作者：Sam Wiley & Adam Falconer

简介

游戏是一个大行业，包含独特的机遇与挑战。游戏生态圈中包含了技术和硬件公司，制作公司，投资商和发行商，内容所有者，消费者，开发者，设计师和美术人员。随着维系着手机应用开发，社交游戏和传统游戏之间的线变得越来越短，知识产权问题也变得越发重要。本篇文章便是围绕着那些想要从自己的理念，游戏和技术中获利的手机和社交游戏开发者以及其它贡献者需要注意的种种问题而展开。

授权问题

Licensing(from ebstrategy)

在手机游戏或社交游戏的开发过程中授权使用现有的IP是开始游戏开发的一种技巧，但同时也存在一定风险。现有IP将伴随着现有的用户基础和经过证实的理念，因此开发者需要投入更多时间于游戏机制，引擎，图像和故事中。然而关于授权一个主要IP，开发者还有许多需要注意的风险，包括该IP可能不会创造出预期的投资回报，或者围绕着IP的授权协议包含可能威胁其工作室长期发展的条款。

举个例子来说，某些IP之所以如此受欢迎是因为它能够保证游戏的销量；例如基于《哈利波特》系列书籍和电影中的角色的游戏。但是谷子额却是例外。根据Sony Computer Entertainment America的法务主观Dan Figueroa：“优秀的游戏能够创造优秀的IP，但是反过来却非如此。”游戏产业的历史中已经出现了许多失败的游戏，它们均突出受欢迎的授权角色，但却缺少了吸引人的游戏玩法。

此外，在与主要的IP持有者签下授权协议时，开发者可能会因自己正在开发玩家想要体验的游戏而自满。但是大多数独立开发者或小型游戏工作室并没有数千美元去投资这种失败的努力。

尽管在过去数十年里许多主要的IP持有者已将自己的作品授权给各种电影工作室和主机开发者，但是在手机游戏和社交游戏开发中仍存在一些不适合反应在正规授权协议上的特殊问题。授权协议通常会为许可人保留更广泛的权益去基于初始游戏而“衍生作品。”对于电影和主机游戏（可能会花费数百万美元和好几年的时间进行制作）来说，IP持有者将使用相关规定对开发者造成短期不利影响的风险将会非常低。

对于手机和社交游戏，从开发到营销的时间可能只有3周，而投资金额可能只有5位数。他们有可能快速重新创造出一款游戏作为“续集”，但却会因此导致最初的游戏陷于混乱中，从而不能带给开发者足够的利益和资源。

版权，外观和感觉，商业机密

一般而言，游戏是一个将自己与特定“类型”结合在一起的产业。游戏本身是由各种元素所构成，如游戏引擎，机制，数学模式，角色，音效，音乐，对话等等。重要的是，游戏设计，开发和测试过程都是始于一个理念，并且在某种程度上都是基于现有的游戏理念。

从开发者的角度来看，他们的目标通常是关于开发一个项目的组合。发行商将投资于游戏开发者，即预先支付给开发者一些费用，然后在特定时间收回之前的投资。太过心急的开发者通常都会犯的一个问题便是，草率地与发行商签订合同。Fenwick & West（位于旧金山）的合伙人Jennifer Stanley便经常警告开发者：“任何内容都是可再次利用的，这也是开发者们需要注意的。”

通常，Stanley会强调在协商开发合同时良好的交流有多重要。协议双方都需要花时间去理解对方的想法以及各种商业元素。Stanley也提示道：“通常情况下将开发者所致力的特定项目的工具和技术长期授权给发行商是合理的。但是当发行商要求在创造续集时拥有开发者的工具和技术时，小型开发者便很难‘启齿’，除非他们所面临的是承担着版权的授权。”Stanley继续说道，当开发者创造了一款带有独特质量或吸引力的游戏时，他们便可能“协商”与游戏自身相关的少量副业收入（如推销），这便是作为开发者的一种补贴。

