Report: $27 million Madden payout to customers stalled in Appeals court

by Jessica Conditt on Jul 10th 2013 8:00PM

In 2008, a lawsuit alleged EA violated antitrust laws by holding exclusive licenses with the NFL, NCAA and AFL, and in 2012, EA admitted no wrongdoing and settled for $27 million. That money was, in part, to be distributed among people who bought Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football games for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube or Wii between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2012. Those applicable could fill out an online form to claim their damages, and in April the form deadline was extended because so few people applied; individual payouts tripled from the initial estimate.

Now, people who followed the case and filled out the form have to wait to receive their payout, following an objection from an invested person named Aaron Miller, Kotaku reports. Miller objects to the size of the attorneys' fees, and while his initial movement was dismissed, his subsequent appeal is in San Francisco's US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. While the appeal is in process, payouts are on hold.

Miller's brief is due on October 7 and the response to his filing is due one month later, the site says. Payouts will remain in limbo until the end of the year. Stay strong – there's no real "bad time" for free, surprise money.

View the original article here

[PC] Blizzard and Valve head to court for legal dispute over DOTA 2

[PC] Blizzard and Valve head to court for legal dispute over DOTA 2

Looks like the gloves are off now, as Blizzard and Valve head to court to engage in a legal dispute over a trademark request related to DOTA 2. The upcoming release is a spiritual successor to an incredibly popular WarCraft III modification, Defense of the Ancients. The project's lead designer is IceFrog, who was a modder who worked on keeping the mod going from 2005 until he joined Valve's DOTA 2 team sometime before it was announced in late 2010.

Both sides have been quite vocal about the case here, but this is the first time we've heard of it heading to the courts. Blizzard argues "for more than seven years... been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community" and that Valve does not have the claim to the name that they do. They claim that whilst no company actually owns the trademark they hold more of a claim on it than Valve.

As for Valve's side to the argument, Gabe Newell commented on the issue at last years Gamescom in an interview with Eurogamer. "The issue with that was, when we were talking with IceFrog originally, he wanted to build the sequel to DOTA," Newell said. "So the reason to call it Dota 2 is it actually does a pretty good job of communicating to gamers what it is the game is going to be."

It will interesting to see where this case leads, and you can be sure we'll have ears pressed to the ground for any further rumbles.

Written by: Kyran Morrison

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

View the original article here

Court denies Ubi's request to restrain Get Up and Dance

by Ludwig Kietzmann on Dec 6th 2011 7:15PM

Oh, it's the dancing neon people. Which one is this again?
Ubisoft's lawyers have learned -- and a judge has confirmed -- that you just can't stop the beat. "Get Up and Dance," a rhythm game and euphoric command from OG International, can sway American customers unimpeded after a Californian court hip-bumped Ubisoft's request for a temporary restraining order. It's published in North America on PS3 and Wii by O-Games.

Legal action sprang from Ubisoft's belief that OG's dance game uses on-screen avatars that are a mite too similar to the ones in Just Dance (pictured), the wildly popular franchise that we only write about because of how wildly popular it is. According to MCV, the court was not satisfied with demonstrations that the games are "substantially" similar.

Ubisoft is said to be appealing the decision in the hopes of telling OG to Sit Down and Cease Your Gyration.

[Update: Crave Entertianment was erroneously listed as the publisher of Get Up and Dance. This has been corrected.]

View the original article here

Ubisoft prevents THQ from hiring more of its Montreal employees with court order

by Alexander Sliwinski on Mar 31st 2011 12:10PM

The Superior Court of Quebec has granted Ubisoft an injunction that prevents THQ from obtaining any more of Ubisoft's employees in ye olde city of Montreal. Game Informer (following up on a report by Rue Frontenac) received an official statement from Ubisoft, in which the publisher requested that the court place an injunction order on THQ based on the "non-solicit clause" included in Ubisoft Montreal employee contracts.

"This procedure aims to protect Ubisoft Montreal in a breach of contract situation," said the statement, "and to defend the long-term financial and creative health of the studio." Translation: Ubisoft hit the panic button following a talent drain that started when creative bigwig Patrice Desilets left Ubisoft to form his team at THQ Montreal, which included several other Ubisoft folks. In obtaining the injunction, Ubisoft even used a Joystiq article from January as evidence of a breach of contract. In that post, THQ exec Danny Bilson admits to hiring three Ubisoft employees (who were bound to a non-compete clause) on retainer.

Given that several major publishers are moving to Canada, THQ is just one of Ubisoft's home turf concerns. Ubisoft probably has the lawyers working overtime to legally add a "restraining order clause" to employee contracts, forcing them to stay 100 meters away from any competitors' employee.

View the original article here