judge
Latest
Legal action between ZAM and Curse results in dismissal
So remember when Curse introduced their database last year called WoWDB, and we pointed out that it bore a strong resemblance to that other popular WoW database, Wowhead? Turns out ZAM, the owners of Wowhead after the acquisition a little while ago, agreed: completely under the radar last May, they filed a lawsuit for copyright infringment to the tune of no less than $1.5 million. ZAM says in the suit, copies of which we've obtained, that they've "expended substantial resources to maintain, update, and promote use of the WOWHEAD website so that it would become... one of the most recognized, and utilized websites designed to attract individuals" who play World of Warcraft. They claimed that WoWDB stole their look and layout purposely to create confusion among customers. This story wasn't reported in the WoW community at the time -- we hadn't heard about it at all until now.And then, in January of this year, the case was dismissed completely by a judge. We've also seen a copy of the order for dismissal, and from what it says, both sides wanted out: "Pursuant to the parties' stipulation for dismissal, the court hereby dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice." We don't have any information, however, why the case was suddenly dismissed, but there may have been an agreement made between the two parties -- either money changed hands or WoWDB offered to change its look (as you can see, there's still many similarities between the two sites). Or, as a third option, ZAM just decided it wasn't worth fighting -- according to the comments and activity on both sites, WoWDB doesn't seem to be a serious threat to Wowhead.We've contacted both sides for comment, and we'll let you know if we hear anything from either one. On the front of it, this looks like ZAM was merely covering themselves -- they filed suit just in case, but never found cause to follow through. But there may be some other agreement between these two companies that lead to the case's dismissal.
Blizzard responds to the Glider decision
Blizzard (via Nethaera) has released a nice long statement on the Glider outcome over on the forums. She basically runs through the history of the case and why Blizzard is against what Glider is doing, and why going through the courts was the only route left to them. She says that Warden (though called only "security measures") was enabled in response to player concerns about bots, and that when the MDY/Glider people circumvented Warden, their only recourse was to seek an injunction through the courts, which, as we've reported recently, they plan to have soon.She does say that Blizzard won based on the judge's decision that MDY did violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but Neth doesn't go any further into the issue, and doesn't elaborate at all on what might happen if this case is used as a precedent against other types of Terms of Use violations. As you might expect from an official Blizzard telling of the tale, the case is seen as a victory for Blizzard and their players -- for them, it's all about keeping bots out of Azeroth, and this decision will definitely help them do that.And that's obviously not a bad thing -- most players will agree that MDY was allowing players to cheat (by letting the game play automatically without them in control), and thus preventing the client from being used in-game is a good thing. It's just that DMCA issue that might be a nagging problem -- we'll have to see what happens with that in the future.
MBTA affirms that vulnerabilities exist, judge lifts gag order on MIT students
No surprise here, but the kids from MIT were (presumably) right all along. The three students who were muffled just before presenting their case at Defcon have finally been freed; the now-revoked gag order had prevented them from exposing insecurities in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ticket system, but during the same court setting, the MBTA fessed up and admitted that its current system was indeed vulnerable. Of note, it only confessed that its CharlieTicket system was susceptible to fraud, while simply not acknowledging any flaws in the more popular CharlieCard option. Pish posh -- who here believes it doesn't have dutiful employees working up a fix as we speak?
Variety judge disagrees with majority of E3 award winners, loves public drunkenness
Ben Fritz writes about video games for Variety and was one of the E3 judges this year -- and he's not too happy with this year's winners. He calls Mirror's Edge "gimmicky" and the Gears of War 2 improvements "minor." He was really pulling for Resistance 2, which he felt offered up a lot more than the original, and we'll admit that's a good point.However, he really laments the fact that Fable 2 didn't win anything. He hated the original Fable, but thinks that "the human interactions, from multiple gay marriages to public drunkenness, seem really fun" in the sequel. He also admits that he didn't care for last year's Super Mario Galaxy and disliked Mass Effect. Which is probably why the second comment from Just A Guy is "You suck."Update: Ben Fritz actually contacted us to let us know he didn't hate Super Mario Galaxy, he just "didn't lavish superlatives" on it. He goes on to tell us that the review he wrote of the game was "positive," but you can judge for yourself right here. With friends like that, who needs negative reviews? However, he did point out (and rightly so) that the headline implied that he doesn't like the E3 awards. In actuality, "I just personally disagree with the majority of the winners." Our bad, and we've fixed that.
