Lest anyone missed this little gem among the E3 hubbub, Blizzard has scored a victory against WoW bot maker Glider. Don't remember that whole kerfluffle? Blizzard sued Glider over EULA infringement for copying code, as well as the ancillary issue of pissing WoW users up and gobbling up resources. Glider shot back with 'But grinding your way to level 70 is boooooring.' Probably unsurprisingly, this argument did not go over very well in court and Blizzard won its summary judgment motion. All's well that end's well ... or is it? Over at PlayNoEvil, there's some interesting analysis on what this judgment could mean and why it may not be all that it's cracked up to be:

1. This ruling is very dangerous to any third party utility provider. Especially security companies like Symantec, who load programs and "check them out" to see if they are malicious. Ironically, it would seem that Blizzard's own security program, Warden, would be imperiled by this notion of copyright ....

3. What if Blizzard wins? After a long fight, Blizzard defeated the unauthorized Battle.Net server developers, BnetD, which simply drove the system outside the US where it is still available. It is actually surprising that MDY didn't move its business offshore to a country where this suit could not have been effectively tried or did not have a copyright treat with the US.

4. Legal solutions to business and technical problems are terribly inefficient an expensive. While they may be able to shut MDY down and even bankrupt the company (and perhaps its owners), how much will this have cost Blizzard and how long until another equivalent product is made available. Might MDY simply publish the source code to Glider as a "finger in the eye" gesture at Blizzard? (or "leak" it onto the Internet?)

No doubt this case hasn't been put to bed quite yet — any future developments should be pretty interesting.

Blizzard Wins Key Judgments Against WoW Bot Maker MDY on Copyright and Tortious Interference Claims [Virtually Blind] and A Pyrrhic Victory? Blizzard vs. Glider [PlayNoEvil]

Whatever you think of the law or those who practice it, this guy's out there lawyerin' and lobbyin' for your rights to play — well, Take Two games, at least.

According to the profile, Krauss came on board when Strauss Zelnick took control in 2002. Other fun facts:

• When Krauss took over as general counsel, Take Two had only two in-house attorneys. In the six years since, they're up to 15, handling the company's never-ending concerns with intellectual property and First Amendment cases.

• Even after beating a case he still finds it has strong replay value. "Take-Two operates in 20 different jurisdictions, so every legal issue 'has to be replayed over and over again,'" the profile says. These include global jurisdictions, of course, but surely they also cover some U.S. state-level cases. Some lobbying is a part of his duties, Krauss says.

• Quoting the profile: "Take-Two has had to defend itself against those who consider this form of entertainment scary and dangerous. Krauss works with his counterparts at other game companies and other allies to meet criticism by politicians and critics "who try to politicize the video game industry."

• Krauss' dad was a Broadway producer; he considers his job "a happy and welcome return to working with creative people." He's a Duke undergrad and Washington University J.D. Krauss also worked for the Manhattan D.A., where he probed the financial institutions implicated in Enron's collapse.

Start Game [Law.com, via Gamepolitics]

Konami Sues Viacom Over `Rock Band' Music Video Game [Bloomberg] [Pic]

In a letter to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, Thompson questions Judge Tunis' mental stability and asks that she undergo a mental health exam. He also calls her a raving wild woman and suggests that she might be mentally impaired.

In a separate motion filed to strike Tunis' findings, Thompson calls into question the hearing and, once more, Judge Tunis saying she is "out of her judisprudential mind" and referring to her as Dava in Wonderland.

Dear JQC:

Please look at the enclosed Motion to Strike regarding Dava Tunis’ “Findings” as to my guilt and innocence. First of all, she is prohibited from even issuing such a document without its containing specific findings of fact.

She leaked it to the media to do me harm prior to the issuance of her Final Referee’s Report, and she didn’t have “specific findings of fact” as required by Bar Rules, because she didn’t have those “facts” in place.

Then, please note she finds me both guilty and not guilty of a violation of the same Bar Rule 4-8.2(a) as to the same judge and the same set of facts. She is just making this stuff up as she goes, and she is too sloppy to keep track of what she is making up.

But, hey, it’s only my 31-year law career that is at stake here, and her Republican buddy Jeb Bush who put her on the bench has his buddies’ Bar complaints in front of her, so you can’t really expect her to rise above her entanglements and act like a real judge.

Finally, maybe there is another explanation here: Maybe Dava Tunis is mentally impaired. The raving wild woman I saw in the last minutes of our trial in December 2007 in which she stood up behind her bench and was shouting and waving her arms was someone who had become unhinged. Is she still unhinged?

The Bar keeps insisting that I must serially have my head examined, even though every such exam has resulted in a clean bill of health. Here’s a suggestion, in light of her odd behavior and her now executing a document that rebuts itself on its face: Have this Dava Tunis undergo a battery of psychiatric and psychological tests. I underwent them and came through with flying colors. Will she? Find out. Regards, Jack Thompson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Respondent.

RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE TUNIS’ “FINDINGS”
COMES NOW respondent Thompson, moving the referee to strike her “Findings” of guilt and innocence in their entirety at to Thompson herein. Not only is such a document not allowed, without specific findings of fact, as required by Florida Bar Rules, as already pointed out, but now there is evidence on the face of the “Findings” document itself a) why the referee must submit findings of fact to support such “Findings,” b) that Tunis is hopelessly befuddled, or c) couldn’t care less if she makes a fool of herself in her headlong pursuit of Thompson as if she were a prosecutor. Note:

Tunis, in her May 15 “Findings,” finds Thompson “GUILTY” in Count II of disparaging Alabama Judge Moore as to his integrity and qualifications, in violation of Bar Rule 4-8.2(a). Forget the fact that Thompson never did that but rather pointed out, as he is required by Alabama and Florida Bar Rules, to inform authorities that Clatus Junkin said he could fix the case. Merely look now at the fact that Tunis has found Thompson guilty of disparaging Judge Moore.

Then look at Count III’s findings: Tunis finds Thompson “NOT GUILTY” of disparaging Judge Moore under the same Rule 4-8.2(a). Earth to Tunis: Read your own “Findings” before you sign them next time, if there is a next time.

This Referee, this oathless Tunis, is so out of her judisprudential mind that she can’t even keep her fabrications straight. Lincoln said it well: “No man has a good enough memory to be a consistently good liar.” Thompson disparaged Judge Moore and he didn’t disparage Judge Moore. Welcome to Dava in Wonderland.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided this to The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, July 8, 2008.

John B. Thompson, Attorney, Florida Bar #231665

Nintendo Faces Patent Lawsuit, Apparently Over DS Touch Screen [GamePolitics]

UPDATE - While this particular patent is more recent, it's actually the continuation of a series of patents first filed all the way back in 1995.

In some ways, perhaps, the world of Mergers and Acquisitions is a massively multiplayer role playing game as well. Like in World of Warcraft and other games, the participants in the M&A field take on certain roles, interact in their own community, hone specialized skills, and even develop a unique, somewhat curious vernacular. One particular quest in the world of M&A is disclosure litigation. In the instance of disclosure litigation presently pending before this Court, the world of M&A meets the World of Warcraft.

All I can see is a man in a business suit with a yellow exclamation point over his head. Hit the jump for Judge Chandler's stunning conclusion.

In the role-playing game that is this disclosure litigation, both sides have played their respective roles well. Plaintiff has vigorously battled for additional information about the proposed transaction, and, indeed, additional information has been released by the Company during the pendency of this litigation. Likewise, defendants have responsively and effectively addressed the many variations of claims that plaintiff has proffered. Ultimately, however, there still remained three outstanding disclosure claims for the Court to resolve. Like any game, this one has rules, and the most essential rule of disclosure is materiality. Because the plaintiff could not establish the materiality of its final three disclosure claims, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. The July 8, 2008 meeting may proceed. GAME OVER.

I love this man.

In Chandler Opinion, World of M&A Meets ‘World of Warcraft’ Video Game [The Wall Street Journal via Game Politics]

"Minnesota's citizens should be outraged at paying the bill for this flawed plan. Minnesota's public officials ignored legal precedent and instead pursued a political agenda that ultimately cost taxpayers money," said Michael D. Gallagher, CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "Courts across the United States have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of art, such as music and literature."

