Legal
Latest
Target can't dodge lawsuits from banks after huge data breach
When Target was, well, targeted by hackers in search of customer payment information late last year, legal backlash from banks was probably one of the last things the company's brass was worried about. They've got to be singing a different tune now, as the New York Times reports that a United States District Judge has shot down Target's attempt to dismiss lawsuits brought on by banks displeased with the retailer's security chops.
Eddy Cue testifies: Apple once contemplated licensing its Fairplay DRM to competitors
With Apple's iPod class action lawsuit underway, Apple executive Eddy Cue took to the stand today and testified about Apple's implementation of DRM on iTunes music files back in the mid-2000s. Recall that the current suit alleges that Apple actively took measures to prevent songs purchased from competing music stores from playing on the iPod. What's more, Apple even went so far as to subtly remove unauthorized songs from users' iPods by instructing them to restore their device to factory settings. For its part, Apple argues that this was done to prevent malicious activity. In any event, Cue -- known as an integral part of Apple's negotiating team -- spoke today about Apple's original implementation of DRM on the iTunes Music Store. While cynics are quick to argue that Apple engaged in anti-competitive behavior, Cue relayed that Apple, in fact, wasn't keen on DRM at the outset. On the contrary, Cue emphasized a fact that has been repeated time and time again: namely that the implementation of DRM was done at the behest of music executives fearful of music piracy gone wild. Interestingly enough, The Verge reports that Apple, per Cue's testimony, at one point contemplated licensing their homegrown DRM technology, dubbed Fairplay, to the market at large. "We thought about licensing the DRM from beginning, it was one of the things we thought was the right move that because we can expand the market and grow faster," Cue told the court. "But we couldn't find a way to do that and have it work reliably." The Verge report adds some color as to why Apple didn't ultimately go down this route: As issue, Cue said, were things like interoperability with the growing multitude of MP3 players. New devices from other companies would come out, and might not work with that system. "Others tried to do this, and it failed miserably," Cue said. "One of those was Microsoft." Cue also noted that when Apple first floated the idea of the iTunes Store to record labels, that they rebuked the idea because they had their own stores with DRM systems that could be different from song to song, and from device to device. DRM-laden music on the iTunes Store was long a controversial topic as it famously, and frustratingly, prevented consumers from playing music they owned on competing devices. While there were workarounds such as burning purchased songs to a CD and uploading them back up to iTunes, the problem still annoyed many users before Apple ultimately did away with DRM restricted music in late 2009.
Old Steve Jobs emails resurface as part of iPod antitrust lawsuit
It's hard to believe that in 2014, we're still talking about the iPod as a monopoly. Hell, it's strange that we're even talking about the iPod at all. But thanks to a slow winding judicial process, a class action suit against Apple stemming from its business practices in the mid-2000s is getting underway today in California. The suit alleges that Apple took pro-active measures to prevent songs from competing music stores from being playable on the iPod. And as one might expect, some of the key evidence in the case comes from Steve Jobs himself, both in the form of old emails and a video deposition the Apple co-founder sat for back in 2011. With the trial getting underway today, a number of statements from Jobs have already emerged. Some point to Apple doing all it can to keep the iPod free from competing music stores while others are simply vintage Jobs. Here are a few of the Jobsian highlights we've seen so far. In 2003, upon learning of a music store called Music Match, Jobs emailed Apple executives to ensure that songs from that store would not be playable on the iPod. We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod. Is this going to be an issue? In 2005, plaintiffs point to yet another email from Jobs, this one in response to a start-up working on a product which would have made music not purchased on the iTunes Store playable on the iPod. In an email to Jeff Robbin -- of SoundJam MP fame -- Jobs wrote that Apple "may need to change things here." The New York Times, which has seen many of the documents in question, adds that Robbin and the iTunes team were quick to "develop a stronger security system to prevent unauthorized third parties from injecting content into iPods." Apple, of course, contends that the reason they were so vigilant about keeping an eye on files from other music stores is security. Whether you buy that argument or not, that's what Apple is selling. But back to Jobs because, well, he wasn't your typical CEO. The Times further relays that during Jobs' 2011 video deposition, the Apple co-founder was asked about RealNetworks and their involvement in the music download market. A transcript of the deposition included Ms. Sweeney questioning him about RealNetworks, a company that had come up with a way to allow songs sold in its store to play on iPods and other media players. Mr. Jobs responded "I don't remember" to many of the questions. But when asked whether he was familiar with RealNetworks, he replied bluntly, "Do they still exist?" As the trial progresses, we can likely expect to see quite a few more entertaining quips from Jobs emerge.
Eddy Cue: Apple didn't settle e-book antitrust lawsuit because "we feel we have to fight for the truth"
Going head to head with the DOJ over antitrust allegations has been nothing short of a headache for Apple. If you recall, Apple was taken to task for allegedly conspiring with publishers to artificially inflate the price of e-books across the board. Though Apple could have settled the issue out of court, Tim Cook said that Apple wanted its day in court because it had done nothing wrong. For Apple, Tim Cook said a few months back, it was a matter of principle. As it turns out, a principled stance doesn't come cheap, or easy for that matter. Apple ended up losing its case, and in the process, was slapped with a number of punishments, including an external anti-trust monitor they desperately tried to get rid of but must keep on the payroll for two years. Further, if Apple's upcoming appeal falls through, they'll have to fork over $450 million to affected class members. Speaking on the matter to Fortune, Apple executive and key negotiator Eddy Cue reiterated why Apple chose not to settle, instead opting for what turned out to be a thorny legal battle. Echoing previous statements made by Tim Cook, Cue explained that for Apple's it's a simple matter of right and wrong. We feel we have to fight for the truth. Luckily, Tim feels exactly like I do, which is: You have to fight for your principles no matter what. Because it's just not right. As for the irrefutable fact that the price of some e-books increased following Apple's deal with publishers, Cue notes that it wasn't the result of some secretive conspiratorial agreement, but rather something that the publishers were open about wanting. Is it a fact that certain book prices went up? Yes. If you want to convict us on that, then we're guilty. I knew some prices were going to go up, but hell, the whole world knew it, because that's what the publishers were saying: 'We want to get retailers to raise prices, and if we're not able to, we're not going to make the books available digitally.' At the same time, other prices went down too, because now there was competition in the market. Again, Apple ultimately lost the legal battle when Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple colluded with publishing houses to increase the price of e-books. Apple's appeal is slated to begin on December 15. If Cote's ruling is overturned, Apple will be in the clear. If the ruling is upheld, Apple will be on the hook for the full $450 million.
iPod antitrust lawsuit set to kick off tomorrow
The iPod's glory days are long gone, but plaintiffs certainly have long memories. Add a slow-moving judicial system into the equation and what we have, in a broad sense, is an upcoming anti-trust trial regarding Apple's ancient efforts to restrict music purchased on the iTunes Music Store to the iPod. The original claim against Apple goes all the way back to 2005 and is rooted in Apple's previous efforts to lock DRM-laden music tracks to Apple MP3 players exclusively. The lawsuit additionally alleges that Apple in the mid-2000s took measures to prevent the iPod from playing songs purchased from competing music stores. Apple, of course, would eventually do away with music-based DRM in 2009, but the lawsuit soldiered on. And so, here we are in 2014 with a trial set to kick off regarding issues that have long since been rendered irrelevant. CNET reports: The case involves two plaintiffs, Melanie (Tucker) Wilson and Marianna Rosen. Both are consumers who purchased audio downloads and iPods directly from Apple. They argue they paid more for iPods than they would have paid if Apple hadn't violated antitrust regulations. In a 2010 filing, the plaintiffs said they "suffered injury" to their property "in the form of overcharges." ... The plaintiffs say because music from other stores wouldn't work with iTunes and iPods, customers were forced to buy more music directly from iTunes. When it came time for consumers to buy new music players, they had to buy iPods because of all the iTunes music they owned. Because demand was higher for iPods, the prices increased, causing consumers to overpay for Apple's music players, they say. The trial will get underway tomorrow and, interestingly enough, will feature deposition and video testimony from Steve Jobs. In one potentially eyebrow-raising email highlighted by the New York Times, Jobs in 2003 emailed Apple executives and expressed concern that songs from a rival music service would be playable on the iPod. "We need to make sure that when Music Match launches their download music store they cannot use iPod," Jobs said at the time. "Is this going to be an issue?" Apple contends that many of the strict barriers it put up around its iPod/iTunes kingdom were put into place a) at the behest of music labels and b) to ensure a safe and functional user experience. All told, the plaintiffs are seeking $350 million in damages. CNET has a comprehensive overview of all the pertinent facts and issues of the case that's certainly worth a look.
CCP Games kills a fan remake of Vampire: the Masquerade - Bloodlines
With World of Darkness canned, the closest fans can get to experiencing the source material in video game form comes from Activision's 2003 Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines. Unfortunately, the game was released in a half-finished state and suffers from multiple glitches, balance issues, and general weirdness, not to mention graphics that have aged very poorly. Fortunately, the fan community rallied and set to work on an unofficial remake requiring the original. Double-unfortunately, CCP Games sent that fan remake a cease-and-desist. Although Activision technically owns the rights to the game, the IP remains in the hands of CCP due to its acquisition of White Wolf several years prior. The fans responsible for the remake are attempting to negotiate a way to keep development going, as the remake would have been unplayable without the original game. It's bad news for fans of the flawed but brilliant title and really anyone who would like to play a game based off the franchise any time within the next decade.
Judge Cote approves Apple's proposed $450 million settlement agreement in e-book antitrust case
At long last, the ongoing legal drama surrounding Apple's e-book antitrust violations is seemingly behind us. Reuters reports that Judge Denise Cote recently approved a proposed US$450 million settlement agreement that will see Apple fork over cash to upwards of 23 million consumers provided that Apple's appeal falls through. Apple initially agreed to a $450 million settlement this past July only to have Judge Cote state that the terms of the proposed settlement agreement were troubling. The reason? Well, there are a few. For starters, Cote wasn't keen on Apple not having to pay interest on the damages amount during the appeals process. Further, Cote was similarly leery of the fact that Apple wouldn't be liable for any damages if her decision regarding Apple's alleged collusion with publishing houses was overturned. Examples of Cote's seeming bias against Apple have been well documented, so it's finally nice to see cooler heads prevail. A settlement agreement, if ultimately needed, is in place, and now all eyes will be on Apple's appeal.
Activision Blizzard resolves class action lawsuits
When Activision Blizzard bought itself to be freed from Vivendi, there was no shortage of unhappy shareholders, leading to several class action lawsuits filed against the company and other attendant actors in response to the whole process. Those suits have now been resolved and the case is now closed; the parties have settled out of court, with the proposed settlement seeing some of the defendants paying a total of $275 million to Activision Blizzard as well as multiple insurance companies. The Board of Directors wrote in a statement that "the transaction, structured through the efforts and significant personal investment of Bobby Kotick and Brian Kelly, has contributed to the creation of over $3 billion of value for shareholders" and that they are "pleased to be able to put this matter to rest." Adjustments have also been made to said Activision Blizzard board of directors and aspects of the corporate structure, with the company paying all legal fees of the plaintiffs. Since multiple defendants were involved in the suit (including Activision Blizzard itself), it's still unclear exactly who took the hit for this particular lawsuit, but it does mean that the matter has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Why celebrities like Lindsay Lohan are suing video game studios
In July 2014, Lindsay Lohan sued Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar Games, claiming that Grand Theft Auto V featured a character who is allegedly based on the Mean Girls actress. According to the suit, filed in the New York Supreme Court, the cover of the game depicts a bikini-clad woman who bears a striking resemblance to LiLo. And the game itself apparently consists of more similarities, including the fact that the character runs from paparazzi, takes cover in the Chateau Marmont and incorporates Lohan's "image, likeness, clothing, outfits, [Lohan's] clothing line products, ensemble in the form of hats, hair style, sunglasses [and] jean shorts." Also in July, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega filed suit in California Superior Court against Activision Blizzard Inc., the makers of Call of Duty: Black Ops II, for using his likeness without permission. According to the complaint, Activision depicted Noriega as "a kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state," (the audacity!) and the makers implied that he was "the culprit of numerous fictional heinous crimes, creating the false impression that defendants are authorized to use [his] image and likeness." Lohan's and Noriega's suits were filed in two different states, and because of this, the applicable laws vary a bit. Lohan's battle is ongoing while Noriega's has been dismissed. One involves a celebrity, and the other a political figure. On the face of it, these two suits don't have all that much in common. The thread that connects them both –- and most lawsuits involving the use of a person's likeness in a video game -– is the right of publicity.
