Friday, March 20, 2009

More cases

I am in danger of turning this blog into a case study, but I can't help myself. Blizzard vs Bnetd. After reading the ruling, it is clear that why the judge ruled against bnetd:
Unlike in Lexmark Int'l, Inc., mode codes
were not accessible by simply purchasing a Blizzard game or logging onto

Appellants's circumvention in this case constitutes infringement. As detailed
earlier, Blizzard's secret handshake between Blizzard games and effectively
controlled access to mode within its games. The purpose of the
project was to provide matchmaking services for users of Blizzard games who wanted
to play in a multi-player environment without using The
emulator enabled users of Blizzard games to access mode features without
a valid or unique CD key to enter The emulator did not
determine whether the CD key was valid or currently in use by another player. As a
result, unauthorized copies of the Blizzard games were freely played on

This is rather exciting, because the previous case of Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components now also make sense. I was so confused about that one it is almost like sky is falling, but now it does make sense. The case of law is almost like programming, it can seem strange but when dig down it does make sense. Only if law suits can be slower like programming (you can think and think in programming, but for lawsuits, you must act fast), I would rather practice law.

No comments: