![]() | Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 4, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jorahm, I think its wonderful that you are tackling this interesting case, but you seem to have misunderstood what was actually adjudicated here. Atari v. North American Philips did not reach a verdict and did not set any precedents as a matter of law. What happened was that Atari (and Midway) sued North American Philips for infringement and requested a preliminary injunction against selling the game while the case was adjudicated. The trial court held a hearing on the matter in which several witnesses testified and several exhibits were introduced into evidence before denying the motion based on its finding that the harm to NAP would be irreparable, and the likelihood of Atari winning on the merits was small. Atari appealed the ruling, and the 7th Circuit applied the substantial similarity test to conclude Atari was likely to prevail on the merits of the case and ordered the imposition of the temporary injunction pending trial. The case then went back to the trial court to proceed towards a final disposition. The case dragged on into 1984 and apparently settled, for a trial was never held and a verdict was never issued. There really was no point in NAP continuing to pursue the case by that point, as the opportunity to make any money on the game had long since passed. Several sources that did not understand judicial procedure mistakenly thought the pre-trial motion hearing was actually a trial, but it was not. Some rewrites will need to be done to accurately convey these events and their results. Indrian ( talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Moabdave ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I am reading this article now and spot checking some sources. I'll have a full review later. Dave ( talk) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
{od}GAC reviewer chiming in here. This is something that would need to be resolved without starting an edit war (as article stability is a criteria) before I could pass the GAC. However, I've read the article, and reading this, very valid, complaint, it so far appears to me that at worst only a couple of key words are in dispute, so this could be resolved with some discussion without affecting a GAC, provided everybody acts promptly, and in good faith. So again, my initial concerns, based only off an initial read and the comments both here and on talk are big concerns, but likely only affect 3-4 sentences in the article, the rest is pretty clear and easy to follow. Dave ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
1 - Well Written - Some issues found
2- Verifiable - Passed. I found issues but fixed them myself.
3-Broad in its coverage - Needs Improvement
"The case did not proceed in the courts after the injunction was granted. In explaining the situation, a lawyer who used this case as a step in the evolution of copyright law for video games stated, "As a practical matter, the award or denial of a preliminary injunction often ends the case because one of the required elements to be proven to obtain a preliminary injunction is likelihood of success at trial". (which clarifies it was never ruled upon but leaves the outcome vague enough to not suggest anything not supported by sources)
4-NPOV: Pass
5-Stable: Pass
6-Images:Pass. I'm a bit out of my league as I've never used a court exhibit as an image in an article before, and am not familiar with the copyright status of court exhibits. However, I'm taking it on faith the image was uploaded on commons with a pd status in January, per the page history on commons the image page has been edited by at least one other experienced user, and nobody there has contested the pd status. Dave ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Review finished. Please advise if I can be of further assistance. Dave ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 4, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jorahm, I think its wonderful that you are tackling this interesting case, but you seem to have misunderstood what was actually adjudicated here. Atari v. North American Philips did not reach a verdict and did not set any precedents as a matter of law. What happened was that Atari (and Midway) sued North American Philips for infringement and requested a preliminary injunction against selling the game while the case was adjudicated. The trial court held a hearing on the matter in which several witnesses testified and several exhibits were introduced into evidence before denying the motion based on its finding that the harm to NAP would be irreparable, and the likelihood of Atari winning on the merits was small. Atari appealed the ruling, and the 7th Circuit applied the substantial similarity test to conclude Atari was likely to prevail on the merits of the case and ordered the imposition of the temporary injunction pending trial. The case then went back to the trial court to proceed towards a final disposition. The case dragged on into 1984 and apparently settled, for a trial was never held and a verdict was never issued. There really was no point in NAP continuing to pursue the case by that point, as the opportunity to make any money on the game had long since passed. Several sources that did not understand judicial procedure mistakenly thought the pre-trial motion hearing was actually a trial, but it was not. Some rewrites will need to be done to accurately convey these events and their results. Indrian ( talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Moabdave ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
I am reading this article now and spot checking some sources. I'll have a full review later. Dave ( talk) 22:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
{od}GAC reviewer chiming in here. This is something that would need to be resolved without starting an edit war (as article stability is a criteria) before I could pass the GAC. However, I've read the article, and reading this, very valid, complaint, it so far appears to me that at worst only a couple of key words are in dispute, so this could be resolved with some discussion without affecting a GAC, provided everybody acts promptly, and in good faith. So again, my initial concerns, based only off an initial read and the comments both here and on talk are big concerns, but likely only affect 3-4 sentences in the article, the rest is pretty clear and easy to follow. Dave ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
1 - Well Written - Some issues found
2- Verifiable - Passed. I found issues but fixed them myself.
3-Broad in its coverage - Needs Improvement
"The case did not proceed in the courts after the injunction was granted. In explaining the situation, a lawyer who used this case as a step in the evolution of copyright law for video games stated, "As a practical matter, the award or denial of a preliminary injunction often ends the case because one of the required elements to be proven to obtain a preliminary injunction is likelihood of success at trial". (which clarifies it was never ruled upon but leaves the outcome vague enough to not suggest anything not supported by sources)
4-NPOV: Pass
5-Stable: Pass
6-Images:Pass. I'm a bit out of my league as I've never used a court exhibit as an image in an article before, and am not familiar with the copyright status of court exhibits. However, I'm taking it on faith the image was uploaded on commons with a pd status in January, per the page history on commons the image page has been edited by at least one other experienced user, and nobody there has contested the pd status. Dave ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Review finished. Please advise if I can be of further assistance. Dave ( talk) 23:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)