除了交易问题，为了避开诉讼陷阱，开发者还需要知道一些简单的策略。诉讼非常昂贵，并且可能耗尽项目组合中一些有价值的资源。为了从诉讼律师的角度进行分析，Jennifer Lloyd Kelly（也是Fenwick & West的合伙人）描述了自己在有关游戏和技术IP诉讼中所发现的一些问题。Kelly提到了游戏中所谓“快速跟风”的一种常见做法，即比起先驱者，第二实践者将基于更低的风险而快速进入市场中，并能利用许多同样的优势。

客户经常会问Kelly他们是如何保护自己的IP，他们将给予其他人正在做的以及过去做的事情多大的保护，他们会如何保护游戏的“外观和感觉”？Kelly快速指出，基于不同适用法律，法律分析也会有所不同，但是她也描述了法庭将“严厉批评”那些拿掉其它游戏非独创且不受保护的元素的游戏。她表示自己的“客户更加关心这一过程的存在”，并且“许多客户并不想要测试这条线。”

除了诉讼还有许多不同的战术能够缓和应用开发的侵权危险。Kelly提到了她在帮助客户时所使用的“前端”技术。如果客户担心自己的游戏与其它游戏太过相似，她便会去调查游戏的创造性过程和灵感。通过种种分析，她便能够提供给客户有价值的信息，从而引导他们做出有关游戏设计和开发的业务决策。

有时候，复制问题会以某种较为温和的方式出现。Orrick的全球IP组联合组长Neel Chatterjee回顾了自己的职业生涯所遇到的一些情况，即游戏开发者独立想出了一些实质上几乎相同，但是表面上却相差甚远的游戏元素。Chatterjee说道：“有时候在某种类型中，不管你的表达多具有创造性，仍会存在一些不可避免的相似性问题。”

还有一个问题是出现在设计和开发过程中雇员或承包商受雇或离开的时候。比起其它产业，游戏世界流动性相对较强。对于开发者和工作室而言，缓解这种风险的较为直接的方式便是执行“筛选”程序。即对新员工发放问卷调查，力图突出需要得到解决的问题。同样地，开发者和工作室也能在信息使用和安全方面执行一个较为清楚的政策。

NPE威胁

开发者总是会忽视的一个IP问题便是来自“所谓专利授权公司”的法律威胁，他们会宣称专利去对抗那些自己认为侵犯了技术的游戏工作室。这会引起昂贵的诉讼，而许多开发工作室都未拥有足够的财力和资源去淌这趟浑水。

RPX Corporation（游戏邦注：提供专利风险解决方案的公司）的数据表明，NPE威胁存在于应用工作室生命周期的各个阶段。虽然版权要求在工作室发展前期可能会较低，但是过低的结算需求将对工作室早期的收入造成重创。

作为RPX的主管，Michael Kallus经常会提供给游戏工作室和其他应用开发者一些有帮助的战术去提前避开NPE威胁。这些战术包括在工作室收到诉讼时削减成本，如加入防御组织，限制发现和战略性复查。同时还有一些具有前瞻性的步骤能够降低公司的NPE风险，如专利诉讼保险，面对有钱的供应商的巨大赔偿要求，并在竞争对手的专利落入NPE手中前将其购入囊中。

结论

游戏开发者经常会将自己的作品当成是一种艺术上的努力。毫无疑问，在过去10年里这一态度也大大提高了游戏产业的创造性，但是本篇文章中所讨论的知识产权和授权问题却常与游戏工作室的艺术观点相矛盾。我们可以将其当成是一个产业需要变得更加“成熟”（特别是在IP方面）的标志。但是这也可能是个糟糕的建议。比起删除具有创造性的方法，游戏开发者需要更轻松地面对IP问题，如此不仅能够帮助他们避免各种风险，同时也能够让他们更好地利用IP和授权所带来的机遇。只有开发者更深入地了解IP，他们的手机游戏和社交游戏才能进一步从中获益。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Licensing and IP Issues for Mobile and Social Game Developers

