Professional Documents
Culture Documents
109 words
15 August 2013
02:30
Dow Jones Newswires
DJDN
English
Copyright (c) 2013, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130815e98f00051
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Document DJDN000020130814e98e000xz
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130813e98d006ce
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Document DJDN000020130810e98a00043
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 144 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
reflect the intention of any holder of restricted stock to sell those
shares. After the 144 is mailed to the S.E.C., the filer is permitted
to sell the shares, or any fraction of them, within 90 days.
Document DJDN000020130808e988000fg
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
OWNERSHIP: 0 (Direct)
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130808e9880004l
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130808e9880001j
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130805e9850066j
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130805e9850064m
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130704e9740006h
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130703e9730006u
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130702e972005si
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130604e964006o2
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130503e953007iu
____________________________________________________________________________
1 May 2013 08:44 EDT DJ CFA Substantial Insider Sales: Morning Report -2-
US BANCORP (USB)
Parker P W (VP) 4/29/13 20,074 $33.28 129,037
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
Document DJDN000020130501e9510036q
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130501e9510005w
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130402e942006ws
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130402e942006t7
SOURCE: Form 4
ISSUER:
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC
SYMBOL: ATVI
* - Insiders can surrender shares back to the company to pay taxes or cover
the cost of an option exercise.
The Form 4 is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by insiders
to report transactions in their companies' shares. Open market purchases
and sales must be reported within two business days of the transaction.
Document DJDN000020130402e942006mh
Gainers
Activision Blizzard Inc. shares added 11%. The videogame company said late Thursday its fourth-quarter
profit rose to 31 cents a share from 8 cents a share in the year-ago period on the back of strong sales of titles
such as “Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.”
AOL shares rose 7.8% after the Internet company reported fourth-quarter earnings jumped to 41 cents a
share from 23 cents a share in the year-ago quarter on stronger advertising sales. It also announced a stock
buyback program of $100 million. See: AOL profit rises 57%
LinkedIn shares soared 22%. The social-networking company said Thursday fourth-quarter profit and sales
jumped, beating Wall Street estimates. See: LinkedIn crushes targets; shares jump.
Microchip Technology Inc. shares are the biggest gainers on the S&P 500 , rallying over 7%, after the
company issued an optimistic outlook for the current quarter. Microchip shares rise on rosy outlook
Decliners
Shares of Coinstar dropped 7%. The company said Thursday fourth-quarter earnings for its Redbox
DVD-rental unit fell 27% and gave a downbeat forecast for the first quarter. See: Coinstar profit falls by
double digits
EnteroMedics Inc. shares plummeted 56%. The company said Thursday its implant device to treat obesity
didn’t measure up in a clinical trial.
Moody’s shares declined over 8%, the worst on the S&P 500. The ratings company on Friday said its
fourth-quarter earnings increased to 70 cents a share from 43 cents a share in the year-ago period. See:
Moody’s profit surges 66%
But strong earnings have not helped the stock much in the wake of a Wall Street Journal report on Thursday
that New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has formally requested information from Moody’s and
Fitch Ratings to review ratings they issued ahead of the financial crisis. See WSJ: Probe adds to rating firms’
woes
Shares of McGraw-Hill Cos. , whose Standard & Poor’s unit is being sued by the Department of Justice for
inflating ratings on collateralized debt obligations in 2007, fell another 2.7%.
$AAPL:
Apple continues to generate chatter online after David Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital sued the company on its
plan to remove preferred stock from its charter. Einhorn has been pressuring the company to do more to
return cash to shareholders via preferred shares. See: Einhorn sues Apple over preferred stock plan
“As part of our review, we will thoroughly evaluate Greenlight Capital’s current proposal to issue some form of
preferred stock,” the company said. See: How to trade Apple on Einhorn’s revolt
@CraigBachman: $AAPL When you get sued because you have too much money, you know you’ve made it
to the top.
$DAL:
Most airline stocks traded higher except for Delta Air Lines Inc. as a snowstorm named Nemo bore down on
the Northeast, canceling thousands of flights. Delta has hubs at John F. Kennedy International Airport and La
Guardia Airport in New York. Flights canceled as Nemo makes its way to New York
@GloriaFallon123: I think it’s mean to name a crippling blizzard after a cute cartoon fish, as if women named
Katrina and Sandy haven’t suffered enough. #nemo
@CT_Osprey: I think NYC is just trying to make this a three day weekend. #nemo
@seenfromstuvi2: First #sandy and now #nemo? Apparently the weather service has taken to naming storms
after animated creatures that live in the ocean.
Shares of AOL, LinkedIn and Moody’s are all making big moves while Apple is trending on Twitter after hedge
fund manager David Einhorn sued the iPhone maker.|103
Document MRKWC00020130208e928000ul
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s highly anticipated game "Call of Duty: Black Ops 2" hit the market at midnight
Tuesday amid fanfare from critics and fans across the Web.
But the military shooter game is also receiving attention for an awkward reason: One of the characters has
the likeness and name of David Petraeus, who stepped down last week as the director of the Central
Intelligence Agency amid his extramarital affair.
The "Call of Duty" franchise includes highly stylized depictions of specialized soldiers, usually partaking in
some kind of global conflict -- and are often inspired by real-life people and events.
In "Black Ops 2," a character is based on the former U.S. general. Not only does he look like Mr. Petraeus,
but in a short clip he's referred to as "Secretary Petraeus," suggesting he is the secretary of defense.
In a statement, the company, a unit Vivendi SA, said Mr. Petraeus wasn't paid nor involved in the creation of
the game. "Including Gen. Petraeus and other real-life figures was strictly a creative decision made many
months ago when the story line was drafted," Activision said.
The "Call of Duty" franchise launches are some of the biggest in the game industry every year, with the
recent installment Modern Warfare 3 breaking sales records and raking in $400 million in 24 hours in North
America and the U.K.
Five-Inch Smartphone
HTC Corp. and Verizon Wireless on Tuesday unveiled a smartphone called the Droid DNA with one of the
largest displays on the market.
At an invitation-only event in New York, the companies showed off a device that has a five-inch screen, but
they insisted the Droid DNA isn't a "phablet," a nickname for a device with a size between a cellphone and a
tablet.
Verizon Wireless said this will be its flagship phone for the holiday season.
At the event Tuesday, HTC made several comparisons to the popular Galaxy S III from Samsung Electronics
Co., but it isn't clear if the Droid DNA will be enough to revive HTC.
The Taiwanese phone maker was once the top seller of phones using Google Inc.'s Android software, but it
has struggled amid competition from Samsung and Apple, recently reporting its lowest quarterly profit since
2006.
On Saturday, HTC announced it made peace with Apple, reaching a 10-year global licensing agreement and
settling all patent lawsuits between them.
-- Thomas Gryta
Document J000000020121114e8be0000e
Jason West and Vince Zampella may not be household names, but as the creators of first-person shooter
video games such as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, they are celebrities in the $25 billion game industry.
Over the past two years, the duo and their attorneys have been gearing up for modern warfare of a different
kind: butting heads in Los Angeles County Superior Court with one of the industry's leading men, Bobby
Kotick, the CEO of the largest game company, Activision, which publishes, markets and distributes Call of
Duty games.
In a lawsuit filed in March 2010, West and Zampella charge that Kotick and Activision unfairly fired them from
their jobs as chief technology offer and chief creative officer, respectively, at the Activision-owned Infinity
Ward studio in Santa Monica. The action happened just before Activision would have to pay them millions in
bonuses for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which set industry sales records of more than $1 billion and
became the top-selling game of all time until it was surpassed by 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops.
In response, Activision filed its own lawsuit saying it was justified in terminating West and Zampella, even
though they spearheaded its biggest money-making franchise, because they had become disloyal and
breached their contracts. "They were small- minded executives almost obsessed by jealousy of other
developers," the lawsuit says.
At stake is as much as $1 billion in damages should the jury decide against Activision, which in 2011 posted a
record $1 billion annual profit. That included the release of Modern Warfare 3, developed by West and
Zampella's former studio, Infinity Ward, along with Sledgehammer Games. The game set a new first-day
sales record of more than $400 million.
Activision almost certainly owes West and Zampella cash from bonuses, says Jack Lerner, director of the
University of Southern California Intellectual Property and Technology Law Clinic. "But the harder question is,
who will have a stake in future games in the Modern Warfare franchise," he says. If the court rules that
Activision wrongly terminated the two, they "may be able to get a lot more money based on what they could
have expected to earn."
An outcome in favor of Activision could shift more power to the publisher side of the game-development
equation. "It may send a message about just how far a large studio can go with respect to its employees,"
says Mark Methenitis, a Texas attorney and editor-in- chief of the Law of the Game blog.
'Project Icebreaker'
In the court filing, West and Zampella's legal team says there is evidence that Activision's chief legal officer,
George Rose, wanted to break into West's and Zampella's computers and e-mail accounts to dig up dirt on
them.
Those efforts, called "Project Icebreaker" in court filings, occurred in 2009, a year after West and Zampella
extended their contracts and only a few months before the release of Modern Warfare 2, suggesting,
according to court filings, that "Activision began preparing to terminate them once the game was delivered."
For its part, Activision insists, in its court filings, that the designers were "conspiring" with competing game
publisher Electronic Arts to leave and siphon off much of the Infinity Ward talent.
Earlier this month in an unusual move, Activision added superstar attorney Beth Wilkinson, a former assistant
U.S. attorney who prosecuted convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and former Panamanian
strongman Manuel Noriega. Most recently, she was appointed by the Federal Trade Commission to lead its
investigation of Google.
Along with Wilkinson's appointment, Activision asked Judge Elihu Berle to postpone the trial for a month so
that she could have more time to prepare. The judge's refusal -- jury selection is slated to begin Friday --
won't hinder Wilkinson, who can "master a lot of material in a short amount of time and get down to what is
most important," Christ says.
Married to Meet the Press host David Gregory, Wilkinson "is something of a celebrity now, which should play
well in Los Angeles" and could help Activision's case, Christ says.
On West and Zampella's side: Daniel Petrocelli, one of the country's top entertainment, technology and
intellectual property trial lawyers. He won the wrongful death case against O.J Simpson in 1997.
The case is being followed closely by the game industry, as well as by Hollywood and the legal profession.
Kotick, who had a small role in the baseball movie Moneyball as the Oakland Athletics owner, "is a legend in
the industry, and he is known for having a very big personality, like most CEOs do. And the guys from Infinity
Ward have good egos to go with them," Christ says. "It's like Ultimate Fighting Championship. People just get
something out of watching others duke it out."
Still, the case might not result in changes at all. "At the end of the day, unless the verdict is enormous, it may
just be seen as the cost of acquiring rights to a hugely successful series," Methenitis says. "Jason and Vince
are already on to new projects." Some firms in the agile industry may have already taken steps to shore up
the developer-publisher relationship based on the case's existence, Christ says. "This is no question a
learning lesson for everybody."
At their new studio Respawn Entertainment in Van Nuys, Calif., West and Zampella say the legal haranguing
has been worth it. "We get a lot of support from people in the industry that say, 'We want you to set things
right,'" Zampella says. They hope that a jury decides that they were unjustly treated.
Document USAT000020120529e85t0000r
(Adds statement from lawyer for West and Zampella in final paragraph.)
By Ian Sherr
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) have settled
their lawsuit over the hit "Call of Duty" war-simulation franchise of games.
Santa Monica, Calif.'s Activision and Redwood City, Calif.'s EA had locked horns in court over two
developers, Jason West and Vince Zampella, who had founded "Infinity Ward," one of the two development
studios that produces the "Call of Duty" franchise of hit combat-shooting games.
Two years ago, both developers left Activision in a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to "Call
of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," setting up their own development studio, called "Respawn Entertainment,"
whose games would be published and distributed by EA.
Though the suit between Activision and the two developers is still ongoing, Activision and EA said they have
agreed to a cease-fire and settlement to "put this matter behind them." Neither elaborated on the terms of the
settlement.
For its part, Activision has continued pumping out "Call of Duty" franchise games, and created a specialized
social network for customers to interact with and play against each other, called "Call of Duty: Elite." EA also
went on to release "Battlefield 3" to compete with Activision's popular games during the last holiday season.
Respawn has yet to release any new games. A statement from the lawyer for West and Zampella said they
were delighted EA is no longer part of the lawsuit, expected to go to trial May 29, adding "now Activision will
have to answer for its misconduct" against them.
Document DJON000020120516e85g0008p
Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision and Redwood City, Calif.-based EA had locked horns in court over two
developers, Jason West and Vince Zampella, who had founded "Infinity Ward," one of the two development
studios that produces the "Call of Duty" franchise of hit combat shooting games.
Two years ago, both developers left Activision over a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," setting up their own development studio, called "Respawn Entertainment,"
whose games would be published and distributed by EA.
Activision and EA said they've agreed to a cease-fire and settlement in order to "put this matter behind them."
Neither elaborated on the terms of the settlement.
For its part, Activision has continued pumping out "Call of Duty" franchise games, as well as creating a
specialized social network for customers to interact and play against each other, called "Call of Duty: Elite."
