Talk:Sega v. Accolade

Untitled

There was a lot of material about this case on the Software copyright page. It was distorting that article, but was valuable and relevant information, so I moved it here. It's a fairly complex and significant case, and this page could definitely use some more content and attention. Asrabkin (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

STF

This article is now supported by the Sega task force. Unusual that this was missed. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 02:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis III

For the record, sources confirm the second model of the Genesis that incorporated the TMSS was referred to as the "Genesis III". It is not the "Genesis II", nor is it the "Genesis 3". Both the official court opinion and the Kent book confirm this. Perhaps it was the term Sega used in 1990 to refer to their new model, far before the Genesis 3 made by Majesco was ever even thought of. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry about that. ^^ SexyKick 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's cool. If there's one thing I've found lately, it's that Sega has some really screwy names. If you check out Sega 32X which I WP:TNT'd, rewrote, and is now at WP:GAN, it turns out the idea for the 32X was originally "Project Jupiter" before it was "Project Mars", and (though it's not in the article but it is in that particular source) "Project Jupiter", before being turned into an add-on, was going to be released as the Genesis 2, even though the second model of the Mega Drive pretty clearly had "Mega Drive 2" stamped on it when looking at the Variations article... yeah, definitely not a whole lot of consistency at Sega with their naming, lol. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. After almost three weeks, I see one editor definitely supporting, one definitely opposing, and several who have expressed weaker opinions. A sheer headcount would just favor a move, but given the strength of arguments, I don't find a consensus here either way. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade → Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. – Shall we follow MOS:LAW's recently added naming convention, or shall we ignore it in favor of concision? How about Sega Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. or Sega Enterprises v. Accolade? Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Leave as is I say. If "Sega v. Accolade" made it to featured article without anybody commenting prior, then that's good enough. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost every source found, including scholarly works, use "Sega v. Accolade", and not Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., as its common name. The full title is already bolded in the lead of the article, as it is the official name, but Sega v. Accolade is the common name. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So the "legal citation convention" must be disregarded, right? George Ho (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "name" and "title", and the title should always prefer the common name when possible. For example, despite WP:CHEMNAME, we use Water, not "Dihydrogen monoxide". This case is a little different in that most media sources and scholarly works called it "Sega v. Accolade" instead of its full name, and as such has established a common name that is not exactly the legal citation, which is why the legal citation is given at the beginning of the lead paragraph, but it is still my firm belief that the common name should be the title. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 19:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that the MOS for legal articles specifically states how the article title should be listed. The difference between "name" and "title" is a strawman argument. Either we abide by MOSLAW or not. GregJackP Boomer! 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:MOSLAW, which is clear-cut and which is in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME. If you are looking for reliable sources, Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. has 11K hits at GBooks, compared to 4.5K for the current title; 1,100 compared to 229 for the current title at GScholar, 34 v. 16 in JSTOR, 423 v. 185 at HeinOnline, 8 v. 9 at EBSCOHost, cited as the longer title by 355 law journals (Westlaw) v. none for the shorter name, and cited by 718 law journals (Lexis) v. none. Clearly the proper title according to the Manual of Style is the one requested for the move. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Contrast this to nearly 2.4 million Google hits for "Sega v. Accolade" and only about 15,000 for "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc."—I'm well aware Google hits aren't everything, but surely it shows something. Interestingly enough here, I think what we're having is a real discussion between the two major aspects of this article: law and video games. It's a unique article in that respect, not dissimilar to the recently created Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, commonly referred to as "Atari v. Nintendo". Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be, if those were the actual numbers, which it does not appear to be. With quotation marks, "Sega v. Accolade" gets 51,400, while "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." gets 39,600. Running the query as an exact phrase shows a difference of only 11,800 - which, since many if not most will not be reliable sources is negligible. It is nowhere near 2.4m to 15k difference. Even so, MOSLAW is clear on the article title. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

But it is a difference, and one quite obviously in the majority of simply "Sega v Accolade". Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Question Should we be titling this article based on WP:COMMONNAME or should we be titling the article based on WP:MOSLAW?--SexyKick 11:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Both. What Chaheel missed is that of the searches more likely to produce reliable sources, such as GBooks, GScholar, JSTOR, HeinOnline, EBSCOHost, Westlaw, & Lexis, with one outlier (and only by 1 hit), all of the searches showed many more hits for "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." GBooks was almost 3:1 for that title, GScholar over 4:1, 2:1 at JSTOR, over 2:1 at Hein, and unanimous for the longer name at the two legal databases. GregJackP Boomer! 15:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I only missed it because you didn't reference it yourself. Taking your own above post, there is a majority - albeit small - for "Sega v Accolade". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I see two for moving, and two for keeping, with me on the sidelines for the moment. I still don't understand. I know WP:COMMONNAME supports all these possible titles, as we're not necessarily bound to the number 1 common name, just a common name. But are we saying that WP:MOSLAW supports all as well? Or does it only support a specific title, so then is the reason for the move request? If so, then I would say bringing up WP:COMMONNAME is just confusing people.--SexyKick 03:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If we follow WP:MOSLAW, it mandates "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.", which is also supported by WP:COMMONNAME. MOSLAW does not provide any support for the "Sega v. Accolade" title. GregJackP Boomer! 06:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix:, would you agree that this statement is true?--SexyKick 08:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would reason that if it were in the strictest sense of law, MOSLAW probably hits the common name in itself just about every time by default. What we have here is a case, however, where I would reason it probably has two disproportionate senses of coverage: the legal community and scholarly journals which use the full citation (but I should mention in each scholarly journal used for the article, the case was abbreviated "Sega v. Accolade" in use in the dialogue) and the gaming community and video game websites and magazines that almost always use "Sega v. Accolade" in discussion. In this case, MOSLAW has application in this article, but since law is not the sole major topic of this article and there has been significant coverage outside of the legal and social sciences field, I'm not sure this article needs to fall in lockstep with MOSLAW. That being said, I'm not going to get all preachy because I really don't mind too much about the title though I do favor "Sega v. Accolade" as the more common name, as long as this debate doesn't turn into Sega Genesis vs. Mega Drive all over again. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on this is changing to undecided. I'm of the opinion that the commonname is "Sega v Accolade", as nobody in common usage would ever refer to the case as "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." However, one of the more important aspects of the case is that it's referenced as a precedent for other cases - which in general all refer to the case as "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." I'm still slightly in favour of leaving the title as "Sega v. Accolade" as the more common "man in the street" - and the gamer - would use the term instead of "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." - also when in doubt there's the fallback of wp:retain. But, I wouldn't throw my dummy out of the cot if the change went ahead either. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Support After Red Phoenix's words to me, I believe I understand. I agree with him however, that law is not the sole major topic of the article. I think though, that since it is one of the major topics that MOSLAW probably applies anyway. I'm still not 100% sure myself, so whoever closes this should take note of that.--SexyKick 04:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 16 November 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sega v. Accolade → Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. – Previous discussion closed with no consensus. WP:MOSLAW titling, plus WP:COMMONNAME mandate the requested title. The article is primarily a legal article, and that MOS should govern. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. has 11K hits at GBooks, compared to 4.5K for the current title; 1,100 compared to 229 for the current title at GScholar, 34 v. 16 in JSTOR, 423 v. 185 at HeinOnline, 8 v. 9 at EBSCOHost, cited as the longer title by 355 law journals (Westlaw) v. none for the shorter name, and cited by 718 law journals (Lexis) v. none. A general GHits search shows that "Sega v. Accolade" gets 51,400, while "Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." gets 39,600. Of course, many of these may not be reliable sources. A primary reason for readdressing this is the use by one editor of the previous "no consensus" to reopen other requested moves unnecessarily. GregJackP Boomer! 08:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support as proposer. GregJackP Boomer! 08:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support I didn't like that my opinion above was considered weak. MOS:LAW#Article title doesn't support the current title as one of its major themes is law.--SexyKick 09:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

:Oppose Purely on the grounds that the previous proposal was closed on 13th November, and this one raised on 15th November. This is too much like double jeopardy to me - just keep proposing until you wear them down and get your way. Too soon for new arguments or proposals to have been formed - the previous decisions and arguments should still stand. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - as discussed below. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Recuse myself from discussion due to apathy, see discussion below. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal - Read more at Discussion section. George Ho (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I'm unsure about this quick proposal. I've already proposed on renaming to United States v. Microsoft, so is this a way to retaliate me? MOS:LAW#Article title... is it relevant to this proposal? Maybe you should separate that guideline and turn it into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (law) or something like that. As for the title itself, I know that Sega in this title means a corporation! I mean, so would everybody. However, I'm unsure about Accolade; it looks... unclear. Why not Sega v. Accolade, Inc.? --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Chaheel Riens - I totally understand and don't disagree. I feel that my hand was forced in this by the reopening of a move of another article, United States v. Microsoft Corp. just 45 days after a successful move request. George stated that the lack of consensus here was the reason that he should be able to reverse the renaming of the other article, and that he wanted to change consensus at the other article. Unfortunately, George has a history of this type of action.

George, it is disingenuous and hypocritical to complain here about a "quick" proposal, given your proposal at U.S. v. Microsoft Corp. and your history of WP:IDHT at other articles. You've admitted as much on my talk page. If you don't want people to reopen discussions like this one, perhaps you should look in the mirror. This is not retaliation. You are basing your move request there on the lack of consensus here. I feel we can come to consensus here.

Finally, I see that you have been canvasing again, only notifying those that support your side. I'm surprised that you would do this, especially since you were just warned about it yesterday. That is disappointing, to say the least. GregJackP Boomer! 15:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not violate WP:CANVASS because... I was about to notify opposers supporters (my err) of the prior discussion also. Instead, supporters came back already, okay? As for the prior proposal I did to this titile, I wasn't fully enthusiastic about the newer guideline title that I proposed. I used the either/or approach; I guess you didn't read it. --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• @GregJackP: I feel I must warn you about turning around such votes so shortly after they close, regardless of the circumstances with yourself and George. Ask any video games article editor about Sega Genesis and Mega Drive and all the arguments about which is the right title, and they'll tell you about the hell it's been for the last eight years because it comes up at least once a month, to the point where any further discussion on the matter is now considered disruptive by consensus unless something significant and new is brought to the table. Now, I'm not going to voice an "opinion" as of yet, because I want to ask this: if this is such a concern and is "wrong", then why did this article, at this title, get through a featured article candidacy successfully just a few months ago? If it is such a significant issue, then why is it considered one of Wikipedia's best articles? I seriously doubt, if it were so significant, that it would have just slipped through a review there.
• I worry, however, about another issue going the other way: @George Ho: Why is "Sega v. Accolade, Inc." preferable, when you proposed the first move because of MOS:LAW#Article title? What's the benefit here of suggesting these alternatives? If nothing else, these alternatives are going to be less preferable than "Sega v. Accolade" because "Sega v. Accolade" in itself is the more colloquial title, the one that is most commonly used. Legal journals will use the full citation, but refer to it as "Sega v. Accolade" all throughout each article. Trust me, it's my experience as such as the primary contributor to this article and the one who really pushed it to FA status.
• At this point, I'm absolutely apathetic about this. I am so sick of title discussions (thank you Talk:Sega Genesis) and this repeated pushing of point that I really don't care as long as it makes sense. I still don't believe "Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc." will be the most commonly searched term by readers, and I've made my points clear in the last discussion above and they have not changed, but in the end I don't WP:OWN this article. In the end, I recuse myself from discussion on this matter any further. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 16:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I wasn't fully enthusiastic about using the full name when I proposed. I wasn't favoring the proposed title because... I was testing the consensus. George Ho (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that GregJackP intended to do so, but I feel that he is using this page as a pointy scenario, based upon his quote of "I feel that my hand was forced in this by the reopening of a move of another article, United States v. Microsoft Corp. just 45 days after a successful move request". Nobody is forcing anybody's hand. Just let it go - wait a "reasonable" amount of time. I have no intention of looking up the other page in question, because of WP:OTHERSTUFF - the article in question has no bearing on this article. We should focus specifically on this article and the arguments put forward for the renaming of it. Again, I feel that there is nothing new that can be brought up in the two days that have passed since the last proposal. So I now consider my opinion to be Strongly Oppose - again based not on arguments put forward, but the possibility of an ulterior motive. (Not offence intended - my opinion only.)

I also don't think that George can be succesfully accused of votestacking, as I've gone against his desired outcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you can also write, "Strong oppose - See Discussion." Don't forget to sign your name. George Ho (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL at Chaheel Riens. That's funny, where you said I've gone against his desired outcome. George opposes this requested move. As he stated just above, he didn't support it when he proposed it, and he is now arguing against the move, both here and at other locations. To be blunt, he is using the "no consensus" close here as indication that there is a wiki-wide consensus against MOS:LAW. Your opposition is exactly what he wants, and was exactly what he intended when he contacted you and the others for this discussion. Please note that the only editors who he contacted are those who oppose the move, he intentionally did not contact anyone who supported the move.

(Insert comments) I'm only going on what I can see. From looking at the closed discussion above George doesn't seem to be against the move - proposing several alternative options, as well as making a valid point about the naming conventions. I may have initially opposed the move, but you'll see that towards the end I change my opinion to undecided. My opinion on the re-opened proposal would be the same whether George had contacted me or not. It is too soon to rediscuss. In fact, I'm a little surprised that there isn't some policy in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

If George is making overtures on other pages, then take him to task there, or on his talk page, or on any of the available places - ANI, 3O, etc, but don't include this page in a pointy edit/proposal. It's disruptive to the improvement of the encyclopedia. A decision of "No Consensus" is not carte blanche to keep re-proposing until a consensus is reached - of any sort. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix. I do not disagree with your position, however, there was no consensus here to either keep the present title or move it. It's not turning things around or reversing consensus since there is none to begin with. GregJackP Boomer! 23:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I quite disagree with your assessment, Greg. A result of "no consensus" means that there is no consensus for the move, just as how no consensus results in WP:AFD discussions result in an article being kept. That does not, however, mean that someone can then reopen the issue simply because there is no consensus. Jeez, if that were the case, the debate at Talk:Sega Genesis would have never ended because the result of every discussion is always "no consensus". A discussion has already taken place, one which you were a part of as well, and it is, in my opinion, bad faith and quite disrespectful to try and reopen it after it has ran for its normal period and already been closed by a neutral party, at least for some frame of time. "No consensus" means no consensus to take action, and as such should be treated the same way as a "keep" by default for some time until a different consensus can be established; otherwise you might as well just anticipate the same results. This whole discussion, all the way around, feels like multiple editors are gaming the system. Regardless of the way this ends up, of which I will not be a part of this farce, such broken processes undermine the spirit of Wikipedia and its core principles, and that is why I refuse to be a part of this discussion and debate my opinion any further. No one here seems to have clean implementation of their intentions except for Chaheel Riens and SexyKick, and even I will admit I'm letting my WP:OWN cloud my judgment on the issue itself—let me put it this way, this new move request has me absolutely livid, and I would rather not make a poor judgment based on anger. However, I must protest the implementation of this, and I leave my points as such. Politely, I request that neither you, nor George, nor Chaheel nor SexyKick, ping me to this talk page again in regard to this discussion, and that everyone please accept my wish to recuse myself from this discussion. I will continue to maintain watch over the article, as it is the pride and joy of my contributions to Wikipedia, but I wish not to be involved in this discussion anymore. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Face it, Greg. MOS:LAW's naming convention is not well-written, but flawed. It provided examples, yet "legal citation based on jurisdiction" is vague to decipher. A popular newspaper or magazine might have used "legal citation", unless I'm wrong. The discussion that led to MOS:LAW's new title convention must have been intended to prevent omission of (un)necessary precision, although that wasn't intended. George Ho (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

George, most people have had no problem understanding it. There has been exactly one editor who has complained that it is "flawed" or not understandable. You. See competence is required. George, I have suggested several times that you seek a mentor with knowledge of WP:LAW because of this issue, and I know that you have had similar issues in the past. Elen told you that you were "not understanding what people are saying to you, and generally barging about the place tripping over the furniture." I would really encourage you to find someone to help you in this regard, because it is a recurring problem. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How could it be written better?--SexyKick 23:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Legal citation article, a source is not limited to most common sources that use legal citation convention. As I said, The New York Times or any other source would use a case name based on legal citation convention. The guideline didn't explain which should be most reliable. All we got are WP:Article titles (policy) and WP:identifying reliable sources (guideline). Whatever we decide on MOS:LAW should be discussed elsewhere, but I don't know. There is no sense on no longer mentioning MOS:LAW yet. --George Ho (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I was disappointed the closing user didn't really take my view into consideration. I took the most time and care in my vote, choosing patience and openness in my view. That doesn't mean I had a weak view, to me, that means I had a stronger argument behind my view. Yes I said I wasn't 100% sure, but that didn't mean to throw out my argument out (which, I still had an argument no matter how you slice it) so that it was 1-1. If I have to say I'm 100% sure so that my view is accounted for, then what is the point of me outlining my thought process and arguments? In that case I might as well just say it should be so because it should be so. It seems there is a clear Wikipedia policy on this (something most articles would kill for: clear policies). I don't think it will be the most searched for title, but I think Commonname is a clear straw man argument since one of the major topics of the article is Law (but that is not the only major topic).--SexyKick 21:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• When I was reading WP:TITLECHANGES, I get an impression that this title is "controversial", as well as the proposed title. I guess US v. Microsoft and its full name are controversial, too. When it says, "there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia," ...well, I still don't like the current version of MOS:LAW#Article title because it's not well-explained. But Greg likes it the way it is. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is perfectly well explained. The default for article titles on legal cases is governed by the local citation convention. GregJackP Boomer! 23:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This is what the policy says, "Articles on cases should be titled according to the legal citation convention for the jurisdiction that handled the case." This is an article on a case. If this title move is controversial, it's only because we turned it into a controversy here this month. Unlike Sega Genesis vs. Mega Drive, or color vs. colour, no one really fights about this outside this article.--SexyKick 00:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LAW is a guideline, but boy... this misconception is becoming common nowadays. George Ho (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What misconception? That the MOS provides a default for article titles? SexyKick is exactly right, it is only because an editor doesn't comprehend the guideline and has singlehandedly created a controversy over it. GregJackP Boomer! 03:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I meant that "policy" is confused with "guideline". George Ho (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record - I've brought this topic up at the helpdesk, as I'm still uncomfortable with the speed at which the move was re-requested. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that is appropriate. Thanks for letting us know. GregJackP Boomer! 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to text of court decision needs updating

