supreme court
Latest
Entertainment Software Association files brief in Supreme Court case
The Entertainment Software Association and Entertainment Merchants Association have voiced their side of the upcoming Supreme Court review of the 2005 California law which prohibits the sale of "offensively violent" games to minors. The two organizations have filed a joint brief in the Supreme Court, which explicitly states (several times) that "the California statute is unnecessary, unwarranted, and unconstitutional." The brief adds, "it would threaten freedom of expression not just for video games, but for all art forms. It would also tie up our courts in endless debates about what constitutes acceptable creative expression in our media. It protects no one and assaults the constitutional rights of artists and storytellers everywhere." Of course, in these matters, it would be irresponsible for us to side with one of the two involved parties but OH MAN COME ON THE ESA IS TOTALLY RIGHT. Check out the entirety of the brief on the ESA's official site. Stay tuned -- Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association will go into oral argument November 2.
Violent video game case gets its date in Supreme Court on Nov. 2
It's been a long road for the California bill backed by Governor Schwarzenegger that seeks to keep violent video games from being sold to minors. But the end is finally in sight: The Entertainment Consumer Association has announced that the case, known as Schwarzenegger vs. EMA (Entertainment Merchants Association), will go before US Supreme Court on November 2. As an outside party, the ECA will submit an amicus brief in the case and has set up a website for a petition and more information about the pending arguments. So far, lower courts have judged the proposed law, which would set up legal rules and penalties against selling violent video games to minors, to be unconstitutional. Of course, this time around, we're talking about the United States Supreme Court, so any decision in favor of the bill would overturn previous rulings in lesser courts. Take that, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals! Oral arguments in the case begin November 2, and the judges should have a decision soon after that. This will be the first time the Supreme Court looks at video games and the First Amendment, so a ruling either way should be pretty historic.
Eleven states issue support for California game law
[Image Source] If you thought a bill banning the sale of violent video games to kids was misinformed, unfair and wrong-headed when it it was being pushed forth by California, you'll be tempted to add "downright scary" to the list when you read this: Gamasutra reports that 11 states have joined together to form a Voltron of Wrong in support of the bill. If you: (1) Believe that a medium that's doing a fine job of regulating itself shouldn't be regulated by the government just because their old, old thumbs can't work the controllers and (2) live in Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas or Virginia, now would be a fine time to call your local representative.
EA's Jeff Green chimes in on California game law Supreme Court case
[Image Source] If you were looking for a concise explanation of why you should care about the upcoming Supreme Court review of California's oft-defeated measure to outlaw the sale of "excessively" violent games to minors, look no further than the blog of EA's Jeff Green. Then again, you've probably heard his argument before: Films have the MPAA, and games have the ESRB. Why does Gov. Schwarzenegger think the first can be self-regulated, while the second must be restricted by state law? Green worries that, should the law be reenacted, it could have "a chilling effect on the gaming industry as a whole," forcing developers to constantly second-guess the content that goes into their games. He encourages everyone who wants to voice their opinion on the bill to speak up on this ECA-penned petition.
ESA 'humble' about chances against California in Supreme Court case
[Laura Padgett] Entertainment Software Association President Michael Gallagher mentioned in a briefing yesterday that he has a "great amount of respect for the Supreme Court" and feels modest about the trade group's chances of defeating the California game law heading to the United States' highest court. "We're very humble about our prospects before the court greatly. We believe we're on the side of right here," Gallagher stated. "We've believed that for 10 years. That hasn't wavered one iota. You go into this preparing to win, but also very prepared to handle the other conclusions as well." The State of California and ESA will submit briefs to the court, along with supporting briefs, over the next few months. Oral arguments are expected this fall with a decision by the court next spring. Asked if he believes winning will change the way States go about game laws, Gallagher explained, "[State government] moves like lightning and moves -- depending on where you are -- in an informed or uninformed manner. If we win, then we feel we'll be done at long last with these content issues. Video games ... it's already been recognized through a dozen decisions that we're entitled to the same first amendment treatment as movies, as music, as books. That is what we're hoping will be the law of the land at the conclusion of this case. So, we win, we can put this behind us and focus on incentives for the industry." Gallagher expressed those incentives included focusing on jobs and tax incentives for the industry, instead of regulatory issues. Of course, if the Supreme Court finds in favor of California, the executive believes states will react immediately and the industry will be embroiled in trying to figure out what to do. He also notes that such a decision wouldn't just be about regulating games, but it opens up the door to going after movies, television and books.
Supreme Court ruling states NFL teams are separate entities
According to USA Today, a recent Supreme Court ruling has denied the National Football League antitrust law protections, stating that its 32 constituent teams must be considered separate entities. The court reversed the dismissal of a suit filed against the league by American Needle, Inc., a company which was locked out of the football-themed hatmaking business after the NFL penned a 10-year exclusivity agreement with Reebok. Gee, that sounds awfully familiar. The case of American Needle v. NFL has returned to the lower courts, where a decision in favor of the former could drastically change the face of the NFL's licensing business. In short, if the district courts find the league in violation of antitrust laws, it could repeal exclusivity agreements like the one with Reebok -- or, likely more pertinent to your interests, the one with EA Sports, which brought a hasty end to the NFL2K series. We'll keep an eye out for further developments in this lawsuit.
ECA: Supreme Court case is 'single most important challenge' ever for game industry
This October is the earliest we could possibly see some movement on the US Supreme Court appeal of AB 1179, the California-based violent game bill that would fine retailers who sell M-rated titles to kids. But that's not stopping the Entertainment Consumer's Association from submitting an amicus brief to the court, not to mention a recently created online petition "which will be attached and submitted along with the brief, both formally becoming part of the official court documents," the lobby group announced today. "The gaming sector, as a whole, has arrived at perhaps the single most important challenge it has ever faced in the US," ECA prez Hal Halpin notes in the release. "Anyone who cares about gaming should feel compelled to both sign the petition and encourage their friends and family to do similarly." Given the online nature of the petition, we're also encouraging all of our pets and invisible friends to sign up. In all seriousness, though, signing wouldn't hurt, and it only takes a few seconds -- less time than it takes to convince your mom that, no, Grand Theft Auto IV is not a murder simulator!
California AG and developers sound off over bill facing Supreme Court
In a statement released by the International Game Developer's Association recently, the group called California's controversial game bill "oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research." The response came just days after the US Supreme Court decided to allow California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeal to review the bill on a federal scale, though it's been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in his state (not to mention the similar bills in other states that have also been shot down repeatedly). We reached out to the California Attorney General's office to find out why it's pursuing a bill that's been plagued by overrulings, and were told, "All of those courts held that it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether extremely violent material can be treated the same as sexually explicit material under the First Amendment when it comes to minors. This means that we had to ask the Supreme Court to extend the law, something the lower courts were not willing to do." We further pressed for why it's targeting video games over films, television, and other entertainment mediums. A representative responded, "There is a growing body of social science that has identified violent video games as being especially harmful to children given the interactive nature of video games, and the FTC conducted investigations that showed it was easier for minors to buy Mature-rated video games than it was to get into R-rated movies." However, the IGDA's statement contends "Violence is conveyed in explicit ways on television, in print media, via the Internet, and in film. All of these platforms constitute speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The piece also states the association's position that it remains staunchly against "censorship of expressive media in all forms" but points out that it's especially against politicians using that censorship "for political gain." The appeal could see its first hearing as early as this October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term. [Via GamePolitics]
Supreme Court declines to hear remote storage DVR appeal, cloud recording is on the way
It seems like Cablevision and others have been trying to roll out "remote storage" network DVRs forever, and now that the Supreme Court has decided against hearing the appeal of the Hollywood studios looking to block it, they should finally be able to deliver as soon as this summer. Of course, there's benefits to having a locally stored copy of I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here, but just in case we forgot to queue up a recording, the power went out or suffered some other manner of catastrophe, we'd still have access to all the Lou Diamond Phillips anyone could ask for, and there's really no way the highest court in the land could get in the way of that.
