wraggster
August 18th, 2013, 00:43
<center style='font: 14px/22px "Open Sans", Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: 0px; white-space: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;'>http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2013/08/battlefield3helicopter.png (http://www.joystiq.com/2013/08/16/ea-settles-textron-helicopter-lawsuit/)</center>Electronic Arts has settled a lawsuit between itself and industrial conglomerate Textron, concerning three models of helicopter made by Textron aerospace subsidiary Bell Helicopter: The AH-1Z Viper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-1Z_Viper), UH-1Y Venom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1Y_Venom) and V-22 Osprey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey). The terms of the private, out-of-court settlement remain unknown, though the case itself has been dismissed with prejudice, Patent Arcade reports (http://www.patentarcade.com/2013/08/case-settled-electronic-arts-v-textron.html).
The suit, which has been ongoing since last year, was originally filed by EA as apreventative tactical measure (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/ea-claims-first-amendment-protections-against-expected-helicopte/), after Textron sent a cease-and-desist letter over the unlicensed existence of its helicopters in Battlefield 3 (http://www.joystiq.com/game/battlefield-3). EA claimed that its usage of these aircraft was covered by fair use policies and the First Amendment, and therefore did not require any sort of licensing agreement.
Later that year, Textron responded with its own counterclaims, alleging that EA was guilty of trademark infringement and various other statutory transgressions under California law. EA then tried to have the suit dismissed (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/07/31/ea-motion-dismiss-counter-claims-battlefield-helicopter-lawsuit-denied#.Ug6lapLVCSo), but was unsuccessful.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/08/16/ea-settles-battlefield-3-and-textron-helicopter-lawsuit/
The suit, which has been ongoing since last year, was originally filed by EA as apreventative tactical measure (http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/ea-claims-first-amendment-protections-against-expected-helicopte/), after Textron sent a cease-and-desist letter over the unlicensed existence of its helicopters in Battlefield 3 (http://www.joystiq.com/game/battlefield-3). EA claimed that its usage of these aircraft was covered by fair use policies and the First Amendment, and therefore did not require any sort of licensing agreement.
Later that year, Textron responded with its own counterclaims, alleging that EA was guilty of trademark infringement and various other statutory transgressions under California law. EA then tried to have the suit dismissed (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2012/07/31/ea-motion-dismiss-counter-claims-battlefield-helicopter-lawsuit-denied#.Ug6lapLVCSo), but was unsuccessful.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/08/16/ea-settles-battlefield-3-and-textron-helicopter-lawsuit/