One thing in the case docket that was interesting to me (and I imagine to others in the academic game studies community) was Dr. Ian Bogost’s expert report and declaration in support of The Tetris Company’s motion for summary judgment. (It is noted in the report that The Tetris Company compensated him $350/hour for consulting and $450/hour for testimony.) His report and declaration were publicly filed documents available through PACER, and I’ve uploaded them to Scribd for easier access:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111954986
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111954948

Here’s a quote:
“The idea of Tetris is that of a game with blocks on the screen, which are assembled into specific shapes and manipulated by the player. The rules of Tetris are that an object appears on the playing field and the player manipulates the object to a final resting spot, to create a shape, which is then removed from the playing field.”

I will write more on this in the future, but I’m very curious whether others in the academic game studies community agree with the positions advanced by Dr. Bogost on behalf of The Tetris Company in his expert report, which I can only assume made a significant impact on the judge’s decision in this case.

Ah – with the EA vs. Zynga lawsuit, it looks like we may get a higher court’s opinion soon.