Minnesota Pays $65,000 in Legal Fees to the Video Game Industry Taxpayers Pay for Politicians' Decision to Pursue Unconstitutional Law

JUNE 30, 2008 - Washington, DC - The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) announced today that the state of Minnesota paid $65,000 in attorney fees and expenses incurred as a result of their successful challenge to Minnesota's unconstitutional video game law. The ESA, which prevailed over similar unconstitutional laws in nine other jurisdictions, now has been awarded close to $2 million in fees and expenses spent in defending gamers, developers and publishers' First Amendment rights.

"Minnesota's citizens should be outraged at paying the bill for this flawed plan. Minnesota's public officials ignored legal precedent and instead pursued a political agenda that ultimately cost taxpayers money," said Michael D. Gallagher, CEO of the ESA, which represents U.S. computer and video game publishers. "Courts across the United States have ruled consistently that video games are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of art, such as music and literature."

On July 31, 2006, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, US District Court, Minnesota, issued a permanent injunction to halt implementation of a Minnesota law which sought to penalize minors for the purchase or rental of M- or AO-rated games. In his decision, Judge Rosenbaum stated that "...there is no showing whatsoever that video games, in the absence of other violent media, cause even the slightest injury to children." The Court then raised questions about the Legislature's motives in passing such an obviously unconstitutional law, stating "...several other states have tried to regulate minors' access to video games. Every effort has been stricken for violating the First Amendment....The Court will not speculate as the motives of those who launched Minnesota's nearly doomed effort to "protect" our children. Who, after all, opposes protecting children? But, the legislators drafting this law cannot have been blind to its constitutional flaws."

Gallagher said that "politicians need to realize that the key to protecting our children from inappropriate media content is not haphazard legislation, but rather parental education. Video games have a first class ratings system supported by retailers, opinion leaders and parents. It would be a far better use of public funds to help support this system, rather than continue to pursue unconstitutional legislation that works against it."

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) assigns content ratings to computer and video games. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 80 percent of parents are aware of the ESRB system, and over 70 percent of parents use it in making their buying decisions. And, a new FTC report released last month shows that 80 percent of the agency's undercover underage shoppers were not able to buy M-rated video games, 433% above the rate measured in 2000.

The Entertainment Software Association is the U.S. association dedicated to serving the business and public affairs needs of companies publishing interactive games for video game consoles, handheld devices, personal computers, and the Internet. The ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including a global anti-piracy program, owning the E3 Media & Business Summit, business and consumer research, federal and state government relations, First Amendment and intellectual property protection efforts. For more information, please visit www.theESA.com.

NY Senate Passes Video Game Bill 61-1 [GamePolitics]

Nintendo Sued Over Use of Music from 1993 Film [GamePolitics]

Guess the killing 3000 people thing didn'go down very well with the Judge. While Thompson stresses the Marshals were "nice gentlemen" sent only to warn him about sending those kind of letters, he's less kind to Moreno, who he accuses of trying to intimidate him by sending the pair. As such, he's going to complain to the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, accusing the Justice Department of harassing him. Oh dear.

BREAKING: U.S. Marshals Pay Jack Thompson "a Visit" [GamePolitics]

Nintendo Sues Nyko Over Copies of Wii Nunchuk Remote [Bloomberg]

Gamers sue EA over football exclusivity [GameSpot]

Hearing T-13/03 Nintendo v Commission [European Court of First Instance, via Bloomberg] [Pic]

Ok, so virtual property disputes aren't exactly new, but there's a little wrap up on some of the current issues over at a Canadian website. Most of the issues discussed revolve around Second Life, but the questions of virtual property and other virtual issues are getting increasing attention:

[Entertainment lawyer Susan] Abramovitch said the virtual economy has opened the door to new legal issues that are only starting to be addressed around the world.

"The original question is, do we actually need to specifically regulate the virtual economy?" Abramovitch said. "Is it different enough to create challenges or do the regulations that exist in our physical world apply?"
The answer, she said, is gaining importance because private companies currently dictate the "rules" of the virtual world through their end user licence agreements.

Concerns regarding EULAs have gotten a fair bit of (academic) attention in the past couple of months, but the fact that these "virtual" cases are getting real world settlements raises a lot of interesting questions.

Virtual world disputes landing in real-world courts [Canada.com]

Qualifying productions spending at least $500,000 in the state will qualify for a 20% tax credit, with an additional 10% granted if said productions included an animated Georgia logo in the finished product.

As a member of the gaming press residing just minutes away from beautiful downtown Atlanta, I welcome any and all game developers to our lovely state. If you need crash space, give me a call.

