Tag: lawsuit

My Appeal of a Tax Sale in Pennsylvania #law #lawyer #attorney #tax #taking #constitution #Pennsylvania

Frylock1 Comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it (Twitter/X), boost it (Mastodon), repost it (MeWe), or repost it (BlueSky).

As some of you may know or remember, my grandparents’ home was taken in a tax sale. I didn’t care, but my cousin asked me to fight back. I said I’d try, but the deeper I dove into the issues, the more I realized the injustice occurring across the country. Long story short, 1) counties are auctioning off homes for a fraction of their value to recoup relatively small tax bills (in my case, at least a 94% theft of value), and 2) doing so to people who are particularly vulnerable and therefore cannot fight back (e.g., dementia, financial hardship, logistical issues). Despite SCOTUS unanimously forbidding the practice in Tyler v. Hennepin County, it continues because, well, the victims can’t fight back, so there are no consequences for continuing the practice. Thus, the legislature, counties, and even courts allow the unlawful scheme to continue.


Facing local, small-town bias, I lost in the trial court without any stated argument other than, “Those SCOTUS cases aren’t relevant.” Her honor also claimed I was fighting the battle in the wrong type of case, and to justify that, carefully parsed out the relevant part of the statute that says otherwise. I suspect that, as a trial court judge, she simply doesn’t want to overrule a decades-old statutory scheme based on Federal Constitutional grounds, but that’s reversible error. I don’t think either her Honor or opposing counsel expected the appeal. (I don’t think opposing counsel even expected my Answer to his Complaint.)

Now I’m working on my appeal. It’s been a grind. I’m learning litigation on the fly, and certainly screwing up, but so far it hasn’t bit me in the ass yet. The bad news is that it may. I might get my appeal thrown out on a technicality I didn’t anticipate. The good news is that, if it goes through, there’s a good chance that SCOTUS will decide Pung v. Isabella County (MI) by the time my reply brief is due. You see, the way the states have continued to justify this is by splitting hairs on the facts. That’s going to be exceptionally hard for Pennsylvania to do once Pung is decided. It’s even closer to the facts of my case, and I’d bet serious money that SCOTUS will not only rule unanimously in my favor, but also do so with a biting takedown of the unlawful practices of the counties and the dereliction of duty committed by the legislatures and judges. (Note: The Michigan Supreme Court took the taxpayers’ side, but the counties are still doing this because, again, no one fights back.)

Either way, this practice will be unquestionably forbidden going forward, so you won’t lose your potential future case even if I do on a technicality. Pung did the work to make sure of that.

And in case you’re wondering, none of the non-profits are willing to help. I asked all of them, but unless it’s a SCOTUS case, they aren’t interested. Only one even responded, asked for the Order I was appealing, then never replied again. The arguments I made were in part copied from their amicus brief in Tyler, so I know were on the same page. It’s just not yet worth their trouble.

I’ve also tried to get Pennsylvania media to interview me with no luck. If anyone has any media contacts up there, I’d appreciate you putting my case in their ear.

Follow me on Twitter/X @gsllc
Follow me on Mastadon chirp.enworld.org/@gsllc
Follow me on MeWe robertbodine.52
Follow me on Blue Sky @robbodine

“Stolen Game”?!?! Upper Deck Sues Ravensburger and Miller #UpperDeck #Ravensburger #TCG #game #gaming #law #iplaw #lawsuit @UpperDeckEnt @RavensburgerNA

FrylockLeave a comment

If you enjoy this post, please retweet it and/or boost it.

Upper Deck (“UD”) sued a former employee, Ryan Miller (“Miller”) and a competitor, Ravensburger North America, Inc. (“Ravensburger”) over a “stolen game.” If you’ve ever read this blog, you know that game rules can’t be copyrighted. They can be patented, so UD’s claim that their game was “stolen” may prove correct. I’m going to try to answer the questions that people have addressed to me.

Facts

Briefly, UD employs Miller to design a trading card game (“TCG”). Miller sings an employment contract that contains a nondisclosure provision. Miller leaves UD, joins Ravensburger, and designs a similar game there. UD’s game hasn’t been released, but Ravensburger has publicly shared their ruleset for playtesting at conventions and has sold packs of cards for it (or so the complaint alleges).

I’m just going to deal with the intellectual property law issues because the question that everyone seems to be asking (me) is one related to IP: Is this a valid basis complaint in the first place? That’s a question I can answer without knowing both sides of the story. That is, I can’t say who’s right and wrong, but I can opine as to whether or not the philosophical basis of the suit is valid.

Trade Secrets: The Forgotten IP

Part of this case falls under trade secret law, which I address in this post covering all forms of IP. The defendant’s employment contract had a non-disclosure/secrecy provision, and that’s the basis of the suit. Game mechanics can be protected under trade secret law, which basically says, “Don’t tell anyone what we’re doing,” or “Don’t tell anyone how we do what we do.” This is very much unlike copyrights because copyrights often have little to no value unless they’re made publicly available. Trade secrets are valuable because they’re kept secret. One of the most valuable trade secrets in the world is the formula for Coca-Cola. If it were patented, it would be published, and thus have at most 17 years of protection. Instead, they keep it secret, so it has value for as long as it remains so. That’s an important point: Once a trade secret is made public, it can no longer be a trade secret. You can sue someone for publishing it, but you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Once it’s out there, it’s no longer protectable. Ever.

So, the defendant in this case was (allegedly) bound by contract not to share the mechanics until after they were released by UD. It’s reasonable to infer that Miller must have shared those trade secrets when designing a game that was remarkably similar to what he did with UD. Miller and Ravensburger could argue that the similarities are ones shared by all card games, and so none of them are trade secrets. The complaint details the game mechanics, but I haven’t really read through them, so I can’t evaluate that defense.

Of course, even if those mechanics are identical to other games, this may not get the defendants off the hook. Games have several elements, so the difference between most games is essentially which specific combination of known elements you’ve chosen for your game. That combination may be unique. Even if not patentable, it may be marketable, and thus have value. If, for the reasons stated above, the sharing of that combination hurt UD’s market for the game, there’s still a lawsuit to be had.

You might ask, “How would it hurt the market?” Well, think about it. Games have limited shelf lives. Their first push in the market is often where they make their most money. If someone learns of your game system and publishes a quick-and-dirty version of it first, they’ll grab most, if not all, the market before your more well-designed version even gets there. Maybe you’ll enjoy a secondary push in a few years, but you’ll still have lost that first market. Also, the first game company to get their game to market can always accuse the other company of plagiarism. As for patent infringement, depending on the timing, a game company could actually lose their ability to patent a mechanic because the mechanic was published long before the application was filed. There are time limits on these things, so it’s best to keep your designs secret.

Patents

Of course, as I mentioned above, UD filed for a patent in April, 2023. I have no opinion as to whether that will be granted. Even after I eventually read through the game mechanics, there’s a lot of “prior art” (i.e., existing games) I’d have to analyze to form an opinion, and I’m not going to do that. I don’t play TCGs. Even if I did form an opinion, patent law is a tricky thing. There are very few obviously good or bad patents. My opinion wouldn’t mean squat; we’d have to wait for a judge’s decision, and then an appellate court’s opinion before we get a real answer. Either way, claiming that the game was stolen is at best premature. That’s not to say I don’t understand why UD is saying it. I’m simply acknowledging the basis for your confusion by that claim.

There’s far more to consider here than I could possibly address. I lack information and the desire to dig any deeper at the moment. The takeaway here, though, is that game mechanics can absolutely be protected by trade secret until they’re published. If the trade secrets are deemed valid, their publication by Miller and Ravensburger would constitute a legitimate cause of action for UD. We’ll just have to wait and see whether it sticks.

I’ll continue to go through the complaint and provide more information as I learn it (if it’s interesting). For now, back to work I go.

Follow me on Twitter @gsllc
Follow me on Mastodon @gsllc
Follow Upper Deck Entertainment @UpperDeckEnt
Follow Ravensburger North America @RavensburgerNA