Blizzard fights Snail Games over panda design
Fresh off of a win with its Hearthstone lawsuit, Blizzard is jumping right back in to the legal waters with a fight against Snail Games. What did Snail do to anger the glacial giant so? Apparently, the developer is coming out with a mobile game named Taichi Panda that features a panda, and you can already see where this is going. Blizzard and its Chinese partner NetEase claims that Snail's panda design is far too similar to those seen in World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria. NetEase also has an issue with Shaman and Goblin art styles in the mobile game. NetEase is requesting that Apple take down the mobile app, while Snail is defending its design choices.
Snail Games sued by former director of development on Age of Wushu
Breaking up is hard to do, especially when you're dealing with an international corporation and it's less a matter of "breaking up" and more a matter of "being terminated, then filing a lawsuit." David Runyan, former director of game development at Snail Games USA during Age of Wushu's development, is suing the company's founder and CEO Shi Hai on the grounds of unfair termination and racist practices during his year with the company. Runyan claims that Shi Hai made frequent and capricious change to the staff of Snail Games USA, spoke in racist terms about the Americans he was working with, and then ultimately fired Runyan due to a medically approved period when he was working from his home. Snail Games has yet to make any comment in response to the lawsuit. Offers to settle this matter via an honorable duel in Age of Wushu were apparently not entertained.
Judge allows class action suit against Apple over disappearing iMessages to proceed
Judge Lucy Koh -- who you might remember from her time officiating Apple and Samsung's patent trials -- ruled on Tuesday that a class action lawsuit against Apple over missing text messages can proceed. The problem at issue arises when iPhone users abandon ship and hop on over to an Android phone or any other non-iOS device. In such a scenario, some users discovered that messages from other iPhone users weren't going through, even though the sender's would get a "Delivered" receipt in their Messages app. The underlying cause is that iMessages should have been forwarded to the new device but, instead, were being routed to what was ostensibly a still active iMessage account. While this scenario has been a longstanding problem for some, a few solutions -- such as disassociating one's number from its corresponding Apple ID and deactivating iMessage altogether -- helped alleviate the problem for many. It's worth noting that the ultimate key to prevention, according to Apple, is to deactivate iMessage before switching to a non-iOS device. Addressing the issue head-on, Apple yesterday released a web-based tool that enables users to deregister their number from Apple's iMessage database entirely. Nonetheless, a frustrated Android user who initially sued Apple over the matter in May of 2014 has now been given the green light to proceed with a planned class action. Reuters reports: Apple was ordered to face a U.S. federal lawsuit claiming it failed to tell consumers that its messaging system would block them from receiving text messages if they switched to Android-based smartphones from iPhones. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California said Apple must face plaintiff Adrienne Moore's claim that the message blocking interfered with her contract with Verizon Wireless for wireless service, which she kept after switching in April to a Samsung Galaxy S5 from an iPhone 4. By inhibiting the plaintiff's receipt of text messages after switching to a competing device, Apple stands accused of violating California's unfair competition laws. In a statement on the matter, Apple said: Apple takes customer satisfaction extremely seriously, but the law does not provide a remedy when, as here, technology simply does not function as plaintiff subjectively believes it should. For more details as to the legal nuts and bolts, TechCrunch yesterday posted Judge Koh's full ruling alongside Apple's failed motion which sought to dismiss the suit altogether.
Blizzard wins lawsuit and shuts down Hearthstone clone
Back in January we reported that Blizzard levied a lawsuit against Unico Interactive for its game, Legend of Crouching Dragon, which Blizzard claimed was a reskinned clone of Hearthstone. It looks as though the courts agreed, awarding Blizzard and its Chinese partner NetEase $1.6 million due to copyright infringement. Legend of Crouching Dragon has been removed from app stores, and Unico said that it will be reimbursing players for money spent on it to date. Even with the ruling, Unico remains defiant against "false stories" in the press and claims that it hasn't seen any official order to pay compensation to Blizzard.
What you need to know about Airbnb's legal challenges
Currently, there are over 800,000 Airbnb listings in more than 34,000 cities and 190 countries. With upwards of 20 million guests, it's safe to say that Airbnb has nestled its way into the hearts of many a traveler. It's really not surprising that the masses have been charmed by Airbnb, right? Because as exciting as it is to make travel plans for, say, a vacation, there's always that little tinge of anxiety about leaving the comforts of home (at least for some of us). But Airbnb offers something to assuage that anxiety by allowing you to stay in another person's home. No, this is not the same as being in your own space, but some might argue that it's more comforting than the sometimes methodical feel of a hotel. And the icing on the cake? While you're away on your vacation, Airbnb allows you to make some money with your empty space – also known as hosting. Airbnb's story is not just "unique travel experiences," affordable prices and monetizing your unused space. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the audience), there are laws in place that are meant to limit when, where and how you can list your space.
Court docs reveal Apple told GTAT, "Put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement"
Apple can be a notoriously tough partner to negotiate with. With endless mounds of cash in the bank and an ever growing userbase, the company can understandably wield a tremendous amount of power during contract talks. A prime example of this is Apple's recent partnership with GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT). GTAT, as you might recall, filed for bankruptcy a few weeks ago. In the wake of that, GT Advanced COO Daniel Squiller recently submitted an affidavit to the court which illustrates just how tough a negotiating partner Apple can be. To put it mildly, negotiating with Apple is not for the faint of heart. According to Squiller, "Apple embedded itself in the operations of GTAT at the Mesa Facility" that forced GTAT to "divert an inordinate amount of its cash and corporate resources to its operations at the Mesa Facility." As a direct result, Squiller notes that GTAT's viability as a whole was impacted. Apple also embedded itself in GTAT's facility in Salem, Massachusetts that took on the function of an experimental research and development center for the Apple project. Consequently, GTAT has been unable to use that facility for other revenue streams. The affidavit further reads: With a classic bait-and-switch strategy, Apple presented GTAT with an onerous and massively one-sided deal in the fall of 2013. At the outset of negotiations, Apple had offered GTAT what would have been the company's largest sale ever; an order for 2,600 sapphire growing furnaces. In that scenario, GTAT would operate teh furnaces on Apple's behalf, but Apple would own the furnaces. Apple's size and prominence make it the ultimate technology client to land. The deal with Apple was viewed as a potential game-changer for GTAT. In hindsight, it is unclear whether Apple ever intended to purchase any sapphire furnaces from GTAT. Indeed, after months of extensive negotiations over price and related terms, Apple demanded a fundamentally different deal: Apple no longer wanted to buy furnaces from GTAT; instead, Apple offered an arrangement that required GTAT to borrow money from Apple to purchase furnace components and assemble furnaces that would be used to grow sapphire for Apple. The new structure, as a contract matter, shifted all economic risk to GTAT, because Apple would act as a lender and would have no obligation to purchase any sapphire furnaces, nor did it have any obligation to purchase any sapphire material produced by GTAT. At the same time, Apple constrained GTAT from doing business with any other manufacturer in or supplier to the consumer electronics market, subject to extreme penalties... Of course, the counter to this is that GTAT entered contract negotiations with Apple at arms length and no one forced the company to sign anything it didn't want to sign. GTAT's deal with Apple was a calculated risk. Of course Apple wouldn't blindly agree to buy a product without first testing it to see if it met its technical specifications. For GTAT to complain about this fact seems rather strange given its position as a sophisticated company more than capable of negotiating complex and large-scale contracts. In any event, the best portion of the affidavit relays that when GTAT was unsure about signing on the dotted line, Apple said, "Put on your big boy pants and accept the agreement." Another gem: Apple told GTAT that there's no incentive for them to negotiate because they don't negotiate with suppliers. AppleInsider has more on some of the details surrounding Apple's secretive supplier agreements over here.
EFF wants to legalize tinkering with shuttered online games
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking six exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, one of which may affect your enjoyment of video games and possibly MMOs at some point in the future. In a nutshell, the EFF wants to legalize tinkering with titles which have had their online functions terminated. "The fair use doctrine enables the manipulation and copying of software code in order to gain access to the ideas and functions embedded within it that are not protected by copyright, including server communication protocols," the EFF says. Unfortunately for MMO emulator fans, the petition doesn't apply to "persistent world" titles at present.
