Law of the Game

Short Notice

Posted on October 24, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

I do apologize for the shortage of content as of late on Law of the Game. My time has been largely consumed by client projects and the development of a new website for The Vernon Law Group. I will certainly have a post directing you to the new site once it is public. In the mean time, though, it appears there will be another week or two of 1-2 posts per week instead of my more usual 3-5 posts per week. Thank you.

Disclaimer
The content of this blog is not legal advice.
It only constitutes commentary on legal issues,
and is for educational and informational purposes only.
Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other
interaction on this site does not create an
attorney-client privilege between you and the author.
The opinions expressed on this site are the opinions of the author only and not of any other person or entity.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestments for Game Developers Part 2: Mergers and Acquisitions

Posted on October 17, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

Continuing from Part 1, this article addresses the concept of mergers and acquisitions, which are undoubtedly important to the smaller developer. For those outside the industry, or who don’t hav a business background, the overwhelming question is probably a simple “Why?” Part of it seems to be a trend in the industry, a trend which has happened in many other industries before. Large game companies (i.e. EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) like to acquire up and compning developers for a number of reasons, such as adding fresh thought to the development process, adding new intellectual property to their roster both from the standpoint of the software and the brand that accompanies it, and a broader mass appeal, not to mention the added revenue. From the standpoint of a start up developer, a big studio taking over gives you many of the perks that come with being in a big company, and may remove many of the financial concerns and burdens that occur with a smaller business. Of course, if your small business is more like, say, id software, or if you happen to have a genius like, say, Miyamoto* break off to form a small development company, then you’re probably not looking into being acquired.

So, what are mergers and acquisitions? Well, it’s two different means to the same ends: two companies combine to form one. A merger is where two companies come in on more equal footing, and merge into one new entity. An example would be SquareSoft and Enix becoming SquareEnix. An acquisition, on the other hand, is typically used to describe a large company absorbing a smaller company, such as when Microsoft originally acquired Bungie. In both types of transactions, the mechanism is controlled by the contract, and often times they all work about the same, other than the respective sizes and bargaining powers of the entities. Hence, Mergers and Acquisitions (or M&A, as they’re often called in the legal and business worlds) are typically discussed as a single concept.

This brings us to the basic workings of the concept. Generally, this starts either by one company deciding it wants to acquire another, or two companies mutually deciding they’re be better off joining forces. From there, the deal is negotiated through, once again, the contract. There may be some additional regulatory issues if there’s a cross-border transaction or if both companies are publicly held, or if the new company would result in some sort of a monopolistic anti-trust monster, but generally, there won’t be too much government interference to worry about, unless a location happens to require particular permits. There is also always a tax element to pay attention to, but that applies on both a local and national level (as well as a state level in many places). Once all of the details are ironed out in negotiations, there is some sort of closing to sign the documents, and then the companies are re-assembled according to the terms of the agreement. As this is such a flexible process, given the flexibility of the agreements and the dramatic differences between potential parties, this is another occasion where tips are more appropriate than a guide.

1. Keep your position in perspective. Remember that no two transactions are alike, and your place respective to the other party in the deal may reflect directly on your bargaining power. If it’s a merger, you probably can’t force the other party into too many different directions. In an acquisition, I tend to believe the little guy often has more power than the big guy. Typically, in an acquisition, the big guy wants the little guy, and the little guy may be able to get a few extra perks because of that desire. Of course, individual situations do vary.
2. Each side needs independent counsel. Much like I stated in the previous part, everyone needs to have their interests represented independently. More than that, independence removes the appearance of impropriety in case the deal falls apart down the road.
3. Organization is the absolute key. Negotiations in these deals can, and do, drag on for months at a time. Without a pretty thorough organization, things will be overlooked. Your legal representation should handle organizing the documents and keeping you apprised of the word for word changes in redlined versions, but checklists help with the bigger picture.
4. Remember: Contracts are flexible. When it comes right down to it, most any outcome can be written into the contract. If you want to maintain separate offices, that can be done. If you want salaries locked in for 5 years, that can be done. If your big sticking point is making sure there’s a frozen yogurt machine in the breakroom, that can be addressed too.
5. Build in a mechanism to resolve future issues. As much as every attorney wants to be sure the document accounts for every contingency and every alternative, inevitably something will come up. If a way to resolve issues is built into the contract, hopefully it will keep the deal from falling apart over unresolved problems, be they with healthcare or office attire or the number of action figures allowed in a cubicle.

