RIP KCM

Pac-Mortarboard from Ludology.org

If you're interested in Pac-Man, you might have heard of K.C.Munchkin. Then again, maybe you haven't.  K.C. Munchkin had a brief existence, perhaps due to the fact that he infringed the copyright in the much more famous Pac-Man, according to the 1982 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Atari v. North American Philips Consumer Elecs., 672 F.2d 607. 

What I love about this early videogame case is the novelty of the encounter between law and video games: how the court struggles with the new medium, what things it feels the need to scare-quote, and how it compares the creative expression.  For some reason (perhaps related to the ultimate outcome?) Pac-Man does not take his proper name -- he is a gobbler, just like K.C. Munchkin, with a "V-shaped aperture which opens and closes in mechanical fashion like a mouth."  The court's close reading of the two games is set forth below.  In its attempt to essentialize the creative core of Pac-Man, isn't this an early piece of video game criticism? 

Here's how the court describes Pac-Man:

The copyrighted version of PAC-MAN is an electronic arcade maze-chase game. Very basically, the game "board," which appears on a television-like screen, consists of a fixed maze, a central character (expressed as a "gobbler"), four pursuit characters (expressed as "ghost monsters"), several hundred evenly spaced pink dots which line the pathways of the maze, four enlarged pink dots ("power capsules") approximately located in each of the maze's four corners, and various colored fruit symbols which appear near the middle of the maze during the play of the game.

Using a "joy stick," the player guides the gobbler through the maze, consuming pink dots along the way.  The monsters, which roam independently within the maze, chase the gobbler. Each play ends when a monster catches the gobbler, and after three plays, the game is over.  If the gobbler consumes a power capsule, the roles reverse temporarily: the gobbler turns into the hunter, and the monsters become vulnerable.  The object of the game is to score as many points as possible by gobbling dots, power capsules, fruit symbols, and monsters.

...

At the start of the game, the gobbler character is located centrally near the bottom of the maze. That figure is expressed as a simple yellow dot, somewhat larger than the power capsules, with a V-shaped aperture which opens and closes in mechanical fashion like a mouth as it travels the maze. Distinctive "gobbling" noises accompany this action.  If fate (or a slight miscalculation) causes the gobbler to fall prey to one of the monsters, the action freezes, and the gobbler is deflated, folding back on itself, making a sympathetic whining sound, and disappearing with a star-burst.

The four monster characters are identical except that one is red, one blue, one turquoise, and one orange.  They are about equal in size to the gobbler, but are shaped like bell jars.  The bottom of each figure is contoured to stimulate three short appendages which move as the monster travels about the maze. Their most distinctive feature is their highly animated eyes, which appear as large white circles with blue irises and which "look" in the direction the monster is moving.  At the start of each play, the monsters are located side-by-side in the corral, bouncing back and forth until each leaves through the opening.  Unlike the gobbler, they do not consume the dots, but move in a prearranged pattern about the maze at a speed approximately equal to that of the gobbler. When the gobbler consumes a power capsule and the roles reverse, the monsters panic: a siren-like alarm sounds, they turn blue, their eyes contract into small pink dots, a wrinkled "mouth" appears, and they immediately reverse direction (moving at a reduced speed).  When this period of vulnerability is about to end, the monsters warn the player by flashing alternately blue and white before returning to their original colors. But if a monster is caught during this time, its body disappears, and its original eyes reappear and race back to the corral. Once in the corral, the monster quickly regenerates and reenters the maze to resume its pursuit of the gobbler.

Here's K.C. Munchkin:

The gobbler in K. C. Munchkin initially faces the viewer and appears as a round blue-green figure with horns and eyes.  The gobbler normally has an impish smile, but when a monster attacks it, its smile appropriately turns to a frown.  As it moves about the maze, the gobbler shows a somewhat diamond-shaped profile with a V-shaped mouth which rapidly opens and closes in a manner similar to PAC-MAN's gobbler. A distinctive "gobbling" noise also accompanies this movement.  When the gobbler stops, it turns around to face the viewer with another grin.  If captured by a monster, the gobbler also folds back and disappears in a star-burst.  At the start of each play, this character is located immediately above the corral. If successful in consuming the last dot, the munchkin turns to the viewer and chuckles.

K. C. Munchkin's three ghost monsters appear similar in shape and movement to their PAC-MAN counterparts. They have round bodies (approximately equal in size to the gobbler) with two short horns or antennae, eyes, and three appendages on the bottom.  The eyes are not as detailed as those of the PAC-MAN monsters, but they are uniquely similar in that they also "look" in the direction in which the monster is moving.  Although slightly longer, the "legs" also move in a centipede-like manner as the monster roams about the maze. The similarity becomes even more pronounced when the monsters move vertically because their antennae disappear and their bodies assume the more bell jar-like shape of the PAC-MAN monsters. Moreover, the monsters are initially stationed inside the corral (albeit in a piggyback rather than a side-by-side arrangement) and exit into the maze as soon as play commences.

K. C. Munchkin's expression of the role reversal also parallels that in PAC-MAN.  When the gobbler consumes one of the power capsules, the vulnerable monsters turn purple and reverse direction, moving at a slightly slower speed.  If caught by the gobbler, a monster "vanishes": its body disappears and only white "eyes" and "feet" remain to indicate its presence.  Instead of returning directly to the corral to regenerate, the ghost-like figure continues to wander about the maze, but does not affect the play. Only if the rotating corral happens to open up toward the monster as it travels one of the adjacent passageways will the monster re-enter the corral to be regenerated.  This delay in regeneration allows the gobbler more time to clear the maze of dots. When the period of vulnerability is about to end, each monster flashes its original color as a warning.

There are only twelve dots in K. C. Munchkin as opposed to over two hundred dots in PAC-MAN.  Eight of those dots are white; the other four are power capsules, distinguished by their constantly changing color and the manner in which they blink.  In K. C. Munchkin, the dots are randomly spaced, whereas in PAC-MAN, the dots are uniformly spaced.  Furthermore, in K. C. Munchkin, the dots are rectangular and are always moving.  As the gobbler munches more dots, the speed of the remaining dots progressively increases, and the last dot moves at the same speed as the gobbler. In the words of the district court, "the last dot ... cannot be caught by overtaking it; it must be munched by strategy." At least initially, one power capsule is located in each of the maze's four corners, as in PAC-MAN.

From other facts mentioned in the case, it seems clear that the designers of KCM wanted to make something similar to Pac-Man, but with sufficient differences and improvements that would allow them to escape infringement liabilty.  The appeals court, however, saw this intent to design around the literal Pac-Man as simply more evidence that the defendants were copying Pac-Man. 

The Atari opinion, by the way, is still cited with approval as setting the standard for video game infringement analysis in the Seventh Circuit.  See, e.g., Incredible Techs. v. Virtual Techs., 74 USPQ2d 1031 (2005).

For more information, including screenshots of the ill-fated KCM, see this article on Gamespy.

Posted by greglas on August 17, 2005 | Permalink

« 123321456787654 | Main | mom pwns »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5074/3015402

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RIP KCM:

» Case Discussion KC Munchkin/Pac Man from IP Rights and Games
Greg Lastowka is a Rutgers law professor that speaks and writes on game law. He has an excellent post on Terra Nova about the Pac Man/KC Munchkin copyright infringement case: Atari v. North American Philips Consumer Elecs., 672 F.2d 607.... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 18, 2005 8:29:28 AM

» Mavericks Lose Grip On Finals from had both fists
moment, the Mavericks had both fists wrapped around the throat of the Miami Heat. All they had to do was squeeze, [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 17, 2006 9:27:21 PM

» Firefox 1.0 Downloads at 6.5 Million, Help Gecko Gain 7% Market Share from took 11 days
1.0 has about 6.5 million downloads. It took 11 days for the number to reach 5 million after the release, according to Asa Dotzler; In comparison, [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 30, 2006 10:39:57 PM

» Ex-WorldCom CEO's Conviction Upheld from to a multibillion-dollar
accounting fraud. The ruling could clear the way for Ebbers to begin a 25-year prison sentence. [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 4:37:44 AM

» Judge Considers $90M Google Settlement from victims of "click
"click fraud." The suit stems from claims Google improperly charged advertisers for fraudulent site clicks that drove up ad [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 8, 2006 1:03:22 PM

Comments

Ian Bogost says:

In its attempt to essentialize the creative core of Pac-Man, isn't this an early piece of video game criticism?

Yes and no. It's certainly a close reading of the mechanics of both games, and indeed a comparative reading at that. But does that this opinion "compare creative expression" as you suggest? It does not appear to attempt to synthesize either game as speech, but rather simply to identify elements of the game that might individually infringe. What was the final decision based on? Was it the nature of the gobbler character itself, or some other aspect of the gameplay, or a combination?

Furthermore, why is the case Atari v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics? Was the case brought about by Atari to protect their license of Pac-Man for the VCS? If so, the decision would be darkly poetic indeed given that the 2600 version of Pac-Man was widely reviled and, along with E.T., is generally blamed for the videogame crash of 1983.

Posted Aug 17, 2005 6:57:47 PM | link

greglas says:

Hey Ian --

Yes, darkly poetic it was indeed -- I think Atari did sue for essentially that reason (and the fact that Pac-Man fever was in full swing at the time -- was PM really on the cover of Time or is that just an urban legend?). But Pac-Man for the 2600 was an awful game -- though not quite as awful as ET.

Regarding the logic of the comparison, there was much about the game that was deemed unprotectable due to a doctrine in copyright law that permits certain features of a genre to be read out of the analysis. Here's how one commentator explained the logic:

[I]n Atari, Inc. v. North Am. Philips Consumer Elec. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 880 (1982), the court of appeals found that there was no infringement to the extent that the defendant's computer game "K.C. Munchkin" copied from some of the stock computer ideas contained in plaintiff's "PAC-MAN" game (use of a maze, scoring table, and "dots"). Atari, 672 F.2d at 617. However, the defendant infringed by also copying the expression of the "central figure as a 'gobbler' and the pursuit figures as 'ghost monsters'" (including such elements as size, shape, manner of movement, and the manner of disappearing when captured). Id.

I couldn't find the full opinion online, but you can find other legal summaries with this Google search. You're right that the opinion isn't so much about what Pac-Man is, but it is about what is essentially authorial, creative, legally protectible expression in Pac-Man. But that analysis has to take place within the discourse of the law, not the discourse of literary criticism -- and if you're a textual critic, that's a shortcoming, I admit. :-)

Posted Aug 17, 2005 7:39:50 PM | link

Ian Bogost says:

As for Pac-Man on a magazine, I believe it was only a Mad Magazine parody cover, but I could be wrong...

I'm interested in the broader question of how gameplay is legally protectable. If I'm understanding right, the opinion on Pac-Man is really more about the copyright for a videogame gobbler character. It seems more like a trademark infringement perhaps? What about games with no identifiably mimicked character but clearly mimicked rules? For example, all the Bejeweled clones out there. Are there any legal precedents for violations of gameplay copyright? Can abstract rules be subject to copyright?

Posted Aug 17, 2005 7:59:28 PM | link

magicback says:

IANAL, but could embodiment be the area of distinction? Could the similar manifestation of the globber and ghosts be the infringing act?

In the case of Bejewel clones, perhaps jewel designs are not distinctive enough to have distinctive embodiment to be infringed upon and the gameplay is not patented as a process/mechanism to have any legal protection?

As for gameplay copyright, the patent of the "tapping" mechanism used in Magic: the Gathering is the only reference I can recall. Not sure whether it has been tested in court.

Frank

Posted Aug 17, 2005 8:32:15 PM | link

greglas says:

The court in Atari repeatedly said it was doing an "ocular" comparison. The general rule is that copyright protects particular expressions, not abstract ideas, so as the Incredible Techs (Golden Tee) case points out "ideas—as opposed to their expression—are not eligible for copyright protection... protection does not extend to the game itself." You might say the ludologist's emphasis on game rules as the essential core of games is one that would trend against copyright protection (and perhaps toward patent protection).

You can find a copyright office statement on the scope of protection for games at this website, which states:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.


Of course, if you look at what the court was doing in Atari, rather than what it said it was doing, you see how hard it is to divorce the expression of a game from the rules that animate that expression.

Posted Aug 18, 2005 6:22:59 AM | link

steph says:

The Court summary of the game integers and mechnics reads pretty much like a patent specification, for that matter: only the claims and drawings are missing!

Whereby it appears that the Court may have been approaching the exercise of reducing the expression of the game to its core, and indeed weighed the merits of the case to determined the extent of the copying (insubstantial and non-infringing vs substantial and infringing), in a 'constructive' manner as opposed to the essentially 'litteral' manner which copyright infringement requires.

