Blizzard wins Lawsuit against WoWGlider

Xavias · 07/14/08, 11:59 PM

"World of Warcraft owners Blizzard have won their case against the programmer who wrote Glider, Michael Donnelly. Blizzard won on two arguments: first, that if a game is loaded into RAM, that can be considered an unauthorized copy of the game and as such a breach of copyright; second, that selling Glider was interfering with Blizzard's contractual relationship with its customers. The net effect? If you buy a game, you transfer rights to the game developer that they can sue you for."

Blizzard Wins Key Judgments Against WoW Bot Maker MDY on Copyright and Tortious Interference Claims | Virtually Blind | Virtual Law | Benjamin Duranske

This is a big victory for Blizzard. Before this, we never really saw Blizzard's numerous threats of legal action actually precipitate into an actual court case. This win pretty much sends out a definite warning that Blizzard will in-fact persue organisations that threaten the integrity of their games.

I wonder how much of an effect this will have in the future. Will a product ever be marketed again that exploits a Blizzard game after this?

Links to Court Documents (Thanks Gurg)
This is the Order: http://www.mmoglider.com/legal/order_july14_2008.pdf (save-as if you're paranoid about browsing to that website due to Warden fears, etc.)
Blizzard's Motion for Summary Judgment: http://terranova.blogs.com/BlizzardMSJ.pdf
MDY's (Glider company) Motion for SJ: http://terranova.blogs.com/MDYMSJ.pdf

Syras · 07/15/08, 12:18 AM

Interesting verdict.

So assuming that they claimed Tortuous Interference (e.g. inducing customers to violate the TOS) this has some pretty far reaching implications.

• sadris · 07/15/08, 12:33 AM

Bullshit verdict.

This sets precedent that loading any piece of software into your RAM is violation of copyright. The possibilities for legal exploitation is endless (hi **AA!).

Xavias · 07/15/08, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by sadris

Bullshit verdict.

This sets precedent that loading any piece of software into your RAM is violation of copyright. The possibilities for legal exploitation is endless (hi **AA!).

Untrue, only if you modify the contents of the program (breaking your license agreement) and then load it into your memory. (ie cheating via altering code)

Talgog · 07/15/08, 1:23 AM

Originally Posted by sadris

Bullshit verdict.

This sets precedent that loading any piece of software into your RAM is violation of copyright. The possibilities for legal exploitation is endless (hi **AA!).

This is trial court, it does not set significant precedent of anything. The ruling might be of interest on a factually similar case in a different District or a state court, but that's about it. If it's upheld using similar or broader logic on appeal, it gets more relevant.

-

A far more interesting legal issue that touches Blizzard was covered in a Wall Street Journal editorial today. This bill is currently under consideration:

Arbitration Works Better Than Lawsuits - WSJ.com

GovTrack: S. 1782: Text of Legislation

In other words, you could kiss this (and your credit card arbitration agreement)goodbye:

Originally Posted by WoW EULA 14(b)

Binding Arbitration. If you and Blizzard are unable to resolve a Dispute through informal negotiations, either you or Blizzard may elect to have the Dispute (except those Disputes expressly excluded below) finally and exclusively resolved by binding arbitration. Any election to arbitrate by one party shall be final and binding on the other. YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ABSENT THIS PROVISION, YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE IN COURT AND HAVE A JURY TRIAL. The arbitration shall be commenced and conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") and, where appropriate, the AAAï¿½s Supplementary Procedures for Consumer Related Disputes ("AAA Consumer Rules"), both of which are available that the AAA website AAA - Arbitration, Mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The determination of whether a Dispute is subject to arbitration shall be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and determined by a court rather than an arbitrator. Your arbitration fees and your share of arbitrator compensation shall be governed by the AAA Rules and, where appropriate, limited by the AAA Consumer Rules. If such costs are determined by the arbitrator to be excessive, Blizzard will pay all arbitration fees and expenses. The arbitration may be conducted in person, through the submission of documents, by phone or online. The arbitrator will make a decision in writing, but need not provide a statement of reasons unless requested by a party. The arbitrator must follow applicable law, and any award may be challenged if the arbitrator fails to do so. Except as otherwise provided in this License Agreement, you and Blizzard may litigate in court to compel arbitration, stay proceeding pending arbitration, or to confirm, modify, vacate or enter judgment on the award entered by the arbitrator.

PSGarak · 07/15/08, 1:26 AM

So basically the copy loaded into RAM is a valid target of copyright infringement cases, rather than just the copy on the hard drive, but the copyright infringement still have to be proven for said RAM copy?

Syras · 07/15/08, 1:39 AM

Side note - all this could have easily been avoided had the creator simply claimed that his program was designed to let disabled persons play WoW, therefore helping Blizzard comply with ADA

◊ Praetorian · 07/15/08, 1:44 AM

This is the Order: http://www.mmoglider.com/legal/order_july14_2008.pdf (save-as if you're paranoid about browsing to that website due to Warden fears, etc.)

Blizzard's Motion for Summary Judgment: http://terranova.blogs.com/BlizzardMSJ.pdf
MDY's (Glider company) Motion for SJ: http://terranova.blogs.com/MDYMSJ.pdf

Basically, just glance at the MDY motion and you should get some sense of the caliber of lawyer you're talking about here.

MDY outright conceded crucial factual and legal points (such at the EULA and ToU constituting a valid contract, and a hypothetical at oral argument discussed on p. 11).

It seems to me, at a glance, that the court got it wrong regarding the Fed. Circuit Storage Technology case discussed at pp. 10-11 of their Order (look at the block quote on p.11 of the MDY motion, in particular), but the advocacy gap here was probably so large that it distorted the outcome.

• Arawethion · 07/15/08, 1:44 AM

Does anyone have a working link to the actual opinion?

EDIT: ^^ Gurg.
I'll look forward to reading at work tomorrow.

◊ Praetorian · 07/15/08, 1:50 AM

Also please, please, can people

NOT

partake in amazing "internet e-lawyering." If you have an informed opinion to share, go for it. If you're familiar with reading and analyzing legal decisions and arguments, feel free. If you're up on copyright law or contract law or this area of developing digital law, have at it. If you have questions, ask away.

But let's try to avoid uninformed speculation passed off as "analysis," thanks.

Antumbra · 07/15/08, 7:08 AM

I wonder if, were MDY to convert Glider into a networked application (sort of like a customized firewall that filtered and generated WoW-related packets), they'd still be bound by the results of this court decision.

I always wondered why botting software didn't operate using that method anyway, since it'd be much harder to detect, and it seems like Blizzard wouldn't have been able to apply this specific legal approach in response to it.

janodandre · 07/15/08, 7:18 AM

I think this Slashdot post clarifies on the "copy to ram" subject:

Violation of the EULA/TOU - Derivative work

The key word here is an "unauthorized" copy, not any copy in RAM.
The judgment says that a copy to RAM is "unauthorized" when it is loaded alongside other code that creates an experience outside the scope of the World of Warcraft license (EULA and TOU). You're creating an unlicensed derivative work when you use such code.
...
The court has simply ruled that if you are running a bot program, the limited license granted to the user by Blizzard forbids you to load or keep the program in RAM.

@Antumbra: filtering packets doesn't work because the traffic is encrypted. You can read more about it here: On Warden: A storm is brewing. The author of this post was running a bot that used the method you talk about.

koaschten · 07/15/08, 9:10 AM

Originally Posted by Antumbra

I wonder if, were MDY to convert Glider into a networked application (sort of like a customized firewall that filtered and generated WoW-related packets), they'd still be bound by the results of this court decision.

I always wondered why botting software didn't operate using that method anyway, since it'd be much harder to detect, and it seems like Blizzard wouldn't have been able to apply this specific legal approach in response to it.

Not planning to turn this into a general botting topic, but if i recall thats the exact way exploits for diablo2 were working back then. They worked like a proxy intercepting and re-modulating the traffic from and to the d2 client and battlenet. IF you are really interested in that stuff, use google, battlenet communication protocol is a really researched topic.

ZeroWashu · 07/15/08, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by sadris

Bullshit verdict.

This sets precedent that loading any piece of software into your RAM is violation of copyright. The possibilities for legal exploitation is endless (hi **AA!).

