Could we use the Galoob Toys vs Nintendo case to fight this?

[TerraMuncher]

The District Judge at the time concluded that 'Because of the technology involved, owners of video games are less able to experiment with or change the method of play, absent an electronic accessory such as the Game Genie.' and 'Having paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment, without creating a derivative work.'.

 

Could that case be used as a legal precedent to fight Take-Two? I am not in any way qualified in Law, but just wondering and trying to help.

 

Link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14167398686354689030&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

 

Yours sincerely,

TerraMuncher

[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]

Remember, even if you're in the right, lawyer expenses are f*cking expensive, and you're likely to lose against a multi-billion dollar company anyhow.

[TerraMuncher]

Remember, even if you're in the right, lawyer expenses are f*cking expensive, and you're likely to lose against a multi-billion dollar company anyhow.

 

True, just hoping that there might be a way to stick it to them - T2 might eventually go back on the decision if enough backlash happens, like Bethesda did with paid mods a few years ago.

[Jimbatron]

There may very well be legal precedents that may help, however, you'd need the time (possibly years) and the money (possibly millions) to get into a court battle with a giant like Take2 and win.

 

I don't, and I guess the Open IV team don't either.

 

If someone does though, potentially they could still challenge the decision on the Open IV teams behalf potentially.

 

A word of warning re precedents, I haven't read the above, anything related to computer games NOT involving micro transactions would probably get thrown out easily. Whilst we all know the Open IV team weren't messing with GTAO, that doesn't stop Take2 from adopting that angle legally.