EA has also went on to release "Battlefield 3" to compete with Activision's popular games during the last
holiday season.
Respawn has yet to release any new games and id not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Document DJON000020120516e85g0008h
Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) said in California state court Wednesday that they
have settled claims over the game "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," Bloomberg News reported.
The companies said they will file a settlement agreement in court, Bloomberg reported.
Full story at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/activision-electronic-arts-settle-modern-warfare-claims.html
Document DJON000020120516e85g0008c
(Adds statement from lawyer for West and Zampella in final paragraph.)
By Ian Sherr
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) have settled
their lawsuit over the hit "Call of Duty" war-simulation franchise of games.
Santa Monica, Calif.'s Activision and Redwood City, Calif.'s EA had locked horns in court over two
developers, Jason West and Vince Zampella, who had founded "Infinity Ward," one of the two development
studios that produces the "Call of Duty" franchise of hit combat-shooting games.
Two years ago, both developers left Activision in a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to "Call
of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," setting up their own development studio, called "Respawn Entertainment,"
whose games would be published and distributed by EA.
Though the suit between Activision and the two developers is still ongoing, Activision and EA said they have
agreed to a cease-fire and settlement to "put this matter behind them." Neither elaborated on the terms of the
settlement.
For its part, Activision has continued pumping out "Call of Duty" franchise games, and created a specialized
social network for customers to interact with and play against each other, called "Call of Duty: Elite." EA also
went on to release "Battlefield 3" to compete with Activision's popular games during the last holiday season.
Respawn has yet to release any new games. A statement from the lawyer for West and Zampella said they
were delighted EA is no longer part of the lawsuit, expected to go to trial May 29, adding "now Activision will
have to answer for its misconduct" against them.
Document DJ00000020120516e85g000zf
Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) said in California state court Wednesday that they
have settled claims over the game "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," Bloomberg News reported.
The companies said they will file a settlement agreement in court, Bloomberg reported.
Full story at
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/activision-electronic-arts-settle-modern-warfare-claims.html
Document DJ00000020120516e85g000yb
Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision and Redwood City, Calif.-based EA had locked horns in court over two
developers, Jason West and Vince Zampella, who had founded "Infinity Ward," one of the two development
studios that produces the "Call of Duty" franchise of hit combat shooting games.
Two years ago, both developers left Activision over a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," setting up their own development studio, called "Respawn Entertainment,"
whose games would be published and distributed by EA.
Activision and EA said they've agreed to a cease-fire and settlement in order to "put this matter behind them."
Neither elaborated on the terms of the settlement.
For its part, Activision has continued pumping out "Call of Duty" franchise games, as well as creating a
specialized social network for customers to interact and play against each other, called "Call of Duty: Elite."
EA has also went on to release "Battlefield 3" to compete with Activision's popular games during the last
holiday season.
Respawn has yet to release any new games and id not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Document DJ00000020120516e85g000ya
===========================================================================
THE WEEKLY TECHNOLOGY INSIDER REVIEW: March 19-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by Dow Jones Corporate Filings Alert Technology Group
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
TABLE I: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS BY SECTOR
($ in Thousands)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 19-23 | March 12-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Value Net | Value Value Net
Buying Selling Value | Buying Selling Value
===========================================================================
COMPUTER SALES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesale-Computers & Peripheral Equip & Software
$ 0 (11,122) (11,122) | 0 (1,007) (1,007)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 0 (11,122) (11,122) | 0 (1,007) (1,007)
===========================================================================
COMPUTERS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Equipment
$ 0 (1,301) (1,301) | 12 (2,000) (1,988)
Communications Services
$ 0 (1,174) (1,174) | 0 (4,645) (4,645)
Computer Communication Equipment
$ 0 (9,055) (9,055) | 0 (2,705) (2,705)
Computer Peripherals
$ 38 (2,821) (2,783) | 119 (1,159) (1,040)
Computer Storage Devices
$ 0 (13,402) (13,402) | 0 (19,420) (19,420)
Electronic Computers
$ 0 (344) (344) | 6 (38,117) (38,111)
Electronic Industrial Apparatus
Page 36 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
$ 1 (832) (831) | 0 (584) (584)
Instruments for Measuring & Testing Electricity
$ 0 (355) (355) | 0 (721) (721)
Measuring & Controlling Devices
$ 0 (5,771) (5,771) | 0 (8,364) (8,364)
Petroleum Refining
$ 0 (666) (666) | 0 (10,573) (10,573)
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance
$ 0 (155) (155) | 588 (2,245) (1,657)
Special Industry Machinery
$ 0 0 0 | 249 (146) 103
Telegraph & Other Message Communications
$ 0 (212) (212) | 0 (259) (259)
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus
$ 0 (133) (133) | 0 (196) (196)
Telephone Communications
$ 0 (4,088) (4,088) | 115 (3,155) (3,040)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 39 (40,309) (40,270) | 1,089 (94,289) (93,200)
===========================================================================
SEMICONDUCTORS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Components
$ 53 (502) (449) | 2 (503) (501)
Printed Circuit Boards
$ 0 (135) (135) | 0 (3,205) (3,205)
Semiconductors & Related Devices
$ 697 (23,143) (22,446) | 1435 (91,554) (90,119)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 750 (23,780) (23,030) | 1,437 (95,262) (93,825)
===========================================================================
SOFTWARE & PROGRAMMING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Integrated Systems Design
$ 3,076 (593) 2,483 | 47 (28,486) (28,439)
Computer Programming Services
$ 26 (11,743) (11,717) | 9 (11,190) (11,181)
Computer Related Services
$ 0 0 0 | 3008 (163) 2,845
Information Retrieval Systems
$ 0 (9,003) (9,003) | 0 (2,497) (2,497)
Prepackaged Software
$ 139 (61,176) (61,037) | 959 (82,336) (81,377)
Services-Computer Programming
$ 62 (555) (493) | 0 (56,001) (56,001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 3,303 (83,070) (79,767) | 4,023 (180,673) (176,650)
===========================================================================
Note: Detailed figures may not add up to totals because of rounding.
26 Mar 2012 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended March 23 -2-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: March 19-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document DJDN000020120326e83q00554
____________________________________________________________________________
TORO CO (TTC)
Buhrmaster Robert C (D) 3/21/12 12,000 $71.04 14,135
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
26 Mar 2012 07:12 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended March 23 -3-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: March 19-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
Page 42 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Mar 2012 07:13 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended March 23 -4-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: March 19-23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document DJDN000020120323e83n006n4
____________________________________________________________________________
3M COMPANY (MMM)
Yeomans Jan L (T) 2/15/12 5,159 $87.05 60,280
RAYTHEON CO (RTN)
Lawrence Taylor W (VP) 2/16/12 16,224 $48.70 50,966
Swanson William H (CB) 2/16/12 92,689 $48.70 845,542
Wood Michael J (VP) 2/16/12 6,220 $48.54 19,925
Yuse Richard R (VP) 2/16/12 12,143 $48.71 41,613
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
20 Feb 2012 07:11 EDT =DJ CFA Financials:Insider Review For Week Ended Feb. 17 -4-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN FINANCIALS STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Feb. 13-17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Feb 2012 07:12 EDT =DJ CFA Financials:Insider Review For Week Ended Feb. 17 -5-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN FINANCIALS STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Feb. 13-17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
US BANCORP (USB)
Levin Jerry W D 02/13/12 21,948 $ 29.10 0
20 Feb 2012 07:12 EDT =DJ CFA Financials:Insider Review For Week Ended Feb. 17 -2-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN FINANCIALS STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: Feb. 13-17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Feb 2012 07:12 EDT =DJ CFA Financials:Insider Review For Week Ended Feb. 17 -3-
Page 57 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN FINANCIALS STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: Feb. 13-17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO LP (
KKR)
Schoewe Thomas M D 02/13/12 6,600 $ 15.00 10,600
Document DJDN000020120217e82h003lu
____________________________________________________________________________
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO (CL)
Samuel Derrick E (O) 11/15/11 5,000 $88.80 53,941
MACERICH CO (MAC)
O'Hern Thomas E (CFO) 11/15/11 6,000 $49.17 144,271
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
Document DJDN000020111118e7bi003ch
===========================================================================
THE WEEKLY TECHNOLOGY INSIDER REVIEW: Sep. 12-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by Dow Jones Corporate Filings Alert Technology Group
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
TABLE I: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS BY SECTOR
($ in Thousands)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 12-16 | Sep. 5-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Value Net | Value Value Net
Buying Selling Value | Buying Selling Value
===========================================================================
COMPUTER SALES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Computer & Computer Software Stores
$ 0 (424) (424) | 0 0 0
Wholesale-Computers & Peripheral Equip & Software
$ 0 (161) (161) | 0 (1,142) (1,142)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 0 (585) (585) | 0 (1,142) (1,142)
===========================================================================
COMPUTERS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Equipment
$ 0 (1,146) (1,146) | 0 (98) (98)
Communications Services
$ 9 0 9 | 0 (3,387) (3,387)
Computer Communication Equipment
$ 0 (1,720) (1,720) | 0 (13,133) (13,133)
Computer Peripherals
$ 201 (2,021) (1,820) | 23 (6,394) (6,371)
Computer Storage Devices
$ 0 (394) (394) | 0 0 0
Instruments for Measuring & Testing Electricity
Page 66 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
$ 2 (1) 1 | 38 (1) 37
Measuring & Controlling Devices
$ 8 (400) (392) | 0 0 0
Petroleum Refining
$ 11,369 (10,317) 1,052 | 0 (138) (138)
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance
$ 0 (200) (200) | 0 (2,066) (2,066)
Special Industry Machinery
$ 13 (476) (463) | 6 (1,832) (1,826)
Telegraph & Other Message Communications
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (301) (301)
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus
$ 67 (2,244) (2,177) | 0 (1,255) (1,255)
Telephone Communications
$ 32 (71) (39) | 379 (1,230) (851)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 11,701 (18,990) (7,289) | 446 (29,835) (29,389)
===========================================================================
SEMICONDUCTORS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Components
$ 581 0 581 | 951 (14) 937
Printed Circuit Boards
$ 48 (618) (570) | 625 (684) (59)
Semiconductors & Related Devices
$ 338 (9,404) (9,066) | 239 (3,667) (3,428)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 967 (10,022) (9,055) | 1,815 (4,365) (2,550)
===========================================================================
SOFTWARE & PROGRAMMING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Integrated Systems Design
$ 137 (6,432) (6,295) | 400 (2,995) (2,595)
Computer Programming Services
$ 0 (1,909) (1,909) | 4 (456) (452)
Computer Related Services
$ 7 (465) (458) | 0 (596) (596)
Information Retrieval Systems
$ 3 0 3 | 242 0 242
Prepackaged Software
$ 3,604 (153,147) (149,543) | 13996 (158,111) (144,115)
Services-Computer Programming
$ 83 (44,546) (44,463) | 50 (46,618) (46,568)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 3,834 (206,499) (202,665) | 14,692 (208,776) (194,084)
===========================================================================
Note: Detailed figures may not add up to totals because of rounding.
19 Sep 2011 07:13 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 16 -2-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: Sep. 12-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Sep 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 16 -4-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Sep. 12-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document DJDN000020110919e79j002dc
____________________________________________________________________________
VF CORP (VFC)
Sharp M Rust (D) 9/16/11 4,800 $125.00 3,372
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
19 Sep 2011 07:12 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 16 -3-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Sep. 12-16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document DJDN000020110916e79g006py
____________________________________________________________________________
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
Document DJDN000020110915e79f003k5
===========================================================================
THE WEEKLY TECHNOLOGY INSIDER REVIEW: Sep. 5-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by Dow Jones Corporate Filings Alert Technology Group
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
TABLE I: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS BY SECTOR
($ in Thousands)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sep. 5-9 | Aug. 29-Sep. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Value Net | Value Value Net
Buying Selling Value | Buying Selling Value
===========================================================================
COMPUTER SALES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Computer & Computer Software Stores
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (101) (101)
Wholesale-Computers & Peripheral Equip & Software
$ 0 (1,142) (1,142) | 0 (176) (176)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 0 (1,142) (1,142) | 0 (277) (277)
===========================================================================
COMPUTERS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Equipment
$ 0 (98) (98) | 0 (112) (112)
Communications Services
$ 0 (3,387) (3,387) | 39 (2,136) (2,097)
Computer Communication Equipment
$ 0 (13,133) (13,133) | 0 (3,536) (3,536)
Computer Peripherals
$ 23 (6,394) (6,371) | 118 (2,035) (1,917)
Computer Storage Devices
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (170) (170)
Electronic Computers
Page 80 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (2,340) (2,340)
Instruments for Measuring & Testing Electricity
$ 38 (1) 37 | 177 (90) 87
Measuring & Controlling Devices
$ 0 0 0 | 396 (391) 5
Petroleum Refining
$ 0 (138) (138) | 231 (3,633) (3,402)
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance
$ 0 (2,066) (2,066) | 0 (56) (56)
Special Industry Machinery
$ 6 (1,832) (1,826) | 27 (2,257) (2,230)
Telegraph & Other Message Communications
$ 0 (301) (301) | 0 (15) (15)
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus
$ 0 (1,255) (1,255) | 0 (1,616) (1,616)
Telephone Communications
$ 379 (1,230) (851) | 7 (1,874) (1,867)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 446 (29,835) (29,389) | 995 (20,261) (19,266)
===========================================================================
SEMICONDUCTORS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Capacitors
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (231) (231)
Electronic Components
$ 951 (14) 937 | 193 (305) (112)
Printed Circuit Boards
$ 625 (684) (59) | 78 (656) (578)
Semiconductors & Related Devices
$ 239 (3,667) (3,428) | 547 (4,388) (3,841)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 1,815 (4,365) (2,550) | 818 (5,580) (4,762)
===========================================================================
SOFTWARE & PROGRAMMING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Integrated Systems Design
$ 400 (2,995) (2,595) | 3 (1,939) (1,936)
Computer Programming Services
$ 4 (456) (452) | 4 (764) (760)
Computer Related Services
$ 0 (596) (596) | 66 0 66
Information Retrieval Systems
$ 242 0 242 | 202 0 202
Prepackaged Software
$ 13,996 (158,111) (144,115) | 100 (12,870) (12,770)
Services-Computer Programming
$ 50 (46,618) (46,568) | 0 (110) (110)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 14,692 (208,776) (194,084) | 375 (15,683) (15,308)
===========================================================================
Note: Detailed figures may not add up to totals because of rounding.
