[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

[Steve {Bloo} Daniels]

Caliban Tiresias Darklock wrote:

> The problem is fundamentally that Mythic have allegedly told
> auction sites that they *do* own the game data, since this
> complaint is grounds for the sites to close any auctions involving
> that data. That's just a big lie, which almost certainly
> constitutes obstruction of commerce and probably harassment as
> well. (It is further questionable whether this constitutes
> monopolistic behavior.

I'd be careful about accusing companies of deliberate
misrepresentations in bad faith in a public setting.  Also, in case
you're not aware, you cannot use statements such as "in my opinion"
as a shield, it is no 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.

> Mythic apparently wants to be the one and only company authorised
> to engage in commerce involving DAoC items and accounts, and has
> exerted distinct effort to prevent others from engaging in
> commerce of that nature; this would quite possibly plop them into
> the basket with "Every person who shall monopolize [...] any part
> of the trade or commerce among the several States".)

There is such a thing as a 'natural monopoly' and these do not
offend antitrust law.  The most common natural monopoly derive
from...you guessed it...intellectual property.

> Mythic is certainly not allowed to lie for purposes of stopping
> this activity. Mythic may be perfectly noble in their goals,
> perfectly correct in their insistence that they have a right to
> stop this, and own every last bit of the data involved -- but it
> does not matter. They are *not* allowed to achieve their ends
> through fraud, no matter what those ends are.

> And chances are this is how the whole thing is going to play out
> in court, because it makes the entire intellectual property issue
> irrelevant. And judges don't *like* to make intellectual property
> decisions unless they have no choice.

True.  Mostly because this case is a question of Contract law, not
property.  If the EULA (which contains the important contract terms)
is valid, then Black Snow will lose.  If the EULA is not upheld,
then they *could* win.

The most common mistake people and even lawyers make when dealing
with IP issues is missing the more fundamental contract issue, which
determines who can have what property rights.  All federal IP law,
patents, copyrights, trademarks, are *default* rules for when
contracting parties have *not* made provisions for relevant
intellectual property.  You can fully contract around these laws
(with a few exceptions).  That is what the EULA does.

Only when there is no contract or the contract does not address the
IP issues do you look to IP law.

> If Blacksnow goes into court and seeks a remedy for events that
> never happened, how much of a remedy do you think they're going to
> get?

I'll take your question at face value.  The merits of the case would
not be heard.  There is no question or controversy.  It isn't 'ripe'
in jurisprudential parlance.  What they would have to do is get an
injunction, which they can only do by demonstrating a likelihood of
immediate and significant harm *and* a substantial likelihood that
they will win the case on the merits when it is tried.

-bloo

Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev