Jump to content

Talk:Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing Info

[edit]

Hbdragon88, I don't think that this article is B-Class at the moment. It's missing some very important facts like, the the $15 million settlement that Galoob won the following year for lost profits, it dosen't mention that the device was designed by Codemasters or that part of the settlement involved Nintendo buying shares in Codemasters. - X201 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I don't know what happened there. I actually wrote "start class" on the Essential article talk page but classified this article as B-class. Fixed now. I hope you can expand on it. Hbdragon88 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the info at some point in the future. I know I've got an article on it in one of my old Sega Mags, It's just a question of which mag. I'm sure it will come to the surface at some point during The Magazine Project. - X201 09:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV re ReplayTV

[edit]
Due largely to the lawsuit, SonicBlue went bankrupt, even though the court never reached the point of ruling that selling what is essentially a better VCR that can skip commercials is illegal.

While I personally agree with the above statement, I have removed it as unverifiable POV. Pigsfly33 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

I removed the reference to Midway Manufacturing as "the monopolist" as that is clearly a POV that shouldn't be in the article.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that sentence should be in the article in its present form: according to the other article, it sounds like a marginally related case; the major part of the ruling sounds like it was simply maintaining that Pac-man was a copywritten entity despite being "evanescent or transient" because it was neither, the circuit board always produces Pac-man. For that reason Puckman infringed. "The speed-up kit" that would be parallel to this sounds more like a secondary matter. Flying Bishop (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the citation backwards?

[edit]

If Nintendo tried to sue Galoob, Nintendo (the plaintiff), should be the first name in the case citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevefarwell (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both tried to sue each other. Both actions were heard as one. - X201 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.. 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:

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) 05:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Found some sources that will help expand and improve this. Jorahm (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the article improvements. The article's coming along nicely. I did some work over at Camerica as I think they had some interesting involvement with the lawsuit too. Also I think TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. would be another interesting one to work on. Andre🚐 19:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, I also don't usually get to these on time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go! You've had my review schpiel before but basically, I'm open to discussion on all suggestions, and I won't fail on a single point unless something would cause a fail of the GACR.

Lead & Background
  • "Although the courts granted a enjoined the Game Genie from being sold" I think you're missing something here
  • "extending with new versions" feels awkward. Maybe something like, "and the product line was extended with versions for other consoles"?
  • Can we get years for the other suits mentioned?
  • "this case was distinguished by courts" is distinguished used as legal jargon here? Otherwise it doesn't seem to fit.
  • Year for Treasure Island as well?
  • I think the single-sentence paragraph at the end of Background could be part of the previous paragraph, but I won't fight you on it
Legal dispute
  • Years for other suits again plz, for the next section too
  • "The dispute was not resolved until a trial." I think this can just be "until trial". Or maybe just add "and the dispute proceeded to trial." to the end of the previous sentence
  • "personal use, Nintendo" this needs a semi-colon, not a comma
  • The trial is described as lasting "over a year" but later it says they were prohibited from selling for an "approximately one-year period". Can the earlier wording be tweaked for consistencey? Trial was July 90 to July 91, so I think "approximately a year" is more accurate than "over a year"
Impact and legacy
  • I think we need a smidge of context for ReplayTV - maybe "DVR service ReplayTV"?
  • "The issue was raised again..." when?

Overall, a very solid article with minimal issues. Sourcing good, no concern about POV or CV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Jorahm (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Main blurb is potentially misleading by implying that the case is still essential while the source only says that it was essential at the time of the decision. In fact, a law journal article cited later in the paragraph casts doubt on its applicability to how mods are distributed today. I have changed the text in the article [1], but the blurb should be edited or a source proving that it is still essential today should be provided. ALT1 is not interesting enough without something more (cases cite each other all the time). ALT2 is okay, but I've proposed an ALT3 that's more concise. However, since the main blurb is the most interesting, a minor reword there (e.g. adding "in 1992") is probably preferable to ALT2/3. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Patar knight: How about ALT4: ... that the case Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. was considered essential to the future of video game modding in the United States in 1992? Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine. ALT4 is supported by the source and is the most interesting. Thank you for your work. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.&oldid=1208159582"