South Korean judge defends RMT
In the MMO business, RMT is frequently treated as a dirty word. Though some companies are trying to embrace the trend with home-grown or acquired RMT designs, these efforts appear to be thinly-veiled attempts to curtail an undesirable black market by simply internalizing and controlling it. In an interesting (though somewhat old) paper on the Social Science Research Network, South Korean Judge Ung-gi Yoon argues that despite court cases in his country ruling to the contrary, the trading of virtual property is a practice that should be allowed under the existing law. While developers maintain a legal grasp on the IP rights that govern the ownership of in-game items and currency, Yoon argues that the very existence of trading within the game grants players a tacit right to exchange in-game items. And moreover, since what is being traded is really the right to use certain items earned in-game, the ability to transfer this right via RMT can be inferred without much controversy.The paper is thorough examination of the South Korean perspective on the topic, and deconstructs some oft-held misconceptions about the legality of certain clauses in MMO terms of service. It's a good read.
Brazil bans Bully
No sooner does Rockstar finally succeed in getting Manhunt 2 unbanned in the UK than another Rockstar game gets banned in another country. This time around it's Bully: Scholarship Edition that's been banned by a Brazilian judge, as the AP is reporting.According to the report, the ban prevents the game from "being imported, distributed, sold or promoted on Web sites and stores" in the country. Brazilian distributors and retailers will have thirty days to comply with the ban, which came in response to a request from a Brazilian youth center. "The aggravating factor is that everything in the game takes place inside a school" said prosecutor Alcindo Bastas. "That is not acceptable."A Take-Two spokesman said the decision "will not have a material impact on the sales of this popular title." We're relatively sure this is not the last we'll hear from the publisher about this matter.
ITC upholds ruling, reiterates that Nokia didn't violate Qualcomm patents
We remember when there was actually a glimmer of hope that the quarreling between these two may end -- man, was that a long time ago. Anyways, the International Trade Commission has reportedly upheld a judge's ruling made back in December which affirmed that Nokia did not violate Qualcomm patents. As expected, the latter firm expressed its utmost disappointment in the decision, and is already considering yet another appeal process. Then again, we may actually be a little sad if it didn't.[Via PhoneScoop]
Judge okays Amp'd sale, customers now free to join Prexar Mobile
We already had a decent hunch that Prexar Mobile would come into play here, but a Delaware judge has officially green lit the sale of Amp'd Mobile to United Systems Access, which will give "thousands of customers a chance to switch carriers in the wake of the startup venture's collapse." United Systems will reportedly offer service to Amp'd customers under its Prexar Mobile brand, and interestingly, Amp'd will be getting a "25-percent stake in Prexar." Additionally, it was noted that Amp'd Mobile will be paid according to "how many of its customers switch service to the small Maine-based wireless provider, what plans the customers choose, and how long they stay with the new carrier." And you thought you'd never hear from these guys again.[Via mocoNews]
Judge favors Microsoft over Google in search polemic
While it'd be easy for Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's deferment to be an end-all solution to the recent Google vs. Microsoft spat, we're inclined to believe that Google hasn't had its last word just yet. As it stands, the judge in charge has reportedly said that "she will likely defer to an agreement on desktop search forged between Microsoft and the plaintiffs in the US government's antitrust lawsuit against the software vendor instead of responding to a complaint from rival Google," and further explained that she didn't consider Google to "be a party in this case." Unfortunately, that's about all we've heard at the moment-- but stay tuned, this one's bound to go a few more rounds before the dust settles.