12 Sep 2011 07:13 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 9 -3-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Sep. 5-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 81 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
ELEPHANT TALK COMMUNICATIONS (ETAK)
Vermeulen Alex O 09/07/11 10,000 $ 3.10 292,313
12 Sep 2011 07:13 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 9 -4-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: Sep. 5-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Sep 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended Sep. 9 -2-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: Sep. 5-9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IXIA (XXIA)
Buckly Ronald W VP 09/06/11 5,000 $ 7.21 688,786
Document DJDN000020110912e79c002la
By Brent Kendall
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a California law banning the sale
of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional because it violates free speech protections of the First
Amendment.
The court ruled for the videogame industry on a 7-2 vote, though two members of the majority did not join the
main opinion in the case.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply,"
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices.
Scalia rejected California's argument that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent video games to
those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors. He also said there was no
longstanding American tradition of restricting children's access to depictions of violence.
"Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of
gore," Scalia said. "Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel
(children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the ruling against California but criticized
Scalia for not taking a more cautious approach that would leave room for states to enact narrower laws that
would pass constitutional muster.
Alito said the level of violence in some videogames was "astounding," and he expressed concern that more
sophisticated games will allow "troubled teens to experience in an extraordinarily personal and vivid way what
it would be like to carry out unspeakable acts of violence."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented. Thomas said the First Amendment did not include
the right to speak to minors "without going through the minors' parents or guardians."
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
Some games allow users to decapitate people, urinate on them and set them on fire. Alito's concurring
opinion also cited games that allow users to engage in ethnic cleansing or reenact the mass murders at
Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.
The case carried considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect. They argued that video games are a
modern form of artistic expression entitled to First Amendment protection. The industry says American
consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
It's not clear which games would have been affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game
as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The law would have imposed a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 06-27-11 1225ET ]
Document DJON000020110627e76r0004f
The court, on a 7-2 vote, said the law violated free speech protections of the First Amendment. "Even where
the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices. Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the result but expressed some disagreement with the majority's opinion.
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
The case carried considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect. The industry says American consumers
spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
It's not clear which games would have been affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game
as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
To be subject to the sales ban, the game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
The law would have imposed a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 06-27-11 1054ET ]
Document DJON000020110627e76r0003n
The decision scrambled the court's typical ideological lineup. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority
opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply,"
Scalia wrote in his 18-page opinion.
(This story and related background material will be available on The Wall Street Journal website, WSJ.com.)
Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately in favor of the same outcome, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts,
but the two expressed some disagreement with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer
filed separate dissents.
The 2005 California law the court voided prohibits selling or renting such games to minors based on
legislative findings that they stimulate "feelings of aggression," reduce "activity in the frontal lobes of the
brain" and promote "violent antisocial or aggressive behavior." The law, signed by then-Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, never took effect because lower courts found it violated free-expression rights.
In a 2009 ruling, a federal appeals court in San Francisco said the state provided no credible research
showing that playing violent videogames harmed minors, and found the law was an unconstitutional effort "to
control a minor's thoughts."
That decision was in line with other courts across the country, which have struck down similar state and local
laws restricting violent videogames for the same reason.
Scalia said that as far as the First Amendment is concerned, the viewing of violent videogames was
essentially the same as reading books. "Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually
edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional
ones," he wrote.
Alito, while agreeing with the outcome, questioned the breadth of the majority's opinion. "The court is far too
quick to dismiss the possibility that the experience of playing video games (and the effects on minors of
playing violent video games) may be very different from anything that we have seen before," he wrote.
The $10.5 billion videogame industry said California's restrictions could stifle its fast-evolving art form, while
the movie business and other media industries feared that their products could be next in line to face
government regulation.
Games rated as "mature," such as Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive
Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
The industry argued that its own ratings system is adequate to keep violent games from children. A 2009
Federal Trade Commission report found that videogames had a stronger regulatory code than the movie or
music industries, and that retailers regularly enforced age restrictions which limit games rated M (for mature)
to consumers age 17 and older.
California argued that the voluntary system isn't good enough, because some minors manage to purchase
M-rated games anyway, and some publishers don't submit games to the ratings board.
Courts have refused to treat violent content as they would sexual material, which government can restrict
under longstanding obscenity doctrines.
But in recent years the Supreme Court has been taking a more paternalistic view toward youth. In 2007, the
high court approved punishing a high school student for hoisting a banner that allegedly made light of
smoking marijuana, finding antidrug policies outweighed student free-speech rights.
Breyer attached a 15-page bibliography to his dissent with academic articles on the effects of violent
videogames. "What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a
nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but
virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" he wrote.
Document DJ00000020110627e76r000c8
By Brent Kendall
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a California law banning the sale
of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional because it violates free speech protections of the First
Amendment.
The court ruled for the videogame industry on a 7-2 vote, though two members of the majority did not join the
main opinion in the case.
"Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply,"
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices.
Scalia rejected California's argument that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent video games to
those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors. He also said there was no
longstanding American tradition of restricting children's access to depictions of violence.
"Certainly the books we give children to read--or read to them when they are younger--contain no shortage of
gore," Scalia said. "Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel
(children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the ruling against California but criticized
Scalia for not taking a more cautious approach that would leave room for states to enact narrower laws that
would pass constitutional muster.
Alito said the level of violence in some videogames was "astounding," and he expressed concern that more
sophisticated games will allow "troubled teens to experience in an extraordinarily personal and vivid way what
it would be like to carry out unspeakable acts of violence."
Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented. Thomas said the First Amendment did not include
the right to speak to minors "without going through the minors' parents or guardians."
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
Some games allow users to decapitate people, urinate on them and set them on fire. Alito's concurring
opinion also cited games that allow users to engage in ethnic cleansing or reenact the mass murders at
Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.
The case carried considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect. They argued that video games are a
modern form of artistic expression entitled to First Amendment protection. The industry says American
consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
It's not clear which games would have been affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game
as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The law would have imposed a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 06-27-11 1210ET ]
Document DJ00000020110627e76r000bd
The court, on a 7-2 vote, said the law violated free speech protections of the First Amendment. "Even where
the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices. Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito concurred in the result but expressed some disagreement with the majority's opinion.
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
The case carried considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect. The industry says American consumers
spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
It's not clear which games would have been affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game
as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
To be subject to the sales ban, the game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
The law would have imposed a fine of up to $1,000 for each violation.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 06-27-11 1039ET ]
Document DJ00000020110627e76r0007c
===========================================================================
THE WEEKLY TECHNOLOGY INSIDER REVIEW: June 6-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by Dow Jones Corporate Filings Alert Technology Group
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
TABLE I: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS BY SECTOR
($ in Thousands)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 6-10 | May 30-June 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Value Net | Value Value Net
Buying Selling Value | Buying Selling Value
===========================================================================
COMPUTER SALES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesale-Computers & Peripheral Equip & Software
$ 0 (710) (710) | 0 (1,756) (1,756)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 0 (710) (710) | 0 (1,756) (1,756)
===========================================================================
COMPUTERS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications Equipment
$ 13 0 13 | 10 0 10
Communications Services
$ 0 0 0 | 0 (10,427) (10,427)
Computer Communication Equipment
$ 0 (4,835) (4,835) | 0 (16,858) (16,858)
Computer Peripherals
$ 134 (6,600) (6,466) | 443 (7,414) (6,971)
Computer Storage Devices
$ 0 (3,399) (3,399) | 0 (14,190) (14,190)
Electric Machinery, Equipment & Supplies
$ 0 0 0 | 120 0 120
Electronic Computers
Page 96 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
$ 31 0 31 | 0 (3,078) (3,078)
Instruments for Measuring & Testing Electricity
$ 12 (409) (397) | 10 (18,054) (18,044)
Measuring & Controlling Devices
$ 0 (6,220) (6,220) | 0 (6,575) (6,575)
Petroleum Refining
$ 15 (3,318) (3,303) | 27 (2,712) (2,685)
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance
$ 578 (1,812) (1,234) | 0 (5,979) (5,979)
Special Industry Machinery
$ 29 (34,645) (34,616) | 17 (2,323) (2,306)
Telegraph & Other Message Communications
$ 0 (527) (527) | 0 0 0
Telephone & Telegraph Apparatus
$ 0 (1,105) (1,105) | 0 (1,741) (1,741)
Telephone Communications
$ 718 (11,249) (10,531) | 56 (438) (382)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 1,530 (74,119) (72,589) | 683 (89,789) (89,106)
===========================================================================
SEMICONDUCTORS & EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Capacitors
$ 3 0 3 | 0 0 0
Electronic Components
$ 1,411 (502) 909 | 1030 (588) 442
Printed Circuit Boards
$ 0 (546) (546) | 0 (1,180) (1,180)
Semiconductors & Related Devices
$ 30 (771,094) (771,064) | 164 (42,797) (42,633)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 1,444 (772,142) (770,698) | 1,194 (44,565) (43,371)
===========================================================================
SOFTWARE & PROGRAMMING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Integrated Systems Design
$ 140 (42,660) (42,520) | 529 (61,847) (61,318)
Computer Programming Services
$ 11 (7,444) (7,433) | 105 (10,947) (10,842)
Computer Related Services
$ 13 0 13 | 565 0 565
Information Retrieval Systems
$ 208 0 208 | 235 0 235
Prepackaged Software
$ 9,587 (119,034) (109,447) | 8370 (215,684) (207,314)
Services-Computer Programming
$ 808 (46,499) (45,691) | 0 (2,299) (2,299)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $ 10,767 (215,637) (204,870) | 9,804 (290,777) (280,973)
===========================================================================
Note: Detailed figures may not add up to totals because of rounding.
13 Jun 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended June 10 -3-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: June 6-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 97 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES INC (EPAY)
Savory Nigel K O 06/03/11 1,909 $ 23.91 62,278
13 Jun 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended June 10 -4-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
SALES: June 6-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYTHEON CO (RTN)
Goglia Richard A T 06/06/11 5,465 $ 48.52 32,213
Lawrence Taylor W VP 06/06/11 4,893 $ 48.52 60,298
13 Jun 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended June 10 -5-
13 Jun 2011 07:14 EDT =DJ CFA Technology:Insider Review For Week Ended June 10 -2-
===========================================================================
TABLE II: SUMMARY OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS IN TECHNOLOGY STOCKS
===========================================================================
PURCHASES: June 6-10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY (TICKER) TRANSACTION MEAN
INSIDER TITLE DATE(S) SHARES PRICE($) HOLDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA INC (CA)
Kapoor Rohit D 06/03/11 20,000 $ 22.70 20,000
Document DJDN000020110613e76d001w2
____________________________________________________________________________
FEI CO (FEIC)
Thies Bradley J (VP) 6/8/11 33,500 $38.15 54,086
* = Amended Filing
____________________________________________________________________________
KEY TO INSIDERS' TITLES
CB Chairman of the Board O Officer
P President OS Officer of Subsidiary
CEO Chief Executive Officer D Director
CFO Chief Financial Officer T Treasurer
COO Chief Operating Officer VP Vice President
OD Officer and Director SH Shareholder/Beneficial Owner/Other
DO Divisional Officer
____________________________________________________________________________
Document DJDN000020110613e76d002id
Activision sought the changes in a filing with the California Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon. It wants
$400 million in damages from EA that it claims were caused by the publisher’s luring away of the key
developers at the Infinity Ward studio.
For its part, EA on Wednesday dismissed the move as a “PR play filled with pettiness and deliberate
misdirection.” The rivalry between the two publishers has increased dramatically over the past couple of
years, as Activision has grown to challenge EA’s historical position as the largest videogame publisher in
terms of revenue.
“Activision wants to hide the fact that they have no credible response to the claim of two artists who were fired
and now just want to get paid for their work,” said EA spokesman Jeff Brown.
