subscribe to this page
Call#: Van Pelt Library Z642 .V35 2001
Within the chapter “The Digital Moment, The End of Copyright?” Vaidhyanathan includes a sub chapter entitled, “”Recycling” The Idea-Expression Dichotomy” which begins by describing the format and icons of the very computer he is using to type his book. Every “GUI” or Graphic User Interface displays a trashcan icon, which is used to delete documents and programs from the computer. However, there are obvious differences regarding this icon, depending upon whether you are using a Mac, or a computer with the Microsoft Windows operating system. One displays a trashcan, while the other is more of a recycling bin. Not only do they look different but they are labeled differently as well, even though they inherently perform the same function. Vaidhyanathan uses this example to argue that although intricacies such as a trashcan/recycling bin causing a monumental court case may seem to threaten the idea-expression dichotomy (which is what copyright laws initially serve to do, protect the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself) they actually do the opposite, and serve to revive it (when it comes to software design). Vaidhyanathan believes that this revival began with none other than the Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics Corp. case, in which the game KC Munchkin was found to be too similar to Pac Man and eventually (after a struggle regarding what is in fact copyright-able) was taken off the shelves. This case was won by Atari even though such things as “pellets” and “ghosts” were not deemed “original”. In another case, the Apple II fought against the Franklin Ace 100, which brought about the question of whether or not source code should, or could, be copyrighted. This case was a triumph for Apple as well, allowing the company to dominate for quite some time.
However, back to the discussion of GUIs, the court ruling between Microsoft and Apple regarding their similar GUIs resulted in the idea of standardization, which allowed for basic design to be identical, as long as very minute differences such as the trashcan/recycling bin were to exist. Although an opposite outcome to the Atari case, it can be seen within Vaidhyanathan's discussion that the idea-expression dichotomy was revived in relation to software, be it for video games or computers. This is crucial to my paper because the idea that software (in general) can be protected under copyright law, is a definite example of the Courts having to deliberate upon new technology, and interpret Copyright law in order to include advancements in technology.Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics is a primary case in determining video game copyright law. Atari/Midway sued North America Phillips Consumer Electronics on the ground that their game, K C Munchkin directly infringed upon Atari's original, copyrighted game, Pac Man. Pac Man was copyrighted as an audio visual work, and so the very fact that KC Munchkin possessed similar visual and aural elements, not to mention near identical game play , was the basis for the lawsuit. The case beings by describing in meticulous detail, the copyrighted work of Pac Man, from the shape of the pixilated creatures, the position of the "gobbler", right down to the number of "power pellets" on the maze-like playing field. Conversely, aural and visual elements of the accused KC Munchkin game were also painstakingly reviewed down to the smallest detail. Minute differences, such as the number of dots/power pellets, and the position of the "gobbler" at the initiation of game play, are heavily scrutinized. While there were found to be evident similarities in so far as both games display the same basic element (such as a mina, "gobbler" character, ghostlike enemies, pellets, maze structure, etc.) the court concluded that there were enough differences between the games that an injunction was not necessary. The court maintained that differing elements such as the personification of the KC Munchkin character, the different sounds and even the fact that the KC Munchkin ghosts were "spookier" were enough to make the games significantly different. The factor that games are not protected under copyright law was a rather large issue, and so there was credit given to the artistic visual aspects of the game. In addition, the question of how much of the elements of the game were original and artistic, and how much of them were common sense, was also a big factor. The graphics also came into discussion, with the belief that the technology simply could not allow for drastic distinction between characters.
However, with an appeal, Atari was in fact able to take KC Munchkin off the market. The court employed the "ordinary observer test" and concluded that even though there were differences between the games, to the average player there would really be no distinction (nor care) for differences between the games "artistic expression".
This case is extremely important to my paper because within it are various examples of the way in which video games can be misinterpreted, and the complications that can arise from such interpretations. Labeling Pac Man as an audio visual work, along with the fact that source code is not mentioned at all within the case are very important factors to my paper. How can copyright define a video game? Also, visually, the court determines the similarities between both games as a fault of the graphics, and this is certainly something that can not be said of later games, as technology advances.