Photo Credit: Dan Anderson of Flickr.

By Aaron Orheim

Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) recently settled a major class action lawsuit brought by gamers who purchased some of the most popular video game titles over the last decade. The lawsuit alleged that EA held an illegal monopoly on sports licenses and used that anticompetitive edge to drive up the price of its games. Parties settled for $27 million, and EA will not renew some of its exclusive licenses in order to increase competition in the future.

The litigation can be traced back to 2004 when EA entered into exclusive licensing agreements with the NFL and NCAA. Its long running game franchises—NCAA Football, Madden NFL Football, and Arena League Football (AFL)—became the only officially licensed football games. Only EA could produce the likenesses of players and teams. Immediately EA raised its prices. For example—with competition out of the way—EA raised the price of Madden $29.99 to $49.99 in one year’s time.

The plaintiff class and EA settled in late July. Of course class action lawsuits often benefit the attorneys more than the class itself. But customers who purchased these EA titles within the last eight years will be eligible to recover monetary damages. Plaintiffs will be eligible to recover anywhere from $1.95 to $6.79 per game. Moreover, EA will not renew its AFL and NCAA exclusive licenses when they expire in 2004.

Naysayers will argue that EA still gets to keep its lucrative deal with the NFL. That game is one of the highest selling annual titles, and no other serious competitor challenged the NCAA and AFL titles before EA signed exclusive agreements. In fact, EA has not produced an AFL game since 2007. Moreover, critics will point out that many class members may fail to recover their damages or prefer that EA maintain its current dominance of the market.

This case presents a very interesting case study for litigants. The stakes are high, as these are some of the most well-recognized games, even among non-gamers. EA made a very smart settlement. By agreeing to pay a large sum now, it maintained its cash cow—the Madden franchise—for years to come. Intellectual property litigants should follow this example and clients’ long-term plans in mind when settling a case.

It will take several years for gamers to see a change, if any, in the status quo. This settlement could lead to better games at lower prices. Alternatively, EA could be so far ahead in the game that its competitors can only stand and watch as it continues its solo run towards virtual gridiron greatness.

Photo credit: William Hook of Twitter

By Spencer Hutchins

The old rotary-dial landline phones were so easy to tap, weren’t they? We instantly recognize the scenario when we see it on the big screen: “Hello?” – buzz, click, crackle – “Hello? Who’s there?!” – tap, tap, pop. Those dusty old days seem to be over. But only a few decades into the age of mobile communication, cell phone privacy already seems a thing of the past. Continue reading →

The new face of Youtube?

By Lauren Guicheteau
Yesterday, YouTube announced that it now provides a tool allowing users to blur people’s faces in videos uploaded to the site. This new tool, as “a first step towards providing visual anonymity for video on YouTube,” is a response to the desire by individuals to have privacy while still participating in public forums, a desire which raises important legal issues for sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Continue reading →

JLTA Staff Writer

Judge William Alsup, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, approved a settlement for zero damages in Oracle’s copyright infringement against Google. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75897 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2012). In August 2010, Oracle sued Google for illegally using 37 of Oracle’s application programming interfaces (“APIs”)—protected by patents and copyrights—in Google’s Android mobile operating system. Google has contended it did not violate patents or copyrights, because APIs are necessary to use in Java programming language and Java itself is free for anyone to employ. Continue reading →

By Robert Gomulkiewicz
Faculty Adviser

Last summer, the University of Washington School of Law’s annual CASRIP High Tech Summit celebrated the elevation of Judge Randall R. Rader to Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Judge Rader has been a regular and long time participant in the Summit. Many speakers during the Summit focused on how opinions written by Judge Rader had shaped important aspects of intellectual property law and practice.  Other speakers highlighted his contributions as a teacher and scholar. Still others emphasized that his influence reached globally, particularly to Asia. As I listened to these insightful presentations, I became convinced that we needed to share them with a broader audience. The notion of a festschrift–a collection of writings published to honor an outstanding intellectual during his or her lifetime–came to mind.  That fit the bill nicely because Judge Rader’s intellectual contributions can be found not only in his judicial opinions but in his books, presentations, and classroom teaching. Accordingly, the Spring 2012 issue of the Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts contains 11 articles written by participants in the Summit, highlighting Judge Rader’s achievements in all these areas. I’m grateful to the editors of the Journal for their partnership in celebrating the accomplishments of Chief Judge Rader through this festchrift symposium issue.

The full issue may be read here, and will be available as a manuscript at major law libraries later this year.