Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc.

685 F.2d 870 (3rd Cir. 1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P manufactures and sells coin-operated electronic video games. In October 1979 D began to design a new video game, called Defender. Defender was introduced to the industry at a trade show in 1980 and has achieved great success in the marketplace. Spaceships and aliens do battle with human figures as the player operates the flight of and weapons on the spaceship and has the mission of preventing invading aliens from kidnapping the humans. P obtained three copyright registrations. One covered the computer program. Another covered the audio-visual effects displayed during the game's 'attract mode.' The third covered the audiovisual effects displayed during the game's 'play mode.' Readily visible copyright notices were placed on the game cabinet, appeared on the CRT screen during the attract mode and at the beginning of the play mode, and were placed on labels that were attached to the outer case of each memory device (ROM). P also provided that the words 'Copyright 1980 -- Williams Electronics' in code were to be stored in the memory devices, but were not to be displayed on the CRT at any time. D is a seller of electronic components for video games. D is in competition with P. D sold circuit boards, manufactured by others, which contain electronic circuits including a microprocessor and memory devices (ROMs). These memory devices incorporate a computer program that is virtually identical to P's program for Defender. When connected to a cathode ray tube (CRT), it produces audiovisual effects and a game almost identical to Defender including both the attract mode and the play mode. The play mode and actual play of D's game is entitled 'Defense Command.' The characters displayed on the CRT including the player's spaceship are identical in shape, size, color, manner of movement, and interaction with other symbols. The attract mode of the D game is substantially identical to P's with minor exceptions such as name substitutions in its display. The district court found that D infringed P's computer program copyright and that D had infringed both of P's audiovisual copyrights. D appealed. D attacks the validity and the scope of the copyrights which it has been found by the district court to have infringed.