In the grand scheme of things, M&As are pretty routine. They have been happening in business forever, and there are plenty of professionals who have significant background in these transactions. Now that the game industry is one of the biggest kids on the block, more traditional business issues will continue to arise in the industry and be well publicized, just as the recent events noted in Part 1 were.

*Note: There’s no indication this would ever happen, but he’s a recognizable example of the concept. This is not meant to create some grand rumor about a new studio in the works.

Bragg v. Linden Settles, Still No Virtual Property Precedent

Posted on October 8, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

In an astonishingly anticlimactic ending to what could have been the landmark first case on virtual property, Bragg and Linden have entered into a confidential settlement agreement. And while I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the agreement to be leaked online, even if it were, there would still be no precedent set on virtual property from this case. I imagine it’s only a matter of time until some other case does just what many of us expected from Bragg v. Linden, but we will have to wait and see what case does just that.

Previous Law of the Game Coverage can be found here.

[Via Virtually Blind, Game Politics]

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestments for Game Developers Part 1: Divestment

Posted on October 5, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

Given the recent news in the corporate realm for developers Bizarre Creations and Bungie, I thought it would be a good time to discuss some basics of corporate transactions. Accordingly, this will be the first of two articles on Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestments. Given that today is Bungie’s “independence day,” I thought it would be appropriate to start with divestments, even though the industry seems to have far more mergers and acquisitions.

The basic concept is a spin off. An element of a company, for one reason or another, is pushed into an independent entity, or to another acquiring company. In the event of the latter, the points on mergers and acquisitions are equally relevant.

It would be almost impossible to outline every element of a divestment, and no two divestments are identical just based on the differences between companies. Rather than try to explain the process in depth, this article will give a short outline and some points to keep in mind if your group is being divested.

Generally, a divestment starts with a decision from some level of the corporation that the group needs to be spun off. Once the decision is ratified by the necessary people, then a new entity is set up to move the group into. The assets of the group are then sold to the new entity, and someone is appointed to be the head of the entity. The staff is then re-hired to the new entity, but typically all of this happens in a very short period of time with essentially no lag between the old and the new. Often, the original parent takes an interest in the new entity in exchange for the things being given to the new entity. The alternative is generally a promissory note of some sort, whereby the new entity will pay off the things they’re getting from the old company.

Some important points to consider if your group is being divested:
1. Don’t panic. Don’t take it personally. Ultimately, this is just a business decision, and it’s hard for a lot of people to separate “business” and “personal.” If you treat it as a business decision and stay calm, it will make the transition a lot easier.
2. Get independent counsel. Odds are that a company large enough to have a divestment usually has an in house counsel or a law firm they do most of their deals with whom you’ve met or been used to dealing with. No matter how much you trust them, you want your own, independent counsel from an unrelated firm who has experience with transactions. When it comes right down to it, you want to have someone who is in your corner and has no possibility of having a divided interest. There is really no scenario under which this is a bad idea.
3. Make sure you get the important stuff in writing. Promises that are not in writing are generally not going to be honored. That is the unfortunate truth. However, if you took point 2 to heart, you will likely have an attorney you hired saying the same thing. If they promise you can take your really popular game series with you, from engine to trademark, make sure it’s in a signed writing.
4. The whole thing is governed by the contract. This relates back to point 3. Typically, the writing in question is going to be the contract itself or an exhibit to the contract. There are really two important things to remember here:

1. If it’s not in the contract, it’s not going to happen.
2. A contract is an infinitely flexible document, and pretty much anything you want can be drafted into it, given a little work and, in some cases, creative thinking.

5. Make sure to resolve everything. One thing counsel should be able to offer you is experience, and that experience means most every little detail and strange contingency should be addressed in the contract. Keep in mind there is more to deal with than just the IP you created in the company. Things like what happens to employee health benefits, office furniture, parking spaces, etc. are all important. Moreover, if you’re keeping the same office space, there will likely be a number of lease issues to deal with, or if the company owns the building, a lease will need to be drawn up. Even issues like interim working capital may be in the agreement, if separate funding is not occurring. Because there are so many details and contingencies, point 2 is really relevant from the time the decision is made since even the location and/or structure of the new entity can have different effects on things like taxation.

All in all, transactions like this occur daily in the corporate world, and so the basic concepts apply to all industries.

