Difference between revisions of "Beeshu v. Sega"
From Sega Retro
(Created page with "{{LawsuitBob | image=Courtseal US DC NorCal.svg | title=''Beeshu, Inc. v. Sega of America, Ltd.'' | court=wikipedia:United States District Court for the Northern District of...") |
m |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
| − | On July 15, 1993, [[Beeshu]] sued [[Sega Enterprises]] through its Western subsidiary [[Sega of America]] in a California federal court. Beeshu claimed that it had become the principal accessory manufacturer for Sega's consoles in 1990 and, per its contractual agreement, did not produce accessories for any other client. Beeshu alleged that Sega subsequently used its proprietary information on the manufacturer's accessories to contract another manufacturer for similar accessories (particularly | + | On July 15, 1993, [[Beeshu]] sued [[Sega Enterprises]] through its Western subsidiary [[Sega of America]] in a California federal court. Beeshu claimed that it had become the principal accessory manufacturer for Sega's consoles in 1990 and, per its contractual agreement, did not produce accessories for any other client. Beeshu alleged that Sega subsequently used its proprietary information on the manufacturer's accessories to contract another manufacturer for similar accessories (particularly the [[Remote Arcade System]]). |
Beeshu stated that it discovered this in October 1991, and that it caused the company to halt production of its products for Sega - eventually culminating in a loss of sales by September 1992, as retailers like Toys "R" Us began stocking Sega's new accessories in place of Beeshu's. With the lawsuit, Beeshu was seeking $20,000,000 in lost sales and an additional $10,000,000 in damages.{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210131002904/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/68933280/beeshu-sues-sega-enterprises/}} | Beeshu stated that it discovered this in October 1991, and that it caused the company to halt production of its products for Sega - eventually culminating in a loss of sales by September 1992, as retailers like Toys "R" Us began stocking Sega's new accessories in place of Beeshu's. With the lawsuit, Beeshu was seeking $20,000,000 in lost sales and an additional $10,000,000 in damages.{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210131002904/https://www.newspapers.com/clip/68933280/beeshu-sues-sega-enterprises/}} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:30, 24 March 2024
|
| Beeshu, Inc. v. Sega of America, Ltd. |
|---|
| Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California[1] |
| Argued: 1993-07-15[2] |
| Decided: 199x (dismissed)[1] |
This short article is in need of work. You can help Sega Retro by adding to it.
Beeshu, Inc. v. Sega of America, Ltd. is a 1993 case in which Beeshu, an American gaming peripheral manufacturer, sued Sega of America over its exclusivity contract with the company and alleged intellectual property theft of what would become the Remote Arcade System.[3]
History
On July 15, 1993, Beeshu sued Sega Enterprises through its Western subsidiary Sega of America in a California federal court. Beeshu claimed that it had become the principal accessory manufacturer for Sega's consoles in 1990 and, per its contractual agreement, did not produce accessories for any other client. Beeshu alleged that Sega subsequently used its proprietary information on the manufacturer's accessories to contract another manufacturer for similar accessories (particularly the Remote Arcade System).
Beeshu stated that it discovered this in October 1991, and that it caused the company to halt production of its products for Sega - eventually culminating in a loss of sales by September 1992, as retailers like Toys "R" Us began stocking Sega's new accessories in place of Beeshu's. With the lawsuit, Beeshu was seeking $20,000,000 in lost sales and an additional $10,000,000 in damages.[3]
Results
Sega of America hired Silicon Valley's tech-specialized lawfirm Fenwick & West to represent them. Ultimately, the firm's arguments resulted in the dismissal of Beeshu's claims for damages, with the manufacturer voluntarily dismissing their case altogether.[1]