Jack Thompson's further Florida Bar issues
The day of reckoning for Jack Thompson approaches ever so slowly -- looks like somebody needs a luck dragon. Separately from another disciplinary hearing brought by the Florida Bar based on issues of misconduct, Thompson could be in trouble with the Florida Bar again over complaints filed by the judge from last year's Bully suit. The Florida Supreme Court has assigned a Miami judge for trial and if the complaints by the judge are upheld Thompson would face professional sanctions.The complaints brought by Judge Ronald Friedman were based on Thompson's conduct during the Bully trial. The Bar believes Thompson lashed out against Friedman during the trial making statements with "a reckless disregard as to [their] truth." The Bar points to statements made in the 15-page complaint which include gems from Thompson like, "Here's a tip, Judge, I don't practice law. I save lives from reckless jurists like you." And about the game Bully, Thompson says to Friedman, "You missed the gay sex ... I'm sure the voters are going to love that. Go ahead, Judge. File your bar complaint. Make my day."It's no secret at this point the Thompson's grip on reality is slipping. It seems the Florida Bar is looking to shut him down before he embarrasses the profession further. There is no word yet how this will affect Thompson's lawsuit to stop Manhunt 2 and Grand Theft Auto IV from hitting store shelves.
NTP's lawsuit against Palm officially put on hold
We already know how all that fighting eventually proved futile for Research in Motion, but it looks like Palm just might escape its own bout with NTP unscathed. Thanks to a federal judge in control of the situation, a stay of proceedings in the patent infringement case has been granted, which means that Palm can sit back, twiddle its thumbs, and hope with everything it has that the ongoing review by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) deems the issue invalid. Back in 2005, it was insinuated that patent owner's arguments were "nonpersuasive," but it still hasn't been thrown out just yet. Of course, if the past is any indication, Palm has about half a billion (if not more) reasons to hope it will be.
Judge favors Nano-Proprietary in Canon licensing quandary
We all had high hopes that SED TVs wouldn't become another case of "what could have been," but unfortunately for everyone, things aren't looking too bright right about now. Last we heard, Canon was reportedly all set to buy out Toshiba's display stake, theoretically squashing Nano-Proprietary's claim that licensing agreements would be breached if Tosh remained in the mix, but it seems that things just can't be so easy. A federal judge has now ruled that Canon "violated its agreement with Texas-based Nano-Proprietary by forming a joint television venture with Toshiba," and while "damages still need to be determined," it's fairly clear who will come out the victor in this scenario. Still, this just appears to be yet another snag in the development of new nanotube sets, and while we should all just be used to it by now, that glimmer of hope that Canon and Nano-Proprietary "could now develop a new licensing agreement" is still (currently) alive.
Judge limits New York police surveillance practices
Sure, we're all well aware that surveillance practices have been ratcheted up a notch or two since six or so years ago, but a judge in Manhattan has recently rebutted his own go-ahead from four years back to give the NYPD "greater authority to investigate political, social and religious groups." The most recent ruling states that by "videotaping people who were exercising their right to free speech and breaking no laws," the cops had ignored the milder limits he had imposed on it in 2003, seemingly squirming out from under his own misjudgments and placing the blame elsewhere. Nevertheless, he was clear that the voyeuristic limits only applied at events where people gather to exercise their rights under the First Amendment, while bridges, tunnels, airports, subways, and street traffic points could maintain their current level of surveillance -- and we thought this would mean those lamppost cameras couldn't pick us off whilst crossing the street with our iPod jamming.[Via BoingBoing]
Court rules that sly GPS tracking isn't unlawful
It's one thing to offload (illegally) a dozen or so GPS units from a storage facility and beg the police to nab you by leaving them turned on, but for the boys in blue to slide a tracking device into your ride to keep dibs on your doings, well that's another matter entirely. Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals "ruled against a defendant who claimed that the surreptitious placement of a GPS tracking device amounted to an unconstitutional search," essentially giving the coppers the green light to add a GPS module to a suspicious ride sans a warrant. While we're sure the privacy advocates out there are screaming bloody murder, the district judge found that they had had a "reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity," and it seems that a well-placed hunch is all they need for lawful placement. Interestingly, the government argues that no warrant was needed since "there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment," but did add that "wholesale surveillance of the entire population" was to be viewed differently. So while this may come as a shock to some folks out there, it's not like your vehicles have been entirely devoid of data capturing devices up until now anyway, so here's fair warning to be on your best behavior when rolling about.
