Judge Reverses Huge Jury Award Over Madden Video Games

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Electronic Arts Inc. has dodged a financial bullet with the help of a US District Judge who overturned a jury’s decision to award a programmer approximately $7M for use of his original source code for ‘John Madden Football’.

Last July, a federal court jury agreed with Antonick that the Madden games from 1990 through 1996 were so similar in plays and formations that they must have been based on the programmer's original source code.
Click to expand...
 
Next headline, US District Judge a year from now gets lucrative consulting fee from EA sports for legal counsel he provides to the company... but in America we don't consider that a bribe.
 
Ducman69 said:
Next headline, US District Judge a year from now gets lucrative consulting fee from EA sports for legal counsel he provides to the company... but in America we don't consider that a bribe.
Click to expand...

That is called being a job creator
 
So the plaintiff produced his expert witnesses who supported his claims, but nothing was actually shown in court? Gameplay videos wouldn't even necessarily mean the same code was used, and they're all trying to emulate the real game anyhow so comparing plays and formations seems moot. If they showed the code in court and could prove it was related, then that's a different story, imo.

I'm not trying to defend EA as a company (still haven't played ME3 due to Origin and supposed botched ending), just questioning the process. I don't play sports games so I don't have any first-hand experience with the Madden series.
 
I didn't realize a judge could overrule a jury! Where was this judge when OJ was acquitted?
 
I agree... I find it Ironic that a single person can override the "will of the people"

oh wait.............
 
WTF? Either you have a trial by jury, or you don't. In this case, apparently, you have both.
 
No material evidence was presented, only a defense 'expert' who said that the mechanics were very similar. If this was really a case of code infringement, you'd think they would have found actual code to present as evidence. I agree with the outcome. That jury made the wrong decision.
 
Scythe said:
WTF? Either you have a trial by jury, or you don't. In this case, apparently, you have both.
Click to expand...

But jury decisions need to abide by rules and laws. A jury cannot reach a verdict that ignores evidence or contradicts what is required by law (in this case, actually showing suspect code was identical to the alleged original code).

If this were a criminal case, it would be synonymous to someone testifying that you killed someone because suspect's blood the scene the crime has same shade of Red as yours (without actually typing the blood or running genetic tests) and jury finding guilty based on that fact alone.
 
Relayer said:
I didn't realize a judge could overrule a jury! Where was this judge when OJ was acquitted?
Click to expand...

It is called judgement non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or judgement as a matter of law. A judge can set aside a jury's verdict if they find that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict. For civil trials, JNOV can go either way. For a criminal trial, the judge can set aside a guilty verdict but cannot set aside an acquittal due to double jeopardy.
 
This isn't the first time a ruling has been overturned. One court says one thing, somebody appeals, another judge looks it over and modifies or throws out the first ruling.

As for the actual case. I for one would question the rewrite of the code. Already having the old code there they could have easily "rewrote" the code by just copying the old code, changing a few function / variable names and adding in their new features. The real question is how close to each other is the code for the first version and the next few versions of the game. Code is one thing that always seems to be tricky to prove that somebody copied if they didn't have a line by line match, otherwise the other side can always say that they just used a similar (but their own) method of doing something.
 
The jury made a decision based on the testimony of an expert witness. What's the point of an expert witness in a trial if the testimony is ignored/thrown out?
 
teh_chem said:
No material evidence was presented, only a defense 'expert' who said that the mechanics were very similar. If this was really a case of code infringement, you'd think they would have found actual code to present as evidence. I agree with the outcome. That jury made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Yes, through the whole article I was waiting for the point where EA was subpoenaed for the source code and an expert programmer was brought in to review that code. Seems to me that would either put the nail in EA's coffin, or slap a STFU on the programmer.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Somehow I doubt $7M really is that much of a "bullet" to a large company like EA.
Click to expand...

It's about the principal though, if individuals start thinking they own their creations and property it could really harm our cherished corporate dystopia.
 
People loved it when the judge set aside the damages in the Apple v. Samsung case or when they overturn rulings with the patent trolls ... we do need judges to oversee the juries sometimes ;)
 
Xrave said:
The jury made a decision based on the testimony of an expert witness. What's the point of an expert witness in a trial if the testimony is ignored/thrown out?
Click to expand...
Because expert witness testimony does not amount to physical evidence. They never presented any code into evidence to show that something was taken/used. An expert witness' testimony saying that the game mechanics are similar does not amount to material evidence nor does it replace the need for material evidence. Expert witness testimony is only useful when it walks the jury THROUGH the material evidence to illustrate to the jury what was actually taken. Since there was none, the testimony of the expert witness was nothing more than a baseless opinion. Being a trial over intellectual property relating to code copyright infringement, lawsuit requires that actual IP be submitted into evidence.