LGJ: Supreme Court Decision Doesn't Bode Well
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: The recent FCC v. Fox decision seems to have gone relatively unnoticed in the gaming press. Yes, the case at hand was about broadcast media and the FCC, and yes, the makeup of the court is now certain to change since the decision came down. However, neither of these potentially distracting facts should take away from what this decision really is: yet another expansion of the government's censorship power over the public. If there is anything the gaming public should be paying attention to, given the continued anti-game activism, is successful control over other media. And there are really three major concerns that come from this ruling.First, I want to make it clear what this ruling is not. The ruling is not an actual victory for game opponents. While it makes some suggestions, the precedent can't be directly applied to the game industry at this time. After all, there is no governmental body to control game releases because those releases are not being made over licensed broadcast spectrum. After all, the government only controls TV broadcasts because the government owns the airwaves. More importantly, this ruling is not purely about censorship or the First Amendment. A significant part of this case is administrative law, and for those same reasons, it's not applicable to the game industry.
California seeks US Supreme Court review of 'violent game ban' [update]
The state of California is asking the United States Supreme Court to review a US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision from February regarding its 2005 "violent video game law," declaring it unconstitutional under the First Amendment. According to GamePolitics. the law would require an additional warning label on games and slap retailers who sell violent games to minors with a $1,000 fine for each offense. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed Assembly Bill 1179 into law, said of today's action, "By prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children under the age of 18 and requiring these games to be clearly labeled, this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids. I will continue to vigorously defend this law and protect the well-being of California's kids." Update: Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has weighed in on California's plea to the Supreme Court. His comments can be found after the break.
Former Supreme Court Justice designing educational game
In recent years, gaming has made great inroads with non-traditional demographics like women and senior citizens. There is one segment of the population, though, that has remained extremely hard for the game industry to crack: former Supreme Court justices.That looks like it might be changing, though, if Sandra Day O'Connor's recent speech to the Games for Change conference is any indication. The former associate justice for the country's highest court is using her retirement to help design an educational game called Our Courts with University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor James Paul Gee. The game, due out in September 2009, will let players "step into the shoes of a judge, a legislator, an executive" and "teach [players] how to think through and analyze problems, take action and voice opinions to their elected representatives," according to O'Connor.O'Connor sees the game as the first step to fixing the American public's deplorable knowledge of civic matters. "Only one-third of Americans can name the three branches of government, but two-thirds can name a judge on American Idol," she told the conference. Maybe if some of those branches of government passed a bill commenting on Sanjaya's hair they'd get more attention. We're just saying ...
DISH Network can't stop, won't stop fighting TiVo, heads to Supreme Court; your DVR is safe
DISH Network hasn't taken "no" "denied" or "not yours" for an answer before in its battle against TiVo, and it's not going to start now. In a statement, the company expressed its plans to appeal the Federal Circuit's ruling against a rehearing to the Supreme Court. No matter how it ends, customers don't have to worry about jackbooted government agents (or software updates, whatever) stealing their precious DISH DVR functionality, because its "next generation" DVR software has already been downloaded to your box, and does not infringe on any patents. We'll leave this up to the lawyers to fight out (and write amusing disclaimers about), but in the meantime hit the read link to hear DISH's side of things.[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Florida Supreme Court orders Jack Thompson not speak directly to them
The Florida Supreme Court has sent out an official STFU to controversial attorney Jack Thompson, who is not allowed to contact them directly ever again and will need to hire his own attorney to communicate with the Court on his behalf. This is an entirely separate matter from Thompson's Florida Bar trial we're currently awaiting a ruling on.GamePolitics has the Court's full ruling regaling the numerous abuses by Thompson like submitting pornographic materials, engaging in a "relentless and frivolous pursuit for vindication of his claim that he is being victimized by The Florida Bar," and "continued inability to maintain a minimum standard of decorum and respect for the judicial system to which all litigants, and especially attorneys, must adhere." That's not all, since the ruling Thompson has filed two new motions with the Court, which would technically put him in contempt at this very moment.[Thanks to all who sent this in]
SCOTUS hearing milestone LG v. Quanta patent suit arguments
True to its word, the US Supreme Court has started to hear arguments in one of those LG vs Quanta patent suits we've been following, with its eventual decision expected to have major effects on the rights of patent holders. Specifically, LG is arguing that since chipsets sold by Intel to Quanta use licensed manufacturing techniques and employ non-Intel components, Quanta also owes LG compensation as per its original agreement with Intel. Pretty confusing, we agree, but the Court's final decision -- expected in June -- promises to clear up once and for all what has admittedly become a legal gray area concerning so-called "exhausted" patents.
