Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
April 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
April 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


Court overturns  Madden  creator's legal victory vs. EA
Court overturns Madden creator's legal victory vs. EA
January 24, 2014 | By Alex Wawro

January 24, 2014 | By Alex Wawro
Comments
    4 comments
More: Console/PC, Programming



This week the U.S. District Court conditionally granted Electronic Arts the right to a new trial to determine whether or not the company owes millions in unpaid royalties to a programmer of the original Madden game for Apple II.

The original lawsuit, filed by Madden developer Robin Antonick against Electronic Arts back in 2011, alleged that EA used technologies Antonick developed for the original Madden -- released in 1988 and 1989 for the Commodore 64, MS-DOS and Apple II -- in developing subsequent versions of the title for a variety of different platforms.

The lawsuit seemingly concluded in 2013 when a jury in U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Antonick, awarding him more than $11 million in unpaid royalties.

Judge Breyer filed an opinion [PDF] in the U.S. District Court earlier this week explaining that, in essence, the jury in Antonick v. Electronic Arts Inc., 2013 was not equipped with sufficient evidence to determine that subsequent Madden games -- specifically, those that came out on the Sega Genesis -- were "virtually identical" to the original Apple II version of Madden that Antonick worked on.

"Antonick’s expert, Michael Barr, used flawed methods to support his opinion that EA copied Antonick’s protectable expression." wrote Breyer. "Specifically, Barr (1) used reversed-engineered binary data to produce and compare visual representation of the plays in Apple II Madden and Sega Madden, rather than comparing the source code itself, and (2) relied on similarities in unprotectable elements to suggest copying of protectable expression."

Since Breyer believes that the evidence presented by Antonick to prove substantial similarities between Sega Madden and Apple II Madden is not sufficient to support the jury's decision, Breyer granted EA's post-trial motion for a new trial, writing "the Court concludes that the jury’s finding on Question 1 was against the clear weight of the evidence."

"We are thrilled to see the claims resolved in favor of EA. It was the right result," said EA lead attorney Susan Harriman when contacted by Gamasutra. "As Judge Breyer held, there is no evidence that any of the Sega Madden games are virtually identical to the Apple II game that Robin Antonick programmed."

"The evidence also proved that EA’s source code was not substantially similar to Antonick’s source code. As EA has maintained from day one, Antonick was fully compensated for his work on the Apple II game. Because Antonick had no involvement in the Sega Madden games, he had no entitlement to further royalties."

Gamasutra has reached out to legal representatives of Robin Antonick for comment on the ruling, and we'll report back with any meaningful updates.





Related Jobs

Turbine Inc.
Turbine Inc. — Needham, Massachusetts, United States
[04.23.14]

Director, Analytics Platform Development
Gameloft Toronto
Gameloft Toronto — Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[04.23.14]

Technical Artist
Muti Labs
Muti Labs — Santa Monica, California, United States
[04.23.14]

Senior Game Engineer
Digital Extremes
Digital Extremes — London, Ontario, Canada
[04.23.14]

Programmers










Comments


Terry Matthes
profile image
In my opinion EA should be forced to pay the legal fees of Robin Antonick in this second trial. It doesn't take a genius to figure that EA knows Antonick probably doesn't have enough money to go to trial again and that it will cost them way less than $11,000,000 to have another trial. You don't have to be right you just have to make sure the other person doesn't have enough money to prove you aren't.

Cody Kostiuk
profile image
It would be interesting if, in all lawsuits, the "loser" would have to pay the lawyer fees for both sides. I wonder how many frivolous lawsuits could be avoided then?

Harry Fields
profile image
I think you'd have a lot more people being sued by big mega corporations who kept the best lawyers on retainer. There would be a few exceptions for those who were truly wronged. But by and large, I'd think this system would benefit those with the best lawyers and lead to more frivolity in the legal system.

Martyn Hughes
profile image
Cody... generally the loser, at least in the UK, does have to pay both sides legal fees...


none
 
Comment: