It is indeed on like donkey kong

[Jbroderway]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gad ... onkey.kong


Really?

[Flake]

I think it's a smart move.

[sevin0seven]

heh. what's next? "It's me Mario!" or "Whaaa-hooo" or maybe "Mama-mia!"

[Pichu]

I think this is unnecessary.

[GSZX1337]

Everytime I hear that phrase I want to go on a killing spree.

[Limewater]

Maybe it has something to do with the Oreo ad last year where Peyton Manning says it. I could see Nintendo getting kind of uptight about one of their characters being mentioned in an ad for another product without any attribution.

[slowslow325]

Yea, I think it's a smart move, too. It may have something to do with Donkey Kong Country 4's release. Maybe, since it's so popular, they'll work it out to be an ad slogan for that game.

I just read the comments and, oh boy, they are really dumb! Most are just insulting Nintendo for this. But this one is my favorite:

"77063 They should be glad whoever owns the rights to "King Kong" never sued them. An obvious ripoff. A giant gorilla kidnaps blonde girl, last name is Kong, climbs tall structure with said girl? A coincidence"

I hope that was a joke!

[YoshiEgg25]

Yea, I think it's a smart move, too. It may have something to do with Donkey Kong Country 4's release. Maybe, since it's so popular, they'll work it out to be an ad slogan for that game.

I just read the comments and, oh boy, they are really dumb! Most are just insulting Nintendo for this. But this one is my favorite:

"77063 They should be glad whoever owns the rights to "King Kong" never sued them. An obvious ripoff. A giant gorilla kidnaps blonde girl, last name is Kong, climbs tall structure with said girl? A coincidence"

I hope that was a joke!

I actually posted a reply to that one. For some reason, it isn't showing, but my reply was essentially this, but more to the point:

NOTE: HISTORY LESSON AHEAD

Universal tried, but was unsuccessful, as King Kong just happened to be public domain. Why was this? Because Universal sued before to make it public domain!

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd. was heard at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet. The trial lasted seven days, during which Universal, represented by the New York firm Townley & Updike, argued that the name Donkey Kong could be confused with King Kong and that the plot of the game was an infringement on that of the film. [John] Kirby showed key differences between Donkey Kong and King Kong. He also alleged that Universal had no rights to the King Kong characters and that they had in fact successfully sued RKO Pictures in 1975 in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General Inc., et al., wherein they proved that the plot of King Kong was in the public domain and thus opened the way for Dino De Laurentiis's remake.

Judge Sweet ruled against Universal and chastised the company:

Throughout this litigation, Universal knew, as a result of the RKO litigation, that it had no rights to any visual image of King Kong from the classic movie or its remake. Nonetheless, Universal, when it seemed beneficial, made sweeping assertions of rights, attempting to extract license agreements from companies incapable of or unwilling to confront Universal's "profit center."

He ruled that Universal did not own King Kong, but even if King Kong was Universal's property, the possibility that anyone would confuse Donkey Kong and King Kong was unlikely. In his opinion, Donkey Kong was "comical" and the ape character "farcical, childlike and nonsexual." The King Kong character, on the other hand, was "a ferocious gorilla in quest of a beautiful woman." Sweet declared that "At best, Donkey Kong is a parody of King Kong." Furthermore, Sweet said, the cease-and-desist letters that Universal had sent to Nintendo's licensees gave the game company the right to seek damages.

Oh, but it gets better.

Finally, Sweet ruled that Tiger's [Tiger Electronics] King Kong was an infringement of Donkey Kong:

"Donkey Kong's particular expression of a gorilla villain and a carpenter hero (with or without a fire hat) who must dodge various obstacles (whether bombs or fireballs) while climbing up ladders (whether complete or broken) and picking up prizes (umbrellas or purses) to rescue a fair-haired (whether knotted or pigtailed) hostage from the gorilla is protractible against Universal and its licensees."

Nintendo was given the option to either take Universal's licensing profits for their game or accept statutory damages. Nintendo opted for the former, receiving $56,689.41. Nintendo also received damages and attorney's fees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... o_Co.,_Ltd.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the beginning of how Nintendo became a video game power.

[Ack]

For the record though, isn't it common knowledge that Nintendo is hardcore into making sure it gets its way?

[Dylan]

I've seen worse:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0508-04.htm