Japanese Hardware Sales: 8 Jan - 14 Jan: Turnabout edition [update 2]
[Update 2: Date mix-up!] Judge - Court is now in session. Mr. Edgeworth, your opening statement.Edgeworth - My case is simple. I shall prove that the defendant, the Nintendo Wii, is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. His abject sabotage and subsequent murder of the DS Lite is immediately evident to those of us not blinded by a foolish, persistent belief in their clients.Judge - And Mr. Wright?Phoenix - He's ... wait, what did he say? Maya - C'mon, Nick! Pay attention! Judge - Mr. Edgeworth, you may call your first witness.Objection! Judge - ...Phoenix - ...Judge - Overruled. Phoenix - Sunnuva ... !
RIAA petitions to lower artist royalties, weakens piracy arguments
Sure, the RIAA hasn't exactly been on the good side of the general public since, oh, this century began, but it sure isn't doing itself any favors with this latest hint of persuasion. While the agency has fought grandmothers, children, and cash-strapped citizens quite vigorously to "ensure artists are getting due payment," it has seemingly opened up a chink in its own armor by pleading with judges to "lower artist royalties." While we fully understand the need to keep pirates at bay, leading us on to believe that the RIAA was actually acting in the (gasp) artist's best interest was dodgy to say the least, as its currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to "lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for the use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cellphone ringtones and other digital recordings." The RIAA's executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks even went so far as to proclaim his hopes that rates would be reevaluated so "record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers." We're surely not ones to judge a man's character (nor an album by its jacket), but it doesn't seem that the dear ole musicians are really the ones atop the RIAA's list of concerns, now does it?[Thanks, Nimro]
"Obvious" patent laws could become relaxed, tech firms rejoice
Lawsuits in the technology biz certainly aren't uncommon, and it looks like we may have one more significant ruling about to hit just shortly after CSIRO won its own landmark case. The US Supreme Court justices seem to be viewing earlier, lower cases with a hint of skepticism in regard to decisions that have previously worked to safeguard patented products. While the trial at hand concerns two brake manufacturers -- KSR International and rival Teleflex -- the stipulations could be far reaching; the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously ruled that KSR failed to prove that Teleflex (the accuser) "did not encounter teaching, suggestion, or motivation in developing the product." The generally ambiguous test is a thorn in the side of major technology companies getting slapped around by frivolous lawsuits, and Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco Systems have all made time to "submit briefs supporting KSR's stand." Still, the final decision isn't expected for quite some time, so sue-happy firms still have time to submit their counter-briefs, but folks like Vonage and TomTom (just to name a couple) would obviously (ahem) love a victory here.[Via Slashdot]
Florida court OKs Bully
Destructoid has the scoop straight from the Florida courthouse where Judge Ronald Friedman has just declared that he will not honor Jack Thompson's request to restrict sales of Bully in advance of the game's shipment next Tuesday. The ruling comes after the judge viewed a demonstration of various parts of the game by a Take Two employee for two hours and determined "there's nothing in the game that you wouldn't see on TV every night." He added that he would not approve of the game for his children, but that fact alone "shouldn't mean that the game won't ship."While the case could still be appealed, Destructoid notes that Thompson expressed no interest in doing so because any appellate ruling would come after the game was already in stores. So while this doesn't necessarily mean that our favorite lawyer will "drop the whole thing," as he put it, it does mean that the path is clear for the game to reach stores.
Court rules in favor of Midwestern Nextel spinoff
The endless barrage of legal fallout resulting from Sprint Nextel's merger continues, the latest onslaught coming from iPCS, a Sprint affiliate operating throughout much of the Midwest. According to Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, the merger violated Sprint's agreement with iPCS to not infringe on their territory (a common theme in affiliates' lawsuits) and is demanding that Sprint file a plan for divesting itself of its Nextel operations in Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, and Nebraska by September 6. Naturally, Sprint intends to appeal "vigorously," though as in so many other cases, an acquisition ultimately seems possible -- if not probable.
Lousiana judge blocks JT-penned bill
The recently-signed Louisiana violent games bill has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Baton Rouge, pending a hearing on June 30th. The bill gained notoriety among gaming circles due to its author: famed anti-game activist Jack Thompson. The law, recently signed by Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco, would have taken effect immediately.The Entertainment Software Association has already mounted a lawsuit to strike this new law from the records. So far, their track record is flawless, so we are betting the same will be said here.
