The Ambiguity of Emulation: How Nintendo and Sony Shape the Law

The emulation community has faced a series of setbacks in recent weeks, with Nintendo issuing cease-and-desist orders against the developers of Dolphin and other emulators. This has led to a broader discussion about the legal status of emulation, and how companies like Nintendo and Sony use their resources to shape the law. According to Jon Hangartner, the lawyer who represented Bleem in its lawsuit against Sony, the ambiguity surrounding emulation is a deliberate strategy used by large companies to maintain control over the market. By keeping the law unclear, these companies can use litigation as a tool to drive smaller competitors out of business, even if they ultimately lose the case. This approach has been used by Nintendo and Sony to target emulators and homebrew communities, often with devastating effects on the developers involved. The case of Bleem, which was sued by Sony over its PlayStation emulator, is a prime example of this tactic. Despite ultimately winning the case, Bleem was forced to settle due to the mounting legal costs, and the company eventually shut down. The lack of clarity on the law surrounding emulation has significant implications for the gaming industry, particularly in the context of preservation and accessibility. As Hangartner notes, emulation is a crucial tool for making older games accessible to new audiences, and the ambiguity surrounding its legal status has a chilling effect on innovation and creativity. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the law is often influenced by lobbying efforts from large companies, which can lead to restrictive laws that favor their interests over those of smaller developers and consumers. Ultimately, the only way to achieve clarity on the law surrounding emulation is for a smaller company to successfully challenge a larger corporation in court, setting a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for the industry.