Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What technical protection measures featured in this case?
Case C-355/12 Nintendo and Others v PC Box
Under the Information Society Directive, companies’ technical protection measures (TPMs) employed to protect against acts unauthorised by copyright and database right owners are legally protected. The scope of that protection and the actual use of devices, products or components capable of circumventing effective TPMs was put under the spotlight in this case.
Loosely, the factual matrix was this—Nintendo companies have adopted TPMs whereby their portable consoles contain a recognition system and their video games, encrypted code. Provided together, these measures prevent the use of illegal copies of video games but also of programs, games and multimedia content that does not originate from Nintendo. PC Box markets original Nintendo consoles with additional software from independent manufacturers. These ‘homebrew applications’, created specifically for the Nintendo consoles, result in circumvention of the TPM.
Unsurprisingly, Nintendo sued PC Box. The Tribunale di Milano referred a couple of questions to the CJEU.
What clarification did the Tribunale di Milano seek from the CJEU?
The court wanted to know, in essence:
• whether an effective TPM, under the Information Society Directive, covered measures comprising equipping not only the housing system containing the protected work, such as the videogame, with a recognition device, but also portable equipment or consoles intended to ensure access to those games and their use
• what criteria should be used to assess the scope of legal protection against circumvention of TPMs—in particular whether it was correct to examine:
What did the CJEU clarify in relation to TPMs?
The CJEU decided:
• technological measures such as those partly incorporated in the physical housing of videogames and partly in consoles and which require interaction between them, fall within the concept of ‘effective technological measures’ if their objective is to prevent or to limit acts adversely affecting the rightholder
• criteria for examining the scope of legal prote
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234