SEGA Sues Fox

[Deathscythealpha]

http://www.gamespot.com/all/news/news_6085112.html

Wow, this was kind of a surprise. Ive heard alot about how the game is similer to Crazy Taxi, but for SEGA to take Fox to court over it...

Rockstar will be sueing tem next for Hit and Run being a total rip off of GTA.

[Chaos_Phoenix]

Wait, SEGA is suing FOX? How (or why) does SEGA have the balls to sue such a huge company? The buyers aren't gonna be too happy about that, now are they?

[Wewt]

On 2003-12-05 11:44, Chaos_Phoenix wrote:
Wait, SEGA is suing FOX? How (or why) does SEGA have the balls to sue such a huge company? The buyers aren't gonna be too happy about that, now are they?


Why would they need balls to sue a big company? People always have favoured the little people.

[_Sinue_]

Um, yeah.. Sega isn't exactly small themselves. They are (last time I checked) the second biggest game publishing company in the world right behind EA.

[Wewt]

SEGA would be considered small compared to Fox...

Of course, I could be proven wrong with the right statistics.

[Zaneatron]

Just because sega is a smaller company doesnt mean they cant win a legal battle againt Fox. ironically a simpsons episode comes to mind, where mr burns fires marge for being married to homer, then marge says words to the effect of the small guy not being able to afford justice. if sega have a case they will most probably win. anyway, im sure sega could afford the lega costs for such problem.

[anwserman]

Heh, I did notice something...

Simpsons games typically try to emulate another successful game concept and fail horribly... maybe thats the reason why Sega is suing. Or something. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[polishedweasel]

Uh...road rage was a horrible game. I traded in a game for it...then after about 20 minutes of gameplay, I traded it in for another game. :

[Auronius]

Messed up. Next capcom can sue every company that makes a fighting game, and EA can sue everyone that makes a sports game...

[Ness]

On 2003-12-05 15:23, WWWWWWWWWWWW wrote:
SEGA would be considered small compared to Fox...

Of course, I could be proven wrong with the right statistics.



Or common sense. The little guys are not always favored; the McDonalds lawsuit is an example of that. The person who wins the lawsuit is usually the person who can give the most compelling evidence. Big companies are able to afford better lawyers than smaller one and that will help them to show the most compelling evidence that they are innocent. Quite frankly, SEGA doesn't stand a chance.

Also I think the lawsuit is stupid to begin with. If Sega has the right to sue Fox, then the makers of Rouge Trip: Vacation 2012 has the right to sue SEGA because they (the makers of RT) were allowing players to pick up people for money before Crazy Taxi (or even Dreamcast) was ever on the drawing board. To take this even further, Nintendo would also have the right to sue Sony because the Playstation was supposedly "their property". I think SEGA is just looking for money.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2003-12-06 11:02 ]</font>

[SorceressofTime]

well all i can say is: GO SEGA!!! http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

i don't think it's a stupid idea for a 'smaller' company to have the balls to stand up for a game that was published a while ago, though i think they have their case in order cause if they didn't, why would they be wasting their time, effort AND money? :

[rena-ko]

who cares actually. its not that we as the players would profit from it in any way.

[Inu_Ranma]

Or common sense. The little guys are always favored; the McDonalds lawsuit is an example of that. The person who wins the lawsuit is usually the person who can give the most compelling evidence. Big companies are able to afford better lawyers than smaller one and that will help them to show the most compelling evidence that they are innocent. Quite frankly, SEGA doesn't stand a chance.

Also I think the lawsuit is stupid to begin with. If Sega has the right to sue Fox, then the makers of Rouge Trip: Vacation 2012 has the right to sue SEGA because they (the makers of RT) were allowing players to pick up people for money before Crazy Taxi (or even Dreamcast) was ever on the drawing board. To take this even further, Nintendo would also have the right to sue Sony because the Playstation was supposedly "their property". I think SEGA is just looking for money.



This is going to be one of those instances, rare as they are, where I disagree with you.

Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012 featured action and weapons, first of all. That would make it completely different from Crazy Taxi. The reason for which Sega Games is suing Fox is that Simpsons seems to literally be a reverse-engineered version of Crazy Taxi with new sprites added. This is evident to anybody who has played it. Whether it was a good game or not (I found it to be fun for about an hour...) does not matter. The fact that it uses a complete clone of Crazy Taxi's engine is the issue because in the world of copyright law, that is illegal.

On the subject of Nintendo. They paid Sony to design the system that was, at the time, labeled the 'Nintendo Ultra 64.' This does not mean that Nintendo owned the system. When someone pays someone else to design something, it is the designer's property until the buyer decides to put it on the market. Since Nintendo dropped the project, despite that it was pretty much post completion, Sony had the right to do whatever they wished with their system.

Sega doesn't need money that much. They still produce the vast majority of the arcade games out there and very many software games.

[Ness]

On 2003-12-06 09:55, Inu_Ranma wrote:


[quote]Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012 featured action and weapons, first of all. That would make it completely different from Crazy Taxi.

I know, but you could also pick up tourists and take them places for money.


The reason for which Sega Games is suing Fox is that Simpsons seems to literally be a reverse-engineered version of Crazy Taxi with new sprites added. This is evident to anybody who has played it. Whether it was a good game or not (I found it to be fun for about an hour...) does not matter. The fact that it uses a complete clone of Crazy Taxi's engine is the issue because in the world of copyright law, that is illegal.

Well in that case, then I guess SEGA is justified.

[GuerillaPimp]

Sega doesn't need money that much. They still produce the vast majority of the arcade games out there and very many software games

lol, yea right, lol. Unless im wrong, last i heard Sega was hurting for money

[Inu_Ranma]

Lol...you heard wrong. If you go to any arcade and you look closely at the games, over half of them will say 'Sega' somewhere on them.

Sega is not hurting for money. It dropped dreamcast because it was unprofitable. There is a huge difference.

[GuerillaPimp]

Arcade?? They still exist?? Where i live at, if there is an arcade its poorly outdated. I remember walking in to one a few months back and they still had MK3! and 50 cents a game at that!

[Dangerous55]

On 2003-12-05 19:47, Ness wrote:


On 2003-12-05 15:23, WWWWWWWWWWWW wrote:
SEGA would be considered small compared to Fox...

Of course, I could be proven wrong with the right statistics.



Or common sense. The little guys are not always favored; the McDonalds lawsuit is an example of that. The person who wins the lawsuit is usually the person who can give the most compelling evidence. Big companies are able to afford better lawyers than smaller one and that will help them to show the most compelling evidence that they are innocent. Quite frankly, SEGA doesn't stand a chance.

Also I think the lawsuit is stupid to begin with. If Sega has the right to sue Fox, then the makers of Rouge Trip: Vacation 2012 has the right to sue SEGA because they (the makers of RT) were allowing players to pick up people for money before Crazy Taxi (or even Dreamcast) was ever on the drawing board. To take this even further, Nintendo would also have the right to sue Sony because the Playstation was supposedly "their property". I think SEGA is just looking for money.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2003-12-06 11:02 ]</font>



He meant he could be proved wrong that SEGA is smaller then Fox with the right statistics, not that the little guys are always favored.

[Inu_Ranma]

...yes. Arcade games still exist. Yeesh.

Furthermore, Sega still has a rather large chunk of the console game market as well. I don't know whether it's a dominating chunk, like that which Sega holds in the arcade market, but it is definitely a decent chunk.

[_Sinue_]

Sega is still currently the second largest game developer in the world, right behind EA. The reason you hear about their money problems is because they're just SO LARGE that they have problems bringing in enough money to support everything - expecially since alot of their games are niche titles which mainly appeal to hardcore gamers.. a rather small demographic.

Believe me, they can still run with the big dogs. For example: About half a year ago, Sega was right up there with Microsoft and Sony in the bidding to buy out Vivendi's holdings when they considered putting Blizzard/Sierra on the selling block. Vivendi, unfortunately, saw the interest generated in their commodity and decided not to sell.

