# Talk:Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

Hbdragon88, I don't think that this article is B-Class at the moment. It's missing some very important facts like, the the $15 million settlement that Galoob won the following year for lost profits, it dosen't mention that the device was designed by Codemasters or that part of the settlement involved Nintendo buying shares in Codemasters. - X201 08:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I don't know what happened there.  I actually wrote "start class" on the Essential article talk page but classified this article as B-class.  Fixed now.  I hope you can expand on it. Hbdragon88 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll add the info at some point in the future. I know I've got an article on it in one of my old Sega Mags, It's just a question of which mag. I'm sure it will come to the surface at some point during The Magazine Project. - X201 09:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

While I personally agree with the above statement, I have removed it as unverifiable POV. Pigsfly33 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Midway Manufacturing as "the monopolist" as that is clearly a POV that shouldn't be in the article.
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that sentence should be in the article in its present form: according to the other article, it sounds like a marginally related case; the major part of the ruling sounds like it was simply maintaining that Pac-man was a copywritten entity despite being "evanescent or transient" because it was neither, the circuit board always produces Pac-man. For that reason Puckman infringed. "The speed-up kit" that would be parallel to this sounds more like a secondary matter.
Flying Bishop (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If Nintendo tried to sue Galoob, Nintendo (the plaintiff), should be the first name in the case citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevefarwell (talk • contribs) 05:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 

They both tried to sue each other. Both actions were heard as one.  - X201 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517124947/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/154/154.F3d.1107.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/154/154.F3d.1107.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Found some sources that will help expand and improve this. Jorahm (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2915&context=lawreview
http://www.ijrra.net/Vol3issue4/IJRRA-03-04-15.pdf
https://books.google.com/books?id=39nKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT19&lpg=PT19&dq=galoob+v+nintendo&source=bl&ots=UbBUJch0dq&sig=ACfU3U1al8e95koQRrktM7ImLs5voAzo2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1nPyureX5AhVSlIkEHbInD_04bhDoAXoECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=galoob%20v%20nintendo&f=false
https://www.mto.com/Templates/media/files/Reprints/Blavin%20Art%20Winter%202014.pdf
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1385&context=ilr
https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/156330/ahc_asset_365978.pdf;jsessionid=4DCDB213DC746F4482A5887DFB197B4E?sequence=1
https://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Taylor.pdf
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1198&context=wmblr
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1692&context=iplj
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1365&context=chtlj
FAIR USE FOR COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND OTHER COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS IN DIGITAL FORM: THE IMPLICATIONS OF SONY, GALOOB AND SEGA
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=jipl
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1349&context=hastings_comm_ent_law_journal
https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1545&context=ggulrev
Thanks for all the article improvements. The article's coming along nicely. I did some work over at Camerica as I think they had some interesting involvement with the lawsuit too. Also I think TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. would be another interesting one to work on. Andre🚐 19:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)