# Talk:Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.

This page is being revised as part of the WP:WikiProject Intellectual Property law 2009 Berkeley.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, 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/20100516005748/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/862/862.F2d.204.87-2294.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/862/862.F2d.204.87-2294.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) 05:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, 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/20100219122108/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/562/562.F2d.1157.75-1202.75-1203.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/562/562.F2d.1157.75-1202.75-1203.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721003955/http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/812/812.F2d.421.84-6522.html to http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/812/812.F2d.421.84-6522.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) 23:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look over the next couple of days or so. And make notes in the table below as they come up. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried my hardest and fleshed out some of the arguments in the case. I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia articles about lawsuits but an appeal decision is usually written and delivered weeks after the arguments are heard. Finding a transcript of the actual arguments is near impossible and we are usually left with whatever the judge decided to include in their decision.
Moreover, the issues in a legal dispute are seldom equal, especially when you're focusing in on an appeal court ruling. I reviewed every single reliable secondary source I could find, and not a single one even mentions the Trademark issue. (This is typical, because a lot of legal disputes involve a "kitchen sink" or "machine gun" approach where you bring up every issue possible, knowing that the main issue is something else.) The article does cover the main copyright issues -- the main reason the case is notable, as defined by the sources. If you double check you'll find that my description of the secondary sources is accurate.
The best I could do was to give a more detailed summary of the appeal court's analysis. The ruling isn't too long and it would be easy to double check if I missed anything of note.[1] Jorahm (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. Congratulations on the GA! — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)