Zynga v. Williams

Sort of interesting recent judgment from the Northern District of California in Zynga Game Network v. Williams et al., 5:2010cv01022.  The facts are recited by the court as follows:

Zynga is a social gaming company. This action involves "Mafia Wars," a game played on wireless devices and computers (the "Game"). When users sign up with Zynga to play the Game, they receive a certain sum of "Virtual Currency" that they use to purchase various in-Game digital items ("Virtual Goods"). Players can increase their total amount of "Virtual Currency" through their play and also can purchase additional "Virtual Currency" from Zynga. Zynga has not authorized any third party to sell the "Virtual Currency" or "Virtual Goods" required to play the game. The terms of service that govern the Game prohibit users from selling or exchanging "Virtual Currency" or "Virtual Goods" for real-world money or anything of value outside the Game. Zynga alleges that Defendants have established unauthorized websites that "sell" "Virtual Goods" for real-world money.

Among the form of relief granted is the following:

(1) Defendants are ordered to account for and to disgorge to Zynga all profits from their sale of "Virtual Goods" for use in the Game.

But the case is far less interesting than the above makes it appear, because: 1) the cause of action here is essentially trademark infringement (the defendants used Zynga's marks in relation to their business); 2) the defendants never showed up to present their side of the case -- so this is a default judgment, not a true judicial decision.

Many of the case docs are here -- I haven't found the recent judgment online yet, though.

Comments

[James Grimmelmann]

1.

Unfortunately for Zynga, the judgment is payable in Farm Cash.

[ecastronova]

2.

Greg - the use of "" around the terms virtual currency and virtual goods. Is there an implied irony there, as in common usage of quotes? Or is it a technical legal definition method, that is, a move to use the symbol "X" to stand for, in the context of this judgment, some incredibly long and careful definition of what X means in technical terms.

The writer keeps "virtual currency" in quotes throughout. It seems like irony or guarded disbelief to me, like these usages: from a socialist: "trickle down economics" or a climate change skeptic: "global warming."

The judge, maybe he think this virtual stuff isn't real.

[greglas]

3.

I think your instincts are probably right, though there are probably two things going on. First, what you said: the court is not really sure it wants to say "virtual currency" without the quotes. Second, though, is that I think the court is quoting from the EULA/TOS provisions -- that's suggested by the initial caps. Usually defined terms are put in caps in contracts, so the court might have wanted to reference the defined terms rather than the generic term.

[greglas]

4.

James -- they'd probably take that if they could get it. ;-)

[greglas]

5.

I wonder why "sell" is in quotes?