Daybreak Sues The Heroes Journey EQ EMU Server Devs
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
- 787
- 1,255
This part is no so far fetched. In made up shit like copyright and trademark, defending or not defending your rights can strengthen or weaken your case on infringement. The obvious example is with trademark dilution where people use a trademarked name as a generic term for a class of products. Pass me a kleenex, google it, etc. You'll see companies like band aid and shit over emphasizing 'band aid brand' instead of just 'band aids', because even though they can't stop people from using it as a generic term, if they don't actively at least attempt to combat it, they can lose their trademark.
Some companies have even leaned in on it:
These are the main 3 parts.
1. Equitable Estoppel, you can't sue someone for something you made them believe was OK. Example On Halloween you put a bucket of candy with a sign that says take one, you can't later say sue that one neighbor you don't like for theft because their kid took one. To prove this, THJ offered public statements from Smed and Holly saying that EQEMU servers not just P99 Were good for EQ as a brand and they were glad that they exist. Also they had multiple former high ranking SOE employees say that SOE was well aware of EQEMU existing and were in favor of them existing EVEN if the EMU was for profit.
2. They refuted all the lies in Daybreaks lawsuit. Including removing Trademakers, THJ causing the dip in numbers ect. They hilariously owned Daybreak's650$/hour star expert witness. Apparently he was also an expert witness in a similar copyright case invovlving DOTA, in that case he used a completely different methodology to side with DOTA and say DOTA wasn't in violation of Copyright law because they used only a small portion of Code from some Chinese game. The courts ultimately agreed with him and sided with DOTA. THJ then used his own methodology and proved if he used that same methodology in this case he would need to side with THJ. In other words he's lying for 650$/Hour and got caught red handed.
3. EMUs are legal if they don't do the following
1) Use copyrighted stuff in the Server side code, Daybreak says THJ doesn't do this.
2) Use Pirated Software. Daybreak says THJ uses a legally download version of the client software.
3) Bypass TPMs. Daybreak says THJ does this by editing the serverhost file to prevent you from ever getting to the password screen that controls access to the copyrighted works. THJ debunks the idea this against Daybreaks rules in several different ways. Most hiliariously a Redpost by JChan herself telling people to edit the Serverhost file to connect to the Quarm Beta server.
There's more, but those are the main things. Note 2-3 and the whole lawsuit don't matter if Daybreak can't refute 1. I see no way for Daybreak to refute Equitable Estoppel.
TLDR version Ben B. Anger is the Michael Jordan of Copyright Law and he just dunked on Daybreak's case.
bleedat
Molten Core Raider
- 846
- 406
Uh. Yes. This a big part of their defense and, from what I've read, a very popular defense in cases like this.
My prediction: DBG does not get their injunction but THJ still won't be able to release new content until the trial is completed. THJ will eventually agree to close the server in exchange for no financial penalties and it and the case goes away.
If this thing keeps going I believe all EMU's will get taken down with it and DBG doesn't want/need that.
It will get dismissed with prejudice if the judge agrees with idea that SOE/Daybreaks public statements mislead THJ.
Mahes
Silver Baronet of the Realm
- 6,238
- 9,488
So what would happen if the dev team just shut down the for-profit aspect of the server? I assume they have made their money on it. Make it free now with no pay feature? What if the Developers just used 3rd party sites to acquire money? That exists already on the DBG servers. It is half the reason why players play Everquest.
If a Judge were to see that THJ shut down the for-profit, then the past statements concerning EMU servers would better apply. Then it would be up to DBG to just shut them down, but then they also would have to look at shutting down all of the emulator servers. That might be a little more difficult.
If a Judge were to see that THJ shut down the for-profit, then the past statements concerning EMU servers would better apply. Then it would be up to DBG to just shut them down, but then they also would have to look at shutting down all of the emulator servers. That might be a little more difficult.
Ysu
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 65
- 58
Can you understand this analogy as it relates to Daybreak and THJ?
Imagine Person A has a bike. Person A decides to allow others to use the wheels of said bike. Person B and C take and use those wheels. Later on Person A sells the bike to Person D without the wheels. Then person D claims to be the rightful owner of the Wheels Person B and C are using. Person D has no right to claim the wheels because they were never sold the wheels with the bike.
Yeah, I get what you’re going for — you’re using the bike/wheels to represent EverQuest and its emulator use rights/content.
In the analogy:
Your intended point: If SOE gave away or abandoned certain rights (the “wheels”) before selling EverQuest to Daybreak, then Daybreak never legally acquired those rights, so they can’t enforce them against emulator operators.
So, I get your analogy — it’s trying to frame it as Daybreak never owned the “right” to stop THJ because SOE had already let it go.
But the legal reality is: unless SOE had a formal, binding agreement granting that right to THJ (or the public) in perpetuity, Daybreak probably did get the “wheels” when they bought the bike.
If you want, I can rework your analogy so it’s legally tighter but still easy to understand. That way it works both for casual explanation and for someone familiar with IP law.
Do you want me to do that?
Thankschatgpt... I mean Lawyer friend
Imagine Person A has a bike. Person A decides to allow others to use the wheels of said bike. Person B and C take and use those wheels. Later on Person A sells the bike to Person D without the wheels. Then person D claims to be the rightful owner of the Wheels Person B and C are using. Person D has no right to claim the wheels because they were never sold the wheels with the bike.
Yeah, I get what you’re going for — you’re using the bike/wheels to represent EverQuest and its emulator use rights/content.
In the analogy:
- Person A = SOE (Sony Online Entertainment)
- Bike = EverQuest intellectual property
- Wheels = The specific rights to use EQ assets for emulators (especially EQEMU)
- Person B and C = Emulator operators like THJ, P99, etc.
- Person D = Daybreak Game Company (after buying EverQuest from SOE)
Your intended point: If SOE gave away or abandoned certain rights (the “wheels”) before selling EverQuest to Daybreak, then Daybreak never legally acquired those rights, so they can’t enforce them against emulator operators.
Where the analogy works:
- It illustrates the idea of severed rights — that if SOE truly gave emulator operators a binding license or effectively dedicated certain uses to the public, those rights might not have transferred in the sale.
- If SOE legally allowed “for-profit emulation” (and not just tolerated it), then Daybreak could be seen as buying the bike without those “wheels.”
Where it breaks down legally:
- SOE likely never transferred the wheels — they still owned them.
- Public statements of support aren’t the same as signing away rights.
- Without a formal license agreement, the “wheels” were never legally given to THJ or anyone else.
- IP rights don’t separate like physical parts unless licensed/sold.
- Copyright is an intangible bundle of rights. SOE can sell the entire bundle to Daybreak, even if they previously didn’t enforce some of them.
- Non-enforcement ≠ abandonment.
- Courts almost never see inaction or positive PR statements as “giving away” copyright rights.
So, I get your analogy — it’s trying to frame it as Daybreak never owned the “right” to stop THJ because SOE had already let it go.
But the legal reality is: unless SOE had a formal, binding agreement granting that right to THJ (or the public) in perpetuity, Daybreak probably did get the “wheels” when they bought the bike.
If you want, I can rework your analogy so it’s legally tighter but still easy to understand. That way it works both for casual explanation and for someone familiar with IP law.
Do you want me to do that?
Thanks