• Alto@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    The main point of that ruling was that they weren’t using proprietary code. Yuzu almost certainly did after the TOTK leak, unless they magically just happened to improve that much directly afterwards.

    I don’t like it, but there’s a pretty big chance that Yuzu loses this one.

    • breakingcups@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s not what using proprietary code means in this case.

      Besides, it’s possible they “legitimately” bought a copy of the game from a store that accidentally broke the embargo date. You can’t legally blame customers for that.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sega v. Accolade was about using proprietary code, Sega lost and the small snippet of code that was reverse engineered out of the Genesis was deemed fair use because there was no other way to get an unlicensed cartridge to run on the console

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes. I agree and said as much elsewhere in this thread.

      My issue was with your statement of

      There’s a fairly big difference between “you’re making an emulator for a console we stopped selling anything for a decade ago” and “you are actively cutting into the sales of everything we are currently doing”

      Where, no, there is not a difference there.