Summary : The ruling established that loading a program with the express intent to violate a TOU/EULA license is an infringement on copyright (you can read my ramble beyond this sentence if you wish)

What this ruling is stating that you are creating an unlicensed derivative work when you load a copy of the program in question into memory when another program loaded alongside creates an experience outside the license for the you agreed to (EULA and TOU). In other words, you are not covered under US Title 17, Section 117 when you are violating the terms of the EULA/TOU you agreed to. So, if your running a BOT program you are not permitted to run WOW under the license given to you by Blizzard

This is breach of license, folks. It's explicitly forbidden in the TOU and EULA. It is not the same as preventing the loading of a copyrighted work into RAM for LICENSED issues. So what they did is come up with a narrow ruling that WOWGLider has no other reason to exist except to violate the license granted by Blizzard to players of the game. You can't use it without violating the TOU/EULA. As such you cannot legally run it when running WOW. As such the author of the program is criminally liable.

◊ Praetorian · 07/15/08, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Praetorian

But let's try to avoid uninformed speculation passed off as "analysis," thanks.

Originally Posted by ZeroWashu

As such the author of the program is criminally liable.

No.

Talgog · 07/15/08, 10:54 AM

Well, to start, Gurg's impression of the advocacy gap is certainly grounded in reality. MDY is represented by a six-attorney Arizona IP firm. That's much better representation than normally seen in this sort of case, but they were seriously outgunned.

Blizzard was represented by Sonnenschein, Nath and Rosenthal, which is a 700 lawyer law firm based out of Chicago. I am somewhat familiar with the firm as it's one of the dozens that I'm going to be applying to for summer associate positions starting in 4 weeks. They have an Arizona office (still bigger than MDY's entire firm), but something involving an angry client with bottomless pockets like Blizzard is certainly going to be able to draw on support from the mothership, as it were.

It's not necessarily a disadvantage in terms of quality of lawyer - boutique firms can be very strong at what they do, while big firms can be seriously ineffecient - but just on the surface, Bilzzard's brief is quite a bit easier to read and understand than MDY's brief, and that sort of thing can matter. I'm currently working for an appellate judge as a summer clerk and people just like the easier-to-read brief. To the extent that MDY is making absurd, false, and shifty arguments/statements, that also really pisses judges (and their clerks) off. Federal judges have full-time clerks who were very accomplished law students and are generally quite sophisticated with a low tolerance for BS.

I can also say that including stuff like this in your brief, at least in this language, is not a good idea and is too cute by half:

Originally Posted by MDY Motion, P.4

When Blizzard released WoW in late 2004, Donnelly became an avid player of
WoW. Like many others who play WoW, Donnelly became frustrated with the amount
of time it took to advance his character in WoW. Inspired by his desire to advance his
character’s level to the same level several of his friends had reached, Donnelly searched
online for any available programs that would help him speed up the time it took to level
his character up to where his friends were. After searching and being unsuccessful in
locating a software program to meet his needs, Donnelly decided to write software code
to assist him in catching up with his friends in the game without having to be physically
playing WoW.

This has little to do with the actual dispute at bar, and on top of that, doesn't make me like Donnelly much either. Federal judges work hard, and their clerks work very hard, and are planning on working even harder once they finish clerking and get a job at a place like Sonnenschein. Saying that you can't be bothered to play a game is stupid. To the extent that this is relevant, it certainly should not have been phrased that way.

There are also some arguments without authority (citation to facts or law) in MDY's brief. You don't want to do this. Even if you have no authority on your side, say as much, or just concede it. Arguments without authority are uniformly ignored and also irritate the court.

I can't comment on the substantive copyright stuff until I read some of the underlying cases. This case is basically decided by 9th Circuit precedent, which is something the amicus brief didn't seem to understand. Unless it's overruled by the Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit is the final word in Arizona federal court. You cannot make policy argument to a district court, which is basically federal trial court.

What I can say is that if the 9th Circuit cases do say what they appear to about copies to RAM (I don't think the judge is misquoting the court that can overrule him), and that is not mirrored in other circuits, MDY should have picked a different circuit to file in, if that would be at all possible under personal jurisdiction. MDY is not going to win under that precedent.

Also, I feel that MDY never should have proceeded to summary judgment on this (if Blizzard gave them a choice), based on this claim:

Originally Posted by Opinion, P. 23-24

To establish tortious interference, Blizzard must
show that (1) a valid contractual relationship exists between Blizzard and its customers,
(2) MDY knows of the relationship, (3) MDY has intentionally and improperly interfered in
the relationship and caused a breach or termination of the relationship, and (4) Blizzard has
been damaged as a result.

...

MDY does not dispute several elements of this tort: that there is a valid contract
between Blizzard and its customers (the EULA and TOU), that MDY knows of the contract,
and that the use of Glider breaches the contract. No additional proof is required on these
elements.
Nor is there a genuine dispute that MDY has intentionally interfered with the contract.

...

The sole remaining question for purposes of liability is whether MDY’s actions are
improper. Arizona has adopted the seven factors enumerated in Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 767 for determining when a defendant’s interfering conduct is improper. See
Wagonseller, 710 P.2d at 1042-43. Those factors include (1) the nature of the defendant’s
conduct, (2) the defendant’s motive, (3) the interests of the plaintiff with which the conduct
interferes, (4) the interests sought to be advanced by the defendant, (5) the social interests in
protecting the freedom of action of the defendant and the contractual interests of the plaintiff,
(6) the proximity or remoteness of the defendant’s conduct to the interference, and (7) the
relationship between the parties. See id. Courts give the greatest weight to the first two
factors. Safeway Ins. Co. v. Guerrero, 106 P.3d 1020, 1027 (Ariz. 2005).

Basically, MDY was never going to win this claim If anything, Donnelly is an arrogant little shit about how Glider is difficult for Blizzard to deal with. It is also a very expensive claim; this is a business tort, and Blizzard enumerates quite a bit more damages than MDY has ever made off of Glider. Blizzard does not need the copyright claims. The business tort is more than enough to ruin MDY and establish that it can be applied to people selling this sort of software.

Donnelly should not have challenged Blizzard on this. He should have agreed to stop selling Glider. Now he's screwed, particularly on the business tort.

The copyright analysis is much more complex, and I have less expertise in it than I do in contract, procedure, and how courts work. I'll comment once I review Wall Data, Storage Technology, MDI and Ticketmaster.

-

Oh, as an addendum, the Internet lawyers on the WoW forums can shut up about the EULA/TOS "have never been tested in court." They're clearly a valid contract on their face under current American law, and this court treats them as such without hesitation; arguments to the contrary by Donnelly are basically meritless. That doesn't mean that the entire things are valid - most of that is not being tested here. All that is being tested is (a) do you have to read them together - YES; (b) is this a valid limited license - YES; (c) are Blizzard's modifications to them valid, i.e. the prohibition of bots after Glider surfaced - YES.

See Post #4 for discussion on a very real challenge to Blizzard's EULA that is coming from Congress.

Xavias · 07/15/08, 10:55 AM

To anyone with good understanding of the legal system / Gurg: What would Blizzard typically be entitled to in terms of damages and actions imposed on MDY as a result of the court finding in favour of the copyright breaches? I know that they initially asked for Glider to be shut down and all profits/royalties be awarded to them. What should we expect to see?

Talgog · 07/15/08, 11:05 AM

What Blizzard asked for is a permanent injunction against MDY operating, and every form of monetary damages you can think of.

They'll absolutely get a permanent injunction. There's not even any question about that at this point. This is copyright infringement and an intentional business tort. A court is going to order both of those to stop without thinking twice.

In terms of monetary damages, Blizzard identified about $11.5 million in enumerated compensatory damages under the business tort, most of it coming from "stolen" subscriber playtime. This is also an intentional tort, which means that punative damages are on the table.

Copyright has statutory damages. These damages are very large per count, and they are per count.

None of this is particulary important here; MDY cannot pay a fraction of the damages, and I think Blizzard knows that. The total revenues from Glider appear to be ~ $1.5 million. Blizzard is asserting that is unjust enrichment, which I think is a BS claim, but that also doesn't matter.

Basically, MDY is bankrupt several times over and is going to get the injunction issues against them, as that was the primary relief Blizzard wanted and it is absolutely appropriate in this case.

Don't commit business torts against major corporations.

Caligula · 07/15/08, 12:13 PM

Good for Blizzard. I'm not going to comment on the legal aspects because frankly I've no experience in that field nor do I care to get into it. However, fuck Glider. I hope this dude and other people who make a business out of cheating end up in a similar situation. There is nothing more annoying in this game than playing your character and coming across a bot farming the same area as you. Glider ruins economies and creates a disconnected virtual world where you may or may not actually be playing next to another person. And if that player next to you isn't a person, they are most likely directly or indirectly hurting you in some way.

Major props to Blizz here for following through with this, even if it will be at a loss for them. Kudos.

