Comments on: Why suing your rivals makes good business sense http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/ The Business of Games Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:58:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JasPurewal http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-4415 JasPurewal Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:01:59 +0000 http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/#comment-4415 Fair point - VCs might just run away at the sight of a lawsuit. But, if lawsuits are so common between games companies of this nature, presumably the canny ones would take a more enlightened approach and only worry about those claims which stand reasonable prospects of causing damage to the prospective fundee company - i.e. claims which may end up shutting down the game or at least reducing its gaming population. <br><br>Jas Fair point – VCs might just run away at the sight of a lawsuit. But, if lawsuits are so common between games companies of this nature, presumably the canny ones would take a more enlightened approach and only worry about those claims which stand reasonable prospects of causing damage to the prospective fundee company – i.e. claims which may end up shutting down the game or at least reducing its gaming population.

Jas

]]> By: Nicholas Lovell http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-4414 Nicholas Lovell Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:45:20 +0000 http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/#comment-4414 Hello Jas,<br><br>I disagree with (iii), and think that the obvious objective is just too risky to be the real reason: The chances of winning are hard to quantify, especially as, for example, Zynga is on the receiving end of a number of lawsuits arguing that it has used other people's ideas. (See the ongoing litigation over Mobwars/Mafia Wars/Mobsters for an example). <br><br><a href="http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/when-a-game-concept-isnt-enough-finding-intellectual-property-in-social-games/" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/whe...</a><br><br>To my mind, shutting down other people's games isn't a strong enough incentive to run the risk of a counter-suit, and it will only work if you win in court, which is far from assured. Whereas just issuing a lawsuit in the first place (even if you intend to settle) might prevent VCs investing, and that seems to me to be worth the risk. Hello Jas,

I disagree with (iii), and think that the obvious objective is just too risky to be the real reason: The chances of winning are hard to quantify, especially as, for example, Zynga is on the receiving end of a number of lawsuits arguing that it has used other people's ideas. (See the ongoing litigation over Mobwars/Mafia Wars/Mobsters for an example).

http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/whe…

To my mind, shutting down other people's games isn't a strong enough incentive to run the risk of a counter-suit, and it will only work if you win in court, which is far from assured. Whereas just issuing a lawsuit in the first place (even if you intend to settle) might prevent VCs investing, and that seems to me to be worth the risk.

]]> By: JasPurewal http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3661 JasPurewal Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:01:59 +0000 http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/#comment-3661 Fair point - VCs might just run away at the sight of a lawsuit. But, if lawsuits are so common between games companies of this nature, presumably the canny ones would take a more enlightened approach and only worry about those claims which stand reasonable prospects of causing damage to the prospective fundee company - i.e. claims which may end up shutting down the game or at least reducing its gaming population. <br><br>Jas Fair point – VCs might just run away at the sight of a lawsuit. But, if lawsuits are so common between games companies of this nature, presumably the canny ones would take a more enlightened approach and only worry about those claims which stand reasonable prospects of causing damage to the prospective fundee company – i.e. claims which may end up shutting down the game or at least reducing its gaming population.

Jas

]]> By: Nicholas Lovell http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3660 Nicholas Lovell Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:45:20 +0000 http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/#comment-3660 Hello Jas,<br><br>I disagree with (iii), and think that the obvious objective is just too risky to be the real reason: The chances of winning are hard to quantify, especially as, for example, Zynga is on the receiving end of a number of lawsuits arguing that it has used other people's ideas. (See the ongoing litigation over Mobwars/Mafia Wars/Mobsters for an example). <br><br><a href="http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/when-a-game-concept-isnt-enough-finding-intellectual-property-in-social-games/" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/whe...</a><br><br>To my mind, shutting down other people's games isn't a strong enough incentive to run the risk of a counter-suit, and it will only work if you win in court, which is far from assured. Whereas just issuing a lawsuit in the first place (even if you intend to settle) might prevent VCs investing, and that seems to me to be worth the risk. Hello Jas,

I disagree with (iii), and think that the obvious objective is just too risky to be the real reason: The chances of winning are hard to quantify, especially as, for example, Zynga is on the receiving end of a number of lawsuits arguing that it has used other people's ideas. (See the ongoing litigation over Mobwars/Mafia Wars/Mobsters for an example).

http://www.insidesocialgames.com/2009/09/22/whe…

To my mind, shutting down other people's games isn't a strong enough incentive to run the risk of a counter-suit, and it will only work if you win in court, which is far from assured. Whereas just issuing a lawsuit in the first place (even if you intend to settle) might prevent VCs investing, and that seems to me to be worth the risk.

]]> By: JasPurewal http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/comment-page-1/#comment-3653 JasPurewal Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:27:25 +0000 http://www.gamesbrief.com/2009/09/why-suing-your-rivals-makes-good-business-sense/#comment-3653 Hi there Nicholas - a really very interesting article, which gives a gamer/lawyer like me much food for thought.<br><br>A few observations spring to mind (in no particular order):<br><br>(i) While litigation is of course an important strategic weapon in the right circumstances, it is worth bearing in mind that it can also be a double-edged sword: you have to have grounds for the claims you make otherwise, sooner or later, you are going either to get smacked down by the Court or you will come up against someone who won't settle and is willing to take the battle all the way to Court. Which most companies definitely do not want even if they a have strong case (see (ii) below...)<br><br>(ii) Litigation has other risks as well. In particular, the real problems tend to be negative publicity and disclosure of uncomfortable/commercially sensitive information (either of which could be a killer for social gaming businesses which depend upon their gamers' goodwill towards them, as well as third party funding).<br><br>(iii) While I don't disagree with you that targeting other gaming companies' VC funding may be one of the objectives of this kind of litigation, I would have thought a more obvious objective would be that litigation can help to to shut down rival games so that their customer base becomes your customer base, which = £££.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Jas Hi there Nicholas – a really very interesting article, which gives a gamer/lawyer like me much food for thought.

A few observations spring to mind (in no particular order):

(i) While litigation is of course an important strategic weapon in the right circumstances, it is worth bearing in mind that it can also be a double-edged sword: you have to have grounds for the claims you make otherwise, sooner or later, you are going either to get smacked down by the Court or you will come up against someone who won't settle and is willing to take the battle all the way to Court. Which most companies definitely do not want even if they a have strong case (see (ii) below…)

(ii) Litigation has other risks as well. In particular, the real problems tend to be negative publicity and disclosure of uncomfortable/commercially sensitive information (either of which could be a killer for social gaming businesses which depend upon their gamers' goodwill towards them, as well as third party funding).

(iii) While I don't disagree with you that targeting other gaming companies' VC funding may be one of the objectives of this kind of litigation, I would have thought a more obvious objective would be that litigation can help to to shut down rival games so that their customer base becomes your customer base, which = £££.

Best,

Jas

]]>