Two comments to the Bungie deal specifically:
1. If you’re expecting the Bungie IPO to follow shortly, it seems unlikely in the immediate future given the choice of an LLC as an entity. Not to say it couldn’t happen, but the choice of an LLC seems to suggest that isn’t an immediate goal.
2. This might give more viability to the Halo DS theories.

The Halo 3.5 Conspiracy Theory

Posted on September 27, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

As an almost complete departure from my normal content, I wanted to share a theory I had about Halo 3. This post contains some very mild spoilers, so if you’re still not a good way through the campaign and trying to avoid EVERY spoiler, you may want to wait before reading it.

Spoiler Dead Space

Anyone who’s played most or all of the campaign solo knows that you only play as Master Chief, and the Arbiter is around as an NPC some of the time (co-op is different, but I believe that that’s placement of convenience rather than story cannon). In fact, the “dropping” of the Arbiter story line has been complained about in a number of reviews. This leads me to the theory:

There will be a Halo 3.5. Or Halo 3-2. Or Halo 3: Directors’ Cut.

The storyline will basically be the Arbiter’s cannon story during the activities of Halo 3, filling in all the gaps of absence in the Chief’s escapade. And after all, why not? It would only be addition to the story, which would take a comparatively small development time. It might even be able to be sold as downloadable content off the marketplace. And it would make even more money off negligible changes to the Halo 3 engine. And then they can re-sell “Halo 3: Game of the Year Edition” with the Halo 3 and Halo 3.5 content. Yes, it’s a very Bethesda-esque route (much like Oblivion has done), and it’s one Bungie avoided in the past (given the theory that Halo 1.5 would be released with Xbox Live multiplayer). But it could happen, and that’s just my theory.

MMOG = Massive MoneyLaundering Online Game?

Posted on September 25, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

A point I brought up in my 2005 paper, which was recently touched on by Symantec according to an article, is the possibility for money laundering through MMO games. The idea is simple enough: push money through virtual transactions to lose the connection to crime. According to the report:

“… a criminal enterprise could open several thousand MMOG accounts. Each could be used to trade with other players in the purchase or sale of in-game assets, the funds from which would ultimately be withdrawn from the accounts. Since thousands of accounts may engage in millions of transactions, each with small profits or losses, it would be difficult to trace the true source of the funds when they are withdrawn. These transactions can be conducted worldwide without the oversight that typically accompanies international bank remittances. In fact, in February 2007, China’s central bank and finance ministries called upon companies to stop trading QQ coins and virtual currencies, presumably to curb the unregulated exchange of currency.”

I estimate that Symantec’s solution to the problem is with greater security and client verification. However, a more simplistic approach would be taxation on virtual revenue, even if the concept is opposed by players. Think of it this way: Right now, income from sales in MMO games is supposed to be reported as ordinary income. Many people neglect to do this whatsoever. If, instead, there was automatic reporting to the IRS (or other country’s tax agency, based on the residence of the player) of income derived from MMO sales, then the tax agency would know to expect payment from said individuals. Moreover, it ties a person to the MMO account, eliminating the possibility of spreading one person over 100 accounts and going unnoticed. Of course, this would have to be based on a cash out value, as has been suggested before by both myself and Bryan Camp. In any event, the process of losing money in the transaction generally makes different things less appealing as money laundering vehicles, and thus virtual taxation could be one answer to the problem.

[Via Kotaku]

Virtual Worlds Become Virtual Nations?

Posted on September 21, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

An interesting piece was recently posted on Virtually Blind by Israeli attorney Jonathan J. Klinger. The crux of his argument was:

For example, earlier this year, Michael Carlton, CEO of online sportsbook Victor Chandler, was arrested in Israel. An Israeli court asserted jurisdiction over Carlton, a foreign citizen, and stated that as long as a portion of the illegal activity (here, gambling) occurred in Israel, there is no need for universal jurisdiction, and the website operator is subjected to the Israeli law (State v. Carlton, Hebrew decision). The court stated that it was in Victor Chandler’s responsibility to bar all communication from Israel since the activity they offer is illegal for Israeli citizens to participate in.

Using the same rationale, any employee of Blizzard or Linden Lab could be subjected to the Israeli penal code, as they are allowing illegal conduct (under Israeli law) to take place on their servers. Blizzard could face harsher liability as it distributes World of Warcraft actively in Israel, while Second Life is only available for download.

The only solution to these legal problems is to separate players according to countries, or even states (as some state laws in the US differ regarding pornography and violence). Any other solution may cause a conflict of laws, and subject the industry to liability twice: the first is the constitutional tort, where legal expression is barred though there is no local legal reason to bar it (e.g. ageplay in the U.S.) and the second is potential criminal prosecution by another state which may prosecute company leaders for user actions that are actually legal in the home country of the company.

I, however, do not agree. Moreover, I believe the precedent set by Isreal should be looked at with disdain by the legal community. Take note here that I’m departing from an actual analysis, which the above quote limits itself to, and moving into theoretical alternatives that would generally be beneficial to all those involved.

I want to begin with a meta-theoretical statement. The purpose of virtual worlds is to bring people together. As such, the solution that either people must be divided on geographical lines or game providers must be subjected to liability is a pure frustration of purpose. Of course, the concept of making a “virtual world” an actual nation is equally blasphemous. In fact, it seems at though negative consequences could easily result from creating “independent nations” within nations that exist on servers. So, what solutions are available to the problem? Clearly the social conscience of a person in Texas cannot be made to match a person in Isreal or Japan or France. That idea is equally impracticable, and in the same vein, the pipedream of creating “universal rules” to govern the internet is impracticable. Moreover, the idea that we allow complete free speech to govern our online worlds only gives rise to the most deplorable of content, as child predators would take refuge under the “free speech” of the digital world. There is also the final consideration that, ultimately, the server space is private property. The Grid belongs to Linden. Azeroth (all of the various iterations on the various servers) belongs to Blizzard.

So where does this leave possible solutions? Governing in-world conduct being left to the worlds owners, how should jurisdiction be handled? I think it is time for a paradigm shift an analyzing jurisdictional elements with virtual worlds. Put simply: Server location dictates jurisdiction. While this idea won’t bode will with the “minimum contacts” proponents out there, the theory does have a logical base. Ultimately, the activity occurs on the server, not at the user end. I can click buttons all day long on my personal computer, but without the server end, there is no net effect. As such, the server is the critical component. This is the basis for a client-server model, and this is, in my opinion, how it should be treated under the law. This provides the maximum certainty for the developer.

This, of course, leaves the issue of performing an activity illegal in one country on a server located in another. Ultimately, issues like these will have to be resolved by the governments, rather than putting the developer in the line of fire or forcing the defeat of the purpose of virtual worlds. So, for example, if a 3rd world nation hosts “Child Porn: The Game,” it will be up to the international community to pressure that country to abolish the game. (Moreover, with something as pernicious as child pornography, local governments could likely track subscriptions and users in order to find offenses in the local countries. I can’t say I favor invasion of privacy, but I also can’t say I oppose using any means necessary to remove dangerous predators from the streets.) On the other hand, with something as hotly debated as online gambling, rather than leaving the user and developer in difficult and awkward positions, it would have to be resolved between nations. Ultimately, either the moralists would win, or the simple positive economics would. In either case, the burden is on the government, or indirectly on society as a whole, rather than punishing the developer or the user based on what are largely ambiguous lines.

Will this paradigm shift happen? It seems doubtful given the overwhelming analysis of jurisdiction to the contrary. However, I think that we have reached a time in which the old analysis need to be seriously re-examined based on the dramatically different world and virtual worlds that technology has created.

[Via Virtually Blind]

Metanomics

Posted on September 21, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

I thought many of the readers out there might be interested in the Metanomics 2007 programs going on in Second Life. They are hosting a number of speakers, including my former professor Bryan Camp from the Texas Tech School of Law.

Those interested in the study of Metanomics should try to attend some of their seminars. For the uninitiated, their FAQ gives the following overview:

“Metanomics” refers to the study of the business and policy aspects of the “metaverse” of virtual worlds. Metanomics can focus on issues arising within virtual worlds, such as how developers manage the economy of a game world (like World of Warcraft), or how residents of virtual worlds manage and regulate business. Metanomics also includes the study of how real-world businesses can use virtual worlds as part of their strategy, and how real-world law and regulation might apply to virtual-world activities. Finally, metanomics includes the use of virtual worlds as laboratories in which to study real-world business or policy issues.

Metanomics can take an “immersionist,” “augmentationist,” or “experimentalist” perspective. Immersionist metanomics attempts to understand business and policy issues from entirely within the virtual world in question, with little reference to the outside world. Augmentationist metanomics views the metaverse as simple an addition (augmentation) to the real world, and examines how its appearance affects business practice and regulatory policy. Experimentalist metanomics uses the metaverse as a laboratory in which to conduct controlled experiments that can tell us something new about the real world (such as eliminating capital gains taxes actually does increase investment and productivity).

