Mad Catz Seeks Court Declaration It’s Not Liable for ‘Hot Coffee’ Modification
Accessories maker Mad Catz Interactive wants a federal court to declare it has “no liability” for the controversial “Hot Coffee” modification in Take-Two Interactive’s Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The declaratory relief suit was filed July 26 in an unspecified U.S. Dist. Court in Cal., Mad Catz disclosed in a 10-Q report filed at the SEC. The suit names Take- Two and its affiliated Rockstar Games as defendants, the 10-Q said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The notorious modification lets gamers play a mini game featuring graphic sexual content. Criticism last month drove the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) to change the game’s rating to AO from M, after finding that the content “exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all 3 platform versions of the game” (CED July 21 p4). Despite agreeing to create a new, M-rated version of the game without the code for the sexual content, Take-Two and its Rockstar Games label continued to blame the hackers who made the modification available, since the content wasn’t accessible to gamers without the modification.
But Take-Two also seems to blame the Hot Coffee brouhaha on Mad Catz and perhaps other makers of game enhancement software. Mad Catz said in its 10-Q that it filed the suit, which also named Rockstar, “after receiving a letter from Take-Two demanding that the [accessory maker] stop using any game enhancement codes for any Take-Two games” in its GameShark-branded enhancement products. Mad Catz Mktg. Vp Sean Parry recently told Consumer Electronics Daily his firm’s enhancement software doesn’t enable consumers to access the “Hot Coffee” content in San Andreas.
It was unclear Mon. whether Mad Catz also seeks damages from Take-Two, if Mad Catz plans to remove Take- Two game codes from its products and if Take-Two has threatened to sue Mad Catz if the latter doesn’t comply with the publisher’s demand. The companies didn’t respond to requests for comment by our deadline.
Mad Catz said the case is “in the early stages and no trial date has been set.” The company said that although it “intends to vigorously prosecute its claim, there can be no guarantee that it will ultimately prevail or that damages will not be assessed against” it.
The accessory maker also said in the filing it “intends to vigorously defend the allegations” made by game publisher Konami in a separate suit. Konami sued Roxor Games, maker of the In the Groove arcade dance simulation game, claiming the title infringes its patent rights in the similar Dance Dance Revolution game. Konami revealed last month that it filed an amended complaint against Roxor in U.S. Dist. Court, Marshall, Tex., also naming Mad Catz, which publishes the similar dance game MC Groovz Dance Craze, and RedOctane, which publishes a home version of Roxor’s In the Groove. Konami said the Mad Catz and RedOctane products also infringe its U.S. patent number 6,410,835 for a “Dance Game Apparatus and Step-On Base for Dance Game.” Mad Catz said its answer in the complaint is due Aug. 19 and “no trial date has been set.”
Mad Catz also said Freedom Wave sued it in U.S. Dist. Court, Cal., in May, claiming certain Mad Catz products infringe U.S. patent numbers 6,878,066 and 6,280,327. Mad Catz said it “answered, denying the allegation in the complaint.” The accessory maker said the case was “still in the early stages and the 6,280,327 patent is under reexamination by the patent and trademark office.” It said discovery is “beginning” and a trial date was set for May 2, 2006.
The firm, along with Fire International, also was sued in 2003 by rival Electro Source in L.A. Superior Court. Electro Source, which distributes Pelican-branded accessories, accused Mad Catz and Fire, maker of the technology used in Mad Catz’s GameShark enhancement software, of misappropriation of trade secrets, also claiming Mad Catz caused Fire to terminate a similar deal it had with Electro Source. The court denied Electro Source’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Mad Catz’s GameShark-branded enhancement products. In Feb., Mad Catz filed a cross complaint against Electro Source, accusing its rival of false advertising, state and federal unfair competition, libel per se and trade libel. Mad Catz said discovery is pending on the cross complaint. The court last month denied its motions for summary judgment. But Mad Catz said the court let it file a motion for summary adjudication on its claim for intentional interference with contract, which it said will be heard Aug. 26. It said the court is expected to set a new trial date Aug. 18.