Initial release was in 1999 and lawsuits were around the same time. PS2 launched in 2000. So while the bleem marketing was a complete mess, the emulator existing while a console was still "alive" does not matter in the slightest.

[–] Alto@kbin.social -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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 5 points 10 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 2 points 10 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 1 points 10 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.