Shares of Activision were up nearly 3% to $12.56 by midday Wednesday. EA shares were up about 0.8%.
The dispute first erupted back in March, when Activision fired Jason West and Adam Zampella, the
co-founders of Infinity Ward who continued to run the studio after Activision bought the business in 2003.
Activision accused the pair of breach of contract in negotiating a deal with EA; the developers claim they were
fired illegally and accused Activision of withholding millions of dollars in bonus compensation for “Modern
Warfare 2” — which was the best-selling videogame title of 2009. Read previous story on Infinity Ward
dispute.
In its recent filing, Activision accuses top EA executives by name — specifically Chief Executive John
Riccitello and Chief Operating Officer John Schappert — of “unlawful conduct” in trying to lure away the
developers. The company claims EA was desperate for the developers because of the decline in the
publisher’s own business — particularly its “Medal of Honor” combat shooter franchise that has been outsold
by “Call of Duty.”
“As Activision succeeded, Electronic Arts failed. EA’s biggest titles routinely underperformed financially and it
lost billions of dollars through failed investments,” the complaint read.
Activision wants at least $400 million from EA in damages. Despite the blockbuster sales of “Modern Warfare
2,” the company claims its profitability was hurt by EA’s actions. Several employees left Infinity Ward to follow
the co-founders to their new studio, forcing Activision to replace development talent.
The heated dispute also comes as Activision’s latest “Call of Duty” title — “Black Ops” — racks up strong
sales. The company said on Tuesday that global sales of the title have surpassed the $1 billion mark since its
release in early November.
Videogame publisher says arch-rival “conspired” to lure away Infinity Ward developers to make up for
declining market share. EA calls move a “PR play.”
Document MRKWC00020101222e6cm002mh
In documents filed in California superior court in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Activision of Santa Monica, Calif.,
asked a judge for permission to add EA to a lawsuit Activision filed earlier this year against Jason West and
Vince Zampella, the cofounders of Activision's Infinity Ward, one of two studios that produce Call of Duty, a
top-selling combat game series. The filing seeks $400 million in damages from EA for allegedly interfering
with the employment contracts Messrs. West and Zampella had with Activision, in an effort to sabotage the
success of Call of Duty.
In April, Messrs. West and Zampella announced they had formed a new development studio called Respawn
Entertainment and that EA will publish its games.
Jeff Brown, a spokesman for EA, called the Activision suit a "PR play filled with pettiness and deliberate
misdirection," adding that "Activision wants to hide the fact that they have no credible response to the claim of
two artists who were fired and now just want to get paid for their work."
Robert Schwartz, an attorney for Messrs. West and Zampella, called Activision's filing a "pathetic mash-up of
false and reckless assertions, designed only to delay the march to justice for Jason West and Vince
Zampella."
Messrs. West and Zampella originally sued Activision in March, alleging that the games publisher cheated
them out of royalties from Call of Duty and wrongfully terminated them. Activision later filed a cross complaint
against the two men.
The new complaint highlights the growing bitterness between EA and Activision. Activision alleges EA was
motivated to undermine Activision because its products haven't performed well in the market. "To find
Electronic Arts's desperate motive to conspire to break these legal contracts ahead of their expiration dates,
all one has to do is to look at the company's precipitous decline in stature with investors and, most
importantly, in the eyes of game players who demand innovation and excitement," the complaint says.
Document WSJO000020101222e6cm002jp
By Archibald Preuschat
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
Deutsche Telekom AG (DTE.XE) and Vivendi SA (VIV.FR) Wednesday settled a years-long legal battle over
Polish mobile phone operator Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, or PTC, giving the German company sole ownership
and freeing up more cash for Vivendi to spend on buying out minority stakes in its domestic subsidiaries.
Under the settlement, Deutsche Telekom will pay another EUR1.4 billion in total to Vivendi and Polish
conglomerate Elektrim SA, which as a result of the payment will exit bankruptcy proceedings, giving
Deutsche Tekekom 100% ownership.
"The absolute legal certainty that is now recognized by all parties is a clear message regarding PTC's
strategic development and paves the way for the future," Deutsche Telekom's Chief Financial Officer
Timotheus Hoettges said in a statement.
The legal dispute in Poland centered on a 48% stake in PTC that Germany's Deutsche Telekom bought from
a joint venture between Vivendi and its Polish partner. Vivendi had appealed a 2004 court ruling that granted
Deutsche Telekom the right to buy the stake, arguing that the call option wasn't valid.
Vivendi said it will receive approximately EUR1.25 billion as part of the settlement, subject to legal steps in
Poland, with the deal set to be finalized in the first quarter of 2011. The agreement also allows Elektrim and
its main shareholder Zygmunt Solorz-Zak to exit from insolvency. Deutsche Telekom already paid EUR700
million to Elektrim in 2006.
Expectations of a settlement had seen industry experts speculate that Deutsche Telekom could rebrand Era
as T-Mobile, the brand under which it operates its mobile business outside of Germany, but a Deutsche
Telekom spokesman said Wednesday that Era has a strong brand that is widely recognized by Polish
consumers.
Deutsche Telekom has a large footprint in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including Poland,
Croatia, the Czech Republic and Hungary. It is also one of the bidders for a 51% state stake in fixed-line
provider Telekom Srbija.
For Vivendi, the settlement brings more cash into the group after it received $2 billion in September for selling
part of its 20% stake in NBC Universal. It will receive the remaining $3.8 billion as part of a three-way deal
with current NBCU owner General Electric Co. (GE) and Comcast Corp (CMCSA), which is expected to close
by the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Vivendi is looking to buy out the remaining 44% in French mobile operator SFR that it doesn't
already own from Vodafone Group PLC (VOD), likely to be in the first half of next year, in a deal that analysts
say could value the stake at EUR8 billion and would tighten the French group's focus on its existing
businesses.
The agreement "neatly ties up a loose end from the previous era," Kepler Capital Markets analysts Conor
O'Shea said, referring to the debt and legal issues the company faced following the tenure of previous Chief
Executive Jen-Marie Messier. "It also means that, together with the $3.8 billion outstanding from NBCU, the
extent to which Vivendi will have to draw on its EUR6 billion lines of credit to finance a purchase of
Vodafone's stake in SFR is reduced," he said in a note to investors.
PTC, which operates under the Era brand in Poland, is one of three major mobile network operators that also
include PTK Centertel and Polkomtel SA, all of which have a roughly 30% market share.
The terms of the settlement were in line with expectations, said one analyst who declined to be named.
At 1203 GMT, Deutsche Telekom shares traded down 1.1% at EUR9.77 with Frankfurt's DAX down 0.8%,
while Vivendi gained 0.8% to EUR20.66 outperforming a broadly lower Paris market.
-By Archibald Preuschat, Dow Jones Newswires; +49 211 13872 18; archibald.preuschat@dowjones.com
(Martin Sobzyk in Warsaw, Ruth Bender in Paris and Thomas Leppert in Frankfurt contributed to this article.)
[ 12-15-10 0744ET ]
Document DJON000020101215e6cf0003i
A 2005 California law bans those under 18 from buying or renting violent videogames that appeal to "a
deviant or morbid interest in minors." Lower courts struck down the law, under precedent authorizing
government to restrict youth from only one type of material, obscene sexual content.
In seeking the law's reinstatement, Zackery Morazzini, a deputy state attorney general, told the court:
"California is no less concerned with a minor's access to the deviant level of violence that is presented in a
certain category of video games" than it is with sexually explicit material.
The issue provoked sharp disagreement between Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito.
Justice Scalia bristled at withdrawing First Amendment protection from new subjects. "What's next after
violence? Drinking? Smoking?" he asked. The First Amendment was never thought to protect obscenity, he
said, but did the framers also envision an exception for "portrayals of violence"?
Justice Alito countered, noting 21st-century videogames "cannot possibly have been envisioned at the time
when the First Amendment was ratified," so it would be "entirely artificial" to assume games had the same
constitutional protection as books.
The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated "mature," such as Activision
Blizzard Inc.'s "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the
industry's biggest sellers. Movie and music industries also worry that a state victory could lead to additional
restrictions on youth access to their products.
Justice Stephen Breyer wondered why sexual content should be considered categorically more harmful to
minors than violent material. A 13-year-old "can't buy a picture of a naked woman" but no law can stop him
from getting a game depicting "gratuitous torture of children," he observed. "Now what sense is there to that?"
Videogame industry attorney Paul Smith said that children's stories have traditionally involved "graphic
violence," but not explicit sex, a point that seemed to incense Chief Justice John Roberts.
"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting
schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them,
shooting people in the leg so they fall down," the chief justice said, reading a description of "Postal 2," the
game often cited as the genre's most violent exemplar. "We protect children from that. We don't actively
expose them to that."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked why the state limited the restriction to videogames. "Why are video
games special? Or does your principle extend to all deviant, violent material in whatever form?" she asked.
California's Mr. Morazzini argued violent videogames are worse because they are interactive. Lawmakers
relied on studies suggesting that videogames are "exemplary teachers of aggression" because the player
personally commits virtual acts of "obscene violence."
One study "says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video,"
said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who asked if the state would outlaw Bugs Bunny.
Mr. Smith contended, however, that California's law was the latest in a series of adult overreactions to new
media including comic books and rock music that they feared would poison youth.
The youngest justice, Elena Kagan, suggested she might be more inclined to consider videogames a
legitimate art form.
At one point, Mr. Morazzini mentioned that the game "Mortal Kombat," whose first edition appeared in the
early 1990s, might be a candidate for restriction under the law.
"Mortal Kombat," Justice Kagan responded, "is an iconic game which I am sure half of the clerks who work for
us spent considerable amounts of time in their adolescence playing."
The movie, music and publishing industries as well as Xbox videogame console maker Microsoft Corp. were
among those who filed briefs urging the court to strike down the California law.
Document WSJO000020101102e6b300bkp
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court expressed doubts Tuesday about the
constitutionality of a California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.
During an hour-long oral argument, several justices suggested the law violated free speech protections of the
First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said California's logic in banning videogame sales to minors could also apply to a ban
on the sale of violent movies or books to children.
"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are
you going to ban them, too?"
"What about films? What about comic books?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Why are videogames
special?"
The court also questioned how the state could determine when violence in videogames is excessive.
The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
The industry says American consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
The case could also have implications for the broader entertainment industry, specifically for producers of
violent movies and television shows.
Despite the court's questions about the California law, many justices also expressed concern about the
violent material in some videogames.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that some games allowed users to decapitate people, urinate on them and
set them on fire.
He and others suggested there may be a way for California or other states to write a narrower law that
imposed some restrictions on the sale of violent videogames.
For example, Roberts suggested states might be able to require violent games to be located in separate area
of a retail store or placed on high shelves out of the reach of minors.
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect and two lower courts ruled the law was
unconstitutional.
Zackery Morazzini, an attorney for the state of California, argued that states should be able to ban sales of
violent video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
Morazzini said video games are different than movies or books because they are interactive, with users
choosing to commit violent acts on characters in the games.
Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the analogy of violent videogames to sexual materials, saying there
was "a societal consensus" on what sexual material was offensive, but no such consensus on violence.
Paul M. Smith, arguing for the videogame industry trade groups, said California's effort was a misguided
over-reaction to a new medium. He said the law was similar to past efforts to protect children from crime
novels, comic books, movies and music lyrics.
Smith said the industry's voluntary ratings system for videogames worked well and parental controls could
prevent children from playing violentgames.
"Any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about five minutes," Roberts said.
The movie, music and publishing industries as well as Xbox video game console maker Microsoft Corp.
(MSFT) were among those who filed briefs urging the court to strike down the California law.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 11-02-10 1306ET ]
Document DJON000020101102e6b200069
During an hour-long oral argument, several justices suggested the law violated free speech protections of the
First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said California's logic in banning videogame sales to minors could also apply to a ban
on the sale of violent movies or books to children.
"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are
you going to ban them, too?"
"What about films? What about comic books?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Why are videogames
special?"
The court also questioned how the state could determine how much violence in videogames was too much.
The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
The industry says American consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
The case could also have implications for the broader entertainment industry, specifically for producers of
violent movies and television shows.
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
To be subject to the sales ban, the game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect and two lower courts ruled the law was
unconstitutional.
Zackery Morazzini, an attorney for the state of California, argued that states should be able to ban sales of
violent video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
Paul M. Smith, arguing for the videogame industry trade groups, said California's effort was a misguided over
reaction to a new medium. He said the law was similar to past efforts to protect children from crime novels,
comic books, movies and music lyrics.
Smith said the industry's voluntary ratings system for videogames worked well and parental controls could
prevent kids from playing certain games.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that some games allowed users to decapitate people, urinate on them and
set them on fire.
He and others suggested there may be a way for California or other states to write a narrower law that
imposed some restrictions on the sale of violent videogames.
The movie, music and publishing industries as well as Xbox video game console maker Microsoft Corp.
(MSFT) were among those who filed briefs urging the court to strike down the California law.
-0-
[ 11-02-10 1208ET ]
Document DJON000020101102e6b20005p
During an hour-long oral argument, several justices suggested the law violated free speech protections of the
First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said California's logic in banning videogame sales to minors could also apply to a ban
on the sale of violent movies or books to children.
