Picture

 How Do You Make Sure Your Idea is Safe?



A few days ago, I posted a message on Linked In, offering to answer a few legal questions posted by app and video game developers. I've been nearly overwhelmed with questions!  So here's the answer to the first from a developer who asked:



 
 
Picture
In the ever-changing world of high tech intellectual property law, the word “Platform” has special meaning. More often than not, you’ll find it in software licensing agreements to specify, and more importantly to limit, the computing systems that a particular piece of code—whether a video game or accounting program or iPhone App—are authorized to run on. But these days, Platform can mean just about anything. 


 
 
Picture
Creating a bulletproof corporate shield.
A recent Game Developer’s Conference study found, unsurprisingly, that 53% of the attendees they polled identified themselves as indie developers, with nearly the same percentage saying that they work in companies with ten or fewer people. [1]

With the explosion of mobile and casual gaming, this has created exciting times for entrepreneurs, but the reality is that most independent game developers lack the legal expertise necessary to navigate this new publishing world. Many will make it through unscathed. Others, unfortunately, won’t be as lucky.


 
 
Picture
Used by permission. Shutterstock.
Until recently, video game developers generally focused on the creative and technical aspects of developing an interactive game, while their publishers handled issues of sales, marketing, and legal. But in the world of direct-to-consumer digital distribution, indies do both. They build apps, and then manage sales and marketing through Apple’s App Store and Google Play, and inside environments like Steam and Xbox Live. While all this has created significant opportunities for thousands of emerging game developers, few realize the legal hazards they undertake when launching a game—risks that their former publishing partners often assumed on their behalf. 

In this two-part series (find part two here), we’ll discuss what I consider the top six legal mistakes app developers make when launching a new game in the digital marketplace.


 
 
Picture
Number 4
Keller v. Electronic Arts

Earlier we discussed West and Zampella v. Activision, Gate Five LLC v. Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, and Silicon Knights v. Epic Games, all of which were primarily breach of contract and/or copyright infringement disputes. It leads us now to  Keller v. Electronic Arts, a case that could be worth as much as a billion dollars in damages if Mr. Keller prevails. [1]


 
 
The First Amendment states, in part, that Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

 
 
Picture
Number 3
Silicon Knights v. Epic Games

Earlier we posted West and Zampella v. Activision and Gate Five LLC v. Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, the first two of what we consider the 5 Most Influential Video Game Lawsuits of 2012.

The discussion continues here with Silicon Knights v. Epic Games, which, so far, has ended badly for Silicon Knights.





 
 
Picture
Used under license: Shutterstock
Number 2
Gate Five LLC v. Beyoncé Knowles-Carter

Continuing our discussion of influential video game lawsuits (see part one here), we consider Gate Five LLC v. Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, which pits a small video game developer against superstar power.




 
 
Picture
Used with permission. Shutterstock.
Number 1
West and Zampella v. Activision

The video game industry isn’t a cult fad anymore. It’s a multi-billion worldwide enterprise, and along with its success comes legal risk to those who create and deliver the games that feed this ever-growing, ever-changing industry. As we enter a New Year, it’s important to learn whatever lessons we can from the noteworthy video game conflicts of 2012. 

So here's number 5West and Zampella v. Activision, which began in 2010 and finally settled this year.


 
 
Picture
Yesterday, Instagram's CEO, Kevin Systrom, apologized in a blog post, promising that the company would revisit the company's new Terms of Use, scheduled to go into effect on January 16, 2013. 

Unfortunately, the promise does little to address the underlying issue of intellectual property ownership and the exploitation of user data across all social media. Here's what Mr. Systrom promised: