|
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | :''Back to: [[User:CartridgeCulture|CartridgeCulture]].''
| + | {{delete|reason=HOO YEAH BABY}} |
| − | | |
| − | The following is a list of '''lawsuits''' involving [[Sega]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==List of lawsuits==
| |
| − | {{IncompleteList}}
| |
| − | {| class="prettytable sortable"
| |
| − | !Name
| |
| − | !Citation
| |
| − | !Argued
| |
| − | !Decided
| |
| − | !Comments
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Entertaining Comics v. Nihon Goraku Bussan]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |196x
| |
| − | |196x
| |
| − | |The slot machine ''[[Mad Money Star]]'' caused some legal issues for [[Sega]], as it chose to use [[wikipedia:Alfred E. Neuman|Alfred E. Neuman]]'s trademark face from [[wikipedia:Mad (magazine)|''Mad'' magazine]] without first seeking permission. ''Mad'' owners [[wikipedia:EC Comics|EC Comics]] threatened to sue Sega if ''Mad''-branded machines were brought into the United States.{{ref|https://blog.goo.ne.jp/nazox2016/e/c45349d89bcc37b25435a34da6eabf6a}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Segasa v. Sega Enterprises, Ltd.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |19xx
| |
| − | |19xx
| |
| − | |[[Eduardo Morales-Hermo]] of the Spanish Sega distributor [[Segasa]] sued the Japanese [[Sega Enterprises, Ltd.]] over the first "use of [[Sonic]]".{{intref|Interview: Eduardo Morales-Hermo (2022-10-05) by Sega-16}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Computer Video Services]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |198x{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}}
| |
| − | |198x
| |
| − | |Although the specific game which caused the lawsuit goes unmentioned, ''[[Cash Box]]'' implies it may have been a ''[[Frogger]]'' clone.{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. London Conversion Company]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |198x{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}}
| |
| − | |198x
| |
| − | |Although the specific game which caused the lawsuit goes unmentioned, ''[[Cash Box]]'' implies it may have been a ''[[Frogger]]'' clone.{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Omni Micro Technology Ltd.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1981-12
| |
| − | |1982-01
| |
| − | |In December 1981, [[Sega Enterprises, Inc.]] filed a lawsuit against the company for illegally distributing a clone of ''[[Frogger]]'' named ''[[Leapfrog]]''.{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}} Deemed to be a "substantial copy" of the original game, Sega obtained orders to seize infringing goods and documents relating to the title from Omni's offices. The company was also forced to provide written notification to [[wikipedia:High Court of Justice|England's High Court]] promising to desist from any further acts of infringement.{{fileref|CashBox US 1981-12-12.pdf|page=45}}<ref>[[Ken Horowitz|K Horowitz]] (2018). ''[[The Sega Arcade Revolution: A History in 62 Games]]''</ref>
| |
| − | <br>
| |
| − | Following the lawsuit, Omni appears to have entered into an agreement with Sega Enterprises to properly license and distribute ''Frogger'' through their signature Gamepack system, being advertised as early as January 1982 - the following month.{{ref|1=https://archive.org/details/leisure-play-3-2/page/n43/mode/2up?q=omni+gamepack}}{{ref|1=https://web.archive.org/web/20230727100231/https://forums.sonicretro.org/index.php?threads%2Fgeneral-questions-and-information-thread.26211%2Fpage-129#post-1048187}} Fittingly, the company featured this newly-acquired official license front and center in print ads, now boasting "the support of the world's major 'original' game manufacturers".{{fileref|Frogger AC UK printad OmniMicroTechnology Gamepack.png}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Richards]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1982{{ref|1=https://forums.sonicretro.org/index.php?threads/general-questions-and-information-thread.26211/page-129#post-1048224}}
| |
| − | |1983{{ref|1=https://forums.sonicretro.org/index.php?threads/general-questions-and-information-thread.26211/page-129#post-1048224}}
| |
| − | |In 1982, [[Sega]] successfully sued Mr. John Richards of the arcade distribution company Trolfame for illegally distributing ''[[Frogger]]'' clones, cited as one of the earliest cases of video game copyright law being tested - and the general foundation of modern anti-piracy game law.{{ref|1=https://forums.sonicretro.org/index.php?threads/general-questions-and-information-thread.26211/page-129#post-1048224}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Inc. v. Alca]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |198x
| |
| − | |198x
| |
| − | |[[Sega]] successfully sued Alca for illegally distributing ''[[Frogger]]'' clones.{{intref|Talk:Frogger/Bootlegs}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc. v. Sega Enterprises Ltd.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1991-02-21
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |In February 1991, the American tobacco company [[wikipedia:Philip Morris International|Philip Morris International]] sued [[Sega Enterprises, Ltd.]] for unauthorized use of their branding in the game ''[[Super Monaco GP]]'' (which features thinly-veiled parodies of popular racing sponsors). An initial complaint was filed when one of Philip Morris's lawyers spotted branding while visiting an arcade in November 1989. The firm demanded that Sega removed what it saw as trademark infringement immediately, citing also that it did not want to be seen advertising to minors. Sega conceded immediately and began the process of removing the advertisements from the game.
