We Hardly Knew Ye: PUBG Drops Lawsuit Against Epic Over Fortnite Similarities
from the rage-quit dept
About a month ago we learned that PUBG Corp., the company behind the game PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, had sued Epic Games, makers of Fortnite, earlier this year in South Korea. This whole dust up between the two game developers has been monumentally frustrating, specifically due to the folks at PUBG being confused as to whether video games get any IP protection (they do!) and, then, whether fairly generic game modes and game genres are afforded copyright protection (they're not!).
The problem for PUBG in all of this is that its game mode of a battle royale pitting a hundred players against each other is simply not something that fits into copyright law's protection. As we've explained, there is an idea/expression dichotomy in many country's copyright laws, in which the specific expression is afforded copyright but mere ideas are not. For example, the art assets for PUBG absolutely are copyrightable, while the concept of a battle royale is not. Due to that, PUBG's lawsuit was always going to face a steep uphill climb to come out in its favor.
With that in mind, then, it's probably not terribly surprising that PUBG has now dropped the lawsuit entirely.
The studio behind PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds has dropped its lawsuitagainst the creators of global sensation Fortnite, ending a legal battle between two of the world’s hottest games.
PUBG Corp. sent a letter of withdrawal to Epic Games Inc.’s attorneys on Monday and the South Korean case has since closed, according to the website of the local court system. PUBG and its law firm confirmed the action but wouldn’t say why, nor whether a settlement had been reached. Representatives for Epic in Korea had no immediate comment.
There is of course no way to be sure, but with PUBG not crowing about a settlement, it's plausible none was ever reached. Certainly on the merits it would make much more sense for the legal team for PUBG to have finally convinced the executives there that either the case was not likely to be a winner, or that their interests were better served not entering into a lengthy and expensive legal battle with Epic, or both.
Complicating all of this is how intertwined PUBG and EPIC are, from ownership of both to the technology behind PUBG.
Both are part-owned by social media and gaming giant Tencent Holdings Ltd. and have carved out commanding positions in the Battle Royale format. But PUBG contended in January that Epic’s Fortnite mimicked many of the characteristics of its own title. To complicate matters, Epic provides PUBG with its Unreal Enginetechnology, used to create PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds and an industry standard for professional game developers.
All of this would seem to add up to PUBG finally coming to its senses. Ultimately, that's a good thing for all parties, but it would be great if game companies motivated by jealousy didn't attack one another in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: battle royale, copyright, fortnite, pubg
Companies: epic, pubg
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cited from Jim Sterling, and LoadingReadyRun CheckPoint games news show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This would be like, PUBG thinks Epic stole its car from the garage, so they sue Epic for assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright law doesn't protect or prevent any of the above. ryuugami's already given a good enough idea of the laws that would actually apply. Instead Blue Hole hoped that the magical "Open Sesame" properties of copyright law would give them a Hail Mary and grant them monetary settlements beyond their wildest dreams.
The problem, of course, was that widespread application copyright law regardless of relevance is still a gamble. You still have to face a judge who may call you out on your bullshit. To be fair, that isn't a common occurrence in the realm of IP law, but it looks like Blue Hole's luck failed them this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This so much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If true, maybe they should have sued about that instead of what they did sue for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, you got that part right. It's nice to see that - unlike some people you write about - you're capable of learning from mistakes. Hooray!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The problem for PUBG in all of this is that its game mode of a battle royale pitting a hundred players against each other is simply not something that fits into copyright law's protection."
Plus, as i've mentioned before, it's literally named after the Japanese novel and movie where the idea for the game mode came from!
Whether or not the idea is copyrightable, it's taken from somewhere else to begin with, as admitted by its author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you believe that the valuable part of your product has been copied by some one else, then you need to ask yourself why they are making $300 million a month and you aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]