Sprint hits up Vonage for another $80 million
Vonage, everyone's favorite "gettin' sued by The Man" company has taken another beating in the Sprint-Nextel patent suit, agreeing to settle the case and license the telco's internet-calling technology for the tidy sum of $80 million. This comes hot on the heels of last month's ruling, which stipulated that Vonage was to pay $69.5 million to Sprint over six patents which the mobile phone company says it had infringed. "We are pleased to resolve our dispute with Sprint and enter into a productive future relationship," said Sharon O'Leary, General Counsel for Vonage, though it's possible she wasn't as ecstatic as that quote would have you believe. This is just another money-siphoning event for the VoIP company, which in March was hit up for $66 million from Verizon for illegally using some of its patents. If you're keeping count at home, that's $215.5 million paid out. If this keeps up, they may not even be able to afford those snappy commercials anymore. [Warning: read link requires subscription]
Supreme Court to hear LG vs. Quanta patent case
It looks like LG and Qaunta's ongoing patent squabble is headed for the big time, with Reuters now reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to step in and sort things out. This is not, however, the DVD-related LG vs. Quanta case that was filed back in July, but rather an entirely different LG vs. Quanta case that ultimately found the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling against LG, only to have that ruling later overturned by a federal appeals court in July of 2006. According to Reuters, this particular case centers on the touchy issue of whether patent-holders can demand royalties from multiple companies during the manufacturing process -- a patent trail that's also caused a range of other manufacturers including Bizcom, Compal and Scepter to be roped into the case. If all goes as planned, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case "early next year," with a decision "likely" by the end of June.
Standoff over breathalyzer source code in DUI case
Not too long ago, we reported on a case brought to the Minnesota Supreme Court wherein a defendant in a DUI case asked (and was allowed) to view the source code of the breathalyzer machine which was used on him. Well, there's a new chapter in this book, it appears, as Minnesota authorities have missed the deadline for handing over the code to defense attorneys, thus dramatically increasing the chances that the defendant will be getting his case dismissed. Apparently, the Minnesota state public safety commissioner would not supply the source code, and the Department of Public Safety offered no explanation for the refusal. The state previously argued that it doesn't have the rights to hand over the data, as it is actually the copyrighted property of CMI -- the company who manufactures the machines. CMI has not been forthcoming with the source code in the past, leading to blunted or thrown out cases, though Court judges say the state must do whatever it takes to procure the software, even if it means suing CMI. A court hearing scheduled for September 19th will likely decide the defendant's fate, though we doubt this is the last we've heard of this case.
Judges fighting litigation with Supreme Court's "obvious" patent ruling
You might recall that the Supreme Court recently handed down a decision which loosened the definition of "obvious" as applied to patent interpretation, saying that if a person of ordinary skill could "fit the teaching of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle," the patent is obvious and unenforceable. That decision, which has been called the most important patent ruling in decades, is starting to affect several longstanding patent disputes, most notably a case brought against Real Networks in 2003 by a company called Friskit. In the first instance of a judge applying the new rule, Friskit's patents have been deemed unenforceable as obvious, a change from an earlier ruling allowing the case to go forward. Friskit is of course considering an appeal, but we wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of these suits decided early on the basis of obviousness.[Via TechDirt]
Vonage sees hope in Supreme Court patent crackdown
Still consumed in a bitter fight for its very survival, embattled VoIP provider Vonage -- recently granted an eleventh-hour pardon from that permanent injunction -- has announced that it will attempt to leverage Monday's landmark Supreme Court decision in seeking a completely new trial. In what is widely seen as both a blow to patent trolls as well as a tough new barrier in the patent application process, the Court ruled that one auto parts manufacturer had not infringed upon another's intellectual property in designing a new gas pedal, because the original pedal was merely an improvement on older models and should not have been granted a patent in the first place. Under this new, looser definition of "obviousness," argues Vonage, the Verizon patents in question would also be deemed upgrades of existing technology at the time they were issued -- and therefore invalid. It remains to be seen whether the appeals court will agree, grant the recently-reorganized company a new trial, and prolong this soap opera for several months or more, but what is clear from recent Court activity (including a Microsoft victory over AT&T) is that the days of a rubber-stamping patent office may be numbered, and that the NTP's and OPTi's of the world had better find a new way to pay the bills. Read - Vonage Read - Supreme Court decision