The initial verdict amounted to "we think they may have copied something, but we can't actually prove it, but we're going to find the defendant guilty anyway." That's a bullshit verdict, the judge was right to overturn it.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
It's about the principal though, if individuals start thinking they own their creations and property it could really harm our cherished corporate dystopia.
Click to expand...

Yeah except it may not have been his creation, which is what this jury saw that there was no proof it was. The previous award that was overturned was based on circumstantial evidence of "they had similar looking plays". What did the first Madden games have? 4 plays for any given formation? That format didn't change for many years IIRC, doesn't mean that it was the same code that was used. Article even says the original jury didn't get to actually see if they were the same, it was an "expert" that the guy brought in to give testimony was all the "proof" that was needed.
 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Judgment+Notwithstanding+the+Verdict

The phrase "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" is abbreviated JNOV, which stands for its Latin equivalent, judgment "non obstante veredicto." The remedy of JNOV applies only in cases decided by a jury. Originally this remedy could be entered only in favor of the plaintiff, and the similar remedy of arrest of judgment could be entered only in favor of the defendant. Under modern law a JNOV is generally available to both plaintiffs and defendants, and an arrest of judgment is primarily used with judgments in criminal cases. A JNOV is proper when the court finds that the party bearing the Burden of Proof fails to make out a Prima Facie case (a case that on first appearance will prevail unless contradicted by evidence).

To be granted relief by a JNOV, a party must make a motion seeking that relief. The motion generally must be made in writing and must set forth the specific reasons entitling the party to relief. Many statutes and rules require that the moving party must have previously sought a directed verdict, and that the grounds for the JNOV motion be the same or nearly the same as those for the directed verdict. A directed verdict is a request by a party that the judge enter a verdict in that party's behalf before the case is submitted to the jury.

Although a jury generally must return a verdict before a motion for JNOV can be made, if the jury does not agree on a verdict, as in a jury deadlocked, some courts will hear a motion for JNOV. However, some statutes do not permit a court to hear a motion for JNOV under such circumstances.

In deciding a motion for JNOV, the court is facing questions only of law, not fact. The court must consider only the evidence and any inferences therefrom, and must do so in the light most advantageous to the nonmoving party. The court must resolve any conflicts in favor of the party resisting the motion. If there is enough evidence to make out a prima facie case against the moving party, or evidence tending to support the verdict, then the court must deny the motion for JNOV. Some courts maintain that if there is a conflict of evidence, such that the jury could decide either way based on factors such as the credibility of witnesses, the court should deny the motion. Courts approach motions for JNOV with extreme caution and generally will grant them only in clear cases in which the evidence overwhelmingly supports the moving party.

In entering a JNOV, the court is simply reversing the jury's verdict; the motion cannot be the basis for increasing or decreasing the verdict. When granting a JNOV, the court needs to independently assess the damages or order a new trial on the issue of damages.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, both a JNOV and a motion for directed verdict are now encompassed within a motion for judgment as a Matter of Law. The change is one of terminology only and not of substance. Many state statutes or rules of court provide for the remedy of a JNOV, although they may call it something different. The applicable state statutes or rules are substantially similar to the federal rules.

A motion for JNOV is made at the close of all the evidence, after the jury returns a verdict, within a period of time specified by statute. An order granting a motion for a JNOV is often considered a delayed-action directed verdict because it presents the same issues. In fact, in some jurisdictions the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is a prerequisite to the entry of a JNOV. If the particular case involves several plaintiffs or defendants, each of them must separately make a proper motion for a directed verdict in order to move properly for a JNOV later. Current procedure holds a motion for JNOV proper when a prior motion for a directed verdict has been denied. If the court denies a motion for a directed verdict after all the evidence has been presented, then the court is deemed to have submitted the case to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal issues raised by the motion, and the court may grant a motion for JNOV after the jury returns a verdict.

To promote judicial economy, some statutes, including the federal rules, permit a party to make alternative motions for a JNOV and for a new trial. Those motions can also be made separately. The statutes that permit the alternative motions generally provide that the motions should be decided together, such that the trial court's rulings can be reviewed together on appeal. If the court denies the motion for a new trial, then the alternative motion for JNOV is also assumed to be denied. If the court grants the motion for a new trial, then the motion for JNOV is deemed to be effectively disposed of or denied. The court does not have to rule on the motion for JNOV if the motion presents the same issues on which the court ruled in considering motions for a directed verdict and for a new trial. Some court rules and statutes, including the federal rules, provide that a court may grant both of the alternative motions, even though they are inconsistent. Courts may avoid the inconsistency by providing that the ruling granting a new trial is effective only if the ruling granting a JNOV is overturned on appeal. In fact, federal courts have held that it is the duty of the trial court to so condition an order granting these alternative motions.
Click to expand...
 