| |
| − | <br>
| |
| − | Co-chairman of Sega [[David Rosen]] issued a statement shortly claiming that the inclusion of "fleeting billboard parodies" was an "innocent attempt to mimic real-life locations and scenery to enhance the realism of game play"{{fileref|SuperMonacoGP US Statement 1990-01-12.png}}. It had been claimed that the in-game banners were sponsored by Philip Morris, something both companies denied. The Marlboro advertisements were also criticised by the US [[wikipedia:Federal Trade Commission|Federal Trade Commission]] as many arcade users at the time were children.{{magref|ace|43|8}}
| |
| − | <br>
| |
| − | Sega completed the changes and began issuing free conversion kits in March 1990{{fileref|SuperMonacoGP US Letter ConversionKit 1990-03-15.pdf}}, plus a $200 check to entice arcade operators into making the change. However, adoption of the kit was not good enough for Philip Morris, who sued in February 1991 when it emerged many older cabinets were still in active service. By May 1992, the two companies had reached an agreement. Sega would also distance itself from plagiarizing official Formula One cars and sponsors in the home ports of the game.{{intref|Super Monaco GP}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[RazorSoft, Inc. v. Sega of America, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1991-07-22{{fileref|PhoenixtheFallandRiseofVideoGames Book US 3rd.pdf|page=153}}{{magref|gamepro|28|142}}{{ref|http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Punk_Development}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |In 1991, disagreements between [[RazorSoft]] and [[Sega]] over the cost and order size of Sega's proprietary [[Sega Mega Drive]] cartridges{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210608052404/http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Interview:Kevin_Seghetti}}{{ref|https://www.gamingalexandria.com/wp/2019/01/the-history-of-stormlord/}} led to ''Stormlord'' being released in a smaller run of self-manufactured cartridges (as opposed to purchasing them directly from [[Sega]], as contractually-obliged.){{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210608052404/http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Interview:Kevin_Seghetti}}{{ref|http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Punk_Development}} While the company still paid full royalties to Sega{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210608052404/http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Interview:Kevin_Seghetti}}{{ref|https://www.gamingalexandria.com/wp/2019/01/the-history-of-stormlord/}}, their developer license was revoked in June 1991, and Sega refused to publish any of their future games. RazorSoft then sued for breach of the Sherman Antitrust Act on July 22, 1991.{{fileref|PhoenixtheFallandRiseofVideoGames Book US 3rd.pdf|page=153}}{{magref|gamepro|28|142}}{{ref|http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Punk_Development}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega of America, Inc. v. RazorSoft, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1991-08{{fileref|PhoenixtheFallandRiseofVideoGames Book US 3rd.pdf|page=153}}{{magref|gamepro|28|142}}{{ref|http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Punk_Development}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |Following [[RazorSoft]]'s July 1991 lawsuit against the company, [[Sega of America]] counter-sued both RazorSoft and its development studio [[Punk Development]] the following month for copyright infringement and breach of contract.{{fileref|PhoenixtheFallandRiseofVideoGames Book US 3rd.pdf|page=153}}{{magref|gamepro|28|142}}{{ref|http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Punk_Development}} The final outcome was settled out of court, with RazorSoft agreeing to purchase future cartridges from Sega, having their developer license restored, and Sega dropping the lawsuit.{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210608052404/http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Interview:Kevin_Seghetti}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |[https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/977/977.F2d.1510.92-15655.html 977 F.2d 1510] (9th Cir. 1992)
| |
| − | |1992-07-20
| |
| − | |1992-10-20
| |
| − | |[[Accolade]]'s acts of reverse engineering [[Sega Genesis]] software to learn about its security systems and subsequent publishing of unlicensed Sega Genesis games are protected under the fair use doctrine of copyright law. [[Sega]] is held responsible for using its security system to place its trademark on Accolade's games.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Beeshu, Inc. v. Sega Enterprises Ltd.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1993-07-15