the link to Reference #1 (" Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)" is no longer valid. web.archive.org will no longer index resource.org, in accordance with that sites robots.txt file. A google search has turned up what could be the original page on resource.org. That address is https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/977/977.F2d.1510.92-15655.html My wiki-editing skills aren't up to the task of editing the url for a multiply cited reference, and anyway, I'm not comfortable modifying an articles most cited reference. Dstarfire (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dstarfire: Hello there. Good eye. My editing skills are on task, but my legal referencing skills are not. To help me identify the resource you've given, I see that our article gives a quote which does appear in your given resource: "The trademark is misused if it serves to limit competition in the manufacture and sales of a product. That is the special province of the limited monopolies provided pursuant to the patent laws.". I don't feel comfortable in updating it because court cases cite so many other things (each other, etc) and the lingo is so domain-specific. I imagine it's easy to someone else. I have updated the *existing* deprecated citation to a real citation format, at least. If someone can simply verify that [1] is the correct new source as given, I'd be glad to fill it in. Thank you! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken links, both of them. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dstarfire and Red Phoenix:And you found a source which doesn't have a restrictive robots.txt. Well done. I just unified a bunch of crazy citations. For anyone else's future reference, "The Legal Game" is not a book, but a chapter in the already-cited book, Ultimate History of Video Games. Maybe if you already know how court cases are formatted (since I don't), you can check Template:Cite_court and improve the two citations I just laid down by filling in more of the template's available options. If you have the ability, I'd like to know whether this unrelated citation is suited to that template also. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph rewrite? Accolade's arguments.

I did some copyediting on this article in advance of recording a spoken version of this article (which I have now recorded and just needs to be edited), and I noticed that no space is given in this article to Accolade's arguments in the appeal. The arguments discussed come from an amicus brief submitted by the CCCI, and while they mirror Accolade's arguments, they are also sourced directly to the brief, not to a secondary source! The relevant paragraph is:

In support of the appeal, the Computer & Communications Industry Association submitted an amicus curiae brief claiming that the district court had made errors in concluding that Accolade had infringed upon Sega's copyright by reverse engineering its software, extending copyright protection to method of operation, and failing to consider whether Accolade's games were substantially similar to Sega's copyrighted material. Amicus briefs were also submitted by the American Committee for Interoperable Systems, the Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, and copyright law professor Dennis S. Karjala from Arizona State University.

It's not clear to me that this one amicus brief should have such weight, I don't see any independent reference to it in reliable sources. Accolade's argument in the appeal is, however, laid out in this book source, in four parts. I think we should replace the details of the one brief with a paraphrase of the case laid out by the book, and then just merge a mention of the CCCI brief into the list of amici. I thought I would get consent here first since this article's FAC was fairly recent, and the relevant paragraph was there during the review. Pinging @Red Phoenix: as the listed editor for this article. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sega v. Accolade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130615195031/http://www.1up.com/news/day-history-sega-accolade-settle to http://www.1up.com/news/day-history-sega-accolade-settle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)