31:
278:
417:, with Stern as the plaintiff and Omni as the defendant. Omni had argued that the audiovisual display could not be copyrighted as it was created by a program, and not an author. The court rejected Omni's argument as "senseless", and noted that "an author's work does not become any less original after he has found a means to replicate it." The court further found that Omni's first use of the "Scramble" mark was not in
454:
display was copyrightable, independent of copyright in the underlying code. The appellate court also agreed with the lower court's ruling that Omni's use of the "Scramble" mark was not in good faith, and that they did this anticipate both the debut of Stern's game and Omni's imitation. The preliminary injunction was affirmed, and Omni was stopped from selling their version of
387:
Before the
Copyright Act was updated in 1985 to specifically include computer software, game developers typically looked for copyright protection by treating the code as a literary work. Since it is possible to produce the same sound and images with several different computer programs, Konami decided
453:
rejected both these arguments. Despite the variations in each play through of the game, the audiovisual display was sufficiently fixed due to the repeated use of certain images and sounds. The court also found that there was originality in the creation of these images and sounds, and the audiovisual
504:
In the 1982 essay "The
Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games", Thomas Hemnes noted that it is common "for defendants in video game cases to include in their pleadings the argument that 'the original work of authorship is the computer program' ... and not the game itself. This argument has been
233:
in
December 1980. Omni argued that they did not copy Konami's underlying code. Despite similarities in the audiovisual display, Omni also argued that Konami could not register any copyright in their game as an audiovisual work, as the display for a video game varies each time that it is played, and
245:
against Omni's game. This also led the court to reject Omni's trademark argument, since any use of the "Scramble" mark was made in bad faith, in anticipation of creating a knock-off game under the same name. The principle that a video game is copyrightable as an audiovisual work was affirmed in
448:
does not meet the originality requirement for copyright, as the sequence of images was not an original work of a game developer, but an underlying computer program. Omni further argued that each play of the game produced a new, original audiovisual work, and was not a fixed work as required by
400:
where an identical display is created using different computer code. When Stern accused Omni of violating their copyright, Omni responded that the audiovisual display is different for each player, and did not meet the fixation requirement for a valid copyright. Omni argued that Stern was only
1069:
Computers and
Intellectual Property: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of Justice of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, First and Second Sessions, November 8, 1989, and March 7,
229:, Omni began marketing a nearly identical game with the same name on their arcade cabinets, leading Stern to sue Omni for copyright and trademark infringement. Omni counter-sued for trademark infringement, showing that they had ordered arcade nameplates for their version of
486:, separate from copyright in the underlying code. This case established that video games may qualify for multiple types of copyright protection at the same time β as audiovisual, graphical, and/or literary works β and corresponded with legal developments in
509:, that the audiovisual display is plainly original enough to be copyrightable, even though the underlying code exists independently and is itself eligible for copyright. Hemnes also summarized the efforts of defendants to say that video games lack the
362:. During this time, Omni Video Games began developing an interchangeable arcade game machine to be marketed under the name "Scramble", and ordered several name plates for the machines in December 1980. Between that date and the first sale of Konami's
517:
explains how this case established that video games are audiovisual works, because the audiovisual data is fixed in "memory devices" that can be displayed via hardware. The principle that video games are fixed, audiovisual works would be affirmed in
481:
also cites it as the first federal appellate court to conclude that a video game qualified for copyright as an audiovisual work. The decision also influenced case law for other types of computer software, granting copyright to the software's
500:
expanded from "protect entertainment software involving fanciful creatures and characters to allowing this protection to extend to the user interface of productivity ... software containing little or no artistic or creative originality."
1002:
220:
in 1981, and marketed in the
Americas by Stern Electronics. The game was first sold in the United States in March 1981, and became a breakthrough hit for Konami, reaching the top of the sales charts in June 1981, and becoming the first
1459:
542:
cites this as an early case that enforced the plaintiff's copyright protection, before limiting the scope of this protection in the cases that followed β a trend that continued until the 2013 copyright cases of
374:
trademark as well as their copyright in the game, and Omni responded by suing Stern for violating their common law trademark rights for the mark "Scramble." By that time, Omni was marketing their product as
414:
95:
1346:
241:'s audiovisual display was sufficiently fixed due to the repeated use of certain images and sounds. The court found that the games were nearly identical in their audiovisual display, and granted an
173:
306:
in which the player pilots an aircraft and fires weapons at enemies. The player wins the game by completing six different levels, before running out of fuel or crashing into an obstacle.
