<s>
Capcom	O
U.S.A.	O
Inc	O
.	O
v	O
.	O
Data	O
East	O
Corp.	O
,	O
1994	O
WL	O
1751482	O
(	O
N.D.	O
Cal	O
,	O
1994	O
)	O
was	O
a	O
1994	O
legal	O
case	O
related	O
to	O
the	O
copyright	O
of	O
video	O
games	O
,	O
where	O
Capcom	O
alleged	O
that	O
Data	O
East	O
's	O
game	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
infringed	O
the	O
copyright	O
of	O
Capcom	O
's	O
game	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
It	O
was	O
revealed	O
that	O
the	O
design	O
documents	O
for	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
contained	O
several	O
references	O
to	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
,	O
leading	O
Capcom	O
to	O
sue	O
Data	O
East	O
for	O
damages	O
,	O
as	O
well	O
as	O
a	O
preliminary	O
injunction	O
to	O
stop	O
the	O
distribution	O
of	O
the	O
infringing	O
game	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Although	O
early	O
cases	O
such	O
as	O
Atari	O
v	O
.	O
Philips	O
ruled	O
against	O
a	O
game	O
for	O
infringing	O
on	O
the	O
copyright	O
of	O
Pac-Man	B-Application
,	O
they	O
also	O
noted	O
that	O
any	O
standard	O
elements	O
of	O
a	O
game	O
could	O
not	O
be	O
protected	O
by	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
This	O
included	O
an	O
earlier	O
legal	O
dispute	O
,	O
where	O
Data	O
East	O
lost	O
their	O
case	O
against	O
an	O
alleged	O
video	O
game	O
clone	O
of	O
their	O
game	O
Karate	B-Device
Champ	I-Device
because	O
none	O
of	O
the	O
similarities	O
were	O
protected	O
under	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Now	O
years	O
later	O
,	O
Data	O
East	O
found	O
themselves	O
on	O
the	O
other	O
side	O
of	O
a	O
similar	O
dispute	O
,	O
and	O
the	O
court	O
determined	O
that	O
the	O
contents	O
of	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
were	O
legally	O
permissible	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
This	O
trend	O
of	O
a	O
more	O
permissive	O
approach	O
to	O
copyright	O
continued	O
until	O
2012	O
,	O
when	O
rulings	O
such	O
as	O
Tetris	B-License
Holding	I-License
,	I-License
LLC	I-License
v	I-License
.	I-License
Xio	I-License
Interactive	I-License
,	I-License
Inc	I-License
.	I-License
and	O
Spry	B-Application
Fox	I-Application
,	I-Application
LLC	I-Application
v	I-Application
.	I-Application
Lolapps	I-Application
,	I-Application
Inc	I-Application
.	I-Application
ruled	O
that	O
more	O
specific	O
forms	O
of	O
copying	O
are	O
unlawful	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
In	O
1991	O
,	O
Game	O
developer	O
Capcom	O
released	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
Other	O
companies	O
rushed	O
to	O
capitalize	O
,	O
and	O
Data	O
East	O
released	O
their	O
own	O
one-on-one	O
fighting	O
game	O
called	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
in	O
1993	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Even	O
compared	O
to	O
other	O
fighting	O
games	O
,	O
there	O
were	O
many	O
similarities	O
between	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
and	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
,	O
with	O
both	O
games	O
having	O
similar	O
character	O
designs	O
and	O
artwork	O
,	O
as	O
well	O
as	O
similar	O
special	O
moves	O
and	O
controls	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
As	O
it	O
was	O
later	O
revealed	O
,	O
Data	O
East	O
created	O
design	O
documents	O
that	O
referred	O
to	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
several	O
times	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Capcom	O
sought	O
623	O
million	O
yen	O
in	O
damages	O
,	O
as	O
well	O
as	O
a	O
preliminary	O
injunction	O
to	O
stop	O
Data	O
East	O
from	O
distributing	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
This	O
dispute	O
would	O
depend	O
on	O
whether	O
the	O
copied	O
elements	O
of	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
were	O
actually	O
protected	O
by	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Munchkin	B-Application
!	O
</s>
<s>
and	O
Pac-Man	B-Application
.	O
</s>
<s>
Munchkin	B-Application
!	O
</s>
<s>
did	O
infringe	O
the	O
copyright	O
of	O
Pac-Man	B-Application
,	O
because	O
the	O
games	O
had	O
substantial	O
similarities	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
One	O
such	O
ruling	O
was	O
the	O
1988	O
case	O
Data	O
East	O
USA	O
,	O
Inc	O
.	O
v	O
.	O
Epyx	O
,	O
Inc.	O
