Law of the Game

Housekeeping

2012-02-08T21:53:00.002-06:00

Sorry for the dust, but Law of the Game has been due for a bit of a clean up. Parts of the template have become outdated, some links are no longer valid, and the organization needed some tweaking. I believe I've fixed most of the issues, but if you run across something that still isn't working, please pardon the mess.

There's also substantially more social media integration now active on the site, so enjoy!

Could Trolling Land You in Court? Dallas Law Firm Sues To Find Out.

2012-02-07T07:33:00.000-06:00

One of the hallmarks of the internet has been the ability to remain relatively anonymous. This anonymity is not absolute, but if you are reasonably tech-savvy, there are ways to broadcast your views and shield your identity. When these measures enable someone to criticize an oppressive government or discuss controversial views, it is easy to see how valuable this protection can be. Speech that otherwise might get you fired, hurt, or arrested can be broadcast to the world. The value of some speech, especially political, is high, and well defined under First Amendment jurisprudence. It is a core right, but not as limitless as some might think.

Less appealing and of lower value is the time-honored internet tradition of trolling, ranging from hilarious to deplorable. Just visit the comments section of any YouTube video to see what we mean firsthand. Homophobia, racism, sexism, and plain old disgusting things run rampant, and there are too many commenters making too many comments to police it all. But trolling is often in the eyes of the beholder. What might be a reasonable statement to you could be harmful to the business of the entity the comment is targeted at. How do you tell the difference between the two, and more importantly, how does the law?

The Lenahan Law Firm of Dallas, Texas, incensed by an anonymous online review, has begun an exploration of the issue by suing the poster for defamation. Because they have not identified the defendant, they plan on subpoenaing Google for his information. This case presents many different issues, so we will unpack some of the bigger ones, and then discuss how it could be relevant in the gamespace.

What is defamation? It is the communication to a third party of false information intended to injure the reputation of a party. The specific type of defamation in this case would be libel, as it is written. The Second Restatement of Torts sheds a little more light on the issue, calling defamation a communication that “tends to so harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with them.”

What was the offending statement in the eyes of the Lenahan Law Firm? The anonymous poster “Ben” created a Google Review saying, “Bad experience with this firm. Don’t trust the fake reviews here.” Each sentence, depending on the facts, could be considered libel. If “Ben” had never retained Lenahan, claiming he had a bad experience would be a false statement.

Even if he had, claiming that the positive reviews were “fake” could also be false. If Lenahan can prove their good reviews came from real clients, they could show this easily. Both statements, depending on how a fact finder weighed their impact on Lenahan’s business, could be the type that could “deter third persons from associating or dealing with them.” That is, someone who saw the post could decide that retaining the firm is a bad idea.

What about getting access to “Ben” for the lawsuit? This is complicated. One case that involved a similar situation was Sony Music Entertainment vs Does 1-40, from the Southern District of New York in 2004. Sony discovered multiple individuals trading copies of their copyrighted recordings, and decided to do something about it. To find out the identity of the individuals, they subpoenaed internet service provider Cablevision for their customer records.

In their decision, the court noted that the First Amendment interests of the anonymous individuals had to be balanced against Sony’s need for disclosure. In granting the subpoena, the court identified five important factors. First, there had been a concrete showing by Sony of copyright infringement. Second, the subpoena was specific. Third, there was no other way for Sony to learn the identities of the defendants. Fourth, the information was central to Sony’s case. Finally, the Cablevision subscribers had little expectation of privacy in distributing copyrighted songs without permission.

So how might this method of analysis apply to Lenahan’s subpoena? We must remember that this is a different jurisdiction and a Texas court would be under no obligation to treat Sony as binding precedent. But, that case does directly deal with the issue of when and how you can get to the information an anonymous party, so it is worth considering.

On some of the factors, Lenahan has a strong argument. The subpoena is specific, there is no other way for them to determine the identity of “Ben”, and the information is central to Lenahan’s case. The two remaining factors are more problematic. Because of the facts of the case, there has yet to be a concrete showing by the plaintiff of libel. This could be possible for at least part of the statement if Lenahan can show that their positive reviews were created by real clients.

What might be more difficult would be showing that “Ben” had no expectation of privacy in posting his negative review of Lenahan. In Sony, it was easy for the court to conclude that no one could reasonably expect their privacy to be protected while they illegally downloaded songs. But America has a long tradition of protecting anonymous, critical speech. As far back as the Federalist Papers, citizens have enjoyed an exceptionally broad right to speak their minds without signing their name. As we noted above, that protection is stronger in the political arena.

It could be very hard for Lenahan to show “Ben” did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in posting his negative review. He could still have matters pending with the firm, and fear they would look for revenge if he included his name. None of this should be taken as a conclusive statement that Lenahan cannot get to this information. The more they are able to make a showing that the statement was libel, a court might be persuaded the First Amendment interest of “Ben” speaking freely is overwhelmed by the defamatory nature of his comments.

But, Lenahan is in a difficult position. ISPs like Google have often resisted such subpoenas because they want to protect their business. They might worry customers will choose not to use their services, like Google Reviews, for fear of being sued. Depending on how they look at it, Google could push back hard against the request for the poster’s identity.

How might this case apply to the gamespace? What if a developer, infuriated by an anonymous review of a game that they felt mischaracterized their work, sued for libel and subpoenaed for the poster’s identity? If the developer can show the reviewer complained about features that were not part of the game, it could rise to the level of defamation. There is an oft discussed concern in the potential conflict of interest of professional game reviewers.

This is part of the reason that non-professional reviews are worth discussing. If you believe anonymous, unpaid reviews are inherently more honest, then the issue is clear. If a developer could demonstrate the review could discourage people from buying the game it would improve their case, even if the statements were generally true. A fear of lawsuits might discourage some from reviewing. But, there is precedent to suggest this is unlikely, and one of them involves Barbara Streisand.

In 2003, Barbara Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman for posting aerial photos of her home as part of an environmental survey of the California coast. The lawsuit backfired. What was previously an obscure photo in a collection of hundreds became widely reprinted and discussed. The celebrity had brought the case to court in order to protect her privacy, but ended up making the offending photograph extremely famous.

Her case was dismissed, and the “Streisand Effect” was born. It remains a cautionary tale to anyone who tries to lasso the power of the internet. Any legal outcome becomes irrelevant if your lawsuit draws attention to exactly what you are attempting to hide. The court of public opinion in the electronic age does not obey defined rules of procedure. Anyone seeking legal relief involving the web would do well to consider this reality in their decision making.

The Lenahan Law Firm believes their customer base from online reviews is significant, and it is absolutely their right to try to protect it. But by bringing this suit, they have made it into a news story, albeit not one as large as the Streisand Effect. They may believe the case is worth the trouble, and that an anonymous party impugning their online reviews is a serious harm to their business. But they have cast a spotlight on “Ben,” and an issue that might have faded away is now news in the legal community. It remains to be seen how the issue will be settled.

The online presence of gamers is much larger than the number of people seeking legal services. If there has been a little bit of discussion on the Lenahan Law Firm, a suit against an anonymous game reviewer would generate a mountain of conversation. What was a frustrating and annoying review that dropped out of sight could instead become a popular post on Digg and Fark.

This drives home the thought process that underlies any lawsuit. A cost-benefit analysis has to be part of the decision. Maybe the review was false, discussed features that were not part of the game, and could dissuade people from purchasing your product. But anyone can post an online review easily, and a lawsuit might put a spotlight on something that could be quickly forgotten. If Lenahan’s lawsuit succeeds, we will know whether it was worth the trouble.

Zack Bastian is an official contributor to Law of the Game. A third year student at George Washington University Law, Zack works at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Science and Technology Innovation Program and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The opinions expressed in his columns are his own. Reach him at: zack[dawt]bastian[aat]gmail[dawt]com.

More on Social Game Cloning

2012-02-06T22:08:00.000-06:00

I was interviewed for a piece on Ars Technica, which went up this afternoon. It's another good read.

Check it out!

Piece on IndustryGamers

2012-02-05T22:42:00.003-06:00

I was recently featured in an interview on IndustryGamers regarding the recent social games "infringement" issues (Zynga/Nimblebit, SpryFox/LOLApps, etc.).

Check it out!

Things to Watch for in 2012: Call of Duty Lawsuit Reaches a Courtroom

2012-01-31T08:06:00.000-06:00

As we enter a new year of exciting games, Law of the Game likes to look forward to the game stories on the horizon. One of the biggest has to be the upcoming battle over the rights to the blockbuster Modern Warfare. You may recall Mark provided some initial commentary shortly after the case was filed. Jason West and Vince Zampella were fired from Activision in March of 2010. They promptly sued, claiming they had been defrauded out of royalties owed and ownership of the Modern Warfare property. The firing precipitated a strong reaction from the remaining Infinity Ward staff, as almost half followed their old bosses out the door.

But the intrigue did not stop there. In January 2011, Activision was allowed to add EA as a cross defendant. Why? Because Activision believes that Electronic Arts intended to “derail Activision’s Call of Duty franchise, disrupt its Infinity ward development studio, and inflict serious harm on the company.” While both sides have prepared for an intense battle, the incredible splash of Modern Warffare 3 has highlighted just how much is at stake. It only took sixteen days for the game to reach $1 billion in sales. If the sides can’t settle their differences before the May court date, we could never see another game in the series that got to $1 billion quicker than Avatar.

This case touches on many legal issues that have been bubbling within the game industry. As games have become more and more expensive to produce, more developers have been acquired by large publishers. The people who code the game are going to want the biggest return on their work possible. The publishers who finance the operation want the lion’s share too, as they make the investment and take on the risks involved with marketing and selling the game worldwide. Added to this already volatile mix is the turf war between developers like EA and Activision. Their ability to continue has everything to do with attracting great development talent and holding properties people will buy again and again.

As always, Law of the Game will have its ears wide open when the case begins in May, and will share what we learn as soon as possible.

Zack Bastian is an official contributor to Law of the Game. A third year student at George Washington University Law, Zack works at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Science and Technology Innovation Program and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The opinions expressed in his columns are his own. Reach him at: zack[dawt]bastian[aat]gmail[dawt]com.

Megaupload Shut Down, Provides Basic Lessons on Bad Business

2012-01-24T07:49:00.001-06:00

It’s been a crazy week with many crazy stories. Fears about the Stop Online Privacy Act created a massive online response, thrusting copyright reform into the national conversation. But while people were speculating on the future of intellectual property, the Department of Justice shut down Megaupload. Over the last five years, Megaupload had grown in popularity as an online “cyberlocker”. As broadband use explodes, the value of these companies is obvious. They are a user-friendly FTP where anyone can place files on a central server, to access them from a different locations or share them with others. When use a cyberlocker to store your baby photos or send a song you wrote to friends, there is no legal issue.

There might have been pictures of a two-year-old’s birthday party or basement demos somewhere on Megaupload, but review of the indictment made public this week shows the site knew their bread and butter was piracy. Although they had disclaimers on their site that users could be punished for uploading copyrighted content, the indictment claims that there was little, if any, enforcement. Instead, Megaupload acted to encourage infringement, primarily by creating an Uploader Rewards program that offered cash payments to the users who provided the most popular files. This, along with many more bad decisions detailed in the indictment, made the shutdown seem like an inevitable event.

There are many layers to this situation. It is a fascinating and frequently entertaining story, complete with outsized characters. One of the defendants Kim Dotcom (formerly Kim Schmitz) was living in China and New Zealand, and drove luxury cars with “GOD” license plates. Megaupload had an internal search engine to pluck whatever they liked from the servers, and one exec e-mailed another complaining his stolen copy of the Sopranos was in French. Employees described themselves as a modern day shipping service for pirates. In the wake of the shutdown, many have expressed concerns that this might signal an aggressive stance towards other sites that serve as cyberlockers. While it is unclear if that is the case, there are some lessons we can take to heart.

The federal government is very serious about delivering heavy blows to electronic money laundering, and are out to discourage anyone (including foreign companies) supporting it. Poker Stars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker all tried to avoid the Department of Justice by operating offshore, but were sunk last year. The Treasury’s new Prepaid Access rules have enhanced company obligations to verify customer data, collect information, and comply with law enforcement. This is a sustained pattern that has continued with Megaupload, as the third count in the indictment is for money laundering. It appears it has again been proven that doing your due diligence on your customers and making sure that you do not let suspicious transactions go unnoticed will always be a good investment of money and time.

This case seems uniquely egregious, and it may be that worries about a wider crackdown are exaggerated. Most companies are not going to present such an obvious case for prosecution. Megaupload’s border hopping executives built a business model around attracting stolen content by offering cash incentives to users whose uploads produced traffic. They reveled in their criminality and invited the attention of law enforcement. There is a push to address copyright law and make broad, substantive changes, but most companies offering cyberlockers are not going to be waving a giant flag saying “SHUT US DOWN” like Megaupload did.

As we recently discussed on BitTorrent, the struggle of the government and the courts with file-sharing is part of a broad pattern. There is no widespread agreement on how to deal with these issues, as the hue and cry over SOPA proved. But it is hard not to be encouraged by the emergence of technology law in the national conversation. Last week, the two biggest stories were a piece of legislation that had yet to make it to a vote, and the shutdown of Megupload. If it gets people thinking critically on how to help the law catch up with modern technical realities, everybody benefits. Except Kim Dotcom. He is (probably) in big trouble.

Zack Bastian is an official contributor to Law of the Game. A third year student at George Washington University Law, Zack works at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Science and Technology Innovation Program and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The opinions expressed in his columns are his own. Reach him at: zack[dawt]bastian[aat]gmail[dawt]com.

The Ongoing Legal Battle Over Bit Torrent Gets More Interesting

2012-01-17T09:08:00.000-06:00

Since the beginning of its existence, BitTorrent has been a lightning rod for controversy. Comcast choosing to slow down or “throttle” the service’s traffic was one of the first shots fired in the ongoing battle over Net Neutrality.

This is not just a problem here in the States. Canadian provider Rogers ”throttles more than any other internet provider in North America”. This issue is not going away. It speaks to many fundamental questions on the future of the internet, and also the future of video games. BitTorrent has exciting, perfectly legal applications. You can use it to quickly and easily transfer a homemade game to a friend, or share your own machinima. The downside is that, thanks to its ample capacity and dispersed load, pirates have thrived, distributing illegal versions of games for free. That bites into already precarious profits and reduces the incentive developers have to make the new games we love.

This profound problem got a new wrinkle when TorrentFreak recently claimed they traced BitTorrent downloads to the Recording Industry Association of America and US Department of Homeland Security. Using YouHaveDownloaded.com, TorrentFreak alleges they found that six unique IPs within the RIAA and more than 900 at DHS downloaded illegal materials from BitTorrent. TorrentFreak is undeniably partisan. The blogger who provided these claims uses an alias (presumably due to fears of reprisal). But, it is not hard to believe that employees at large organizations get copyrighted materials for free. To be fair, we don’t know why these files were downloaded or what was done with them. It’s possible it was for personal use as most coverage of this has implied, while it’s also possible it was downloaded as part of an investigation, which may have even been at the request of the rights holder. All we know is the files were likely downloaded by someone at those IP addresses.

There is no consensus on how to deal with the issue. RIAA abandoned the idea of suing individual downloaders long ago. Not so in Europe, where CD Projekt served settlement offers on Germans accused of pirating a copy of The Witcher 2. Others have chosen to focus on communities like the Pirate Bay in order to make a bigger dent in the infringement. Pirate Bay has been cited by supporters of the Stop Online Privacy Act as proof of how necessary the legislation is. (Legislation which, incidentally, may also ”break the internet.”)

TorrentFreak’s claim they have found foxes in the henhouse is interesting, it does not answer any questions. Is it embarrassing for the RIAA? Yes. Regardless of what the real reason may be here, the publicity’s implications have been negative in a pretty much universal manner. But, it does not solve the unresolved problem of how to confront the clash between copyright owners and the easy sharing the internet allows. Law of the Game will keep you updated of new developments as they become available.

Zack Bastian is an official contributor to Law of the Game. A third year student at George Washington University Law, Zack works at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Science and Technology Innovation Program and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The opinions expressed in his columns are his own. Reach him at: zack[dawt]bastian[aat]gmail[dawt]com.

Things to Watch for in 2012: O’Bannon v. NCAA

2012-01-10T21:01:00.003-06:00

Here at Law of the Game, both Mark and myself are big college sports fans, particularly of the burnt orange and white. (Hook ‘em!) For those of you out there with similar obsessions, you have probably played one of EA’s NCAA Sports games and enjoyed coaching your alma mater to (imaginary) glory. You might have used one of the classic teams and enjoyed the golden years of Michael Vick at Virginia Tech, or Julius Erving at the University of Massachusetts. But does the fact that these games do not use player names mean they have the right to make similar characters without paying royalties?

That is the fundamental question asked by UCLA basketball great Ed O’Bannon in his lawsuit against the NCAA. The original filing was back in 2009, and multiple plaintiffs have joined since. They argue the NCAA’s behavior amounts to unlicensed use of their image and likeness. Taylor Branch highlighted the dispute in October. The Atlantic published his exhaustive and powerful article The Shame of College Sports, and some quotes from O’Bannon get to the heart of the issue:

“Once you leave your university,” says O’Bannon, who won the John Wooden Award for player of the year in 1995 on UCLA’s national-championship basketball team, “one would think your likeness belongs to you.” The NCAA and UCLA continue to collect money from the sales of videos of him playing. But by NCAA rules, O’Bannon, who today works at a Toyota dealership near Las Vegas, alleges he is still not allowed to share the revenue the NCAA generates from his own image as a college athlete.

Branch also spent time with Michael D. Hausfield of Hausfield, LLP to get a better grasp of the plaintiffs’ argument. (Also from The Shame of College Sports):

“Let’s start with the basic question,” he said, noting that the NCAA claims that student-athletes have no property rights in their own athletic accomplishments. Yet, in order to be eligible to play, college athletes have to waive their rights to proceeds from any sales based on their athletic performance. “What right is it that they’re waiving?” Hausfeld asked. “You can’t waive something you don’t have. So they had a right that they gave up in consideration to the principle of amateurism, if there be such.”

These rights are lucrative. EA Sports paid $35 million last year to the NFL Players Union to compensate players who appear in their enormously popular Madden and NFL Street franchises. Former collegiate players haven’t seen any money to date. A ruling against the NCAA could mean big changes for the way these games are developed and financed going forward.

The plaintiffs in O’Bannon v. NCAA are seeking an injunction against further use, damages, and an accounting for profits made by the NCAA from the licenses they’ve already sold. The suit has had slow going so far. The latest update is that the case is in Dallas Federal Court over a discovery dispute with Conference-USA. The plaintiffs have managed to fend off attempts at dismissal by the NCAA so far, but we should expect both sides to fight this one as far as they possibly can. An accounting of profits, if a court found the NCAA liable, could be a deep, painful stab at their continued financial viability. It could also be a powerful precedent for current players to sue on similar grounds.

The NCAA’s position is not completely without merit. Their rules, flawed as they may be, have been applied consistently for decades. Among professional leagues, these rights are typically handled collectively (like the NCAA) to simplify licensing agreements. There are arguments for this simplicity, and it is difficult to say what percentage of the license fee paid to the NCAA is for current players versus the retired players. Historic rosters bring value, but to subdivide that by the value of a given year’s team and further separate it by player is difficult. Moreover, the percentage of historic inclusions at the college level is substantially lower than at the pro level since there are many more teams in the NCAA.

This is not the only dispute over player likenesses in the past few years. The Madden franchise has been the target of similar suits discussed previously by Law of the Game. That incident led to a $28 million verdict in 2009, requiring the players’ union to pay the retirees who went uncompensated. Yet another suit was filed in July 2010 over a similar issue, but targeting EA rather than the NFLPA.

We will continue to watch the progress of O’Bannon with a close eye. As gamers and sports fans, it could forever change the games we have enjoyed so much.

Zack Bastian is an official contributor to Law of the Game. A third year student at George Washington University Law, Zack works at the Woodrow Wilson Center's Science and Technology Innovation Program and is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. The opinions expressed in his columns are his own. Reach him at: zack[dawt]bastian[aat]gmail[dawt]com.

Game::Business::Law 2012

2011-12-29T10:03:00.003-06:00

I will be moderating a panel at the rapidly approaching Game::Business::Law 2012 in January. The preliminary program has been posted to the GBL site. My panel is titled "Paying and Playing," and will be in the afternoon of the first day. One of the most exciting additions this year is the funding forum on the afternoon of day 2, facilitated by the Texas Entrepreneur Network.

I encourage anyone interested to check out the GBL site. The event will be January 25-26, 2012, and held at the SMU Dedman School of Law again this year. SMU's Dedman School of Law and Guildhall, in conjunction with The Center for American and International Law, always put together a great program.

Hope to see many of you there in a few weeks!

A short Joystiq post

2011-12-28T09:10:00.002-06:00

Many of you likely saw that Christopher Grant is leaving Joystiq. Many of you also likely saw that Justin and Griffin are following suit. From the time I have spent both reading Joystiq and writing LGJ, I can say without reservation that Joystiq is losing three truly great people. Of those, I spent the most time interacting with Chris, who really is a great person to work with. There has already been some speculation about what the future holds for those three, but I'm sure they will do well in their future endeavor.

Which brings me back to Joystiq. While this is a major loss, the team now in place is a really strong one. I know Ludwig is more than capable of taking the reins, and the others who remain that I have worked with are all very capable. I have probably had the most interaction with Alexander and Ben, both of which are very good at what they do. In short, I wouldn't worry about the future of Joystiq.

From Law of the Game, best wishes to all of you in your various new roles.

A Step Forward for Law of the Game

2011-12-23T15:05:00.000-06:00

As I’m sure many of you have noticed, the amount of time I’ve been able to dedicate to Law of the Game over the past few months has diminished greatly. Between a new professional role and some other publication opportunities I’ve had presented, there simply hasn’t been time for Law of the Game content.

A long-time friend and reader contacted me about this very predicament, and I think we’ve come up with an exciting idea for 2012. He will be writing some content which will be posted on Law of the Game, starting in January.

I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce Zack Bastian, a third year law student at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., and the first official outside contributor to Law of the Game.

Happy Holidays from Law of the Game

2011-12-23T10:19:00.001-06:00

Happy Holidays to all of my readers from Law of the Game.

I know the second half of 2011 has been relatively quiet for a number of reasons, but I have some exciting things in store for 2012. Stay tuned!

LGJ: On On Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn.

2011-07-05T11:04:00.002-05:00

On this LGJ, commentary on the recent Supreme Court decision.

Read on!

LGJ: Morrowind Mod Mayhem

2011-01-24T10:45:00.001-06:00

The latest LGJ takes a look at the dust up over the Morrowind 2011 mod pack that surfaced briefly, only to be taken down.

Read on!

Games and Stroke Rehabilitation

2011-01-20T13:59:00.004-06:00

Despite the continued attempts of research to introduce tenuous links between negative behavior and gaming,* it never ceases to amaze me how gaming can also do a lot of good. It's often in the ways I don't expect that gaming actually shines brightest. Not too long ago, a relative of mine suffered a mild stroke which primarily affected language and number processing. Upon entry to rehabilitation, a substantial part of the process came as quite a surprise to me: play games.

You see, exercises like sudoku and crosswords, along with memory games, word games, and even some grade-schoolesque math exercises helped repair that part of the brain that was damaged. While the prescription was primarily for pen and paper activities, a few iPod and iPad apps were also in the mix along with Lumosity. Of course, as soon as I saw the treatment, I immediately started thinking about just how many video games would also fit the bill, and how they might even make for better tracking of progress. Sudoku and crossword apps were obvious, so I thought I would take a minute to share some of the less obvious choices that occurred to me. I don't have any data to report on how successful any particular game is, nor the background to make that kind of analysis or any medical claims, but these games do fulfill the essential functions of their analog counterparts.

Everyday Genius: SquareLogic (Steam, App Store) - I list this game first because it was the first that came to my mind, and because I would imagine more stroke victims own iPads than DSs. The game is a logic game of sorts, like the offspring of sudoku grids and math puzzles. But, it presents both the components of the simple math used in rehab as well as the sudoku puzzles. Possibly the most important factor is that the difficulty scale is pretty linear and consistent.
Brain Age - What else needs to be said? The game, especially, the math game, is exactly what is being done on paper, but tracked over time.
Super Scribblenauts - I disregard the initial entry in the series because the controls were frustrating, to say the least. But the second is, in essence, a giant word puzzle. I've played through quite a bit of the game, and because of the game's huge vocabulary and multiple solutions working for most puzzles, this to me seemed like another potentially ideal candidate.
The Professor Layton series -My love for the Layton games notwithstanding, a good chunk of the brain teasers presented are either word puzzles or math puzzles. Perhaps the difficulty makes this more appropriate for later stages of the program, but certainly, it's one of the best brain puzzle games on the market.

I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds or thousands (counting apps on all platforms), of examples of games that could be used in this context. Given what I have seen so far, it appears that Apple hasn't had to make any effort to market apps for this kind of rehabilitation, but with the DS library being in many cases so well suited to this kind of recovery program, it makes me wonder if Nintendo should be doing more to reach out to the professionals who work on rehabilitating areas of the brain. After all, the DS is a relatively inexpensive platform, and the games, while not as cheap as apps, are still relatively inexpensive and tend to have a much more robust feature set than comparable apps. In fact, you might be purchasing $30 in apps to get the same number of features or replayability as a an average DS game. With as much attention as has been given to the Wii with respect to rehab, I'm surprised more attention hasn't been paid to the DS in the same regard. I don't have any statistics on the instances of strokes that only impair cognitive function versus those that impact motor function, and perhaps the latter are far more prevalent and thus receive more attention.

In short, should any of you experience the truly unfortunate event of a stroke in the family, and the rehabilitation scheme sounds similar to the one I've described, it may be time to loan that family member a Nintendo DS or point them to some new apps to help them through their rehab process.

*As a note to the above article, I find it far more probable that the depression caused the excessive gaming and low grades, rather than the gaming being the cause of the other two.

LGJ: Blizzard, Cheating, and Copyright Infringement

2010-11-09T16:36:00.003-06:00

This LGJ looks at Blizzard's latest use of copyright infringement to thwart cheaters.

I did want to note, after a few comments about this, that I unfortunately haven't had a chance to play StarCraft II (other than the beta), so I didn't talk specifically about the cheats built into that game. The end is more a big picture analysis of inclusion of cheats, not a condemnation of Blizzard as some have taken it.

Read on!

LGJ: Are game resales at risk?

2010-09-16T10:30:00.002-05:00

This week's LGJ looks at the Vernor v. Autodesk decision and how that may impact not only PC games, but potentially all games on all platforms.

Read on!

LGJ: Where's my refund?

2010-09-01T10:52:00.002-05:00

This week's LGJ talks about DLC, digital distribution, and refunds. It's been a bit of a hot topic with so many downloads impacting the original game or other games.

Read on!

LGJ: The 'Kinect' story, a case study in international trademark trickery

2010-08-03T12:40:00.002-05:00

This week's LGJ is about trademarks, international trademarks, and the Kinect.

Read on!

Questions for Me? Come to SGC!

2010-06-02T10:51:00.004-05:00

I mentioned a while back that I would be likely back at SGC this July, but I didn't provide many other details. Now that the preliminary schedule is up, I can say with some certainty that I will be back at SGC with a panel on July 3 (Saturday). While this year won't be another epic debate, it should still be a lot of fun. The session will be "The Law and Our Digital Life," and the focus is on you. After all, there are a lot of legal issues facing simple internet dwellers as well as those with aspirations to publish content, whether those be videos or games or other material.

If you're not going to be at SGC this year, don't lose all hope. To make this session as big and diverse as possible, I've also started a thread on the ScrewAttack forums asking for more input on what people want to hear about. My plan is to get through as much of that thread and as many of the audience questions as I can in the time I have. So if you've got a question and can't make it, be sure to head over to the ScrewAttack forums and get the question in the thread.

See you all at SGC!

LGJ: EA's Online Pass a ticket to FTCville?

2010-06-01T13:19:00.001-05:00

In the latest LGJ, we take a look at the Online Pass and some potential unwanted consequences.

Read on!

Speaking at UTD on April 18

2010-04-15T16:27:00.002-05:00

This Sunday, April 18, 2010, I will be speaking at the Game Engineering Conference at UT Dallas from 3:30 to about 5 pm. More information can be found here. The topics to be covered will be the iPhone Developer Agreements and a mini-primer on derivative works.

I hope to see some of my readers out at the event.

LGJ: Does PS3 Firmware 3.21 come with a refund?

2010-04-15T16:25:00.005-05:00

On this week's LGJ, we talk about the interesting refund issue that has accompanied the PS3's loss of Linux support. Be sure to note, though, this is basically an advertising issue, not a discussion of Sony's EULA.

Read on!

LGJ: Dawn at the Great Pyramid (Scheme)

2010-03-22T14:14:00.003-05:00

The latest LGJ looks at how the current referral systems could easily evolve into something that could actually land game companies in hot water: pyramid schemes.

Read on!

Game::Business::Law 2010 Video

2010-03-17T13:11:00.002-05:00

I just wanted to take a moment to link to the video of the panel I moderated at Game::Business::Law 2010 back in January.

In unrelated news, GDC10 last week was a great conference, and thanks to anyone who I met there who may be checking out the blog. Some of the discussions I had have given me some great ideas for piecess both on Law of the Game and Joystiq, so look forward to seeing some new articles very soon.