401:
entitled to copyright protection in the written computer code stored in the machine's memory, a legal argument that had been successful in the past. Both parties claimed that they owned
1288:
530:
437:
254:
41:
1304:
587:
1192:
1362:
1084:
623:
1257:
732:
492:
260:
1248:
1423:
1386:
551:
946:"Copyright Protection for Video Game Programs and Audiovisual Displays; and - Substantial Similarity and the Scope of Audiovisual Copyrights for Video Game"
538:
asked copyright registrants to decide whether to register the display as an audiovisual work and the computer program as a literary work, not both. The
1454:
1464:
1066:
Justice, United States
Congress House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Administration of (1991).
345:
is also credited with being the first game with distinct levels, and the first game that automatically scrolls the screen from left-to-right.
30:
1469:
321:
was part of a wave of Konami titles that brought them success both in their native Japan and around the world. In the United States, Konami's
1378:
1175:
1140:
1113:
1050:
813:
763:
471:
425:
and the large number of units already sold, the court determined that Stern was more likely to experience hardship, treating Omni's game as
202:" video games in the early 1980s, leading to one of the earliest findings of copyright infringement for a video game, and the first federal
1241:
510:
370:, Omni began marketing a visually similar game with the same title on the machine. Stern responded by suing Omni for violating their
1370:
421:, and was solely in anticipation of imitating the audiovisual display of Stern's game. Based on Stern's considerable investment in
1402:
1170:
1067:
758:
477:
429:. The court granted a preliminary injunction against Omni, preventing them from selling their game or using the "Scramble" mark.
1130:
1099:
1036:
856:
1394:
545:
535:
393:
475:
has noted the ruling as one of the earliest and leading cases where the court found copyright infringement in a video game.
1474:
1234:
979:
405:
rights to the word "Scramble", with Omni noting that they were the first ones to sell arcade machines bearing the mark.
618:
366:
game, Omni sold several arcade machines with the "Scramble" name on the headboard. One month after Stern introduced
1312:
199:
1296:
945:
884:
126:
1338:
1272:
520:
248:
1042:
402:
392:
as an audiovisual work instead of a literary work. Stern sent a video tape recording of the game to the
325:
sold 15,000 units, generating $ 20 million (equivalent to $ 67 million in 2023) in two months alone
298:
186:
155:
469:
was one of the first lawsuits prompted by the increase in "knock-off" video games in the early 1980s.
1159:
Copyright Office Notice of
Registration Decision, Docket No. 87-4, 53 Fed. Reg. 21817, June 10, 1988.
830:
192:
108:
An electronics company can copyright the sounds and images in a video game, not just the source code.
799:
1414:
334:
1105:
1184:
1078:
780:
310:
was first sold in the United States on March 17, 1981, distributed in North and South
America by
91:
1221:
1136:
1109:
1046:
809:
311:
52:
STERN ELECTRONICS, INC v. Harold KAUFMAN d/b/a Bay Coin, et al; Omni Video Games, Inc., et al.
909:
348:
In
November 1980, Stern Electronics sued Omni Video Games for violating their copyright over
1431:
1329:
772:
397:
606:
688:
450:
203:
130:
303:
222:
893:
662:
980:"Protecting the Look and Feel of Computer Software in the United States and Australia"
1448:
497:
483:
441:
349:
122:
805:
513:
to qualify for copyright, saying "this defense is also unavailing." The 1997 book
645:
426:
293:
207:
1324:
582:
580:
578:
576:
574:
572:
570:
568:
418:
355:
242:
169:
181:
177:
1226:
487:
1188:
784:
444:
agreed with the district court's decision. Omni once again argued that
338:
289:
433:
285:
217:
1217:
857:"One of the very first shmups, Scramble, returns on Nintendo Switch"
776:
277:
1132:
Ownership of Rights in
Audiovisual Productions: A Comparative Study
505:
uniformly unsuccessful." Hemnes summarized the court's position on
276:
415:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
333:
arcade charts in June 1981, and became the 14th highest-grossing
1347:
Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.
296:
in the early 1980s. One of Konami's first titles was their game
1230:
258:, and followed parallel developments for computer software in
1038:
The Future of Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
727:
725:
723:
721:
719:
717:
715:
713:
711:
709:
897:. No. 6 (March 1988). February 4, 1988. pp. 29β32.
609:
Game Machine's Survey Of "The Year's Best Three AM Machines"
1460:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cases
1171:"Hitting reset: Devising a new video game copyright regime"
341:
became one of the most popular cartridges on the console.
647:
Attract Mode: The Rise and Fall of Coin-Op Arcade Games
358:
to stop selling their virtually identical game called
90:
Preliminary injunction issued against defendants, 523
1289:
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
1155:
Craig Joyce et al., Copyright Law 77 (7th ed. 2006).
531:
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
255:
Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Artic International, Inc.
42:
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1305:
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.
528:. The principle would continue through the decision
1413:
1323:
1264:
149:
141:
136:
117:
112:
102:
86:
81:
73:
65:
57:
47:
37:
23:
1363:Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
1003:"Copyrightability of Video Games: Stern and Atari"
314:, who secured an exclusive license from Konami.
1101:How Law Works: Collected Articles and New Essays
759:"The Adaptation of Copyright Law to Video Games"
237:The court rejected Omni's argument, saying that
493:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.
950:Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
515:Ownership of Rights in Audiovisual Productions
478:Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
261:Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp
1424:Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America Inc.
1242:
438:United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit
216:was created by Japanese video game developer
174:United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit
8:
1387:Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
1218:669 F2d 852 Stern Electronics Inc v. Kaufman
1083:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
939:
937:
935:
933:
931:
929:
927:
925:
923:
916:. No. 38. SPH Magazines. pp. 30β1.
206:to recognize a video game as a copyrighted
1249:
1235:
1227:
908:Santos, Wayne; Lip, Khang (October 2006).
225:game. A month after the debut of Konami's
29:
20:
472:The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
910:"Twitch on Live: Xbox Live Arcade Games"
176:held that Omni Video Games violated the
984:Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal
564:
1076:
879:
877:
379:, and had sold a total of five units.
354:, and Omni consented to a preliminary
337:in Japan. The home adaptation for the
1379:Capcom U.S.A. Inc. v. Data East Corp.
1176:University of Pennsylvania Law Review
1030:
1028:
1007:Loyola University Chicago Law Journal
973:
971:
969:
967:
965:
963:
764:University of Pennsylvania Law Review
752:
750:
748:
746:
744:
742:
650:. Steel Gear Press. pp. 137β139.
644:Lendino, Jamie (September 27, 2020).
540:University of Pennsylvania Law Review
292:repair company that began developing
7:
978:Hunter, Daniel A.D. (January 1991).
687:Brudvig, Erik (September 13, 2006).
661:Reed, Kristan (September 18, 2006).
639:
637:
635:
633:
601:
599:
597:
317:As Konami's first breakthrough hit,
281:Screenshot of Konami's Scramble game
168:, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982), is a
1195:from the original on August 7, 2019
1129:Salokannel, Marjut (May 28, 1997).
1035:Gaon, Aviv H. (September 7, 2021).
855:Moyse, Chris (September 29, 2019).
198:The lawsuit was due to a trend of "
1355:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman
1281:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman
1073:. U.S. Government Printing Office.
944:Grabowski Jr., Theodore J (1983).
733:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman
588:Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman
14:
1371:Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.
552:Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive
467:Stern Electronics, Inc v. Kaufman
413:The case was first argued in the
165:Stern Electronics Inc. v. Kaufman
24:Stern Electronics, Inc. v Kaufman
1455:United States copyright case law
1403:Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche
1098:Hemnes, Thomas (March 2, 2021).
829:Martin, Garrett (May 25, 2021).
801:The Winners' Book of Video Games
736:, 523 F.Supp 635 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)
496:By 1988, the trend of copyright
1135:. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
1465:1982 in United States case law
1395:Spry Fox, LLC v. Lolapps, Inc.
626:February 15, 1982. p. 30.
591:, 669 F.2d 852 (2nd Cir. 1982)
394:United States Copyright Office
1:
1470:Video game copyright case law
757:Hemnes, Thomas M. S. (1982).
607:""Donkey Kong" No.1 Of '81 β
526:Williams Electronics v. Artic
396:, to protect themselves from
329:The game topped the American
191:an arcade game marketed by
1491:
1313:Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.
1297:Atari Games Corp. v. Oman
1265:Eligibility and ownership
335:arcade video game of 1981
154:
127:Ellsworth Van Graafeiland
107:
28:
1339:Atari v. Amusement World
1273:Atari v. Amusement World
1258:Video game copyright law
1001:McKenna, Pamela (1982).
831:"The Best Games of 1981"
521:Atari v. Amusement World
249:Atari v. Amusement World
1043:Edward Elgar Publishing
1169:Dean, Drew S. (2016).
436:the injunction to the
304:side-scrolling shooter
282:
223:side-scrolling shooter
798:Kubey, Craig (1982).
624:Amusement Press, Inc.
536:U.S. Copyright Office
280:
156:Copyright Act of 1976
1475:1982 in video gaming
403:common law trademark
1415:Reverse engineering
546:Spry Fox v. Lolapps
449:copyright law. The
77:669 F.2d 852 (1982)
16:American legal case
1108:. pp. 77β87.
534:, after which the
283:
87:Procedural history
1442:
1441:
1142:978-90-411-0415-1
1115:978-1-64889-161-8
1052:978-1-83910-315-5
815:978-0-446-37115-5
689:"Scramble Review"
488:computer software
398:video game clones
312:Stern Electronics
193:Stern Electronics
161:
160:
1482:
1432:Sega v. Accolade
1251:
1244:
1237:
1228:
1205:
1204:
1202:
1200:
1183:(5): 1239β1280.
1166:
1160:
1153:
1147:
1146:
1126:
1120:
1119:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1082:
1074:
1063:
1057:
1056:
1032:
1023:
1022:
1020:
1018:
998:
992:
991:
975:
958:
957:
941:
918:
917:
914:GameAxis Unwired
905:
899:
898:
881:
872:
871:
869:
867:
852:
846:
845:
843:
841:
826:
820:
819:
795:
789:
788:
754:
737:
729:
704:
703:
701:
699:
684:
678:
677:
675:
673:
658:
652:
651:
641:
628:
627:
622:. No. 182.
615:
603:
592:
584:
113:Court membership
33:
21:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1409:
1327:
1319:
1260:
1255:
1214:
1209:
1208:
1198:
1196:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1154:
1150:
1143:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1116:
1097:
1096:
1092:
1075:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1053:
1034:
1033:
1026:
1016:
1014:
1000:
999:
995:
977:
976:
961:
943:
942:
921:
907:
906:
902:
883:
882:
875:
865:
863:
854:
853:
849:
839:
837:
828:
827:
823:
816:
808:. p. 118.
797:
796:
792:
777:10.2307/3311832
756:
755:
740:
730:
707:
697:
695:
686:
685:
681:
671:
669:
660:
659:
655:
643:
642:
631:
613:
605:
604:
595:
585:
566:
561:
464:
411:
385:
288:was a Japanese
275:
270:
204:appellate court
131:Edward Dumbauld
129:District Judge
121:Circuit Judges
69:January 20 1982
17:
12:
11:
5:
1488:
1486:
1478:
1477:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1447:
1446:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1436:
1428:
1419:
1417:
1411:
1410:
1408:
1407:
1399:
1391:
1383:
1375:
1367:
1359:
1351:
1343:
1334:
1332:
1321:
1320:
1318:
1317:
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1277:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1256:
1254:
1253:
1246:
1239:
1231:
1225:
1224:
1213:
1212:External links
1210:
1207:
1206:
1161:
1148:
1141:
1121:
1114:
1090:
1058:
1051:
1024:
993:
959:
919:
900:
873:
847:
835:Paste Magazine
821:
814:
790:
771:(1): 171β233.
738:
705:
679:
653:
629:
593:
563:
562:
560:
557:
463:
460:
432:Omni tried to
410:
407:
384:
381:
351:Astro Invaders
274:
271:
269:
266:
234:is not fixed.
159:
158:
152:
151:
147:
146:
143:
139:
138:
134:
133:
119:
118:Judges sitting
115:
114:
110:
109:
105:
104:
100:
99:
88:
84:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1487:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1450:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1418:
1416:
1412:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1333:
1331:
1326:
1322:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1252:
1247:
1245:
1240:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1229:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1172:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1125:
1122:
1117:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1080:
1072:
1071:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1012:
1008:
1004:
997:
994:
989:
985:
981:
974:
972:
970:
968:
966:
964:
960:
956:(1): 140β146.
955:
951:
947:
940:
938:
936:
934:
932:
930:
928:
926:
924:
920:
915:
911:
904:
901:
896:
895:
890:
888:
880:
878:
874:
862:
858:
851:
848:
836:
832:
825:
822:
817:
811:
807:
803:
802:
794:
791:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
760:
753:
751:
749:
747:
745:
743:
739:
735:
734:
728:
726:
724:
722:
720:
718:
716:
714:
712:
710:
706:
694:
690:
683:
680:
668:
667:Eurogamer.net
664:
657:
654:
649:
648:
640:
638:
636:
634:
630:
625:
621:
620:
612:
610:
602:
600:
598:
594:
590:
589:
583:
581:
579:
577:
575:
573:
571:
569:
565:
558:
556:
555:
553:
548:
547:
541:
537:
533:
532:
527:
524:, as well as
523:
522:
516:
512:
508:
502:
499:
498:jurisprudence
495:
494:
489:
485:
484:look-and-feel
480:
479:
474:
473:
468:
461:
459:
457:
452:
447:
443:
442:Jon O. Newman
439:
435:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
408:
406:
404:
399:
395:
391:
382:
380:
378:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
346:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
300:
295:
291:
287:
279:
272:
267:
265:
263:
262:
257:
256:
251:
250:
244:
240:
235:
232:
228:
224:
219:
215:
211:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
190:
188:
183:
179:
175:
172:in which the
171:
167:
166:
157:
153:
148:
144:
140:
137:Case opinions
135:
132:
128:
124:
123:Jon O. Newman
120:
116:
111:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
1430:
1422:
1401:
1393:
1385:
1377:
1369:
1361:
1354:
1353:
1345:
1337:
1311:
1303:
1295:
1287:
1280:
1279:
1271:
1197:. Retrieved
1180:
1174:
1164:
1156:
1151:
1131:
1124:
1106:Vernon Press
1100:
1093:
1068:
1061:
1037:
1015:. Retrieved
1013:(2): 391β413
1010:
1006:
996:
990:(1): 95β155.
987:
983:
953:
949:
913:
903:
892:
886:
864:. Retrieved
860:
850:
838:. Retrieved
834:
824:
806:Warner Books
804:. New York:
800:
793:
768:
762:
731:
698:November 27,
696:. Retrieved
692:
682:
670:. Retrieved
666:
656:
646:
619:Game Machine
617:
608:
586:
550:
544:
539:
529:
525:
519:
514:
506:
503:
491:
476:
470:
466:
465:
455:
451:appeal court
445:
440:, but Judge
431:
422:
412:
389:
388:to register
386:
376:
371:
367:
363:
359:
350:
347:
342:
330:
326:
322:
318:
316:
307:
297:
294:arcade games
284:
259:
253:
247:
238:
236:
230:
226:
213:
212:
195:
185:
164:
163:
162:
150:Laws applied
82:Case history
61:July 15 1981
51:
18:
1199:January 19,
861:Destructoid
427:counterfeit
208:audiovisual
1449:Categories
1325:Plagiarism
1222:OpenJurist
663:"Scramble"
559:References
419:good faith
377:Scramble 2
356:injunction
268:Background
243:injunction
170:legal case
1079:cite book
1017:March 21,
200:knock-off
182:trademark
178:copyright
1193:Archived
1189:24753539
1157:See also
866:June 26,
840:June 26,
672:June 26,
511:fixation
507:Scramble
456:Scramble
446:Scramble
423:Scramble
390:Scramble
372:Scramble
368:Scramble
364:Scramble
343:Scramble
323:Scramble
319:Scramble
308:Scramble
299:Scramble
239:Scramble
231:Scramble
227:Scramble
214:Scramble
187:Scramble
142:Majority
96:E.D.N.Y.
92:F. Supp.
74:Citation
885:"After
785:3311832
339:Vectrex
290:jukebox
103:Holding
66:Decided
1435:(1992)
1427:(1992)
1406:(2018)
1398:(2012)
1390:(2012)
1382:(1994)
1374:(1988)
1366:(1984)
1358:(1982)
1350:(1982)
1342:(1981)
1330:clones
1316:(1998)
1308:(1992)
1300:(1992)
1292:(1983)
1284:(1982)
1276:(1981)
1187:
1139:
1112:
1049:
812:
783:
462:Impact
434:appeal
409:Ruling
331:RePlay
286:Konami
218:Konami
210:work.
145:Newman
58:Argued
1185:JSTOR
781:JSTOR
614:(PDF)
490:with
360:Zygon
273:Facts
98:1981)
94:635 (
38:Court
1328:and
1201:2021
1137:ISBN
1110:ISBN
1085:link
1070:1990
1047:ISBN
1019:2012
887:Pong
868:2022
842:2022
810:ISBN
700:2022
674:2022
549:and
302:, a
252:and
180:and
1220:at
1181:164
894:ACE
773:doi
769:131
693:IGN
383:Law
184:of
1451::
1191:.
1179:.
1173:.
1104:.
1081:}}
1077:{{
1045:.
1041:.
1027:^
1011:14
1009:.
1005:.
986:.
982:.
962:^
952:.
948:.
922:^
912:.
891:.
876:^
859:.
833:.
779:.
767:.
761:.
741:^
708:^
691:.
665:.
632:^
616:.
611:β"
596:^
567:^
458:.
264:.
125:,
1250:e
1243:t
1236:v
1203:.
1145:.
1118:.
1087:)
1055:.
1021:.
988:7
954:3
889:"
870:.
844:.
818:.
787:.
775::
702:.
676:.
554:.
327:.
196:.
189:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