Shadout · 07/15/08, 12:20 PM

Happy to see the Glider people lost (although the RAM argument Blizz used is slightly scary).

Dodging legal discussions I cant see any good reason it should be okay to abuse others software beyond what they have clearly stated in their contract. Just because our laws aren't fit being used on all the new digital issues which arise in software and the internet it doesnt mean its not wrong they are able to do so without consequence.
Same for goldselling.

Its not so much a question of whether or not Glider or other such stuff is illegal (thats beyond most of us to discuss that anyway), but whether or not it should be.
*Should be' isnt that useful in court of course, only changes to laws or cases like this is.

The actual arguments Blizz used to win the case might be a bit 'silly' and far-stretched (and even a bit scary if it gets wildly used in other cases), but it just shows how bad current laws match the reality of modern technology.

The conception that laws doesnt apply on 'the intertubes' and people can do whatever they want needs to go away at some point. Hard to say whether this case is a step toward that, or a step in the wrong direction. Will be interesting to follow.

◊ Turik · 07/15/08, 1:10 PM

It seems like a majority of the holes in MDY's case are the way Warden works. If such evidence were ever to come into contention in court, how much would Blizzard have to reveal about how it operates?

Talgog · 07/15/08, 1:24 PM

The better, easier argument for Blizzard is probably the tortious interference claim, although you plead everything and anything under the sun in a complaint because of claim and issue preclusion. So they will always be pleading copyright and unjust enrichment.

The tortious interference argument is more than painful enough to make selling something that helps others violate the EULA/TOU a very bad idea. Again, business torts with companies the size of Blizzard are going to involve seven-figure damages.

Most of the elements of this tort are, as here, not going to be credibly up for dispute when someone is running a third party commercial enterprise similar to Glider. That means any bots; it could possibly be used against gold sellers as well.

That leaves these:

Those factors [determining if interference was improper] include
(1) the nature of the defendant’s conduct,
(2) the defendant’s motive,
(3) the interests of the plaintiff with which the conduct interferes,
(4) the interests sought to be advanced by the defendant,
(5) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the defendant and the contractual interests of the plaintiff,
(6) the proximity or remoteness of the defendant’s conduct to the interference
(7) the relationship between the parties.

That's Arizona law, but it's from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is general common law that most jurisdictions are going to be in accord with.

I think any bot-seller is going to lose on these factors - you are selling something to cause breach of contract because you want money. Gold selling is a tougher argument because of this:

Originally Posted by TOU Sub 8

Ownership/Selling of the Account or Virtual Items.

Blizzard does not recognize the transfer of Accounts. You may not purchase, sell, gift or trade any Account, or offer to purchase, sell, gift or trade any Account, and any such attempt shall be null and void. Blizzard owns, has licensed, or otherwise has rights to all of the content that appears in the Program. You agree that you have no right or title in or to any such content, including the virtual goods or currency appearing or originating in the Game, or any other attributes associated with the Account or stored on the Service. Blizzard does not recognize any virtual property transfers executed outside of the Game or the purported sale, gift or trade in the "real world" of anything related to the Game. Accordingly, you may not sell items for "real" money or otherwise exchange items for value outside of the Game.

The TOU prohibits sale; it does not prohibit buying, and buying is so pervasive that if Blizzard wanted to, they absoultely would have explicitly prohibited it by now. The EULA/TOU are comparatively easy to read form contracts; Blizzard wants people to read them. There is no reason for them not to use plain language to say that "You may not buy or sell..."

Therefore, enabling someone to buy gold or items is different than enabling someone to sell them. IGE help others buy items. You probably couldn't get rid of them on tortious interference for this reason as they have good argument they are not causing breach of contract.

However, this is tort law (you can invent new theories at will), so you might actually be able to get a gold seller directly for damage done to the economy of the game via inflation and/or keylogging and systematic account theft and resulting loss of subscribers and costs associated with fixing it. Blizzard would want an injunction anyway, as most of this stuff is seriously small fry economic damages as far as they are concerned with $1.5 billion in direct subscription revenue and all.

• Bluefish · 07/15/08, 2:45 PM

Originally Posted by Talgog

In terms of monetary damages, Blizzard identified about $11.5 million in enumerated compensatory damages under the business tort, most of it coming from "stolen" subscriber playtime.

Could I trouble someone to elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what exactly stolen subscriber playtime means in this context.

Talgog, thank you for your enlightening breakdown!

Talgog · 07/15/08, 3:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bluefish

Could I trouble someone to elaborate on this point? I'm not sure what exactly stolen subscriber playtime means in this context.

I don't like this argument, but here it is.

Bizzard got in the Statement of Facts of this case that it takes 480 hours played (20 days played) for a player to bring a character to the level cap. Blizzard also got the metric of 2 hours/day as the "normal" amount of playtime. Therefore, a normal player would spend twelve real days for every in-game leveling day to reach cap, and take eight RL months of continuous playtime to do so. That eight months equates to $120 in subscription fees paid while leveling your character.

Glider of course has other applications as everyone who is pissed off at their team in AV knows, but this is the one Blizzard focused on.

The argument is that, as Glider lets you basically play all the time, it dramatically reduces the amount of time someone has to play in RL time to a much smaller number.

Originally Posted by Blizzard Brief PP. 22-23

WoW players pay Blizzard around a $15 monthly subscription fee. (SOF ¶
254). As detailed in Blizzard’s expert report, by automating their characters’
progress through the WoW “leveling” process, Glider users compress the time period
required to reach the higher levels of WoW. (SOF ¶ 255-56). A study of WoW play
estimated that an average user needs approximately 480 hours of play to reach the
maximum character level. Whereas a typical human player averaging two hours a
day would thus need eight months to reach the highest level, a Glider user can run
the bot and achieve the same level in less than one month. (SOF ¶ 257-59). Thus,
Glider users can “skip ahead” to the advanced levels without having to pay the
additional seven months of subscription fees required of a legitimate human player,
and thereby avoid paying up to $105 in subscription revenue Blizzard would
otherwise receive. Multiplying this $105 savings times the 100,000 Glider programs
sold alone demonstrates lost revenue to Blizzard of $10.5 million. (SOF ¶ 260).
Clearly, Glider use causes significant revenue loss to Blizzard.

There are apparently the actual numbers, since they submitted it to the court in a sworn expert report. So yes, everyone on this board plays way too much. This is also interesting in that it is an explicit statement that they like casual playtime over hardcore playtime.

What I don't like about it is Blizzard's implication that they are "due" that money for leveling taking 8 months, but that's more of a personal taste issue than anything legal. I am very sure that Blizzard's business model for WoW is based around the amount of time it takes to level and how long the average casual user has an active account, and how many accounts they need to retain or add in order to maintain/increase their revenue stream.

I would contest the actual damages at a trial on that subject, since Glider doesn't really let you play 24/7 (people don't use it that way and many of the users use it for honor grinding and not leveling, etc, etc.), but that's not really helpful to MDY given the magnitude here. If the court buys this argument, and it seems they did (although there was no explicit adoption of any number) it's at least a seven-figure bill, and MDY cannot pay that.

So, in case there was any doubt that they have a very effective hamster wheel...

Siddown · 07/15/08, 3:10 PM

Originally Posted by MDY Motion, P.4
When Blizzard released WoW in late 2004, Donnelly became an avid player of
WoW. Like many others who play WoW, Donnelly became frustrated with the amount
of time it took to advance his character in WoW. Inspired by his desire to advance his
character’s level to the same level several of his friends had reached, Donnelly searched
online for any available programs that would help him speed up the time it took to level
his character up to where his friends were. After searching and being unsuccessful in
locating a software program to meet his needs, Donnelly decided to write software code
to assist him in catching up with his friends in the game without having to be physically
playing WoW.

Originally Posted by Talgog

This has little to do with the actual dispute at bar, and on top of that, doesn't make me like Donnelly much either. Federal judges work hard, and their clerks work very hard, and are planning on working even harder once they finish clerking and get a job at a place like Sonnenschein. Saying that you can't be bothered to play a game is stupid. To the extent that this is relevant, it certainly should not have been phrased that way.

This confused me as well, granted I only have a little bit of experience in Canadian Law. It appears that his lawyer is saying "My Client didn't want to take the time to play a video game, so he searched the internet to find a way to save time. Then, when he couldn't find one, he spent his time building his own." So basically, to "catch up" (as his lawyers put it), he spent quite a bit of time trying to find, then eventually writing a cheat program.

I found that very strange.

EDIT: A bit of clarity