Interesting legal news with Upper Deck announcing a lawsuit against Ravensburger, makers of what is surely the next-big TCG (trading card game), Disney Lorcana.
Like most controversies in the gaming world, it really would help if people read the actual complaint, here. While much is being written about uncopyrightable game mechanisms and the like that is actually not the main contention in the lawsuit. The way I read it, the defendants (there are at least 102; Miller, Ravensburger, and 100 others to be named) are alleged to have:
- Breached contract by improperly keeping Upper Deck property (Miller).
- Willfully defrauded Upper Deck (Miller).
- Committed fraud by improperly retaining Upper Deck property and transferring it to Ravensburger (Miller).
- Ravensburger encouraged the actions of Miller.
- Ravensburger failed to ensure Miller acted within bounds of previous confidentiality clauses.
- Ravensburger through Miller improperly acquired game materials that became Disney Lorcana.
- Ravensburger and Miller improperly took possession of Upper Deck’s TCG and used it for Lorcana.
- Ravensburger engaged in unfair completion by improperly acquiring and using using Upper Deck property.
What I see this lawsuit coming down to is a contention that Miller, when employed by Upper Deck, developed a game. He then left Upper Deck and moved to Ravensburger. The taking of files may have also occurred during the move. Ravensburger should of known—and respected—any confidentiality agreement but is alleged instead to have encouraged Miller to breach agreements.
The issue of “are the games the same” is not really at stake. Upper Deck alleges they are sufficiently similar that the only way Ravensburger could of produced their game is through improperly acquired property.
While the screeching gaming public is predictably loud, I think the more sanguine will see this lawsuit as a more simple matter. Did a designer breech a confidentiality agreement? Did another company/competitor encourage that breech? Did the company/competitor gain an unfair economic (and reputation?) advantage. The point Upper Deck seems to be making is the work a designer does under contract does not belong solely to the designer. In this case Miller failed to respect the ownership of Upper Deck and, encouraged by Ravensburger, transferred that property to the advantage of Ravensburger and detriment of Upper Deck.
In the wargame segment of the hobby, how often have we seen a game that languished on the GMT P500 or some other preorder hell finally “revert” back to the designer who then publishes it elsewhere? As painful as that seems that’s what properly happens when parties respect agreements.
Feature image courtesy Upper Deck
The opinions and views expressed in this blog are those of the author alone and are presented in a personal capacity. They do not necessarily represent the views of U.S. Navy or any other U.S government Department, Agency, Office, or employer.
RockyMountainNavy.com © 2007-2023 by Ian B is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 
Rocky Mountain Navy Gamer 