[SpikeOtacon]

Didn't sega say something about them re-entering the Hardware business after they could make enough profit?
I forgot where I read it, but it was sometime last year....

[Wewt]

I know Sega is quite a big company, but the fact remains that Fox is just huge.

I'm not sure whether or not Sega will re-enter the home hardware market, but I personally think it would be crazy for them to even think about it. Just look at Nintendo.

[SpikeOtacon]

On 2003-12-06 15:32, WWWWWWWWWWWW wrote:
I know Sega is quite a big company, but the fact remains that Fox is just huge.

I'm not sure whether or not Sega will re-enter the home hardware market, but I personally think it would be crazy for them to even think about it. Just look at Nintendo.


What about nintendo?
Nintendo's problem is the fact that they don't want to even try to bend themselfs as a company, not even trying the online thing was a bad business decision for many. Sega gave what the people wanted, but too early. No one was ready for the dreamcast when it came out, not even them.
I love my dreamcast, and I think that it should still be in the Console war, if only sony hadn't have promised so much shit about the ps2 that didn't come true to as of late, then sega would have stayed afloat a bit longer.

[hollowtip]

On 2003-12-06 15:37, SpikeOtacon wrote:

No one was ready for the dreamcast when it came out, not even them.



I agree with this statement to a certain extent. Although the system was ahead of its time, I think because of Saturn's underwhelming popularity, mass appeal for Dreamcast was impossible for Sega to garner. Many people were wary of purchasing another flopping console. This coupled with its online gaming marketing strategy in the console's mid-years turned off many casual gamer's interests. Online gaming was something new to consoles, and this period was too early for a lot of people to hop on board the online revolution.

Kind of reminds me, I wonder how much I could sell my BBA for on Ebay.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hollowtip on 2003-12-06 16:40 ]</font>

[Aunt_Betty]

You know what that means! The makers of the American Idol game could get sued by Konami by DDR.

[RavenTW]

On 2003-12-06 11:06, Ness wrote:


On 2003-12-06 09:55, Inu_Ranma wrote:


[quote]Rogue Trip: Vacation 2012 featured action and weapons, first of all. That would make it completely different from Crazy Taxi.

I know, but you could also pick up tourists and take them places for money.


The reason for which Sega Games is suing Fox is that Simpsons seems to literally be a reverse-engineered version of Crazy Taxi with new sprites added. This is evident to anybody who has played it. Whether it was a good game or not (I found it to be fun for about an hour...) does not matter. The fact that it uses a complete clone of Crazy Taxi's engine is the issue because in the world of copyright law, that is illegal.

Well in that case, then I guess SEGA is justified.




There's this thing called a patent, that makes other companies unable to produce something similar to what you patented for at least seven years. I doubt Crazy Taxi was made in the 7 year period that Rouge Trip was patented (if it was patented). The new Simpson's game, however, is only at the five year mark of Crazy taxi. So Sega can sue and quite possibly win.

Of course, I may be completely wrong about what a patent does. If so, disregard this statement.

[Inu_Ranma]

The thing about patents is that similar products are perfectly legal. Sega's stand, once again, is that the Simpsons game was not only similar, but COPIED.

Konami was paid for the use of its DDR engine in both the Britney's Dance Mix and the American Idol games. The makers of Beatmania, the DDR competitor, also have been paid for the use of their engine many times.

It's not just a similar engine that makes something a copyright (not a patent. Patents are only for use in physical inventions, typically, though I guess they could theoretically be placed on games. Typically, a patent is placed upon an invention, while a copyright is placed on media, such as film, books, games, etc.). It's an identical engine. The Simpsons: Road Rage is identical to Crazy Taxi in every way excluding the sprites used and the shape of the maps, meaning that they are suspect for having either openly used or reverse engineered the Crazy Taxi engine, which is why Sega is suing Fox. See the difference?