Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 NOVEMBER 2024

Sony Lacks The RAM To Protect Its Console's Software

Fieldfisher
Fieldfisher
Contributor
Fieldfisher

Fieldfisher

Fieldfisher is a European law firm with market-leading practices in many of the world’s most...

View firm profile
Explore more from Fieldfisher

The European Court of Justice ruled that software altering only variable content in a game's RAM, without reproducing source or object code, does not infringe copyright. This decision favors third-party accessory providers but limits copyright protections for console makers like Sony.

United KingdomIntellectual Property
Rebecca Pakenham-Walsh
Rebecca Pakenham-Walsh

The European Court of Justice (the "ECJ") has held that the variable data contents transferred from a computer program to a computer's random access memory ("RAM") and then used by the computer in its running does not gain protection under the Software Directive (2009/224/EC) – as the transferred contents do not allow the computer program to be reproduced or subsequently created: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Datel Design and Development Ltd and others (Case C‑159/23).

Background

Prior to 2014, multimedia conglomerate Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd ("Sony") marketed the PlayStation Portable (the "PSP") – a handheld game console. On the other side of the dispute are Datel Design and Development Ltd and Datel Direct Ltd ("Datel"). Datel are a group of companies that produce software and products complementary to Sony's line of gaming products and consoles, including the "Tilt FX" for the PSP.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

AI, Deepfakes And Image Rights: Does English Law Protect Your Face, Voice And Likeness?

Generative AI has created a legal vacuum where synthetic images and deepfakes can be created and shared without consent, yet English law offers no standalone "image right" to protect individuals. With celebrities like Lisa Riley and over 80 performers demanding reform, the question is whether the UK's patchwork of intellectual property, data protection, and common law protections can adequately address this rapidly evolving threat to personal autonomy and reputation.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mills & Reeve LLP
Mills & Reeve LLP
Article

The Sound Of Ownership: Why AI Voice Cloning Is Raising New IP Questions

As AI voice cloning technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and accessible, the Save Our Voices Now campaign calls for statutory rights allowing individuals to own and control their voice as intellectual property. This article examines whether existing UK law sufficiently protects one of our most personal and recognisable attributes, exploring copyright, trade marks, passing off, and the practical steps individuals and businesses can take.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Ashfords LLP
Ashfords LLP
Article

High Court Clarifies The Limits Of Copyright Claims Against Online Marketplaces

The UK High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on online marketplace liability, dismissing Shein's copyright infringement claims against Temu and clarifying when platforms can be held responsible for third-party content. The judgment examines the boundaries of copyright ownership in complex supply chains and establishes important precedents for how marketplace operators should respond to infringement allegations.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

Samsung Ordered To Pay The Swatch Group US$11.6 Million In Damages For Trade Mark Infringement

The High Court has awarded the Swatch Group US$11.6 million in negotiation damages against Samsung for trade mark infringements involving watch face apps on the Galaxy App store. Rejecting both parties' extreme valuations of US$170 million and US$301, the court established important principles for assessing damages when brand owners don't license their marks and no comparable market royalties exist.
United KingdomIntellectual Property
Mishcon de Reya LLP
Mishcon de Reya LLP