Apple faces iPhone trademark challenge in India
According to Patently Apple, the Cupertino company may be facing another trademark battle over the iPhone name. This time the skirmish is taking place in India, where a technology firm is challenging the Cupertino company's legal rights over the iPhone name. iVoice Enterprises, based in Tamil Nadu, has asked India's Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to re-evaluate the iPhone trademark that belongs to Apple. Rather than dismissing the rectification petition, the IPAB is asking Apple to respond to the challenge and has given the company until November to respond. Several years ago, Xerox faced similar situation when photocopy shop owner B.V.I. Himachalpathy filed a rectification petition that claimed the Xerox name was a generic term and no longer subject to trademark. The IPAB sided with Xerox in that case, but a similar favorable outcome is not guaranteed with Apple.
Court rules: Touch ID is not protected by the Fifth Amendment but Passcodes are
Advances in technology always make for interesting interpretations of established law. Most recently, a Virginia Beach Circuit Court this week ruled that an individual in a criminal proceeding cannot be forced to divulge the passcode to his cellphone as it would violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. At the same time, the Court held that an individual can be compelled to give up his fingerprint to unlock Touch ID, or any fingerprint protected device for that matter. The Court reasoned that while a passcode requires a defendant to divulge actual knowledge, a fingerprint is a form of physical evidence, akin to a handwriting sample or DNA that authorities are already legally allowed to demand in certain circumstances. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that while authorities can compel an individual to hand over a physical key to a locked safe, they can't compel an individual to provide them with a combination to said safe; the key in this example is nothing more than physical evidence while the combination, based on an individual's unique knowledge, is categorized as "testimonial." Mashable adds: "It's exactly what we thought it would happen when Apple announced its fingerprint ID," Hanni Fakhoury, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told Mashable. (Android phones such as the Galaxy S5 and HTC One Max also have fingerprint ID systems.) While the ruling in Virginia Beach is not as binding as a Supreme Court decision, it does establish legal precedent other local courts can draw on. More importantly, "it's just a good wake-up call for people to realize that fingerprint ID doesn't necessarily provide the same sort of legal protection than a password does," Fakhoury says. The ruling shouldn't be taken to mean that it's now open season on Touch ID enabled iPhones. Keep in mind that when Touch ID hasn't been used for 48 hours, a passcode, in addition to a fingerprint, is required in order to unlock a device. As relayed by The Virginian-Pilot, the ruling stems from a case involving a man charged with strangling his girlfriend. Authorities had reason to believe that video footage of the couple's altercation might be located on the defendant's cellphone and "wanted a judge to force" the defendant hand over the passcode.
Manuel Noriega's Call of Duty lawsuit dismissed by LA court
Manuel Noriega's attempt to sue Activision has been dismissed by a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge who ruled that the former Panamanian dictator's unauthorized cameo in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is protected by America's free speech laws. In the game, Noriega helps players track down a Nicaraguan activist, before switching allegiances and forcing the player to hunt and capture the virtual Noriega in what is a loose metaphor for the real Noriega's involvement with the CIA in the 1980s. The former dictator's lawsuit claimed this appearance portrays him as a "kidnapper, murderer and enemy of the state," and that his cameo enhanced sales of Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, for which Noriega believed he deserves compensation. "This ruling is an important victory and we thank the court for protecting free speech," said former New York City mayor and Activision co-counsel Rudy Giuliani. "This was an absurd lawsuit from the very beginning and we're gratified that in the end, a notorious criminal didn't win. This is not just a win for the makers of Call of Duty, but is a victory for works of art across the entertainment and publishing industries throughout the world." Noriega remains incarcerated in Panama for crimes committed against the country during his rule. [Image: Activision]
Seldon Crisis rebrands as Sudden Crisis
Seldon Crisis -- the name, at least -- is no more. The science-fiction sandbox has rebranded itself as Sudden Crisis following an IP dispute that left its Kickstarter campaign neutered. "We want to let everyone know that the project and game now has a new name: Sudden Crisis," the studio posted to Facebook. "Everything stays the same, this is the last change needed to separate us from one world and open a new one, one wholly created by us and you. You will shortly see the change take effect across our sites." Sudden Crisis is currently in the middle of an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for the project.