,	O
where	O
courts	O
ruled	O
that	O
Epyx	O
's	O
game	O
World	B-Application
Karate	I-Application
Championship	I-Application
did	O
not	O
infringe	O
Data	O
East	O
's	O
game	O
Karate	B-Device
Champ	I-Device
,	O
because	O
none	O
of	O
the	O
similarities	O
were	O
protected	O
under	O
copyright	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Now	O
years	O
later	O
,	O
Data	O
East	O
argued	O
that	O
their	O
game	O
Karate	B-Device
Champ	I-Device
was	O
the	O
first	O
game	O
in	O
the	O
fighting	O
genre	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Data	O
East	O
also	O
argued	O
that	O
the	O
similarities	O
between	O
their	O
game	O
and	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
were	O
not	O
protected	O
by	O
copyright	O
,	O
as	O
they	O
were	O
both	O
inspired	O
by	O
the	O
same	O
form	O
of	O
game	O
,	O
and	O
the	O
same	O
stereotyped	O
characters	O
in	O
the	O
public	O
domain	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Data	O
East	O
was	O
confident	O
in	O
their	O
argument	O
,	O
because	O
Epyx	O
had	O
used	O
the	O
same	O
argument	O
against	O
them	O
in	O
Data	O
East	O
v	O
.	O
Epyx	O
,	O
where	O
courts	O
found	O
that	O
copyright	O
did	O
not	O
protect	O
the	O
general	O
ideas	O
in	O
Karate	B-Device
Champ	I-Device
.	O
</s>
<s>
Judge	O
William	O
H	O
.	O
Orrick	O
Jr.	O
stated	O
that	O
there	O
was	O
strong	O
evidence	O
that	O
Data	O
East	O
set	O
out	O
to	O
imitate	O
the	O
success	O
of	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
,	O
noting	O
similarities	O
such	O
as	O
a	O
"	O
Chun-Li	O
clone	O
"	O
(	O
referring	O
to	O
Feilin	O
)	O
and	O
several	O
comparable	O
special	O
moves	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
The	O
court	O
noted	O
that	O
"	O
of	O
the	O
eight	O
pairs	O
of	O
characters	O
and	O
twenty-seven	O
special	O
moves	O
at	O
issue	O
,	O
three	O
characters	O
and	O
five	O
special	O
moves	O
in	O
Fighter	O
’s	O
History	O
are	O
similar	O
to	O
protectable	O
characters	O
and	O
special	O
moves	O
in	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
"	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Although	O
the	O
court	O
determined	O
that	O
several	O
moves	O
were	O
similar	O
,	O
the	O
court	O
also	O
noted	O
that	O
"	O
Street	B-Application
Fighter	I-Application
II	I-Application
has	O
a	O
total	O
universe	O
of	O
twelve	O
characters	O
and	O
six	O
hundred	O
and	O
fifty	O
moves	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
As	O
a	O
historic	O
ruling	O
,	O
Capcom	B-Application
v	I-Application
.	I-Application
Data	I-Application
East	I-Application
expanded	O
on	O
the	O
principle	O
that	O
generic	O
similarities	O
between	O
games	O
are	O
allowable	O
under	O
copyright	O
law	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Data	O
East	O
established	O
that	O
Fighter	B-Application
's	I-Application
History	I-Application
was	O
not	O
infringing	O
based	O
on	O
the	O
precedent	O
from	O
Data	O
East	O
v	O
.	O
Epyx	O
,	O
which	O
Nadia	O
Oxford	O
of	O
1UP.com	O
noted	O
as	O
"	O
ironic	O
"	O
because	O
Data	O
East	O
lost	O
the	O
older	O
case	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Courts	O
continued	O
this	O
approach	O
for	O
many	O
years	O
,	O
ruling	O
in	O
favor	O
of	O
most	O
video	O
game	O
clones	O
until	O
enforcing	O
some	O
limits	O
in	O
the	O
2012	O
case	O
Tetris	B-License
Holding	I-License
,	I-License
LLC	I-License
v	I-License
.	I-License
Xio	I-License
Interactive	I-License
.	O
</s>
<s>
Tetris	O
v	O
.	O
Xio	O
found	O
that	O
copyright	O
does	O
protect	O
a	O
game	O
's	O
more	O
specific	O
elements	O
from	O
infringing	O
copies	O
,	O
compared	O
to	O
the	O
ruling	O
in	O
Capcom	B-Application
v	I-Application
.	I-Application
Data	I-Application
East	I-Application
that	O
suggests	O
a	O
more	O
skeptical	O
view	O
towards	O
copyright	O
protection	O
for	O
video	O
games	O
.	O
</s>
<s>
Attorney	O
Stephen	O
C	O
.	O
McArthur	O
mentioned	O
it	O
among	O
several	O
rulings	O
that	O
were	O
permissive	O
of	O
clones	O
,	O
such	O
as	O
Atari	O
v	O
.	O
Amusement	O
World	O
and	O
Data	O
East	O
v	O
.	O
Epyx	O
,	O
a	O
pattern	O
that	O
changed	O
in	O
2012	O
with	O
Tetris	O
v	O
.	O
Xio	O
and	O
Spry	B-Application
Fox	I-Application
,	I-Application
LLC	I-Application
v	I-Application
.	I-Application
Lolapps	I-Application
,	I-Application
Inc	I-Application
.	I-Application
</s>