Hit the jump for the full press release.

Georgia Boosts Incentives for Entertainment Industry

Monday, May 12, 2008

ATLANTA- Governor Sonny Perdue today signed into law the 2008 Entertainment Industry Investment Act (HB 1100), new legislation designed to encourage entertainment industry productions in Georgia. The signing ceremony took place at the studios of Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (TBS, Inc.), where the Governor was joined by Phil Kent, chairman and CEO of TBS, Inc., and over 100 attendees including legislators, industry leaders and members of the entertainment industry.

"We know that our excellent talent base and outstanding locations make Georgia a very desirable place to film," said Governor Sonny Perdue. "This legislation puts in place the economic cornerstone that will encourage producers to convert that desire into action."

The 2008 Entertainment Industry Investment Act reinforces and strengthens Georgia's position within the entertainment industry. The new, more competitive incentives replace those currently in use by offering a 20 percent tax credit for qualified productions, which are then eligible for an additional 10 percent tax credit if they include an animated Georgia promotional logo within the finished product.

The incentives apply not only to qualified films, TV series, commercials and music videos, but also to video game productions. The economic impact of all these entertainment segments in Georgia was $413 million in 2007.

"We're proud of this legislation; alot of the credit goes to Governor Perdue for setting up the film commission," said Rep. Butch Parrish, a sponsor of the legislation. "I think this bill will jump start the Georgia film industry."

"This new incentive allows Georgia to once again compete for an industry we used to be famous for," said Sen. Mitch Seabaugh. "It will be a catalyst that will spur immediate economic investment and create jobs. Georgia will once again be on center stage where it belongs."

"The new incentives will put Georgia among the top five states in the U.S. in terms of financial competitiveness for entertainment projects," said Ken Stewart, commissioner of the Georgia Department of Economic Development (GDEcD). "We expect to see an increase in the number of industry jobs and overall economic impact for the state in the coming years."

The state has seen success in the past with competitive incentives. The 2005 Entertainment Industry Investment Act (HB 539), signed by Governor Perdue in 2005, led to a record-setting economic impact in 2006 when film, television and video game companies contributed $475 million to Georgia's economy, up from $124 million in 2004. The total economic impact of entertainment productions from 2005 through 2007 has been over $1.17 billion, due in large part to Georgia's entertainment incentives. Since then, however, film activity in the state has decreased as other states, regions and nations boosted their competitive packages.

"The 2008 Entertainment Industry Investment Act (HB 1100) will return Georgia to its rightful place of prominence in all major entertainment industry segments," stated Bill Thompson, deputy commissioner of the Film, Music and Digital Entertainment Office, a division of GDEcD. "We expect a significant increase in film and television projects, and Georgia will be the most competitive state in the country for video game productions.

Georgiais one of the few states whose entertainment incentives support the video game industry."

Governor Perdue was joined at the event by Sen.Greg Goggans, who carried the legislation in the Senate, Rep. Ron Stephens, and Rep. Rich Golick.

"House Bill 1100 is a key piece to the puzzle in sustaining Georgia's entertainment industry for the long haul," said Ric Reitz, an actor and producer from Atlanta. "It will provide many new jobs for Georgians, improve the state's entertainment infrastructure, and grow Georgia's indigenous companies."

The Film, Music and Digital Entertainment Office, formerly known as the Film, Video and Music Office, conducts extensive business development, sales, marketing and promotional activities in order to attract entertainment projects and businesses to the state. The office also assists the local, national and international entertainment industries with information, expertise and resources. The staff points movie production companies to Georgia's highly-trained crews, state-of-the-art facilities, and diverse locations. Georgia's temperate climate and easy access afforded by Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport are also factors that attract the industry's interest.

Georgiahas been investing in the entertainment industry for over 35 years. Since the inception of the Georgia Film Commission in 1973, more than 575 major motion pictures, independent films, television series and pilots, and TV movies have filmed on location in the state. As a result, over $5 billion has been generated for the state's economy. Georgia's music industry continues to thrive with an economic impact of $1.97 billion in 2007. Movies were first produced in Georgia as early as 1912, and have continued without interruption during every decade since then.

[Associated Press]

Galloway has been served a cease and desist by the attorney representing Guy Debord's widow. It's too early to tell what will happen next ... Galloway's situation bears some similarity to that of popular Facebook app Scrabulous. The irony, of course, is the estate of a dead Marxist pursuing litigation over the exchange value of the name and image of its intellectual property.

The Revolution will be Litigated [Water Cooler Games]

"The Canadians have driven a tank over the French Citroen and have now parked on our lawn," Paul Jackson, head of the industry organization representing British games studios, complained to the Financial Times earlier this week. "It is becoming very challenging to keep core development studios here."

If you are a fan of reading long legal documents, Game Politics has the full court order available for your perusal on their website.

BREAKING - Florida Supreme Court Sanctions Jack Thompson {GamePolitics]

"Children aged 17 and under should not be sold this stuff, so they are not getting into the hands of 9- and 10-year-olds," said Larry Mayes, Menino's chief of human services.

"Is it going to be an uphill battle? Sure. But it's absolutely a battle that the mayor feels he should take on."

Menino: Ban violent vid games for kids [Boston Herald via Game Politics]

Those hoping this will translate into a catty legal fracas will be deflated to hear, however, that the suit had a shelf-life of about five seconds. No sooner had it been filed than Harmonix owners Viacom withdrew the suit, with even the hint of a long, bitter legal battle enough to convince Activision that taking this to court would not end well. Both sides are expected to instead "discuss" the issue privately, outside of the courtroom. Meaning that while this won't be settled cheaply, it'll at least be settled quietly.
Viacom withdraws 'Guitar' suit [Variety]

For the Law & Order buffs, here are all the details (cue that annoying Law & Order sound effect that's played like 1,000 times/episode).

NBC UNIVERSAL AND LIMELIFE PARTNER TO LAUNCH NEW MOBILE GAME - "LAW & ORDER: CELEBRITY BETRAYAL" - BASED ON THE LONG-RUNNING CRIME DRAMA "LAW & ORDER"

"Ripped From The Headlines" Game Draws Users Into Challenging Celebrity Murder Case

(NEW YORK) - March 11, 2008 - NBC Universal and LimeLife, Inc. today announced the launch of "Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal(tm)," the mobile game extension for NBC's long-running crime drama, "Law & Order," now in its 18th season. Capturing the fast-paced drama and intrigue of the hit series, "Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal" will draw players into a complex murder mystery where they will interact with cast members, interrogate witnesses, solve the crime and proceed to trial. Executive Producer Dick Wolf and his team were instrumental in developing the game with LimeLife to reflect the signature storytelling and energy of "Law & Order."

"One of the contributors to the show's longevity has been its commitment to evolve with the times and stay fresh which includes allowing our audience to experience 'Law & Order' in different ways and on different screens," said Dick Wolf, creator and executive producer of "Law & Order." "'Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal' is the closest fans of the show can come to experiencing a day in the life of their favorite 'Law & Order' characters."

"'Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal' delivers the same suspense and procedural drama that have kept 'Law & Order' an audience favorite for 18 seasons and one of the most successful brands in television history," said Jeremy Laws, Senior Vice President, Mobile & Broadband, Universal Pictures Digital Platforms Group. "We know that fans of the series will really enjoy the chance to immerse themselves in the crime solving and trial experience that they have come to love on the show." Laws continued, "Creating mobile games based on popular television series like 'Law & Order' is one way NBC Universal is looking to extend our audiences' experience with the brand."

"NBC excels at creating seamless digital experiences for all of its brands," said Kristin McDonnell, CEO of LimeLife, Inc. "We are pleased to support NBC's cross-media integration strategy, delivering the 'Law & Order' brand experience to show fans and crime buffs alike on their mobile phones."

How to Play "Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal"

Players work to solve New York City's latest celebrity crime by investigating the crime scene, interrogating witnesses and bringing their key suspect to trial. The object of the game is to build as strong a case as possible and win a conviction with contextual advice and feedback from popular Law & Order cast members like Sam Waterston and Alana De La Garza. Players exhibit the evidence they have collected throughout every stage of the story during the game's complete trial experience, and try to win a conviction to become the rookie "Law & Order" star.

"Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal" also features four mini-games that directly affect the strength of a player's case. At the game's precinct location, players can help process evidence and obtain warrants by playing the Warrant Race game, and search for rumors playing the Coffee Run game. While in court, players can try their luck at Case Overload or Takeout Dash.

"Law & Order: Celebrity Betrayal" will be available for a one-time download charge of $6.99 or $2.99 monthly subscription fee (where available) on most major U.S. carriers. Consumers should check with their carrier for availability and handset compatibility.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has taken a much more vague approach to determining what may or may not be patented. Its guidelines for patent examiners requires that the invention produce a concrete, useful, and tangible result, and gameplay patents are being allowed.

[Video games] are not inventions at all in the normal sense of the word. They are imaginary systems. Unlike mathematical theorems (which cannot be patented), game rules don't even have to be coherent — though obviously they should be for playability reasons.

The Designer's Notebook: Damn All Gameplay Patents! [Gamasutra][image]

The Finnish software company had initially filed papers on the prevalent word on Feb. 26 to protect the word in relation to:

"... computer game software; computer game programs; computer game discs; interactive multimedia computer game program; downloadable ring tones, ... multimedia software recorded on CD-ROM featuring fictional characters and computer games; pre-recorded DVD's, video tapes, laser discs featuring movies about fictional characters, and pre-recorded compact discs featuring music; motion picture films on fictional characters...".

But they did it, Mäkinen says, to protect their company, not make money:

Fellow gamers,

Our purpose in filing for trademark on the name "Pwnage" is not to charge money or stop people from using the expression. That's not what a trademark is for. Instead, we want to protect ourselves from squatters (or what I call campers) - people looking to trademark the name on false pretenses, just to make a claim against Futuremark Games Studio for its use.

Jukka Mäkinen, Executive Producer, Futuremark Games Studio

What confuses me is how Pwnage in anyway has anything to do with Futuremark Games Studio. I mean, sure, I suppose you could use the word and the company in this sentence: Futuremark was pwned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office when they tried to trademark a word that had no rights to.

Maybe they should patent n00bs instead.

Futuremark responds to "Pwnage" trademark controversy [Futuremark's YouGamers Site]

"... computer game software; computer game programs; computer game discs; interactive multimedia computer game program; downloadable ring tones, ... multimedia software recorded on CD-ROM featuring fictional characters and computer games; pre-recorded DVD's, video tapes, laser discs featuring movies about fictional characters, and pre-recorded compact discs featuring music; motion picture films on fictional characters...".

Wow... at least they aren't attempting to apply it to every piece of media published or anything like that.

I am not a lawyer, but will be interested to see how Futuremark will protect its mark if they are successful in their efforts. I envision nightly round ups of thirteen year olds around the world for their blatant misappropriation of the term. This follows previously-cool Fark's attempts to trademark "NSFW."

Next to be trademarked will be "n00bs," "1337," "hax04," "ROTFL," "LOL" and "pr0n."

I'm going to get ahead of the curve on this one and trademark "d0uchage."

[United States Patent and Trademark Office via Trademork]

"I am profoundly sorry," Causey said against a backdrop of the United States and North Carolina flags. "I cannot begin to imagine the immense sorrow the Strickland family must continue to feel, but they will forever be in my thoughts and prayers. It is my hope that the Strickland family will accept this apology and know that it is offered with compassion and sincerity."

How much does a fatal mistake cost? According to county officials, $2.45 million. Strickland family spokesperson Joyce Fitzpatrick says the money will go towards establishing a foundation for need-based scholarships.

"The Stricklands were not interested in money," she said. "That cannot bring their son back."

The merger, stock purchase and tender offer, working in concert, convey control of Activision to Vivendi but fail to offer the Activision stockholders an opportunity to realize a true control premium for their stock.

The timing of this move is more than a little suspect, and has understandably caught the attention of business analysts and corporate governance experts alike. While pay increases and stock deals for executives are common, negotiating a deal that will see you make big money if your company is bought while an offer to buy the company is on the table raises some ethical questions.

In his defence, Zelnick argues that since taking over the company, he's turned their fortunes around, as evidenced by EA's takeover interest. Also, it's worth remembering the pay deal's not final: while ZelnickMedia and Take-Two's board have approved it, shareholders need to agree to it as well before it's finalised.

