Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com> wrote:
> Humberto Massa Guimarães <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
>
> >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
> >> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
> >> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
> >> expression from Transport Tycoon.
> >
> > Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right.
>
> I'm not so convinced. It depends on how much of the game is defined
> in the data files, and how much is part of the engine, in other words,
> how generic the game engine is.
Well, the authors don't say it's a generic game engine. They say it's
an open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe".
No less, no more.
> Unless a proper distinction is made, you could argue that the game was
> made to run on an Intel CPU, and thus AMD is infringing on the game by
> making a machine capable of running it. I don't expect anyone to
> seriously attempt such an argument, but with a dedicated game console,
> the borders are more blurred, especially when the manufacturer of the
> original hardware also produces games.
People have seriously attempted such arguments (using copyright on the
game machine's BIOS as the hook), and have lost at the appellate
level. See for example Sony v. Connectix (
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9915852.html ), which in turn cites Sega
v. Accolade. See also Galoob v. Nintendo (
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Galoob_v_Nintendo.html
) for a discussion of the borderline between temporary alteration of a
game's behavior at run-time and the creation of a derivative work.
I refer you again to Lexmark v. Static Control, a brilliant Sixth
Circuit exposition of where courts should (and do) place limits on the
copyright monopoly to prevent its abuse as a tool to stifle legitimate
competition.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: