Sega sues the Simpsons

[EdenMaster]

Source: Planet GameCube

Sega thinks one of the Simpsons games is a bit too much like Crazy Taxi, and is suing.

Simpsons Road Rage is a product of developer Radical Games, and publishers Fox Interactive (now Vivendi) and Electronic Arts. Sega is taking all these parties to court for infringing on a patent that it holds for Crazy Taxi.

Sega says that the year-old Road Rage game was designed to "deliberately copy and imitate" Crazy Taxi, using reviews from numerous publications as sources. The suit wants a halt to sales of the game, recalls of copies currently at retail, and lost profits in the form of damages repaid to Sega.

EA or Vivendi had not seen the lawsuit, and were unavailable for comment.

The game is strikingly reminiscent of Crazy Taxi, but enough for a lawsuit? I don't think you can patent a genre.

The funny part is how concerned EA and Vivendi must be, judging from that last line

[Weltall]

Unless they actually copied code verbatim from Crazy Taxi, this lawsuit is going nowhere.

[Dark Jaguar]

This reminds me of a long time ago during the SNES era when Capcom sued some company for making a fighting game very similar to Street Fighter. They lost. You can't patent a genre they said. Sega, you really shouldn't have done this...

[EdenMaster]

Indeed. Sega's downward spiral is continuing steadily, and they don't need such an expense.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, heard about this. I think it's stupid... sure, it's copying them, but that has been ruled legal, so why are they bothering?

[alien space marine]

To bad Vivendi didnt need this kind of crap , They already decided to hold on too their gaming devision and not sell it.

:bang:
This lawsuite is stupid ,It would be the same as Nintendo sueing sony and MS for making game consoles.I hope this case will be thrown out of the courts.

[A Black Falcon]

Huh? Uh, no, Nintendo didn't make the first game console, not even close...

[Great Rumbler]

I don't think that's what he meant.

Anyway, this lawsuit is really stupid. You can't sue someone just because they make something that is similar to what you had already made. If they started doing that it would be disasterous and would really hurt lots of things [movies, games, music, art, ect.].

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Huh? Uh, no, Nintendo didn't make the first game console, not even close...

No, but Nintendo could claim, probably with merit, that they did so for the express purpose of copying Nintendo. As an item of reference, it is true. In court, however, there's no way it would hold water.

[A Black Falcon]

You can sue if something is identical to what you have made, but it requires it to be really, really similar... and clearly ripping off the other game. And even then you can get off (like Power Instinct...)... so no, this is going nowhere.

And how could Nintendo say that others were copying them when other people had consoles years earlier?

[Great Rumbler]

I think Nintendo successfully sued Sony over Emblem Saga, but Emblem Saga copied things directly from the Fire Emblem games.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
You can sue if something is identical to what you have made, but it requires it to be really, really similar... and clearly ripping off the other game. And even then you can get off (like Power Instinct...)... so no, this is going nowhere.

And how could Nintendo say that others were copying them when other people had consoles years earlier?

Easy. If not for Nintendo, we all know Sony and Sega would very likely never have bothered.

In regards to Sega, when they blatantly took Mario's concept and came up with Sonic the Hedgehog, no one complained about it.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't think that just the fact that they brought the market back to life would at all validate copywrite infringement... copywrites are new, unique ideas... or they are supposed to be! Nintendo didn't invent anything in making a console... sure, if not for them Sony and Sega might not have gotten in, but I don't see how that could lead to a (successful) lawsuit.

To bad Vivendi didnt need this kind of crap , They already decided to hold on too their gaming devision and not sell it.

Uh, why is this relevant? Sure, a few months back they decided to keep their gaming division... a decision that left me conflicted. Me the Blizzard fan was happy because it'd be a disaster if Microsoft or EA got their hands on Blizz. But me the Sierra fan... Vivendi hasn't exactly been good with Sierra... but then again I doubt a change in ownership would help there. Anyway, they kept the gaming division. But how does this relate to this suit at all? I mean, they're a giant multinational who (like all big gaming companies) has occasionally done bad things to its developers, etc... I just don't get your point here... I just don't see how the Vivendi game division situation has anything to do with whether they "deserved" this.

[alien space marine]

Vivendi has always respected blizzards free will and they have not interfered in their creative process , Since they know blizzard is one of their most valueble assets in the gaming department they havent screwed with them were as its possible another buyer could.

[A Black Falcon]

Blizzard has had a whole series of corporate owners, and all of them have let it be what it is because of its success. I think that given their level of success they'd get that anywhere... they got it at Davidson, CUC, Cendant, Havas, and now Vivendi/Universal... because of their success. Sierra, of course, hasn't exactly fared as well under that same succession of owners (from CUC on).

However, of course, Blizz has been affected... all the talk of changing ownership, etc. and the lack of control over what was going to happen was the main impetus that got the four main guys behind Blizz North to leave...

[alien space marine]

Well Nintendo for example interfered alot with sqaure and Rare in deciding in what they can and cannot do. Which is why sqaure distance themselves for a long time from nintendo untill recently.

Then you got enix were when they got bought by another corporation they had them caned a game called thrill kill.

So yah some parent companies somtimes interfere in the free will of the 2nd parties.

But Blizzard has been fortunate .

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, definitely... and of course it's because their games sell really, really well. If they didn't they'd be taken down so fast...

[Weltall]

Originally posted by alien space marine
Well Nintendo for example interfered alot with sqaure and Rare in deciding in what they can and cannot do. Which is why sqaure distance themselves for a long time from nintendo untill recently.

Then you got enix were when they got bought by another corporation they had them caned a game called thrill kill.

So yah some parent companies somtimes interfere in the free will of the 2nd parties.

But Blizzard has been fortunate .

I remember Thrill Kill (which, if that Wu-Tang game it was turned into was any indication, we didn't miss much), but it wasn't Enix who made that one. I think it was Virgin, back when they still had a gaming division. It was EA who bought them and shitcanned TK.

[alien space marine]

Your right its virgin, It was one of the most pirated games since everyone was desapointed that it got caned.

[A Black Falcon]

Thrill Kill looked like one of those games that would have sold on shock value far more than on actual good content (think: Postal)...