Everyone knows that corporations like to sue each other, and MMO companies are no exception. This week, Jon looks at five memorable MMO lawsuits.

Last week, when we learned that MMO development studio Turbine had taken legal action against well known publisher Atari over issues surrounding the Dungeons and Dragons license, it got me thinking about MMO lawsuits of the past.

While many of us would like to think of MMOs as games and leave it at that, it seems as though there are constant reminders that behind these beloved games thrives a multi-million dollar industry. One of the most vivid reminders of the harsh reality of games as business are the inevitable lawsuits that come from it. With that said, there’s a light at the end of the litigation tunnel. That light being the fact that while I’m sure the game companies and individuals involved take their lawsuits very seriously, there’s often some humor to be found among them.

Read it all here.

 I still cant get over the first time i heard about worlds.com sueing NCsoft, my lord. It had me lol'ing for quite some time at the page but as i thought about it even more, it was kind of a smart move if you think about it. 

Because if it does go through; no matter what company or mmo created they would all have to go through Worlds.com right?; That seems to be a pretty intense way to make money and something that you think would have already been patented; or atleast .. been able to not be? seeing as there are hundreds of companies running off of the same patent or idea for a MMO.

From the look of worlds.com website, i am surely glad and hopeful that they wont win that suit, and what not. Because they need to leave the MMO's up to the big boy companies.

In other words, they are just trying to make a quick buck on their flop of a game that they created didnt sky rocket into happy land as they hoped.

If people think so little of their time in your game that they'll let a bot play their character in order to advance, maybe you should look a bit harder at the fun factor of your game.  Most battlegrounds have a few characters AFK at the entrance to the battleground, which is no different in principle, yet Blizzard does nothing to stop it.

I actually remember every press release for eacn of these law suites except for the one on Square.  The last two are easily some of the best law suites to talk about.  The Blizzard one for the the fact that while it has an 800lbs gorilla working for it, it still shows that they give a damn about the end user; and the NCSoft one because I was laughing for days after I had read it.  Good article!

On your #1 - UO was not  a 3D world.  Everquest and Asheron's Call, however, were.

Great, refreshing article. Very entertaining.

Now if Worlds.com had dropped thier patent before UI's were up and running in released games they may have a leg to stand on. They dropped a patent on UI's after EQ, UO, M59 and others were all released and running. Thats called Public domain. I dont see how any judge is not going to laugh and toss that shit out.

Its a quick money grab is all. Sad.

Maby I should go patent the wheel and sue ford? :)

Originally posted by demarc01

Now if Worlds.com had dropped thier patent before UI's were up and running in released games they may have a leg to stand on. They dropped a patent on UI's after EQ, UO, M59 and others were all released and running. Thats called Public domain. I dont see how any judge is not going to laugh and toss that shit out.

Its a quick money grab is all. Sad.

Maby I should go patent the wheel and sue ford? :)

The Wheel is Trade MArked Terry Prachet :0

Nice and funny read. The stupidity of man know no limits after all xD

#5 does seem to have some grounds for complaint ... I didn't know that Square charged late fees for FFXI, and I've played it myself.

The idea of a game charging late fees for a service they also cut off automatically the second payment lapses is ludicrous, what possible financial loss are they recouping or is it just another excuse to squeeze some more cash out of someone who either can't or won't pay for the game anymore.

The latest updates for the Worlds.Com and NCsoft lawsuit:

- Worlds.com moved the lawsuit to California from Texas as Worlds.com does not have a presence in East Texas.  The case resumed in May of 2009.

- As of June 2nd, Article One Partners are providing evidence of Prior Art against Worlds.com to invalidate the patent.  Worlds.com was also awarded another patent in March, which adds onto this existing one.  However the Prior Art by Article One Partners is believe to also make that one invalid as well.  Unfortunately no images of what this Prior Art is has yet to be released.

The scary thing is that, in the Worlds.com vs NCSoft lawsuit, if this case is reviewed by a judge who has never played an MMO, much less knows the history of them, then there is the percent chance possibility of ruling in World's favor. Considering that there probably aren't many judges out there who have the time to play videos games at all, much less MMOs...yeah, chew on that...

You're article is entitled "Five Sillies MMO Lawsuits", yet you put Blizzard vs. MMO Glider. You, then, go on to praise Blizzard for doing what you wish other companies would do, and end the paragraph by saying "So, I’m going to say something I don’t normally say: Good job Blizzard. Bravo."

Dude?

for those interested blizzard won thier lawsuit to the toon of 11 million USD.  Last word I had they had moved to have the courts  pierce the corpatate viel  and hold the guy who designed the program personally liable for the damages  ie not  just the corporation he had formed to act as a shield from lawsuits.