"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are
you going to ban them, too?"
"What about films? What about comic books?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Why are videogames
special?"
The court also questioned how the state could determine how much violence in videogames was too much.
The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
The industry says American consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
The case could also have implications for the broader entertainment industry, specifically for producers of
violent movies and television shows.
California lawmakers passed the ban in 2005 after finding that violent videogames are "a new, modern threat
to children" that cause psychological harm and make minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive
behavior.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
To be subject to the sales ban, the game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect and two lower courts ruled the law was
unconstitutional.
Zackery Morazzini, an attorney for the state of California, argued that states should be able to ban sales of
violent video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
Paul M. Smith, arguing for the videogame industry trade groups, said California's effort was a misguided over
reaction to a new medium. He said the law was similar to past efforts to protect children from crime novels,
comic books, movies and music lyrics.
Smith said the industry's voluntary ratings system for videogames worked well and parental controls could
prevent kids from playing certain games.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that some games allowed users to decapitate people, urinate on them and
set them on fire.
He and others suggested there may be a way for California or other states to write a narrower law that
imposed some restrictions on the sale of violent videogames.
The movie, music and publishing industries as well as Xbox video game console maker Microsoft Corp.
(MSFT) were among those who filed briefs urging the court to strike down the California law.
-0-
[ 11-02-10 1153ET ]
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Supreme Court expressed doubts Tuesday about the constitutionality
of a California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.
During an hour-long oral argument, several justices suggested the law violated free speech protections of the
First Amendment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said California's logic in banning videogame sales to minors could also apply to a ban
on the sale of violent movies or books to children.
"Some of the Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim," Scalia told an attorney for California. "Are they OK? Are
you going to ban them, too?"
"What about films? What about comic books?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Why are videogames
special?"
The court also questioned how the state could determine when violence in videogames is excessive.
The case has considerable implications for the videogame industry. Games rated as "mature," such as
Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft
Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers.
The industry says American consumers spend more than $10 billion a year on videogames.
The case could also have implications for the broader entertainment industry, specifically for producers of
violent movies and television shows.
Despite the court's questions about the California law, many justices also expressed concern about the
violent material in some videogames.
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that some games allowed users to decapitate people, urinate on them and
set them on fire.
He and others suggested there may be a way for California or other states to write a narrower law that
imposed some restrictions on the sale of violent videogames.
For example, Roberts suggested states might be able to require violent games to be located in separate area
of a retail store or placed on high shelves out of the reach of minors.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
To be subject to the sales ban, the game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors," or it must allow a player to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel
or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
Two trade associations challenged the law before it went into effect and two lower courts ruled the law was
unconstitutional.
Zackery Morazzini, an attorney for the state of California, argued that states should be able to ban sales of
violent video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
Morazzini said video games are different than movies or books because they are interactive, with users
choosing to commit violent acts on characters in the games.
Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the analogy of violent videogames to sexual materials, saying there
was "a societal consensus" on what sexual material was offensive, but no such consensus on violence.
Paul M. Smith, arguing for the videogame industry trade groups, said California's effort was a misguided
over-reaction to a new medium. He said the law was similar to past efforts to protect children from crime
novels, comic books, movies and music lyrics.
Smith said the industry's voluntary ratings system for videogames worked well and parental controls could
prevent children from playing violentgames.
"Any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about five minutes," Roberts said.
The movie, music and publishing industries as well as Xbox video game console maker Microsoft Corp.
(MSFT) were among those who filed briefs urging the court to strike down the California law.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 11-02-10 1251ET ]
Document DJ00000020101102e6b2000e3
Uniloc USA Inc. filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court in the eastern district of Texas Thursday, alleging that
the companies illegally use Uniloc's technology that allows for the identification and activation of purchased
products.
Uniloc sued Sony's U.S. arm and its digital and optical media services business, video game publisher
Activision, security software provider McAfee Inc. (MFE), publishing software maker Quark Inc., Borland
Software Corp. and Aspyr Media Inc., which coverts PC games so they can run on Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) Mac
software.
Uniloc's actions mark the latest legal strike in the technology world, where more companies are resorting to
the courtroom to take on competitors or extract a new revenue stream through a forced licensing agreement.
In 2003, Uniloc sued Microsoft, alleging it illegally used its software activation key in Windows XP and Office.
The key is used to prevent people from making copies of the software or installing the programs on multiple
computers, as it requires a verification key tied to one device.
Uniloc initially won the initial suit and damages of $388 million last year after a six-year court battle, but a
judge later overturned the ruling.
Uniloc is appealing the ruling, with oral arguments on the case slated for Sept. 7.
"This is a huge source of patent infringement," Chief Executive Brad Davis said in an interview. "It's not all
what Uniloc is about, but it's something we have to address."
Uniloc, a privately held company based in Irvine, Calif., currently has licensing agreements with a number of
companies, including videogame publisher Sega Corp.
"The industry sees (software activation) as a solution to piracy," Davis said. He added that a majority of the
software industry uses the activation fee technology with few signing a licensing agreement, suggesting a
wide open field of companies to sue.
On charges that Uniloc is a patent troll, which holds intellectual property but doesn't operate its own business,
Davis said the company uses its technology to support ecommerce platforms.
It is just the latest company to take its differences to court. Last month, NTP Inc., which holds a number of
patents but doesn't manufacture products, filed lawsuits against Apple, Google Inc. (GOOG) and a number of
other smartphone companies over technology related to the wireless delivery of email. In June, Research in
Motion Ltd. (RIMM) agreed to pay a lump sump and ongoing royalties to Motorola Inc. (MOT).
-By Roger Cheng, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2153; roger.cheng@dowjones.com [ 07-29-10 1750ET ]
Document DJON000020100729e67t000aj
Uniloc USA Inc. filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court in the eastern district of Texas Thursday, alleging that
the companies illegally use Uniloc's technology that allows for the identification and activation of purchased
products.
Uniloc sued Sony's U.S. arm and its digital and optical media services business, video game publisher
Activision, security software provider McAfee Inc. (MFE), publishing software maker Quark Inc., Borland
Software Corp. and Aspyr Media Inc., which coverts PC games so they can run on Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) Mac
software.
Uniloc's actions mark the latest legal strike in the technology world, where more companies are resorting to
the courtroom to take on competitors or extract a new revenue stream through a forced licensing agreement.
In 2003, Uniloc sued Microsoft, alleging it illegally used its software activation key in Windows XP and Office.
The key is used to prevent people from making copies of the software or installing the programs on multiple
computers, as it requires a verification key tied to one device.
Uniloc initially won the initial suit and damages of $388 million last year after a six-year court battle, but a
judge later overturned the ruling.
Uniloc is appealing the ruling, with oral arguments on the case slated for Sept. 7.
"This is a huge source of patent infringement," Chief Executive Brad Davis said in an interview. "It's not all
what Uniloc is about, but it's something we have to address."
Uniloc, a privately held company based in Irvine, Calif., currently has licensing agreements with a number of
companies, including videogame publisher Sega Corp.
"The industry sees (software activation) as a solution to piracy," Davis said. He added that a majority of the
software industry uses the activation fee technology with few signing a licensing agreement, suggesting a
wide open field of companies to sue.
On charges that Uniloc is a patent troll, which holds intellectual property but doesn't operate its own business,
Davis said the company uses its technology to support ecommerce platforms.
It is just the latest company to take its differences to court. Last month, NTP Inc., which holds a number of
patents but doesn't manufacture products, filed lawsuits against Apple, Google Inc. (GOOG) and a number of
other smartphone companies over technology related to the wireless delivery of email. In June, Research in
Motion Ltd. (RIMM) agreed to pay a lump sump and ongoing royalties to Motorola Inc. (MOT).
-By Roger Cheng, Dow Jones Newswires; 212-416-2153; roger.cheng@dowjones.com [ 07-29-10 1735ET ]
Document DJ00000020100729e67t0011p
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the constitutionality of a
California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The state said violent video games were "a new, modern threat to children" that caused psychological harm
and made minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive behavior.
"This is an important issue with national implications, particularly in light of the growing evidence that these
games harm minors and that industry self-regulation through the existing rating system has proven
ineffective," the state said in its petition.
Two trade associations challenged the law, arguing that video games are a modern form of artistic expression
entitled to First Amendment protection.
"We strongly believe that the core constitutional protections afforded to all forms of media apply equally to
video games," said Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, which
represents U.S. computer and video-game publishers.
Gallagher said the industry's voluntary rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform
consumers and parents about the games' content.
If the Supreme Court sides with California, the decision "would take the most popular genre of games and
turn it on its head," said entertainment lawyer Stephen Smith of the Greenberg Glusker law firm in Los
Angeles.
Smith said games rated as "mature," such as Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two
Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers. Teen
audiences, he said, are a large enough percentage of the marketplace that the loss of those customers could
make it hard for companies to justify their current large budgets for creating and marketing such games.
Restricting sales to minors would not be easy because many games are purchased and played online, he
said.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors," or it must allow a player
to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel or depraved in that it involves
torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. said in a written statement, "It is time to allow California's
common-sense law to go into effect and help parents protect their children from violent video games."
Page 126 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Supreme Court's decision to consider the case came as something of a surprise because lower courts
have been unanimous in striking down laws similar to California's.
The state said at least nine state and local governments have passed similar measures.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that California didn't
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Oral arguments will take place during the court's next term, which begins in October.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 04-26-10 1707ET ]
Document DJON000020100426e64q00076
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the constitutionality of a
California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The state said violent video games were "a new, modern threat to children" that caused psychological harm
and made minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive behavior.
"This is an important issue with national implications, particularly in light of the growing evidence that these
games harm minors and that industry self-regulation through the existing rating system has proven
ineffective," the state said in its petition.
Two trade associations challenged the law, arguing that video games are a modern form of artistic expression
entitled to First Amendment protection.
"We strongly believe that the core constitutional protections afforded to all forms of media apply equally to
video games," said Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, which
represents U.S. computer and video-game publishers.
Gallagher said the industry's voluntary rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform
consumers and parents about the games' content.
If the Supreme Court sides with California, the decision "would take the most popular genre of games and
turn it on its head," said entertainment lawyer Stephen Smith of the Greenberg Glusker law firm in Los
Angeles.
Smith said games rated as "mature," such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, are some of the industry's
biggest sellers. Teen audiences, he said, are a large enough percentage of the marketplace that the loss of
those customers could make it hard for companies to justify their current large budgets for creating and
marketing such games.
Restricting sales to minors would not be easy because many games are purchased and played online, he
said.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors," or it must allow a player
to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel or depraved in that it involves
torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
The California Attorney General's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The state said at least nine state and local governments have passed similar measures.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that California did not
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Oral arguments will take place during the court's next term, which begins in October.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 04-26-10 1550ET ]
Document DJON000020100426e64q0006n
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that lawmakers should be able to restrict sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The high court said in a short one-line order that it will hear the state's appeal.
California said violent video games harmed minors psychologically and made them more likely to exhibit
violent antisocial or aggressive behavior. The state also said that industry self-regulation was a failure.
Two trade associations challenged the law in court, arguing that video games are "a modern form of artistic
expression" and are entitled to First Amendment protection. The associations said the industry's voluntary
rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform consumers and parents about the
games' content.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that the state did not
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Other states have passed similar laws, but none of them have survived legal challenges brought by the
video-game industry.
-0-
[ 04-26-10 1023ET ]
Document DJON000020100426e64q0004b
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the constitutionality of a
California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The state said violent video games were "a new, modern threat to children" that caused psychological harm
and made minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive behavior.
"This is an important issue with national implications, particularly in light of the growing evidence that these
games harm minors and that industry self-regulation through the existing rating system has proven
ineffective," the state said in its petition.
Two trade associations challenged the law, arguing that video games are a modern form of artistic expression
entitled to First Amendment protection.
"We strongly believe that the core constitutional protections afforded to all forms of media apply equally to
video games," said Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, which
represents U.S. computer and video-game publishers.
Gallagher said the industry's voluntary rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform
consumers and parents about the games' content.
If the Supreme Court sides with California, the decision "would take the most popular genre of games and
turn it on its head," said entertainment lawyer Stephen Smith of the Greenberg Glusker law firm in Los
Angeles.
Smith said games rated as "mature," such as Activision Blizzard Inc.'s (ATVI) "Call of Duty" and Take-Two
Interactive Software Inc.'s (TTWO) "Grand Theft Auto," are some of the industry's biggest sellers. Teen
audiences, he said, are a large enough percentage of the marketplace that the loss of those customers could
make it hard for companies to justify their current large budgets for creating and marketing such games.
Restricting sales to minors would not be easy because many games are purchased and played online, he
said.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors," or it must allow a player
to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel or depraved in that it involves
torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
The Supreme Court's decision to consider the case came as something of a surprise because lower courts
have been unanimous in striking down laws similar to California's.
The state said at least nine state and local governments have passed similar measures.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that California didn't
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Oral arguments will take place during the court's next term, which begins in October.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 04-26-10 1652ET ]
Document DJ00000020100426e64q000sd
By Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide the constitutionality of a
California law that seeks to ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that lawmakers should be able to ban sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The state said violent video games were "a new, modern threat to children" that caused psychological harm
and made minors more likely to exhibit violent or aggressive behavior.
"This is an important issue with national implications, particularly in light of the growing evidence that these
games harm minors and that industry self-regulation through the existing rating system has proven
ineffective," the state said in its petition.
Two trade associations challenged the law, arguing that video games are a modern form of artistic expression
entitled to First Amendment protection.
"We strongly believe that the core constitutional protections afforded to all forms of media apply equally to
video games," said Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, which
represents U.S. computer and video-game publishers.
Gallagher said the industry's voluntary rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform
consumers and parents about the games' content.
If the Supreme Court sides with California, the decision "would take the most popular genre of games and
turn it on its head," said entertainment lawyer Stephen Smith of the Greenberg Glusker law firm in Los
Angeles.
Smith said games rated as "mature," such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, are some of the industry's
biggest sellers. Teen audiences, he said, are a large enough percentage of the marketplace that the loss of
those customers could make it hard for companies to justify their current large budgets for creating and
marketing such games.
Restricting sales to minors would not be easy because many games are purchased and played online, he
said.
It's not clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one
that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
The game must lack "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors," or it must allow a player
to virtually inflict serious injury in a manner that is "especially heinous, cruel or depraved in that it involves
torture or serious physical abuse to the victim."
The California Attorney General's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The state said at least nine state and local governments have passed similar measures.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that California did not
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Oral arguments will take place during the court's next term, which begins in October.
-By Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9222; brent.kendall@dowjones.com [ 04-26-10 1535ET ]
Document DJ00000020100426e64q000jp
Two lower courts struck down the law as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
California appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that lawmakers should be able to restrict sales of violent
video games to those under 18 just as they can restrict the sale of sexual material to minors.
The high court said in a short one-line order that it will hear the state's appeal.
California said violent video games harmed minors psychologically and made them more likely to exhibit
violent antisocial or aggressive behavior. The state also said that industry self-regulation was a failure.
Two trade associations challenged the law in court, arguing that video games are "a modern form of artistic
expression" and are entitled to First Amendment protection. The associations said the industry's voluntary
rating system for video games had been a successful effort to inform consumers and parents about the
games' content.
A federal trial judge in San Jose and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals each ruled that the state did not
have sufficient evidence to support the claim that violent video games harmed minors. The courts also said
there were other less-restrictive ways to prevent minors from playing the games, such as parental controls on
some gaming systems.
Other states have passed similar laws, but none of them have survived legal challenges brought by the
video-game industry.
-0-
[ 04-26-10 1008ET ]
Document DJ00000020100426e64q0008w
The move is the latest in an escalating dispute between Activision and the former heads of its Infinity Ward
studio, who left the company last month in a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to "Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 2"—one of the videogame industry's top-selling titles last year and the latest for the
highly rated Activision franchise.
On Monday, Jason West and Vince Zampella announced the formation of a studio called Respawn
Entertainment. The studio will retain ownership of the games it creates, which will be published and
distributed by EA.
"Now that the team is in control of the games and brands, we can ensure that the fans are treated as well as
they deserve," Mr. West said in a statement.
Activision fired Messrs. West and Zampella from Infinity Ward on March 1. Two days later, the pair filed a
lawsuit against the game publisher, accusing the company of withholding "substantial royalty payments" they
were owned for "Modern Warfare 2."
In a counter-suit filed Friday, Activision accused the pair of delaying the development of games and
negotiating with EA while still employed with the company. It also charged the two with intentionally
preventing Activision from paying bonuses to other staffers at the studio in an effort to make those employees
"easier to poach" for the new studio.
"West's and Zampella's misdeeds formed an unlawful pattern and practice of conduct that was designed to
steal the IW studio, which is one of Activision's most valuable assets, at the expense of Activision and its
shareholders and for their own personal financial gain," the company claimed in its lawsuit.
Robert Schwartz, an attorney for Messrs. West and Zampella, called Activision's charges "false and
outrageous" in a statement Friday.
Analysts say Activision faces little risk in the near term. The next "Call of Duty" game slated for release later
this year is being developed by another studio and not is using the "Modern Warfare" brand.
Over the longer term, the company could be challenged if Respawn develops a similar combat-shooter game
that takes share from the "Call of Duty" fan base.
"Activision faces two risks. One is that they don't have these guys anymore, and two is that they make a new
game somewhere else," said Michael Pachter, an analyst for Wedbush Morgan. "The risk is that 'Modern
Warfare' will face competition from its creators. They could split the market."
Coin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets said it will likely be two or three years before anyone sees the first
game from Respawn, given that the code will have to be developed from scratch. But he noted that Messrs.
West and Zampella have a compelling history. The two were key developers behind "Medal of Honor,"
another combat shooter owned by EA that ended up losing share to "Call of Duty."
Document WSJO000020100413e64d0010b
Activision on Thursday countersued former Infinity Ward executives Jason West and Vince Zampella, who
sued Activision for more than $36 million in March. Messrs. West and Zampella's lawsuit claimed they were
fired so Activision could avoid paying them royalties for their work.
Activision's filing seeks to show the firing was justified and claims the men met with a key gaming rival, which
it says was one of several violations of their employment contract.
Messrs. West and Zampella's attorney, Robert M. Schwartz, called the countersuit's claims "false and
outrageous."
The cases are filed in Santa Monica, Calif., where Activision is based. The company is majority-owned by
French conglomerate Vivendi SA.
Document J000000020100412e64c0001f
The move is the latest in an escalating dispute between Activision and the former heads of its Infinity Ward
studio, who left the company last month in a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related to "Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 2"--one of the video-game industry's top-selling titles last year and the latest for the
highly rated Activision franchise.
On Monday, Jason West and Vince Zampella announced the formation of a studio called Respawn
Entertainment. The studio will retain ownership of the games it creates, which will be published and
distributed by EA.
"Now that the team is in control of the games and brands, we can ensure that the fans are treated as well as
they deserve," West said in a statement.
Shares of EA closed up 4 cents to $19.40 and were up to $19.47 in recent late trading. Activision shares were
down to $12.45 in late trading from the Monday close of $12.50.
Activision fired West and Zampella from Infinity Ward on March 1. Two days later, the pair filed a lawsuit
against the game publisher, accusing the company of withholding "substantial royalty payments" they were
owned for "Modern Warfare 2."
In a counter-suit filed against West and Zampella on Friday, Activision accused the pair of delaying the
development of games and negotiating with EA while still employed with the company. It also charged the two
with intentionally preventing Activision from paying bonuses to other staffers at the studio in an effort to make
those employees "easier to poach" for the new studio.
"West's and Zampella's misdeeds formed an unlawful pattern and practice of conduct that was designed to
steal the IW studio, which is one of Activision's most valuable assets, at the expense of Activision and its
shareholders and for their own personal financial gain," the company claimed in its lawsuit.
Robert Schwartz, an attorney for West and Zampella, called Activision's charges "false and outrageous" in a
statement Friday.
Analysts say Activision faces little risk in the near term. The next "Call of Duty" game slated for release later
this year is being developed by another studio and not is using the "Modern Warfare" brand.
Over the longer term, the company could face some risk if Respawn develops a similar combat-shooter game
that takes share from the "Call of Duty" fan base.
"Activision faces two risks. One is that they don't have these guys anymore, and two is that they make a new
game somewhere else," said Michael Pachter, an analyst for Wedbush Morgan. "The risk is that 'Modern
Warfare' will face competition from its creators. They could split the market."
Coin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets said it will likely be two or three years before anyone sees the first
game from Respawn, given that the code will have to be developed from scratch.
But he noted that West and Zampella have a compelling history. The two were key developers behind "Medal
of Honor"--another combat shooter owned by EA that ended up losing share to "Call of Duty."
Todd Mitchell of Kaufman Brothers said he sees little risk to Activision from the dispute. He noted speculation
that Activision may try to take future "Call of Duty" releases to a multiplayer platform, similar to the company's
hit "World of Warcraft."
"Changing the format may require a different skill set. Executing that change is more important than driving
the 'Call of Duty' story line," he commented.
Mitchell also suggested there's little upside for EA in the new deal, since Respawn will own the rights to its
games and EA will simply get a publishing deal that typically brings in margins "in the mid- to high single
digits."
Wedbush's Pachter, who is also an attorney, predicted that Activision will likely have to make payments to
West and Zampella once the case works through the system, but the company is unlikely to lose its
ownership of the "Modern Warfare" series.
"The court is likely to split the difference and say that Activision owns the brand and the Infinity Ward guys will
get some money," he said, adding that "Activision will not pay it until a court orders them to."
Document DJ00000020100412e64c000oj
The move is the latest in an escalating dispute between Activision (ATVI, US) and the former heads of its
Infinity Ward studio, who left the company last month in a dispute over bonuses and ownership rights related
to "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" -- one of the video-game industry's top-selling titles last year and the
latest for the highly rated Activision franchise.
On Monday, Jason West and Vince Zampella announced the formation of a new studio called Respawn
Entertainment. The studio will retain ownership of the games it creates, which will be published and
distributed by EA (ERTS, US)
"Now that the team is in control of the games and brands, we can ensure that the fans are treated as well as
they deserve," West said in a statement.
Shares of EA were trading up nearly 1% at $19.54 by Monday afternoon. Activision shares were relatively
flat.
Activision fired West and Zampella from Infinity Ward on March 1. Two days later, the pair filed a lawsuit
against the game publisher, accusing the company of withholding "substantial royalty payments" they were
owned for "Modern Warfare 2."
In a counter suit filed against West and Zampella on Friday, Activision accused the pair of delaying the
development of games and negotiating with EA while still employed with the company. It also charged the two
with intentionally preventing Activision from paying bonuses to other staffers at the studio in an effort to make
those employees "easier to poach" for the new studio.
"West and Zampella's misdeeds formed an unlawful pattern and practice of conduct that was designed to
steal the IW studio, which is one of Activision's most valuable assets, at the expense of Activision and its
shareholders and for their own personal financial gain," the company claimed in its lawsuit.
Robert Schwartz, an attorney for West and Zampella, called Activision's charges "false and outrageous" in a
statement Friday.
Risk to Activision?
Analysts say Activision faces little risk in the near term. The next "Call of Duty" game slated for release later
this year is being developed by another studio and not is using the "Modern Warfare" brand.
Over the longer term, the company could face some risk if Respawn develops a similar combat-shooter game
that takes share from the "Call of Duty" fan base.
"Activision faces two risks. One is that they don't have these guys anymore, and two is that that they make a
new game somewhere else," said Michael Pachter, an analyst for Wedbush Morgan. "The risk is that 'Modern
Warfare' will face competition from its creators. They could split the market."
Coin Sebastian of Lazard Capital Markets said it will likely be two or three years before anyone sees the first
game from Respawn, given that the code will have to be developed from scratch.
Page 140 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
But he noted that West and Zampella have a compelling history. The two were key developers behind "Medal
of Honor" -- another combat shooter owned by EA that ended up losing share to 'Call of Duty."
"Activision needs to make sure that 'Call of Duty' doesn't fall into the same curse that 'Medal of Honor' did,"
Sebastian added. "We won't really know until the holidays of 2011," when the next game under the "Modern
Warfare" brand is expected.
Todd Mitchell of Kaufman Brothers said he sees little risk to Activision from the dispute. He noted speculation
that Activision may try to take future "Call of Duty" releases to a multiplayer platform, similar to the company's
hit "World of Warcraft."
"Changing the format may require a different skill set. Executing that change is more important than driving
the 'Call of Duty' story line," he commented.
Mitchell also suggested there's little upside for EA in the new deal, since Respawn will own the rights to its
games and EA will simply get a publishing deal that typically brings in margins "in the mid- to high single
digits."
Wedbush's Pachter, who is also an attorney, predicted that Activision will likely have to make payments to
West and Zampella once the case works through the system, but the company is unlikely to lose its
ownership of the "Modern Warfare" series.
"The court is likely to split the difference and say that Activision owns the brand and the Infinity Ward guys will
get some money," he said, adding that "Activision will not pay it until a court orders them to."
The developers of “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare” franchise set up their own studio under a publishing deal
with arch-rival Electronic Arts.
Document MRKWC00020100412e64c003xp
By Andrew Morse
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) filed a countersuit against two former
executives responsible for its smash-hit "Call of Duty" franchise, the latest chapter in a legal battle with plot
twists reminiscent of some of the videogames made by the company.
Activision, Santa Monica, Calif., claims Jason West and Vincent Zampella violated their employment
contracts by stalling development of games in order to get more money, hiring talent agents and negotiating
with its principal competitor, according to a 22-page lawsuit filed Thursday.
West and Zampella also prevented Activision from awarding bonuses to members of their team, a tactic
Activision alleges was designed to make the others more receptive to employment offers after the pair
established a new company.
"West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving
schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain," the lawsuit reads. The
lawsuit says those actions "threatened both the future of the 'Call of Duty' franchise and the future of
Activision's IW studio," referring to the Infinity Ward unit led by West and Zampella.
Activision's action follows a lawsuit filed last month by West and Zampella, who claimed their employment
had been prematurely terminated so the videogame giant could avoid payments to the pair for their work on
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." The pair are seeking compensation for their termination.
Robert Schwartz, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP representing West and Zampella, called Activision's
claims "outrageous."
"None of this changes the fact that Jason and Vince would still be at Infinity Ward developing new games
except that Activision kicked them out," Schwartz said in an emailed statement. "This is just an Activision
tactic to avoid paying Jason and Vince and everyone else at Infinity Ward the millions of dollars they all
earned and that Activision owes them."
Schwartz also suggested that West and Zampella were working on a new project and "plan to have an
announcement very soon."
"Modern Warfare 2," a combat game in which players control soldiers, is one of the biggest-selling
videogames in the history of the industry. In its first five days in stores, the game grossed roughly a half billion
dollars, outpacing some of Hollywood's biggest blockbuster films.
In the lawsuit, Activision claims West and Zampella surreptitiously hired agents and attorneys to negotiate
with other parties even though the pair had "years left on their exclusive employment contracts with
Activision."
The lawsuit also says the pair embarked on "a secret trip by private jet" to northern California to meet with
senior executives at Activision's closest competitor. The lawsuit doesn't name the competitor, but videogame
maker Electronics Arts Inc. (ERTS) is located just outside of San Francisco.
Activision shares closed at $12.48, up nearly 3% Friday and are unchanged in recent after-hours trading.
Document DJON000020100409e64900060
Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision claims Jason West and Vincent Zampella violated their employment
contracts by stalling development of games in order to get more money, hiring talent agents and negotiating
with its principal competitor, according to a 22-page lawsuit filed Thursday.
West and Zampella also prevented Activision from awarding bonuses to members of their team, a tactic
Activision alleges was designed to make them more receptive to employment offers after the pair established
a new company.
"West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving
schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain," the lawsuit reads. The
lawsuit says those actions "threatened both the future of the Call of Duty franchise and the future of
Activision's IW studio," referring to the Infinity Ward unit that West and Zampella led.
Activision's action follows a lawsuit filed last month by West and Zampella, who claimed their employment
had been prematurely terminated so the videogame giant could avoid payments to the pair for their work on
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." The pair are seeking compensation for their termination.
Attorneys representing West and Zampella weren't immediately available for comment.
"Modern Warfare 2," a combat game in which players control soldiers, is one of the biggest-selling
videogames in the history of the industry. In its first five days in stores, the game grossed roughly a half billion
dollars, outpacing some of Hollywood's biggest blockbuster films.
In the lawsuit, Activision claims West and Zampella surreptitiously hired agents and attorneys to negotiate
with other parties even though the pair had "years left on their exclusive employment contracts with
Activision."
The lawsuit also says the pair embarked on "a secret trip by private jet" to northern California to meet with
senior executives at Activision's closest competitor. The lawsuit doesn't name the competitor, but videogame
maker Electronics Arts Inc. (ERTS) is located just outside of San Francisco.
Document DJON000020100409e6490005m
By Andrew Morse
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Activision Blizzard Inc. (ATVI) filed a countersuit against two former
executives responsible for its smash-hit "Call of Duty" franchise, the latest chapter in a legal battle with plot
twists reminiscent of some of the videogames made by the company.
Activision, Santa Monica, Calif., claims Jason West and Vincent Zampella violated their employment
contracts by stalling development of games in order to get more money, hiring talent agents and negotiating
with its principal competitor, according to a 22-page lawsuit filed Thursday.
West and Zampella also prevented Activision from awarding bonuses to members of their team, a tactic
Activision alleges was designed to make the others more receptive to employment offers after the pair
established a new company.
"West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving
schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain," the lawsuit reads. The
lawsuit says those actions "threatened both the future of the 'Call of Duty' franchise and the future of
Activision's IW studio," referring to the Infinity Ward unit led by West and Zampella.
Activision's action follows a lawsuit filed last month by West and Zampella, who claimed their employment
had been prematurely terminated so the videogame giant could avoid payments to the pair for their work on
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." The pair are seeking compensation for their termination.
Robert Schwartz, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers LLP representing West and Zampella, called Activision's
claims "outrageous."
"None of this changes the fact that Jason and Vince would still be at Infinity Ward developing new games
except that Activision kicked them out," Schwartz said in an emailed statement. "This is just an Activision
tactic to avoid paying Jason and Vince and everyone else at Infinity Ward the millions of dollars they all
earned and that Activision owes them."
Schwartz also suggested that West and Zampella were working on a new project and "plan to have an
announcement very soon."
"Modern Warfare 2," a combat game in which players control soldiers, is one of the biggest-selling
videogames in the history of the industry. In its first five days in stores, the game grossed roughly a half billion
dollars, outpacing some of Hollywood's biggest blockbuster films.
In the lawsuit, Activision claims West and Zampella surreptitiously hired agents and attorneys to negotiate
with other parties even though the pair had "years left on their exclusive employment contracts with
Activision."
The lawsuit also says the pair embarked on "a secret trip by private jet" to northern California to meet with
senior executives at Activision's closest competitor. The lawsuit doesn't name the competitor, but videogame
maker Electronics Arts Inc. (ERTS) is located just outside of San Francisco.
Activision shares closed at $12.48, up nearly 3% Friday and are unchanged in recent after-hours trading.
Page 145 of 158 © 2023 Factiva, Inc. All rights reserved.
-By Andrew Morse, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-439-6402; andrew.morse@dowjones.com [ 04-09-10
1702ET ]
Document DJ00000020100409e649000qa
Santa Monica, Calif.-based Activision claims Jason West and Vincent Zampella violated their employment
contracts by stalling development of games in order to get more money, hiring talent agents and negotiating
with its principal competitor, according to a 22-page lawsuit filed Thursday.
West and Zampella also prevented Activision from awarding bonuses to members of their team, a tactic
Activision alleges was designed to make them more receptive to employment offers after the pair established
a new company.
"West and Zampella morphed from valued, responsible executives into insubordinate and self-serving
schemers who attempted to hijack Activision's assets for their own personal gain," the lawsuit reads. The
lawsuit says those actions "threatened both the future of the Call of Duty franchise and the future of
Activision's IW studio," referring to the Infinity Ward unit that West and Zampella led.
Activision's action follows a lawsuit filed last month by West and Zampella, who claimed their employment
had been prematurely terminated so the videogame giant could avoid payments to the pair for their work on
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2." The pair are seeking compensation for their termination.
Attorneys representing West and Zampella weren't immediately available for comment.
"Modern Warfare 2," a combat game in which players control soldiers, is one of the biggest-selling
videogames in the history of the industry. In its first five days in stores, the game grossed roughly a half billion
dollars, outpacing some of Hollywood's biggest blockbuster films.
In the lawsuit, Activision claims West and Zampella surreptitiously hired agents and attorneys to negotiate
with other parties even though the pair had "years left on their exclusive employment contracts with
Activision."
The lawsuit also says the pair embarked on "a secret trip by private jet" to northern California to meet with
senior executives at Activision's closest competitor. The lawsuit doesn't name the competitor, but videogame
maker Electronics Arts Inc. (ERTS) is located just outside of San Francisco.
Document DJ00000020100409e649000j1
That's because of little-known manufacturer agreements that require retailers to refrain from discounting,
especially in any advertising. If retailers don't comply, manufacturers sometimes stop subsidizing ads or cut
off supplies altogether.
This season's products affected by pricing agreements include Guitar Hero World Tour Band Kit from
Activision Blizzard Inc., documents show. The video musical game has been priced at $189 at Best Buy Inc.,
Circuit City Corp. and Toys "R" Us Inc. since its October release. A new rival product, Electronic Arts Inc.'s
Rock Band 2 Special Edition, also has been retailing for that price at all three outlets.
"Activision Publishing Inc. would like to inform you of its Minimum Advertised ('MAP') program," the game
maker wrote to retailers in a letter dated Sept. 24. The letter, which says it won't subsidize any
advertisements that violate the policy, goes on to list 19 products and their minimum prices, including Guitar
Hero and the James Bond: Quantum of Solace videogame.
Similarly, the minimum-advertised price for Rock Band is $189, according to a list outlining pricing policies for
dozens of videogames that was sent to retailers by a major distributor earlier this month. A spokesman for
Electronic Arts declined to comment.
The pricing terms are outlined in letters given to retailers and distributors, some of which were obtained by
The Wall Street Journal.
Minimum-price agreements between manufacturers and retailers were once deemed automatically
anticompetitive and thus illegal under a 1911 Supreme Court ruling. Pricing agreements related to advertising
-- which critics say are used to discourage any discounting at all -- also have run into legal trouble in the past
when federal officials found they resulted in higher prices for consumers.
But in a controversial decision last year, the Supreme Court opened the door for manufacturers to set
minimum prices as a means to enhance a brand's image and for retailers to make enough profit on their
merchandise to provide better customer service. The 5-4 ruling reversed a 96-year-old precedent and said
cases should now be considered on a case-by-case basis, weighing the impact of pricing policies against
free-market principles.
In the wake of the decision, many manufacturers have instituted pricing minimums for advertising or sales.
Opponents of the ruling, including eBay Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corp., are hoping the decision will be
reversed by legislation expected to be debated in Congress next year. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Herb Kohl (D.,
Wis.), argues that minimum-pricing agreements violate the Sherman Act, the law that prohibits price fixing
and bid rigging.
"However you want to dress up these policies with fancy legal language, these policies are obviously in the
interest of business and not the consumer," says Jacob Weiss, founder of StopPriceFixing.org, a Web site
that aims to end minimum pricing policies by educating consumers about them.
Many traditional retailers favor minimum-pricing agreements because they help put a stop to what the stores
view as unfair competition from online sellers, which can charge less because they have lower overhead
costs.
Markups are the difference in percentage between the wholesale price a retailer pays to a manufacturer and
the retail price charged to consumers. Markup percentages among toy mass merchants are generally in the
high 30s to low 40s, analysts say.
Noticing a spike in interest in minimum-pricing policies by companies since the Supreme Court ruling, Mr.
McMahon says that he has started another business -- MAPtrackers.com -- that helps manufacturers keep
track of what retailers are charging for their products.
Mr. McMahon agrees consumers "will think it odd when they go on the Internet and find all the products at
exactly the same price." But he adds, "Minimum-pricing policies level the playing field" by keeping every
retailer's markups the same.
On Dec. 1, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Sony Corp.'s U.S. unit, sent out a notice to its regional
and district managers listing minimum-advertised prices for nearly two dozen products, according to a copy of
the document. The prices include $499 for the PlayStation 3 with 80 gigabytes of memory and $49 for a
wireless keypad, a PS3 accessory.
While many companies don't care what prices retailers advertise for older products, Sony lists an MAP of
$129 for the PlayStation 2, which was first released eight years ago. The notice cites two items -- the PS2
Singstar Bundle and the PS2 LEGO Batman Bundle -- that the company states aren't subject to its MAP
policy.
The document doesn't mention what would happen if retailers don't comply. A review this week of online
stores that sell Sony videogame products found that nearly all of them were advertising and charging the
minimum prices.
"Unfortunately, this is not something we can speak to at this time," says a spokeswoman for Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc., Sony Corp.'s videogames unit in Foster City, Calif.
Manufacturers often don't like retailers to discuss their pricing agreements publicly. A 2008 MAP agreement
from electronic learning-aids manufacturer LeapFrog Enterprises Inc. states, "This policy is considered
confidential and should be respected as such relative to conversations with LeapFrog competitors."
On the LeapFrog list are seven items, including its TAG Reading System with a MAP of $49.99; Clickstart
with a $59.99 MAP; Leapster 2 at $69.99; and Didj at $89.99. "No advertising or promotional funding of any
kind will be paid to a retailer in violation of this M.A.P. policy from the date of infraction through the balance of
2008," the document states. Company officials weren't available for comment, a LeapFrog spokeswoman
says.
Some manufacturers threaten to cut off supplies to retailers that charge below minimum prices outlined in
agreements. One example is Alex Inc., in Northvale, N.J., which makes play houses and arts-and-crafts
supplies, among other products.
In a July 22 notice to retailers -- both online and with stores -- a sales manager from Alex wrote that prices
shouldn't be reduced by more than 10% of the suggested retail price listed on the manufacturer's Web site.
To maintain the company's "integrity and high standards of manufacturing, we must maintain the price
integrity of our products," the letter said.
The letter noted that while most of its retailers respected the policy, "a few" Internet sellers hadn't.
"Alex will vigorously monitor all the channels of distribution of our products, identify those who do not stay
within our guidelines and sever our relationship with those who elect to deviate from the above stated policy,"
the letter states.
The president of the company, Rick Amdur, said he has not punished any of the "half-dozen or so" violators
this year. But starting next year, he plans to cut off supplies to retailers that don't abide by the agreement.
The policy, he adds, aims to protect distributors "we've been dealing with for 20-plus years."
Document J000000020081224e4co0000m
After going after one guitar-playing video game, Gibson Guitar Corp. has filed a federal patent-infringement
lawsuit against another by suing the creator and publisher of "Rock Band."
Gibson sued Viacom Inc. (VIA) units Harmonix Music Systems and MTV Networks, and Electronic Arts Inc.
(ERTS) in Tennessee days after suing six retailers - including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) - that sell the
blockbuster Activision Inc. (ATVI) game "Guitar Hero."
Harmonix developed "Guitar Hero" but broke away from the brand after the game's publisher and rights
owner was acquired by Activision. Viacom's MTV then bought Harmonix, seeing in the deal a way to blend its
legacy in the music industry with video games, a form of entertainment also enjoyed by its young viewers.
Earlier this month, Activision filed a federal lawsuit asking that a Gibson patent be declared invalid and that
the court rule that "Guitar Hero" isn't infringing on any patent. Gibson alleges "Guitar Hero" too closely
matches a musical virtual-reality patent from 1999.
Activision filed its federal suit after Gibson allegedly notified Activision that it believed the "Guitar Hero"
software and its guitar-shaped controller were covered by Gibson's patent. Gibson asked that Activision
obtain a license from the instrument maker under the patent or stop sales of the game, according to the
lawsuit. Activision contends it already licenses Gibson's trademark rights in association with the controller.
In January, Activision said its "Guitar Hero" franchise surpassed $1 billion in North American sales in 26
months.
"This lawsuit is completely without merit and we intend to defend it vigorously. Gibson's patent, filed nearly 10
years ago, required a 3D display, a real musical instrument and a recording of a concert," said a Harmonix
spokeswoman in an e-mailed statment. "Rock Band and Guitar Hero are completely different: among other
things they are games, require no headset and use a controller only shaped like a real instrument. It is
unfortunate that Gibson unfairly desires to share in the tremendous success enjoyed by the developers of
Rock Band and Guitar Hero."
Representatives from MTV and Electronic Arts weren't available for comment.
Document DJ00000020080321e43l000ef
After going after one guitar-playing video game, Gibson Guitar Corp. has filed a federal patent-infringement
lawsuit against another by suing the creator and publisher of "Rock Band."
Gibson sued Viacom Inc. (VIA) units Harmonix Music Systems and MTV Networks, and Electronic Arts Inc.
(ERTS) in Tennessee days after suing six retailers - including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) - that sell the
blockbuster Activision Inc. (ATVI) game "Guitar Hero."
Harmonix developed "Guitar Hero" but broke away from the brand after the game's publisher and rights
owner was acquired by Activision. Viacom's MTV then bought Harmonix, seeing in the deal a way to blend its
legacy in the music industry with video games, a form of entertainment also enjoyed by its young viewers.
Earlier this month, Activision filed a federal lawsuit asking that a Gibson patent be declared invalid and that
the court rule that "Guitar Hero" isn't infringing on any patent. Gibson alleges "Guitar Hero" too closely
matches a musical virtual-reality patent from 1999.
Activision filed its federal suit after Gibson allegedly notified Activision that it believed the "Guitar Hero"
software and its guitar-shaped controller were covered by Gibson's patent. Gibson asked that Activision
obtain a license from the instrument maker under the patent or stop sales of the game, according to the
lawsuit. Activision contends it already licenses Gibson's trademark rights in association with the controller.
In January, Activision said its "Guitar Hero" franchise surpassed $1 billion in North American sales in 26
months.
Representatives from Harmonix, MTV and Electronic Arts weren't immediately available for comment.
Document DJ00000020080321e43l00098
Gibson Guitar Corp. said it filed a patent infringement lawsuit in federal court in Tennessee against Harmonix
Music Sytems Inc., Viacom Inc.'s (VIAB) MTV Networks and Electronic Arts Inc. (ERTS) related to the "Guitar
Hero" game.
Earlier this week, Gibson sued Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and five other major retailers that sell the
Activision Inc. (ATVI) game.
Earlier this month, Activision filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles, asking the court to declare a
Gibson patent invalid and rule that "Guitar Hero" doesn't infringe on Gibson's patent.
Gibson alleges "Guitar Hero" too closely matches a musical virtual-reality patent from 1999.
Representatives from Harmonix, MTV and Electronic Arts weren't immediately available for comment.
Document DJ00000020080321e43l0008f
A federal lawsuit filed Monday claims Wal-Mart, Target Corp. (TGT), Kmart, Amazon.com Inc., GameStop
Corp. (GME) and Toys "R" Us should stop selling the game.
Gibson has already tried to stop video game publisher Activision from selling all versions of the game,
claiming it too closely matches a musical virtual-reality patent from 1999.
The guitar company said in a released statement that it took "this action reluctantly, but is required to protect
its intellectual property."
Earlier this month, Activision filed suit in California asking a federal judge to declare the game does not
violate the patent.
Spokeswomen for Wal-Mart and Amazon said the companies do not comment on pending litigation. Officials
with the four other retailers did not immediately return calls seeking comment.
Santa Monica, Calif.,-based Activision contends Gibson's patent assertions have no merit. Gibson has said it
wants Activision to stop selling "Guitar Hero" until it gets a license under the patent.
"Our 'Guitar Hero' retailing partners have done nothing wrong," Activision said in released statement. "We will
confront this and any other efforts by Gibson to wrongfully interfere with Activision's relationship with its
customers and its consumers."
Gibson attorneys sent Activision a letter in January accusing it of violating a patent titled "System and Method
for Generating and Controlling a Simulated Musical Concert Experience," according to a lawsuit filed by
Activision.
A copy of the patent is included in Gibson's lawsuit and dated Nov. 23, 1999. It describes a device that lets a
user "simulate participation in a concert by playing a musical instrument and wearing a head-mounted 3-D
display that includes stereo speakers."
The device also includes playback of audio and video of a prerecorded concert and a separate track of audio
from the user's instrument.
"Guitar Hero" users perform songs using a stringless, plastic guitar that plugs into a game console. A TV
connected to the gaming console displays animated musicians playing along and graphics that guide users'
play.
In Gibson's lawsuit, it states the company "has been damaged and will continue to be damaged by the
aforesaid infringement unless defendants are enjoined, preliminarily and permanently, from selling and
offering for sale infringing products ..."
Founded in 1894 in Kalamazoo, Mich., and headquartered in Nashville since 1984, Gibson Guitar Corp. has
brands including Dobro, Maestro, Kramer, Steinberger, Tobias, Echoplex and Wurlitzer.
The various "Guitar Hero" titles have helped boost Activision's sales, with the company reporting last month a
90% increase in profit for the third quarter ended Dec. 31 - in part due to strong sales of "Guitar Hero III:
Legends of Rock." [ 03-20-08 1927ET ]
Document DJ00000020080320e43k000tw
Gibson Guitar Corp. filed a lawsuit against various retailers that are selling the "Guitar Hero" video game
made by Activision Inc. (ATVI).
Gibson alleges that the video game infringes on one of its U.S. patents and recently said it will "vigorously
defend its rights in a lawsuit brought by Activision.
The Nashville musical instrument maker said it tried to settle the issue by negotiating with Activision directly,
but claims that Activision initiated litigation without notice to Gibson.
Last Thursday, Activision filed a suit against Gibson saying its Guitar Hero video game doesn't infringe on a
Gibson patent for a "system and method for generating and controlling a simulated musical concert
experience."
Activision's lawsuit alleges that Gibson notified Activision in January that it believed the Guitar Hero software
and its guitar-shaped controller were covered by Gibson's patent.
Activision previously said it already licenses Gibson's trademark rights for the Guitar Hero Les Paul
Controller.
Document DJ00000020080320e43k000l5
The situation boiled over earlier this week when Harmonix - the creator of the "Guitar Hero" franchise, now a
unit of Viacom's MTV Networks - filed and, then quickly withdrew, a $14.5 million lawsuit against Activision
claiming unpaid royalties from the latest version of the game.
While Harmonix didn't create the newest "Guitar Hero" installment, it alleged in the suit, filed in California
Superior Court, that Activision is shortchanging them on the use of legacy intellectual property still contained
in the game.
Harmonix also complained that it is not seeing any money it is entitled to from merchandising, music
downloads, in-game advertising and brand licensing deals. The company further alleged that it believes it will
be underpaid by "tens of millions of dollars per year" as Activision develops further spinoffs.
"Guitar Hero III" has sold 6.5 million units since its release last fall, according to NPD. Harmonix already
collects royalties from the first two versions of the game, which has developed into a $1 billion franchise.
Activision acquired control of "Guitar Hero" in 2006 when it purchased former Harmonix publisher Red
Octane.
The suit, first reported by Variety, was pulled back within 24 hours, amid cooler heads and vows from both
companies to negotiate further to reach an amicable settlement.
However, the situation has laid bare the lingering tensions that exist between Activision and Viacom as the
bid for dominance in music-simulation video games.
Harmonix, acquired by Viacom in 2006, last fall introduced a new "Guitar Hero" rival called "Rock Band"
which has sold over 1 million copies since its release. Revenue associated with "Rock Band" and "Guitar
Hero" fueled a 72 percent jump in Viacom's fourth-quarter ancillary revenue.
Activision executives maintain Harmonix's complaint is "without merit." Viacom and MTV Networks execs
declined comment.
Sources familiar with the situation said that Activision believes Harmonix is being appropriately compensated.
Activision is also being sued by guitar maker Gibson over alleged patent infringement related to "Guitar
Hero."
----
Pulling strings
* "Guitar Hero III" has sold 6.5 million units since its debut.
* "Rock Band" has sold 1.5 million copies over the same time period.
"Guitar Hero."
Document NYPO000020080313e43d0001m
In a press release, the Nashville, Tenn., musical instrument maker said it has been involved with ongoing
discussions with Activision about the videogame infringing Gibson's patent for a "system and method for
generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience."
"Gibson has rights to request a license of Activision, which is currently using its patent as it relates to the
guitar controllers," Gibson said. "In addition, the company has encouraged Activision to enter into discussions
in an effort to secure a conclusion to the matter. Instead, Activision chose to release a public statement to
media and to file a lawsuit. Gibson Guitar stands behind its claim in this matter."
Activision, a Santa Monica, Calif., videogame maker, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles on Tuesday, asking the court to declare that "Guitar Hero" doesn't infringe on Gibson's patent and
the patent is invalid.
Vivendi SA (12777.FR) agreed last year to merge its games division with Activision in a deal valued at $18.9
billion. The new entity will be named Activision Blizzard, with Vivendi owning a 68% stake.
Document DJ00000020080313e43d000fp
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, asks the court to declare the video game
doesn't infringe on the Nashville, Tenn., musical instrument maker's patent for a "system and method for
generating and controlling a simulated musical concert experience" and that Gibson's patent is invalid.
"Despite being aware of the Guitar Hero game for many years, Gibson has encouraged Activision to
manufacture and sell devices it now alleges infringe" the patent, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit alleges that Gibson notified Activision in January that it believed the "Guitar Hero" software and
its guitar-shaped controller were covered by Gibson's patent. Gibson asked that Activision obtain a license
from the instrument maker under the patent or stop sales of the game, according to the lawsuit.
"By continuing to sell any version of the Guitar Hero game software and/or instrument controllers for use with
the Guitar Hero game software - packaged or sold standalone - Activision is taking advantage of Gibson's
patented technology without properly compensating Gibson," said F. Leslie Bessenger III, Gibson's lawyer, in
a letter attached to the lawsuit. "Gibson respects the intellectual property of others and expects others to
respect its intellectual property as well."
Activision already licenses Gibson's trademark rights in association with the Guitar Hero Les Paul controller,
according to the letter.
The Santa Monica, Calif., video game maker ultimately decided it didn't want or need a license under
Gibson's patent and informed Gibson in a letter Monday that it did not infringe on the patent, according to the
lawsuit.
"Gibson is a good partner and we have a great deal of respect for them," said George Rose, Activision's
general counsel, in a statement. "We disagree with the applicability of their patent and would like a legal
determination on this."
In January, Activision said its "Guitar Hero" franchise surpassed $1 billion in North American sales in 26
months.
A Gibson spokeswoman was out of the country Wednesday and didn't immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.
Vivendi SA (12777.FR) agreed last year to merge its games division with Activision in a deal valued at $18.9
billion. The new entity will be named Activision Blizzard, with Vivendi owning a 68% stake.
Document DJ00000020080312e43c000qn
The two sides had been in talks to settle their issues and thus avoid litigation in the days before the suit was
filed in a Los Angeles County Superior Court.
"By withdrawing the suit, we can continue discussions with Viacom about claims each party may have,"
Activision said in a statement.
A Viacom spokesman had no comment when asked whether, as has been suggested, the suit was
mistakenly filed, or was to serve as a tactical move to help Viacom get more leverage with negotiations.
The withdrawn suit alleged Harmonix is entitled to a higher royalty rate on the sale of "Guitar Hero," one of
the gaming industry's bigger recent hits.
Activision shares shed 1.1% to $26.82 Wednesday, and were down fractionally after-hours. Viacom closed up
4 cents to $38.49, and was unchanged after hours.
-By Ben Charny, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-765-8230; ben.charny@dowjones.com [ 03-12-08 1738ET ]
Document DJ00000020080312e43c000pl