Talk:Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: IceWelder (talk · contribs) 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to take this on since we do not have that many legal case GAs yet. I will review the article within the week. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

---

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

General

• The article currently names Lolapps and 6waves independently. However, the two companies were a single company, called "6waves Lolapps", after they merged in July 2011. The suit also notes that "Spry Fox named as Defendants three closely-related corporate entities with a role in the production of Yeti Town: 6Waves, LOLApps, Inc., and LOLApps Merger Sub, Inc. For simplicity, the court refers to them collectively as 6Waves." Since all events appear to have occurred after this merger, the article should consistently refer to "6waves Lolapps" instead of just "6waves" or "Lolapps", unless the context requires otherwise. Where applicable (i.e. the first occurrence in each, the lead and the body) also link 6waves Lolapps.
• There should be a composite image of screenshots of Triple Town and Yeti Town to visually show the similarities.
• The article sometimes refers to companies using "it/its", sometimes with "they/their"; while both are valid, one should be used consistently.

Lead

• There should be a trailing comma after the legal citation in the first sentence.
• Add a source for that citation.
• Link "infringed" to copyright infringement; and I believe it should say "infringed on".
• Link "look and feel".
• A major aspect presented in the body is that this "look and feel" similarity was determined despite the game's not looking identical. This should be briefly mentioned up here as well.
• Briefly state when the case was settled and what the outcome was.
• Note that the Tetris case was decided earlier in 2012.

Background

• Link the essential terms: Spry Fox, 6waves Lolapps (changed from "LOLApps" per above), iOS, non-disclosure agreement, Tile-matching video game (under "match-three games")
• Single-player games are usually referred to in the present tense, even if removed from sale. The tensing should be adjusted throughout the second paragraph.
• "the game creates challenge by placing new objects" – "challenge" -> "challenges"
• "However, there were also cosmetic differences," – "However" and "also" are redundant here.
• "and one game using 3D polygons rather than 2D sprites" – Simplify to "and one game being presented in 3D rather than 2D". Also, clarify which title uses which presentation.

Claim

• In the first sentence, add with which court Spry Fox filed the suit.
• "did not deny that they had access" – "had" -> "had had" as past perfect.
• "asked the Western District Court to dismiss the case" – Simplify "the Western District Court" to "the court".
• Add the year of the Data East v. Epyx case for context.

Ruling

• "The Western District Court Judge" can be simplified to just "Judge".
• Retain the original typography of "idea–expression distinction" (with an en-dash) and "scènes à faire" (with special characters). As the latter is a foreign phrase, it should also be in italics.
• "This was despite the games' clear visual differences" – "clear" sounds like an opinion and should be removed.
• Italicize the game name in the quote.
• Move the substantial similarity link to the first of the two instances.
• "However, the court did not actually play either game," – "actually" is redundant.
• "screen shots" -> "screenshots"; consider linking screenshot.

Settlement

• Consider merging this section with "Ruling" (possibly as "Attempted dismissal and settlement") as it is just two sentences, of which the first mostly repeats the previous section.
• That said, the first sentence feels editorialized/sensationalized. Just state briefly that the dismissal was 6waves Lolapps' only viable option.
• Link Settlement (litigation).
• "resulting in Spry Fox owning the intellectual property for both games" – clarify: "resulting in Spry Fox obtaining the intellectual property for Yeti Town"; link intellectual property.

Impact

• "a legal system that is more willing to protect" – The "more" feels out of place.
• In "unlike the Tetris V. Xio case", "case" should not be in italics.
• Link and italicize Ars Technica and mention which writer's opinion is being expressed.
• "A major factor in the ruling was likely the existing relationship" – The "likely" indicates an opinion. If so, add the attribution.
• Does "Attorney McArthur" have a first name?
• "pushes Copyright law closer" -> "pushed copyright law closer"
• Instead of "idea-expression dichotomy", use "idea–expression distinction" as before; "dichotomy" is not a commonly known phrase.

Sources

• Refs #5, #7, #8, #9, #11 need dates
• Refs #7, #8, #9 need authors
• There appears to be an error in the author for ref #3
• Ref #6 should have a |via= attribution (Santa Clara University School of Law/Santa Clara Law Digital Commons)

---

@Jorahm: Above is my initial review and some requested changes. Feel free to cross out or reply to individual points as you see fit. I will be watching both this page and the article. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hey! I went ahead and fixed all the issues you cited. Or at least I think I did. Jorahm (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I believe we are almost done here, just one point remains from my side: The now second-to-last sentence in the "Ruling and settlement" section should still be toned down and avoid repetitions. Consider: "The rejection took 6waves Lolapps their central legal argument." or something similar. I would also argue that merging the two-sentence paragraph with the prior would improve flow. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I re wrote the sentence with a closer reading of the source and put some analysis into the "impact" section. I decided to keep the paragraphs separate because the settlement was a separate event with its own separate logic. Does that work? Jorahm (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Works for me.  Passed. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 06:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)