---

Originally posted by brostyn
You're article is entitled "Five Sillies MMO Lawsuits", yet you put Blizzard vs. MMO Glider. You, then, go on to praise Blizzard for doing what you wish other companies would do, and end the paragraph by saying "So, I’m going to say something I don’t normally say: Good job Blizzard. Bravo."
 
Dude?

---

Yes, how is this silly? I don't like Blizzard anymore, but this was a good thing to do. It was not a silly lawsuit, and you never claim in the article that it was.

That said, when I first heard about Worlds v. NCSoft, I nearly passed out from lack of oxygen because I just couldn't stop laughing. It's the most asinine thing I've ever heard. However, Khalathwyr may well be right that there is the chance, however small, that a judge won't know what they are talking about and rule in favor of Worlds. How badly would that damage the entire industry we so love?

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

The scary thing is that, in the Worlds.com vs NCSoft lawsuit, if this case is reviewed by a judge who has never played an MMO, much less knows the history of them, then there is the percent chance possibility of ruling in World's favor. Considering that there probably aren't many judges out there who have the time to play videos games at all, much less MMOs...yeah, chew on that...

The case should be presented by lawyers, and if NCSoft hires lawyers that aren't smart enough to present the history of MMOs to the judge then NCSoft deserves to lose.

Originally posted by brostyn

You're article is entitled "Five Sillies MMO Lawsuits", yet you put Blizzard vs. MMO Glider. You, then, go on to praise Blizzard for doing what you wish other companies would do, and end the paragraph by saying "So, I’m going to say something I don’t normally say: Good job Blizzard. Bravo."

 

Dude?

Have to agree on this one, When I read the Blizz vs Glider I was thinking "there's nothing silly about this."   May have to change it to Interesting MMO lawsuits or something.

omfg, ofc Mythic sued, REALM VS REALM IS ****KING COPYRIGHTED! That's like Burgerking using "I'm lovin' it" instead of "Have it your way". It's like wtf man, no one else can be  "lovin'  it" then. 

This article is absolutely rife with factual errors. The list of them has been outlined here: http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/09/01/five-silliest-mmo-lawsuits/

Seriously, there's almost nothing correct about this article.

 Calling Worlds.com a trademark case (it's not), not understanding what a trademark does, not noticing that the Square Enix case is a class action and that $5 million would go to ALL final fantasy XI players, etc. Shoddy work overall, absolutely shoddy.

Originally posted by SWATJester

This article is absolutely rife with factual errors. The list of them has been outlined here: http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/09/01/five-silliest-mmo-lawsuits/

Seriously, there's almost nothing correct about this article.

 Calling Worlds.com a trademark case (it's not), not understanding what a trademark does, not noticing that the Square Enix case is a class action and that $5 million would go to ALL final fantasy XI players, etc. Shoddy work overall, absolutely shoddy.

 

Well, that was an interesting read.

Rebuttle?

---

Originally posted by SWATJester
This article is absolutely rife with factual errors. The list of them has been outlined here: http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/09/01/five-silliest-mmo-lawsuits/
Seriously, there's almost nothing correct about this article.
 Calling Worlds.com a trademark case (it's not), not understanding what a trademark does, not noticing that the Square Enix case is a class action and that $5 million would go to ALL final fantasy XI players, etc. Shoddy work overall, absolutely shoddy.
 

---

Are you really surprised? Most of the articles presented on this site are poorly researched, if at all. In addition to the Glider suit being called silly in the title, and then expressly called a good idea in the body, the article is full of contradictions and errors. That is just how they do things here.

The Blizzard vs Glider suits was a real shame.

WoW was so much more fun back when i was botting the hell out of it :/

I miss it.

So many errors in this article, I'm shocked it was allowed to be posted. Not to mention this glaring one:

Honorable Mention - Mythic vs. Auran

This particular lawsuit lands at number ten primarily because of the fact that there wasn’t an actual lawsuit attached. It could easily have become one, but it didn’t, because the would-be defendant apparently saw the error of their ways and backed down.

Really? Number 10 you say. I thought this was an honorable mention, and a top 5 list. =)

---

Originally posted by Dubhlaith

---

Originally posted by SWATJester
This article is absolutely rife with factual errors. The list of them has been outlined here: http://www.gameslaw.net/2009/09/01/five-silliest-mmo-lawsuits/
Seriously, there's almost nothing correct about this article.
 Calling Worlds.com a trademark case (it's not), not understanding what a trademark does, not noticing that the Square Enix case is a class action and that $5 million would go to ALL final fantasy XI players, etc. Shoddy work overall, absolutely shoddy.
 

---

Are you really surprised? Most of the articles presented on this site are poorly researched, if at all. In addition to the Glider suit being called silly in the title, and then expressly called a good idea in the body, the article is full of contradictions and errors. That is just how they do things here.

---

I think you guys are being a bit ridiculous.

Its a mmo site.

What are you expecting?

This article/thread should be deleted and forgotten immediately. lulz.