Robin Antonick developed the computer code for the original John Madden Football game for the Apple II computer, which was released by Electronic Arts. Electronic Arts subsequently released Madden games for Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo for which plaintiff received no royalties under a 1986 contract.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In 1989, Antonick began working for EA on Madden games for the Nintendo and Sega Genesis entertainment systems. But in August 1990, EA told him to stop \u2013 Nintendo was becoming obsolete, and EA had decided on a new direction for the Sega game, hiring Park Place Productions to create a version with \u201cmore of an arcade style.\u201d In November 1990, EA released its first version of Sega Madden. In late 1991 or early 1992, EA released Antonick\u2019s last Madden game, an update of IBM Madden.<\/p>\n
Antonick\u2019s 1986 contract with EA defined \u201ca custom computer software program known as John Madden Football\u201d designed for the \u201cApple II Family of Computers\u201d as the \u201cWork,\u201d and provided that Antonick would receive royalties on any \u201cDerivative Work,\u201d defined as \u201cany computer software program or electronic game which . . . constitutes a derivative work of the Work within the meaning of the United States copyright law.\u201d Antonick received no royalties for Sega Madden or Super Nintendo Madden, which EA assured him were not Derivative Works.<\/p>\n
In 2011, Antonick brought action against EA, seeking contract damages in the form of unpaid royalties for Sega Madden and Super Nintendo Madden. The district court bifurcated the trial. In Phase I, the jury found that the statute of limitations did not bar Antonick\u2019s claims. Phase II involved the merits of Antonick\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n
Antonick produced evidence that Park Place was rushed and inadequately staffed, and argued that it copied his code to meet the demanding deadline for the first Sega Madden. Antonick\u2019s expert, Michael Barr, opined that Sega Madden was substantially similar to certain elements of Apple II Madden. In particular, Barr opined that the games had similar formations, plays, play numberings, and player ratings; a similar, disproportionately wide field; a similar eight-point directional system; and similar variable names, including variables that misspelled \u201cscrimmage.\u201d But neither the source code for Apple II Madden \u2013 the \u201cWork\u201d \u2013 nor the source code of any allegedly infringing works were introduced into evidence. Nor were images of the games at issue introduced.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the jury found that the Sega Madden games were Derivative Works under the 1986 contract. The district court then granted judgment as a matter of law to EA, holding that Antonick had not provided sufficient evidence of copyright infringement, because neither the source code used for Apple II Madden nor Sega Madden was in evidence.<\/p>\n
Although this is a contract case, because royalties are available to Antonick under the 1986 contract only for a derivative work of Apple II Madden \u201cwithin the meaning of the United States copyright law,\u201d he had to prove copyright infringement to prevail on his contract claims. Antonick was thus required to prove that EA \u201ccopied protected elements of the work.\u201d<\/p>\n
The district court granted JMOL to EA under the \u201cintrinsic test\u201d because \u201cthe jury had no evidence of Apple II Madden or Sega Madden as a whole to enable it to make this subjective comparison.\u201d The district court was correct. Antonick\u2019s claims rest on the contention that the source code of the Sega Madden games infringed on the source code for Apple II Madden. But, none of the source code was in evidence. The jury therefore could not compare the works to determine substantial similarity.<\/p>\n
Antonick sought royalties for the Super Nintendo Madden games under Amendment 1 to his contract, which provided for royalties for derivative works for platforms in the \u201cSame Microprocessor Family\u201d as the Apple II. The Amendment defined \u201cMicroprocessor Family\u201d as \u201ca single microprocessor and all related microprocessors that utilize the same instruction set and have the same instruction and data word size.\u201d<\/p>\n
The district court dismissed the Super Nintendo claims, holding that the Super Nintendo was not in the same Microprocessor Family as the Apple II under the contractual definition, because it used a larger instruction set, instruction size, and data size. Antonick argued that the two processors were in the same family as a practical matter because they could use the same instruction set, instruction size, and data size.<\/p>\n
But the court dealt with contract interpretation, and the word \u201ccould\u201d is not in the contractual definition. Instead, the contract requires that, to be in the same family, two processors must \u201cutilize the same instruction set and have the same instruction and data word size.\u201d The Apple II and Super Nintendo processors have different instruction sizes and data word sizes. The district court therefore did not err in dismissing the Super Nintendo derivative work claims.<\/p>\n
The contract also gave EA a license to create derivative works using certain tools designed by Antonic, and provided that the parties would \u201cnegotiate in good faith\u201d for further licenses if EA wanted to use the aids to create non-derivative works. Antonick alleged that EA used the aids to create non-derivative works without seeking that license. The district court dismissed this claim because Antonick offered no evidence of purported damages. Antonick did not show the value of similar licenses or the benefit that EA received from using the Development Aids. Instead, Antonick cited only the report of his damages expert, which simply made generic royalty calculations based on existing sales without explaining how those calculations were relevant to the Development Aid claim.<\/p>\n
The judgment of the district court has been affirmed<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Robin Antonick developed the computer code for the original John Madden Football game for the Apple II computer, which was released by Electronic Arts. Electronic Arts subsequently released Madden games for Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo for which plaintiff received<\/p>\n