[Thanks to Robert Bloomfield for the tip!]

Oklahoma Video Game Law Defeated

Posted on September 17, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

The Video Game Industry can now add Oklahoma to their list of victories against game laws, as an opinion was released today in Entertainment Merchants Association v. Henry, Case No. 5:06-cv-00675 (W.D. Okla.). The opinion grants the plaintiff’s request to have the enforcement of the act permanently enjoined.

The opinion makes it quite clear that there is no grounds to support this law. For those unfamiliar, the Oklahoma version of the law placed a $1,000 fine on any dissemination of video games with “inappropriate violence” to minors. This language even included a parent giving a game to a minor. The opinion made a few distinct points on the issues at hand:

1. Video games are protected speech. No particular peculiarities of the medium nor amount of user control can change this legal fact.

2. Regulating violence is a content based restriction on free speech, and therefore presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny. Violence, unlike sexual content, is not regulating obscenity.

3. Video game violence does not compel youth to commit violent acts, nor is there “substantial evidence” of a link between video game violence and youth violence. To quote the opinion on the latter, “Beyond Defendants’ generalized statements, there is a complete dearth of legislative findings, scientific studies, or other rationale in the record to support the passage of the Act. Defendants’ argument that “common sense” dictates that playing violent video games “is not good for children,” and that the onus is on Plaintiffs to prove otherwise, completely fails. (See Defs.’ Resp. at 9.) The First Amendment does not allow prohibitions based on “common sense.” See Kendrick, 244 F.3d at 578; Granholm, 426 F. Supp. 2d at 663-64.“

4. The standard on violence in this act was so very vague that it was fatal to the act itself, in addition to the numerous other flaws pointed out. “The Act “does not satisfy the rigorous constitutional standards that apply when government attempts to regulate expression. Where First Amendment freedoms are at stake . . . precision of drafting and clarity of purpose are essential. These prerequisites are absent
here.” Erznoznik, 422 U.S. at 217-18.“

The question from here is whether the government officials in Oklahoma see fit to continue to waste taxpayer money and the court’s time in addressing this issue, as California seems determined to do. I have long supported the proposition that parents should be controlling their children’s media consumption, not the government, and this seems to be another step in the right direction.

The Blizzard Machinima Rules

Posted on September 11, 2007 by Mark Methenitis

Following in the footsteps of Microsoft, Blizzard unveiled their own “Machinima Rules” late last week. The approach taken by these rules, however, is the complete opposite of Microsoft’s approach in my opinion.

First and foremost, their primary concern (like Microsoft’s) is that the use isn’t commercial. Rather than going the strictly non-profit route, Blizzard essentially gives the stamp of approval to the method that Rooster Teeth made popular (even though Rooster Teeth has no Blizzard-derived machinima at this time). Specifically, there has to be a free version of the video available, even if there is a pay version with, say, better download speed or, I assume, in higher resolution. There’s also no restriction on donations.

Second, there is no restrictions on elements of the game. You’re either allowed to make your movie or not. So, the sound effects and background music appear to be fair game.

Third, Blizzard has placed a pretty harsh, but simple, content restriction that all movies keep within the “T (Teen)” or “PG-13” type content level. (Blizzard specifically cites “T,” but it seems relatively safe to assume that that equates to a PG-13 rating.) While this is much stricter than Microsoft’s restriction, it’s also a fairly established bright line. According to the ESRB, “Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.”

Fourth, Blizzard explicitly allows the use of movies in various contests, but a license is required. However, it seems that as long as the content rules have been followed, a license should come with little resistance.

Fifth, educational use is specifically allowed. I find this comforting, but many people would argue that “fair use” would allow educational use regardless. “Fair use” can be read narrowly or broadly, and I think the clarification here does a lot of good in that regard.

Sixth, they place a 10 second restriction on sponsor inclusion. This seems to go toward the “no commercial use” ends more than anything, and I expect few will have a real problem with this restriction.

Finally, they make no mention of a commercial license per se, but do give a specific contact e-mail address for questions.

With Microsoft and Blizzard on board, I am left to wonder how long before other companies follow suit. I also wonder if Microsoft may follow some of Blizzard’s leads in the revisions of their rules which are supposedly being drafted. In any case, this is generally good news for the various WoW machinimators out there.

[Via WOWInsider, Machinima for Dummies]