by Sam Wiley and Adam Falconer

Introduction

Gaming is big business, involving unique opportunities and challenges.  In the gaming ecosystem, there are technology and hardware companies, production companies, investors and publishers, content owners, consumers, and of course developers, designers and artists.  As the lines between mobile app development, social gaming and traditional gaming continue to experience confluence, intellectual property (“IP”) rights issues are becoming more important than ever.  This article highlights some of the issues that mobile and social game developers and other contributors who are looking to monetize their ideas, games and technology should be aware of.

Licensing Issues

Licensing existing IP to be used in the development of a mobile or social game is a good technique for getting a head start in game development, but also presents risks.  Existing IP may come with a pre-existing fan base as well as a proven concept, and thus allows the developer to spend more time on the game mechanics, engine, graphics and story.  However, there are many risks to in-licensing a major IP that developers should be aware of, including the risk that the IP will not produce the expected return on investment, or that the license agreement surrounding it may contain terms that will threaten the long-term health of the studio.

For example, certain IP may be so popular that it virtually guarantees sales of a game; imagine, for example, a game based on the characters from the Harry Potter series of books and movies at the height of their popularity.  However, this is the exception to rule.  According to Dan Figueroa, the Director of Legal & Business Affairs, with Sony Computer Entertainment America, “Great games create great IP, not the other way around.”  The history of the gaming industry is full of failed games that featured popular licensed characters but lacked compelling game play.

Moreover, in the comfort of signing a licensing deal with a major IP holder, developers may run the risk of becoming complacent in developing a game that players would actually want to play.  However, most independent or small game studios can’t afford to sink even thousands of dollars in to a failed effort.[1]

While major IP holders have been licensing to movie studios and console developers for decades, there are issues unique to mobile and social game development that may not be appropriately reflected in boiler-plate license agreements.  In particular, license agreements typically retain for the licensor broad rights to “derivative works” based on the original game.  With movies and console games, which can cost millions of dollars to develop and years to produce, the risk that the IP owner will use any such provisions to the short-term disadvantage of the developer is fairly low.

With mobile and social games however, the time from the start of development to market can be as little as three weeks, and the investment may be in the five-figure range.  It is therefore imminently possible to remake a developed game as a “sequel” so rapidly that the original game is all but lost in the shuffle, leaving the developer with little revenue and no recourse.[2]

Copying, Look-and-Feel, and Trade Secrets

Gaming in general is an industry that aligns itself around certain “genres.”[3]  The games themselves are basically comprised of various elements such as a game engine, mechanics and mathematical models, characters, sound effects, music, dialog, etc.[4]  Importantly, the game design, development and testing process starts with an idea, which usually is to some degree based on an existing game concept.

From a developer’s perspective, the goal is often to develop a portfolio of projects.  A publisher will invest in the game developer, basically paying the developer on an advance basis and then the publisher recoups on the advance at certain milestones.  A mistake that eager developers often make, is signing heavy-handed publisher contracts.  Jennifer Stanley, a partner with Fenwick & West in San Francisco, who regularly advises game developers cautions that “Anything that can be reusable, this is where the developer needs to be very careful.”[5]

Generally, Ms. Stanley stresses the importance of good communication in negotiating a development arrangement.  Each party in the deal needs to take the time to understand the others’ perspectives and various business considerations.  As a tip, Ms. Stanley says that “It’s usually ok to grant the publisher long-term rights to the developer’s tools and technology for a particular project on which the developer worked.  But when a publisher asks for rights to the developer’s tools and tech for a sequel, it’s a ‘tough ask’ for a small developer unless it’s a royalty bearing license.”  Ms. Stanley goes on to comment that when a developer creates a game with unique qualities or appeal, that the developer might “be able to negotiate a small percentage” of ancillary revenues (merchandising, etc.) relating to the game itself, serving as a sort of bonus for the developer.

