Difference between revisions of "Sega v. Accolade"
From Sega Retro
Scarred Sun (talk | contribs) m |
(more detail needed) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{stub}} | ||
[[Sega]] lost the '''SEGA vs. [[Accolade]]''' case, which involved independently produced software for the [[Sega Mega Drive/Genesis]] console that copied a small amount of Sega's code. The verdict set a precedent that copyrights do not extend to non-expressive content in software that is required by another system to be present in order for that system to run the software. The case in question stems from the nature of the console video game market. Hardware companies often sell their systems at or below cost, and rely on other revenue streams such as in this case, game licensing. Sega was attempting to "lock out" game companies from making Genesis games unless they paid Sega a fee (ostensibly to maintain a consistent level of quality of games for their system) by using the [[TradeMark Security System]]. Their strategy was to make the hardware reject any cartridge that did not include a Sega trademark. If an unlicensed company included this trademark in their game, Sega could sue the company for trademark infringement. Though Sega lost this lawsuit, all later Sega systems seemed to incorporate a similar hardware requirement. | [[Sega]] lost the '''SEGA vs. [[Accolade]]''' case, which involved independently produced software for the [[Sega Mega Drive/Genesis]] console that copied a small amount of Sega's code. The verdict set a precedent that copyrights do not extend to non-expressive content in software that is required by another system to be present in order for that system to run the software. The case in question stems from the nature of the console video game market. Hardware companies often sell their systems at or below cost, and rely on other revenue streams such as in this case, game licensing. Sega was attempting to "lock out" game companies from making Genesis games unless they paid Sega a fee (ostensibly to maintain a consistent level of quality of games for their system) by using the [[TradeMark Security System]]. Their strategy was to make the hardware reject any cartridge that did not include a Sega trademark. If an unlicensed company included this trademark in their game, Sega could sue the company for trademark infringement. Though Sega lost this lawsuit, all later Sega systems seemed to incorporate a similar hardware requirement. | ||
[[Category:Sega]] | [[Category:Sega]] | ||
Revision as of 11:25, 12 January 2011
This short article is in need of work. You can help Sega Retro by adding to it.
Sega lost the SEGA vs. Accolade case, which involved independently produced software for the Sega Mega Drive/Genesis console that copied a small amount of Sega's code. The verdict set a precedent that copyrights do not extend to non-expressive content in software that is required by another system to be present in order for that system to run the software. The case in question stems from the nature of the console video game market. Hardware companies often sell their systems at or below cost, and rely on other revenue streams such as in this case, game licensing. Sega was attempting to "lock out" game companies from making Genesis games unless they paid Sega a fee (ostensibly to maintain a consistent level of quality of games for their system) by using the TradeMark Security System. Their strategy was to make the hardware reject any cartridge that did not include a Sega trademark. If an unlicensed company included this trademark in their game, Sega could sue the company for trademark infringement. Though Sega lost this lawsuit, all later Sega systems seemed to incorporate a similar hardware requirement.