Ducman69 said:
Next headline, US District Judge a year from now gets lucrative consulting fee from EA sports for legal counsel he provides to the company... but in America we don't consider that a bribe.
Click to expand...
Skripka said:
That is called being a job creator
Click to expand...

This and this. Corruption, bribery, and kickbacks have become such an integral part of our legal and political systems that no one even blinks an eye at it anymore. We even have the Supreme Court upholding it in cases like Citizens United.
 
Why even have a jury though if all it takes is a judge not liking their verdict to overrule them and rule the other way instead? If the judge thought a certain piece of evidence was absolutely required couldn't he have mentioned that before the jury came back with their answer? Clearly that evidence wasn't required to convince the jury about EA's guilt or innocence.

Seems like he was hoping they would come back with the verdict of EA being innocent (at which point he would have accepted the jury's will), and when the jury didn't do it he just overrode them anyway.
 
Ualdayan said:
Why even have a jury though if all it takes is a judge not liking their verdict to overrule them and rule the other way instead? If the judge thought a certain piece of evidence was absolutely required couldn't he have mentioned that before the jury came back with their answer? Clearly that evidence wasn't required to convince the jury about EA's guilt or innocence.

Seems like he was hoping they would come back with the verdict of EA being innocent (at which point he would have accepted the jury's will), and when the jury didn't do it he just overrode them anyway.
Click to expand...

Based on the article it had nothing to do with corruption, only an uneducated jury ... The jury didn't even view the two games side by side (let alone any source code) ... they heard one "expert" who said the two games "looked" similar ... this case is only about the code (not the look) so I wouldn't think that was good enough either ... we really need more technical juries for cases like these that are qualified to hear them
 
Ualdayan said:
Why even have a jury though if all it takes is a judge not liking their verdict to overrule them and rule the other way instead? If the judge thought a certain piece of evidence was absolutely required couldn't he have mentioned that before the jury came back with their answer? Clearly that evidence wasn't required to convince the jury about EA's guilt or innocence.

Seems like he was hoping they would come back with the verdict of EA being innocent (at which point he would have accepted the jury's will), and when the jury didn't do it he just overrode them anyway.
Click to expand...
I was wondering that too--and why it took since last July until now to arrive at the decision. My guess (I'm not a lawyer) is that it's more-acceptable to retrospectively decide that insufficient evidence was presented to support a jury verdict--perhaps having other judges advise on it--rather than for the presiding judge to issue directives at the jury prior to deliberating. But I don't understand why the judge didn't immediately overturn the jury's decision at the trial after they came back with the verdict and damages amount.

But still, if what was summarized in various stories is accurate, I agree, the jury did not arrive at a decision that was backed by sufficient evidence. Testimony from an expert does not supplement material evidence, especially if the accusation is code copyright infringement.
 
Madden never changed much year to year.
There were 2 giant jumps for it, 3D and collision physics with momentum.
Everything else has been pretty darn gradual.
Still a pretty fun game though, just usually not enough change to upgrade every year.
Sucks to be a PC gamer if you like Madden since 08 is the last version for us.
 
Ea needs to die so we can get a proper PC football game. I am still playing madden 2008 odded on the pc.
 
spaceman said:
Ea needs to die so we can get a proper PC football game. I am still playing madden 2008 odded on the pc.
Click to expand...

Yeah unfortunately the NFL is just as greedy as EA is, they sold exclusive rights to EA for a boatload of money.
 
So, the code showed similarities. OK... I can buy that.

Yeah... had it been the other way around, that guy would have sh!t out of luck... I doubt the judge would have intervened in his favor like he did for EA.
 
aShrubbery! said:
So, the code showed similarities. OK... I can buy that.

Yeah... had it been the other way around, that guy would have sh!t out of luck... I doubt the judge would have intervened in his favor like he did for EA.
Click to expand...

More like the code gave similar results. without actually seeing the code can't say if it looked similar
 
Exavior said:
More like the code gave similar results. without actually seeing the code can't say if it looked similar
Click to expand...

Even worse than that ... an expert said the code gave similar results ... the jury didn't even look at the games themselves ... how lazy does a jury need to be to pass up an opportunity to play video games :eek:
 
kbrickley said:
Even worse than that ... an expert said the code gave similar results ... the jury didn't even look at the games themselves ... how lazy does a jury need to be to pass up an opportunity to play video games :eek:
Click to expand...

eh, we are talking about 24 year old games here. I would pass on playing them again myself and I own a few of said games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top