In addition to transactional issues, developers need to be aware of some simple tactics for avoiding litigation pitfalls.  Litigation is expensive, and can drain valuable resources from the project portfolio.  To get a litigators perspective, Jennifer Lloyd Kelly, also a partner at Fenwick & West, described some of the issues she sees regularly in her practice focused on gaming and technology IP litigation.  Ms. Kelly described a prevalent practice in gaming called “fast following” – referring to a marketing concept where the second-mover into a market takes a less risky path than the first-mover, yet capitalizes from many of the same advantages.

Ms. Kelly is frequently asked by clients  how they can protect their IP, how much protection they can  get relative to what other people are doing and have done in the past, and how to best protect the “look and feel” of a game?  Ms. Kelly is quick to point out that the legal analysis is different depending on the applicable law, but she generally described a process whereby a court will “pick apart” a game to strip away the un-original and unprotectable elements of the game.  She said generally her “clients are concerned about surviving that process” and that “many clients do not want to test the line.”

In lieu of suing, there are different tactics used to mitigate the infringement risks in app development.  Ms. Kelly describes certain “front-end” techniques she helps clients with to navigate the process.  For example, if a client has a concern that their game might be a little too similar to another game, she investigates the creative process and the inspiration for the game.  Through such analyses, she provides her clients with valuable information to guide their business decisions for game design and development.

And sometimes, the issue of copying can come up in more benign ways.  Neel Chatterjee, the co-chair of Orrick’s global IP Group, has seen over the course of his career situations where game developers independently came up with virtually identical game elements literally thousands of miles apart.  “Sometimes in a genre, no matter how creative the expression, there are still issues with similarity that cannot always be avoided” commented Mr. Chatterjee.

Another issue that comes up is when employees or contractors are hired or depart during the design and development process.  The gaming world is relatively fluid in this regard compared to other industries.[6]  For developers and studios, a fairly straight forward tactic to mitigate such risks is to implement “screening” procedures.[7]  These could take the form of a simple questionnaire for new employees, seeking to highlight issues that need to be addressed.  Also developers and studios can implement a clear policy on information use and security.

NPE Threats

One IP issue that game developers are frequently unaware of is the legal threat from “non-practicing entities,” companies who assert patents against game studios they claim develop games with infringing technology.  This can result in an expensive settlement or lawsuit, and many development studios are not financially or structurally equipped for this risk.[8]

Data assembled by RPX Corporation, a defensive syndicated patent aggregator, indicates that the NPE threat exists at all phases of an app studio’s life cycle.  Even if the royalty demands might be correspondingly lower for earlier stage studios, a relatively low settlement demand could be disastrous for a cash poor early-stage studio.

Michael Kallus, a director with RPX, frequently advises game studios and other app developers of tactics they can use to proactively protect themselves from NPE threats.  These include practices to cut costs after a studio has been sued, such as joint defense groups, limiting discovery and tactical re-examination, as well as proactive steps that can reduce a company’s NPE risk including patent litigation insurance, strong indemnification provisions with cash rich vendors and procuring the patents of struggling competitors before they end up in the hands of NPEs.

Conclusions

Game developers, to their credit, often view their work as an artistic endeavor.  This attitude no doubt has contributed to the incredible surge in creativity and innovation in the game industry over the past ten years; yet, the intellectual property and licensing issues discussed in this article are often at odds with the more artistic vision of the game studio.  It is possible to see this as a sign of an industry that needs to “mature” particularly with respect to IP.  However, this would be poorly advised.  Rather than abandon their creative ways, game developers simply need to become more fluent with IP issues so that they can not only avoid risks but also take greater advantage of the opportunities provided by IP and licensing.  Mobile and social gaming can only benefit from greater education outreach on IP, and it is hoped that this article will be a just a small step in that regard over the next several years.(source:ipstrategy)