# Talk:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.

Deleted by Legobot:

 Note: I had trouble finding a digital copy of the case itself but there should still be no major gaps in the research. Anyone who can find the case would be a huge help. --Jorahm (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jorahm: I have no doubt it's difficult. I requested three documents from my PlainSite account: the complaint (Entered: 09/03/1993); the response (Entered: 10/26/1993); and finally the ruling with prejudice on the case (Entered: 11/14/1994) and some odd ruling about a "floor plan" (Entered: 11/28/1994). We can only wait as these were requests from the archives. I suggest you put this on hold until you read the documents. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for making the request. I am not sure how to hold the nomination but I don't think anyone is in a hurry to review it so I will just wait in the mean time. I will read the docs when I get them. Jorahm (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Good news and bad news. The good news is, I received the scanned PDF's from the National Archives via PlainSite and uploaded the ones that were public domain to the Commons:

@Jorahm: The bad news is that a lot of the documents are pleadings, complaints, and answers, which aren't technically public domain in the US. I will have to email you those, or upload them another way to a site less strict than Commons. Also, to be clear, I don't have the entire docket. I requested the most important stuff in it only, not every minute motion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
@Psiĥedelisto: This is already a big help thank you! I believe this article is a good article and if there is any confusion it will be helpful to have the case to refer to. Thanks again. Jorahm (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 09:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's try another one. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Same thing I said in the other one that I'm a little overwhelmed these days. But I plan to get to this within a week or two. Thank you for working on this one. Jorahm (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You've done a great job with these video game law articles :)  It’s cool to see a niche topic covered so thoroughly. The article meets the GA criteria as is so I will pass, comments below are suggestions for further improvement. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably should link to Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. when mentioning the case.
I really like the Claud Stern quote, the fact that it was their lawyer saying that is entertaining. Does trial counsel need to be capitalized?
Data East was confident in their argument, ironically, because Don't need "ironically", readers will see the irony without it.
Only one image, it is appropriately tagged.
Looks like refs #8 and 15 are to the same article.
For ref #4, I would link directly to chapter 4 of the article.
I spot checked several of the other references, no issues identified. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This is really good news!! I made the edits that you have suggested and marked them as minor. Thank you very much. Jorahm (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Can I change the yen amount to USD? This is the English encyclopedia, and it IS a case between two U.S. companies. Club On a Sub 20 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)