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |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 its wireless gamepads). 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/}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Sega of America hired [[wikipedia:Silicon Valley|Silicon Valley]]'s tech-specialized lawfirm [[wikipedia:Fenwick & West|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.{{ref|https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/antitrust1.pdf}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Atari Corp. v. Sega of America, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |869 F. Supp. 783 (N.D. Cal. 1994){{ref|https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/869/783/1495595/}}
| |
| − | |1993{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20230526140824/http://gdri.smspower.org/wiki/index.php/Blog:Arcade_Classics_(Game_Gear/Genesis)}}
| |
| − | |1994-08-12{{ref|https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/869/783/1495595/}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Shenchu Electronic Equipment Factory, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1994-09-07
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |In the early to mid 1990s, [[Sega Enterprises, Ltd.]] sought legal action against various [[History of Sega in China|Chinese]] clone video game manufacturers. One of these companies, the [[wikipedia:Shenzhen|Shenzhen]]-based Shenchu Electronic Equipment Factory, was successfully fined and ordered to halt the sale of pirated video games on September 7, 1994.{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210622234704/https://techmonitor.ai/technology/chinese_sega_pirate_punished}}{{ref|https://web.archive.org/web/20210620110659/https://www.telecompaper.com/news/sega-wins-copyright-dispute-with-shenzhen-shenchu--35740}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |rowspan="2"| [[Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia]]
| |
| − | |857 F. Supp. 679{{ref|http://digital-law-online.info/cases/41PQ2D1705.htm}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1994
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |948 F.Supp. 923{{ref|http://digital-law-online.info/cases/41PQ2D1705.htm}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1996-12-18
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[3Dfx Interactive, Inc. v. Sega Enterprises Ltd.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1997-09-02{{intref|Press release: 1997-09-02: 3Dfx Interactive Files Lawsuit Against Sega Enterprises, Sega of America and NEC Corporation}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Ingalls Moranville Advertising v. Sega of America, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |1997
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |In 1997, when Sega of America dropped the firm in favor of [[Foote, Cone & Belding]], Ingalls Moranville sued for breach of contract and was awarded $185,000.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. King-Wei Electronics, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |2000{{intref|KW-501}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |It is rumored that the Taiwanese clone console manufacturer [[King-Wei Electronics]] was sued by [[Sega Enterprises, Ltd.]] sometime in the late 1990s. While King-Wei ceased operations in April 1998{{ref|https://gotw101.com/company/name/慶威電子股份有限公司.html}}, Sega is said to have won the lawsuit in 2000.
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Nike, Inc. v. Sega of America Dreamcast, Inc.]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |2002-02-07
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |In February 2002, Nike announced it had filed a lawsuit against [[Sega of America]] over an ''[[NBA 2K2]]'' ad which largely copied the premise of Nike's famous ''Frozen Moment'' commercial.{{intref|Press release: 2002-02-07: Nike Files Lawsuit Against Sega of America; Suit Seeks an Injunction and Damages for Sega's Copyright Infringement Of Nike's Famous Frozen Moment Ad}}
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |[[Marcelo Muto v. Sega of America, Inc. et al]]
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |2021-07-12{{ref|https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2021cv01161/825664}}{{ref|https://www.polygon.com/22573590/sega-key-master-arcade-game-class-action-lawsuit}}
| |
| − | |
| |
| − | |A consumer class-action lawsuit brought against [[Sega of America]] over alleged fraud and rigging in ''[[Key Master]]'' redemption games.{{ref|https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5:2021cv01161/825664}}{{ref|https://www.polygon.com/22573590/sega-key-master-arcade-game-class-action-lawsuit}}
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
