the latter's purchase of Atari's European distribution company this past March. According to the suit, Namco Bandai is a direct competitor to Hasbro and Wizards, and allowing them any access to the D&D license is a violation of the contract agreed to by Atari. Hasbro seeks compensatory damages, and also to terminate the allegedly violated licensing agreement, denying Atari further access to the brand.
In a press release statement, Wizards of the Coast president Greg Leeds said, "while unfortunate that we had to take this action, it is crucial for us to protect the Dungeons & Dragons brand." Leeds later added, "we have been working for several months now to reach resolution with Atari, and they have left us with no other choice than to pursue legal action."
Atari isn't taking these complaints lying down -- the publisher just distributed its own statement through PRNewswire, claiming, "Hasbro has resorted to these meritless allegations, in an apparent attempt to unfairly take back rights granted to Atari." The statement goes on to say, "we regret that our long-time partner has decided to pursue this action. Atari will respond appropriately through its legal counsel in court."
Activision countersues No Doubt, which is likely not feeling 'Hella Good'
Activision's main response to No Doubt's claim is that that the band requested their likenesses be limited to perform the band's own songs in-game -- however, it made this request "only after the Band Hero programming was finalized." Activision seeks an unspecified amount of damages and interest from the band, as well as court and attorney fees, and a return of all payments dispersed to the band for their initial involvement. Jeez, Activision. Might as well go ahead and ask for the kitchen sink while you're at it.
[Via GamePolitics]
Erik 'Pro Plaintiff' Estavillo assures us he won't sue anyone else, giving half his money 'to God' [update]
Aside from seeking money (anywhere from as low as $180 to $1 million, depending on the case), we asked Estavillo what his intentions were behind launching the multiple lawsuits. "What I wanted to do was exploit the weakness of each console and show that they're not impervious to flaws ... each console has a flaw and they should fix it," he said. During the interview as well as in some of his court filings, Estavillo claimed to be suffering from a variety of psychological maladies, and has repeatedly stated that he uses online gaming as his primary form of communication. "I told this other interviewer and it's true – I actually have no friends. I rely on online gameplay for socialization."
Though he's yet to win a case, his first (by default) could come as soon as December 3 – the end of Sony's 30 days to respond to a summons. If he does, that would mean $180,000 and a "no contest" ruling against Sony. Though he said he'll keep some of the money he may win, he noted that, "Half the money I get is gonna go to God. I'm giving half the money I get to CBN [Christian Broadcasting Network], local churches, charities, or poor people on the street."
We talked to Estavillo about a variety of other topics – from what games he plays to why he's subpoenaing celebrities instead of experts – but due to sheer length we've broken the rest of the interview out after the break.
Update: Erik Estavillo emailed us this evening to say that Sony has responded to his summons, thus closing out the possibility of a default settlement. The first hearing will be in early 2010.
'Pro plantiff' Erik Estavillo subpoenas Bill Gates in RROD suit
While Estavillo is looking for answers to questions every journalist has been seeking, his track record of legal battles places him in eccentric territory. Estavillo is also suing Activision Blizzard claiming characters in World of Warcraft walk at an intentionally slow pace in order to bilk customers of more monthly fees. In the claim, he subpoenaed actress Winona Ryder and Depeche Mode member Martin Gore. Estavillo has also filed suit against Sony for being banned from online play, stemming from comments he supposedly made during matches of Resistance: Fall of Man; and Nintendo, for issuing firmware updates that disabled his Homebrew Channel.
Activision Blizzard sued by ... yeah, it's the PSN guy
If that wasn't enough, Estavillo also subpoenaed actress Winona Ryder and Depeche Mode's Martin Lee Gore to testify on his behalf regarding alienation. He explains that his health issues, which apparently include OCD, agoraphobia, depression (and more), mean that he "relies on video games heavily for the little ongoing happiness he can achieve in this life."
Estavillo had previously sued Sony after being banned from PSN and also has another suit against Microsoft and Nintendo, for his Xbox 360's Red Ring of Death and Nintendo's disabling of the Homebrew Channel in an update. Perhaps he'll have more luck suing over the design of a game in which millions happily pay to participate.
LGJ: Gaming's professional plaintiffs and class actions

The term "professional plaintiff" is thrown out at the idea that some people make their living as someone who partners with an attorney to bring so many lawsuits that their entire livelyhood rests on suing people. Googling the term will bring up dozens of results in many different areas of the law, but a series of events this week made me wonder if the game industry might just be the next target of this kind of behavior. Specifically, the reports of a class action over Xbox Live bannings and reports that the same person who sued Sony over being banned in Resistance is now suing Microsoft over red rings and Nintendo over homebrew.
So how does this professional plaintiff idea work? Speaking extremely generally, to bring a lawsuit, someone has to have standing, that is they suffered an injury and are substantially related to the harm that caused that injury so that they can sue over it. Past allegations of professional plaintiffs have often been related to suits related to the Americans with Disabilities Act, such that one disabled person is suing multiple establishments because they have standing to sue based on the lack of compliance with the Act. I'm sure many readers are thinking, "But how would this work in gaming? There are no gaming statutes that could give gamers standing to sue like that." Well, it's a pretty straightforward answer, actually.
Datel suing Microsoft over Max Memory card lockout

"Microsoft has taken steps to render inoperable the competing Datel memory card for no visible purpose other than to have that market entirely to themselves," Datel attorney Marty Glick explained in a press release. "They accomplished their recent update by making a system change that will not recognize or allow operation of a memory card with greater capacity than their own. We believe that with the power Microsoft enjoys in the market for Xbox accessories this conduct is unlawful."
In the press release, Datel goes on to say that the lawsuit is intended to "restore competition" which, the company suggests, is beneficial to consumers. It's now up to a federal court in San Francisco to determine whether the Max Memory-crippling Xbox update constitutes unlawful anti-competitive behavior on the part of Microsoft.
The last time Datel went to court, it viewed the experience from the other side. Sony filed suit against the peripheral maker over the "Lite Blue Tool," which would have enabled users to run unsigned code on PSP hardware.
Microsoft says it's 'well within legal rights' to ban consoles
It was reported earlier this month that the law firm AlbingtonIP is "investigating" the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Microsoft over the bans. The firm argues that timing of the bans -- shortly after the release of Halo 3: ODST and just prior to the launch of Modern Warfare 2 -- was designed to get as much money from Xbox Live subscriptions as possible. In other words, the firm believes that Microsoft personally waited for a time when many people -- modders in this case -- would be purchasing Live subscriptions for popular games -- money that probably wouldn't be refunded after a ban.
Joystiq's Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, classified the suit as a likely "cash grab," explaining that anyone savvy enough to mod an Xbox would know to stay well away from Xbox Live. We might add that major releases, like ODST and Modern Warfare 2, are the biggest targets for piracy, and likely correspond with rises in illegal downloads. And that just might have something to do with the timing of the bans in question.
[Via Kotaku]
Banned PSN player sues Nintendo and Microsoft
However, what Estavillo lacks in civil online discourse, he makes up for with sheer determination and persistence. In addition to Sony, he now has both Microsoft and Nintendo in his sights. Estavillo is seeking $75,000 from Microsoft for the "undue stress" and "sadness" caused by his Xbox 360's RROD. "Microsoft should have to bear the burden that is now put on the shoulders of this disabled plaintiff," his claim states -- a burden that is equivalent to the sum of 375 Xbox 360 systems, apparently. Nintendo is being sued for interfering with Estavillo's "pursuit of happiness." And how exactly is Nintendo doing that? "Deleting, blocking or prohibiting the Homebrew Channel and Ocarina applications" via a system update.
We're hoping you can see the sheer brilliance of Estavillo's strategy. He's offering the perfect opportunity for PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo fans to agree on something for once.
Firm considers class action over Xbox Live bannings
According to Joystiq legal columnist Mark Methenitis' analysis: "To me, this certainly sounds a lot like a cash grab directed at a company with deep pockets, but perhaps there are more facts than they are letting on." He explains that a user savvy enough to have a modded console would also know not to connect it to Live without "serious risk." Methenitis concludes, "If, in fact, Microsoft is inducing people to buy a service only to terminate them, then there's certainly a deceptive business practice concern. But this seems far more cut and dry than that."
[Thanks, C. Carl Carlston]
Ubisoft, Sony, EA and Disney sued over voice recognition patent
As is typical with lawsuits of this nature, the plaintiff is seeking "no less than a reasonable royalty" for the supposed use of this "stolen" technology. Should the case make it to court, the plaintiff will have a few hurdles to overcome. Primarily, lawyers will have to prove how a patent largely targeted towards accessing specific music tracks on audio CDs is applicable to the video games in question.
Considering it's been over seven years since the debut of the first SOCOM game, it's surprising that the plaintiff has waited so long to file this suit. Perhaps it's telling that the company going forward with the lawsuit has done so little in the thirteen years since filing the trademark that it has no web presence whatsoever.
[Via GamePolitics]
iPhone dev accused of harvesting player phone numbers
The company acknowledged the number harvesting in August, calling it a "bug," though the suit claims only specific code could have recorded and transmitted the numbers. So ... apparently that's a thing that happens. Have a great Saturday!
LGJ: Read the fine print!

Well, after the incident with Courtney Love and Kurt, it looks like the whole issue of famous musicians in games is back in the press with No Doubt suing Activision over Band Hero. A one time event is an anomaly, but twice in just a few months suggests something else. Of course, both of these all tie back to the contract, and since I'm a transactional attorney who spends the majority of most days negotiating and drafting agreements like these, I'm hoping I can shed a little light on what might be causing the problems. Since I wasn't involved in these particular negotiations nor have I read these contracts, all of what I'm presenting is speculation.
But before I begin, I suppose I should answer the simple question, "What is a contract?" I assume that most people reading this have at least some idea, but just in case, it's worth describing in detail. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties to perform certain promises in the future. In theory, to form a contract there are five elements: Offer and acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, and formalities. In reality, it's fairly simple. The parties must have a meeting of the minds, that is agree to the same terms, which is often viewed as an offer by one party and acceptance by the other. Each party must put up something of value, called consideration, for the contract to be valid. The parties must intend to enter into a contract, and be of the appropriate mental capacity to enter into the agreement. And then the agreement is generally recorded in writing, as most jurisdictions have rules that require written agreements, which is then signed by the parties. And that is how a contract is born, in theory anyway.


