Either way, the matter should be settled after April 30, the date Zelnick said he'd reopen discussions with EA: if he nets Take-Two shareholders an increase over the $26 per share EA originally offered, his new share deal will be just rewards. But if he signs off on the deal for what EA were originally offering before his shiny new pay package was drawn up...well, he might find himself in trouble.
Take-Two Raises Eyebrows [Wall Street Journal]
Zelnick's Take-Two compensation: a fair and balanced appraisal [Variety]

Both works are dark comedies. In both, the recreational activities of the zombies and absurdly grotesque 'kill scenes' provide unexpected comedic relief.

Both works provided thoughtful social commentary on the 'mall culture' zeitgeist, in addition to serving up a sizable portion of sensationalistic violence.

"It was weird the way this all came down," (Sgt. Julie) Lewis said Tuesday. "This isn't something you could just make up."

Video Gamer's 'I Have Killed Them All' Call Leads to Arrest [FOXNews - Thanks Kite!]

Basically, when you run a high profile business, there will always be people looking to win the lottery by trying to leech of your success.

Contrary to their claim, no one associated with the project had ever heard of their property before we began work on it, nor had anyone on the project worked with these guys. It's almost hilarious to see the wild claims they've made against us.

Those discussions have gone nowhere, however, culminating in a letter from New Line - allegedly sent to Capcom, Microsoft and Best Buy - complaining that Dead Rising is just far too similar to Dawn of the Dead. This letter has sparked fears at Capcom that MKR are about to assert their copyrights and trademarks over Romero's works, will claim Dead Rising is in violation of these and take legal action. In an attempt to head this action off at the pass, Capcom's lawyers are seeking a declaratory judgement (ie a judge to say what they've done with DR is fine) and attorney's fees, and are claiming that "humans battling zombies in a shopping mall" is a "wholly unprotectible idea" under current copyright standards.

Which of course it is. It shouldn't take a court of law to decide that.
Capcom v The MKR Group Legal Documents [The Hollywood Reporter]

"Our relationship with Ubisoft went far beyond the normal lawyer-client relationship," said Smith, who chairs Greenberg Glusker's Litigation Group and who was lead counsel in the matter. "We effectively became an extension of our client, learning everything about Ubisoft's business from its most senior management."

Greenberg Glusker Client Ubisoft Wins $13 Million Award in Video Game Licensing Dispute

LOS ANGELES—(BUSINESS WIRE)—Greenberg Glusker today announced that its client, Ubisoft Entertainment, one of the world's largest video game publishers, has obtained a $13.2 million judgment in a copyright and trademark infringement dispute against MGA Entertainment, the owner of Bratz™ dolls. Greenberg Glusker attorneys Stephen Smith and Suann MacIsaac, joining with Dale Kinsella of Kinsella, Weitzman, Iser, Kump & Aldisert, represented Ubisoft in the American Arbitration Association (AAA) arbitration that led to the judgment.

"We are thrilled with the result, and we feel completely vindicated," said Ubisoft's General Counsel Cecile Russeil. "We could not have achieved this outcome without attorneys who mastered every aspect of the case, and thoroughly understood our video gaming business."

In 2002, Ubisoft entered into a license with MGA to publish video games based on the Bratz™ dolls. Due to the increasing popularity of the dolls, MGA sought to force a renegotiation of the license in 2003 by terminating the license without cause and on pretextual grounds. When Ubisoft refused to give in to MGA's bad faith demands, MGA sued. Ubisoft counter-sued, alleging that MGA's termination of the license was invalid and a breach of contract.

In an effort to justify its wrongful termination, MGA sought to place at issue every aspect of Ubisoft's handling of the Bratz™ license, which required the legal team to become intimately familiar with Ubisoft's development, manufacturing, marketing and sales operations.

"Our relationship with Ubisoft went far beyond the normal lawyer-client relationship," said Smith, who chairs Greenberg Glusker's Litigation Group and who was lead counsel in the matter. "We effectively became an extension of our client, learning everything about Ubisoft's business from its most senior management."

The arbitrator ruled in favor of Ubisoft, awarding it $13 million in lost profits damages, attorney's fees and interest, and rejecting all of MGA's claims. After the arbitration award was confirmed by the Los Angeles Superior Court, MGA stipulated to entry of judgment in the amount of $13.2 million.

"This arbitration was a textbook example of effective cooperation between an internal legal team and its outside counsel," said lead Ubisoft in-house counsel Virginie Gringarten. "We are extremely pleased with the results."