That the Court apparently decided to take an equitable approach (i.e. "it's not, strictly-speaking, copied enough to warrant infringement but the intent/wilful component is manifest so we'll rule towards a finding of infringement") to this case is laudable, but it does make you wonder what would happen if every other developer/publisher of car racing game were ever to consider this precedent to ring-fence the market, a bit like the ongoing '690 case where 3D panning feature in games is concerned...

Posted Aug 18, 2005 7:47:44 AM | link

greglas says:

Steve -- the Incredible Techs case provides the likely answer -- the doctrine of scenes a faire and/or idea/expression would probably step in and state that there are only so many ways to do a racing game. That's basically what Incredible Techs said: there are only so many ways to do a golf game. In some ways, although the Atari court seems to claim that a maze game was also covered under scenes a faire, I think what the opinion effectively did was say "maze + dots + gobbler + monsters + power pill" --> original expression. Golf and racing are different, I think, because there is a game "subject' that is being simulated.

Anyway, your comment on the '690 patent reminded me about the IGDA wiki on IP issues in games, which is worth a link:

http://www.igda.org/wiki/index.php/IP_Rights_SIG/Prior_art

Posted Aug 18, 2005 8:14:53 AM | link

Ian Bogost says:

You might say the ludologist's emphasis on game rules as the essential core of games is one that would trend against copyright protection (and perhaps toward patent protection).

Yes, this is precisely the kind of issue I was dancing around. The legal understanding of gameness certainly counts among the critical or cultural understandings of the medium and is worthy of further interrogation. As you suggest Greg, despite the copyright office's claims, the Atari case seems to suggest that the procedural part of the game counts as "literary or pictorial expression."

If I remember correctly, I believe that the typeface portion of fonts are also not protected under copyright. Fonts were recenly affirmed to be software and thus protected under similar copyright -- but only for the files themselves, not for the design of the typeface. This means that it's legal to print out every character of a typeface, scan each, retrace the characters, and rerelease the font under a new name. The problem here seems to be that the artistic design for the letterforms is actually materially bound to the software instructions to draw them. In general, the notion of code as expression seems to be an area of great ignorance in copyright law.

Posted Aug 18, 2005 10:00:45 AM | link

greglas says:

Ian> In general, the notion of code as expression seems to be an area of great ignorance in copyright law.

Well, I wouldn't say "ignorance" really -- smart (legal) people have been thinking about code and copyright for a few decades now. The problem is that they disagree and have trouble getting things sorted out where the rubber hits the road. It is tough making the ongoing business of business, legislation, and litigation mesh with an ideal enlightened theory of how all this should work.

KC Munchkin is an early example of a "look and feel" type infringment analysis that approaches video games (and interactive software generally) as a subspecies of other audiovisual works -- the code is seen to embody a certain audiovisual work, and that work is treated (more or less, in theory) like a movie is treated. In the 7th circuit at least, it is still being cited as a good way to look at infringement in video games. Games as a subspecies of films -- score one for the anti-ludology camp. ;-)

At the same time, computer programs are also subject to protection at the level of source and object code. That wasn't an issue in KCM (I don't think there was any evidence that actual code was copied). The judicial acceptance of copyright in object code wasn't even clear at that time, anyway. The arrival of object code proection is usually associated with Apple v. Franklin -- a 1983 opinion that awarded copyright to Apple's DOS, and effectively gave birth to the empire of Microsoft. (Ironic there, because most people think the absence of Franklin-type Apple clones was what kept Apple in a market niche!) Of course, water has passed under the bridge since then, and you can find plenty of cases and law reviews explaining the law on software and copyright, which, of course, is still in a state of flux, struggling to adapt to a moving target.

See, e.g., http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/kirsch-2000-04-all.html

Posted Aug 18, 2005 10:46:15 AM | link

Torley Wong/Torley Torgeson says:

LOLEX... the screenshots did it in for me. I never heard o' K.C. Munchkin before. Thanks for posting this, what a laugh. It's kinda like a parallel dimension in which the ghosts are the heroes... <.<

Posted Aug 19, 2005 5:10:54 AM | link

greglas says:

I just discovered Ross Dannenberg's "The Patent Arcade" today -- it looks like just the kind of blog I wished someone would write: plenty of excerpts from classic and current video game opinions. I will probably do a main page post on it, but I wanted to note here that the KC Munchkin opinion has already been excerpted there:

http://www.patentarcade.com/2005/04/case-atari-v-north-american-phillips.html

Posted Aug 23, 2005 4:47:01 AM | link