MyFarm developer SocialApps' lawsuit against Zynga over alleged source code theft with FarmVille is headed to court, after a federal judge denied Zynga's motion to dismiss the case.
SocialApps filed the suit last June, accusing Zynga of using MyFarm's source code and other information to create Facebook hit FarmVille, without the consent of the California-based studio and without compensation. It said Zynga may have used the code to develop other popular titles like FrontierVille and CityVille.
According to SocialApps, Zynga approached the company about acquiring the intellectual property rights and source code for MyFarm several months after the game's November 2008 release, and right before it put out FarmVille in June 2009. The two entered an agreement to share information about MyFarm at the time for "due diligence" purposes.
SocialApps claims FarmVille was created with code from MyFarm, and that Zynga never provided credit or compensation for the developer. It's now seeking a permanent injunction, statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and a share of the profits Zynga made from FarmVille.
Zynga responded by filing a motion to dismiss SocialApps' claims, which included violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
While U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers partially granted the motion to dismiss SocialApps' CUTSA violation claim and struck out allegations regarding misappropriation of MyFarm's images and features (SocialApps can amend that portion), it denied all of Zynga's other motions to dismiss the lawsuit.
"The allegations here are sufficient to allege conduct beyond a mere breach of the terms of the agreement, which would support a claim for tort damages," said Rogers in her decision issued last week [PDF link].
Law firm Girardi Keese's Graham LippSmith, counsel for SocialApps, said the decision to partially dismiss the CUTSA violation claim did not affect his client's lawsuit, and that the company will file an amended complaint, according to AM Law Litigation Daily. He also remarked that damages will be "astronomical," considering FarmVille's massive commercial success.
The decision comes a couple of months after Zynga settled its own lawsuit against Brazilian developer Vostu over the alleged copying of its games. As part of the settlement, Vostu agreed to make changes to its games and make a monetary payment to Zynga.
Should be relatively easy to prove if they do "share" a common code base. The code is like a fingerprint any competent IT investigator can find duplicate code segments within 2 source base with the proper tools and access to the source of course. I'm sure the subpoena emails will also prove enlightening about the inner workings of Zynga and how they deal with 3rd parties. If MyFarm does win, that mean the #1 and #2 Zynga games arn't even Zyngas own creations.. devastating..
Note to self : If Zynga approaches me about my games, and asks to see the source code, "just to see if it's cool and stuff", i should probably say ......... yes? Oh wait, no.
We'll that's the crux of it, SocialApps was lead to believe there would be a "business" relationship from this so they shared their source, that's from what I've read anyways.. This isn't very unlike how Microsoft operated in the 80-90's.. They would enter into "business" arrangements with their competitors and suddenly competing products show up to market later down the road and the partnership terminated.. See original Xbox, etc.. Those cases are still in the courts..
With how long these court cases take and how much manpower Zynga has, wouldn't it be easy to hide all traces of stolen code and replace them with new code and false repository histories? Especially if most of the interesting code is server side (not sure if that's the case). What kinds of experts will be verifying this? Will they be forced to build the code and compare its execution, unique bugs, and binary data to that which is run for end users?
Really curious how a case like this works.
Oh the irony...