Readers can focus on history and concepts while reading the main text, allowing them to bring understandings derived there to bear on the cases found in this analytic text. The approach offers relief from information overload and allows time and space to «shift gears» between concepts and cases. To aid understanding and learning, the authors provide focused interpretations and analysis throughout.
The coverage allows these books to serve as an excellent resource for undergraduates studying interactive media, as well as being a primer for first year IP law students, a handbook for entrepreneurs, a guidebook for general lawyers to assist in referrals, and an interesting read for those simply curious about the field.
The books are supplemented by freeforafee.com, a blog providing textual updates, online links to bibliographic materials, and extensive resource aggregation. Learning objectives for each chapter and a glossary of key terms are provided within the texts.
Chapter Ten: Intellectual Property Law in Virtual Worlds and Games Cases
| 129 →
Intellectual Property Law in Virtual Worlds and Games Cases
Cases Involving Virtual Worlds and Games
Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. and Philip Rosedale, No. 06–4925, USDC (E.D. Pa., May 30, 2007).
Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc. and Philip Rosedale began as a dispute over virtual land, virtual property, and virtual value between Second Life (SL) proprietors Linden Lab (LL), and Bragg, a resident-entrepreneur. The case developed into a dispute about that property and over Linden Lab’s terms of service (ToS) for SL.
Bragg v. Linden began when LL excluded Mr. Bragg from SL and confiscated his virtual holdings for an alleged violation of the ToS. Mr. Bragg was accused of leveraging land sale auctions in SL to his advantage. His virtual property was taken/revoked, at an estimated value of about $5,000 US.1 Bragg used the ToS to claim that (a) the ToS specified/assured that the virtual property was his, that (b) Linden Lab’s in-world adjudication procedures were inadequate, such that (c) his virtual property was seized without due process.
Bragg filed the case in a Pennsylvania state court in October 2006, but the case was moved to federal court in November 2006 and was heard by Judge Eduardo Robreno. In May 2007, Robreno ruled in favor of Bragg, and in doing so, virtually invalidated the ToS as legally binding, as well as agreeing that the internal appeal ← 129 | 130...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.