Summary of the Facts

X Company, which produces video games machines, developed and marketed the video game Dig-Dug. Nonparties A Company and B Company took the object program fixed in the ROM (Read Only Memory) installed in the printed circuit base (PCB) of Dig-Dug, placed it in a different Rom and, using a different title and making a number of alterations, produced 318 video game machines for the video game Zig-Zag, which is substantially identical to Dig-Dug. Y Company purchased these machines and began to market them.

X Company has filed a suit against Y Company requesting either prohibition of the lease or transfer of the Zig-Zag PCB or abandonment thereof and damages. Y Company did not appear for oral argument, nor did it file any preliminary documents.

The court granted all of X Company's claims.

Gist

X Company made the following recitations about the origin of its claim.

The source program for Dig-Dug, "divides and analyzes the various necessary problems encountered in manifesting the extremely high quality sound effects, music, images, and story of Dig-Dug, finds a solution to these problems, and then, based on a flow chart prepared in accordance with the discovered solution, uses the assembly language that makes it possible to transmit this specialized knowledge to third parties to express a combination of the various commands and other information available. The proper method for combining the commands with the discovered solution requires theoretical consideration by a programmer and, because the final program contains individual differences depending on who the programmer was, each program can be considered the creative expression of the original scientific ideas of the individual programmer. Consequently, this above-mentioned source program is a copyrighted work protected by the Copyright Law and the object program in this case can be considered a copy of it in violation of the Copyright Law.

As stated above, not only can Dig-Dug be considered a copyrighted movie, but its object program is also a copyrightable work entitled to protection under the Copyright Law.

"The only difference between Dig-Dug and the product being sold by Y Company are the name of the game: Zig-Zag instead of Dig-Dug, the names of the monsters used: Fooger and Bowbow instead of Pooka and Fyger, and the fact that X Company's brand mark has been removed. The content of the game, the enabling function, the degree of relative difficulty, and the sound effects are all exactly the same. Therefore it can be said that the product sold by Y Company is a copy of Dig-Dug with only slight alternations to one portion of the images fixed in the ROM and that its object program is also a copy, with only slight alterations to one portion, of the Dig-Dug object program."

Y Company did not appear for oral arguments, nor did it file an answer or any other preliminary documents. Accordingly, all if the facts alleged in the complaint are adjudged admitted and, in accordance with these facts, as recited above, the plaintiff's claim is substantiated and must be allowed.

(translation by Vicki L. Beyer)

Temple University Japan