Lawsuit Filed Against PUBG Mobile Clones

PUBG’s publisher has filed a suit in California for copyright and trademark infringement against Chinese gaming behemoth NetEase, developers of “Knives Out” and “Rules of Survival,” two popular PUBG mobile clones. The move comes only a few days after the release of a mobile version of PUBG, and after its publishers attempted to remove the clones from the app store without success.

Hmmmmmm.

It will be interesting to see how this one turns out. While PUBG essentially created its own genere, things like game concepts and ideas are not protectable IP. Any developer can make their own battle-royale style game, copying things like the airplane drop, last-man-standing format, shrinking play area, etc. without worrying about a lawsuit.

However, it’s still possible for PUBG’s publishers to succeed if they can establish NetEase’s games copied the “look and feel” of PUBG . This is a pretty nebulous legal concept that basically means that, even if NetEase didn’t directly copy any actual code or art assets from PUBG, if the two games are substantially similar in terms of both visuals and overall functionality, NetEase will have infringed the PUBG’s publishers’ copyright.

Generally these kind of infringement claims have been successful in regard to less complex games with easy-to-define rule sets like Tetris or simple tile-matching games. PUBG is of course a far more complicated beast, and its publishers will probably have an uphill struggle on their hands showing there are enough similarities between it and NetEase’s two clones to establish infringement. If this claim succeeds it will probably be the first time the a court will have found this kind of infringement between games of this level of complexity.

Pokemon GO Lawsuit Settles for $83,000

Remember that Pokemon GO lawsuit I posted about a few months ago?  It turns out that Pokemon GO probably is protected by the right to free speech, as the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors has agreed to settle the case for the sum of $83,000, with the entire amount reportedly going to the plaintiff’s legal fees. The park board will also agree not to enforce the ordinance at issue, which creates an awkward permitting process for any augmented reality games to be played in Milwaukee public parks.

This settlement comes after a July court ruling holding that it was likely that the plaintiff would succeed in establishing that the park board ordinance banning augmented reality games from public parks violated their right to free expression under the first amendment, and granting an injunction preventing the park board from enforcing the injunction.

This is as close to a 100% win as you get in law, with the board agreeing to give the plaintiffs everything their were asking for, and pay their legal fees. Score one for the forces of justice and freedom.

MLB to File Trademark Dispute Regarding Overwatch League Logo

From the “this is why people hate lawyers” file, it appears that Major League Baseball has filed a notice with the US Patent and Trademark Office stating it intends to dispute Blizzard’s registration of the logo for its upcoming Overwatch league, on the grounds that it may be confusing with its own logo. Here’s the two logos side by side for comparison:

Logo ComparisonConfused? Me either. The main similarity between the two appears to be the image of a white silhouette bordered by a two tone background. Hmm, why does that sound familiar? Oh right.

                    NBA Logo

So watch out NBA. After the MLB’s inevitable crushing victory against Blizzard, you’re next.

My favorite thing about this story though? Technically this isn’t really news. The MLB actually filed the notice at the heart of this story almost three months ago, in late April. No one reported on it at the time, and since then there’s actually been no new developments on this (the MLB has until July 26 to file their legal argument in the dispute).

As far as I can tell, the only reason this has become a story now is that New York entertainment law firm Morrison Lee posted an item about it on their firm blog and everyone else just ran with it, with the story even ending up in non-gaming publications such as Deadspin, and CBS Sports. This probably says a lot of things about how the media works that I’m not smart enough to encapsulate in writing here. In any event, it looks like one little law firm blog can change the world after all. In keeping with that, if anyone out there has any sweet, sweet industry gossip they’d like to leak, please know that I am available.

Is Pokemon GO Protected by the First Amendment?

A Wisconsin court is set to decide whether augmented reality games like Pokemon GO are free speech protected by the first amendment of the US constitution. The background: In the few weeks of collective public madness that followed the release of Pokemon GO, many parks and other public areas were flooded by Pokemon GO players, causing problems with litter, overcrowding, and likely freaking out people who had no idea about the game or what was going on.

Not wanting to deal with scenes like the one below on a regular basis, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance requiring the publishers of all augmented reality games to obtain a permit if their apps can be used in Milwaukee parks. Among other things, the bylaw requires publishers to come up with plans for medical services, on-site security, garbage removal and liability insurance. Compliance with the bylaw is of course wildly impractical for any game company, so its’ effect is to essentially ban augmented reality games from all Milwaukee public parks.

art_poke6
Someone must have dropped a lure.

While all this may have been forgotten as the Pokemon GO craze died down in the months after the game’s release, recently Candy Lab, a Southern California company responsible for “Texas Rope ‘Em” an augmented-reality game similar to Pokemon GO, brought a suit against the park board on the ground that the bylaw violates its free speech rights under the US Constitution, and the two sides are currently battling out in court over the issue.

While the US Supreme Court has already decided that video games as a whole are constitutionally-protected free speech, the park board is trying to convince the court that augmented reality games specifically lack the elements of expression necessary to qualify as speech. Basically, the board is arguing that if a game has no real plot, characters, or storyline, but just involves you walking from place to place looking at things through your phone, then it’s not protected by the first amendment because it lacks any any expressive content.

While it will be interesting to see what the court decides on this issue, I find it a bit surprising that this matter ended up in court in the first place. I’m sure a much cheaper and quicker solution to this problem for Candy Lab would have been to simply disable access to the game in Milwaukee’s parks. This would have likely been trivial to do from a technical standpoint, and I very much doubt it would have had any meaningful effect on the game.

Instead, the company has chosen to bring a lawsuit, and all the expense and hassle that entails. This approach simply can’t make financial sense for them, which begs the question of why they’re going through with it. Maybe they’re trying to set a precedent which will stem a potential future wave of similar regulations in other cities, maybe they’re looking for publicity, or maybe they’re just huge fans of free speech. Either way, irrespective of their motivation, if their lawsuit is successful the precedent they set will make other jurisdictions think twice before adopting similar regulations, and the entire gaming industry will have benefited from their actions.