Talk:Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.

A good start, but a fundamental misreading of the Case
, I think its wonderful that you are tackling this interesting case, but you seem to have misunderstood what was actually adjudicated here. Atari v. North American Philips did not reach a verdict and did not set any precedents as a matter of law. What happened was that Atari (and Midway) sued North American Philips for infringement and requested a preliminary injunction against selling the game while the case was adjudicated. The trial court held a hearing on the matter in which several witnesses testified and several exhibits were introduced into evidence before denying the motion based on its finding that the harm to NAP would be irreparable, and the likelihood of Atari winning on the merits was small. Atari appealed the ruling, and the 7th Circuit applied the substantial similarity test to conclude Atari was likely to prevail on the merits of the case and ordered the imposition of the temporary injunction pending trial. The case then went back to the trial court to proceed towards a final disposition. The case dragged on into 1984 and apparently settled, for a trial was never held and a verdict was never issued. There really was no point in NAP continuing to pursue the case by that point, as the opportunity to make any money on the game had long since passed. Several sources that did not understand judicial procedure mistakenly thought the pre-trial motion hearing was actually a trial, but it was not. Some rewrites will need to be done to accurately convey these events and their results. Indrian (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you may not be aware that the surviving documents from the case were scanned and placed online a few years back. That should help immensely in getting a handle on the case. Indrian (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't take it personally. I'm summarizing the sources on this. The game media sources are sloppier than the legal readings. I'll try to fix some of the worst offenses if it's not considered WP:OR to "correct" the sources. Jorahm (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ... oddly enough I can't find a citation for the fact that this case settled. I was so confident that it was already in this article. But once I noticed it was missing I tried to look for that, to no avail. For differing reasons, the commentators seem to ignore the actual outcome of this dispute. Jorahm (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, that is why I say "apparently settled." The extant court documents do not seem to indicate a final disposition, which is odd.  So it could have been a settlement or a voluntary or involuntary dismissal.  It definitely did not go to trial though or proceed to a verdict. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indrian, I would like to try getting this to good article status. I know some of the sources are wrong or misleading... do you have any advice for how to fix this? i.e.: are there statements that I should change or even remove? or is it something I should add to clarify? Jorahm (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)