Talk:MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Ref improve

Can we get a copy of the court records from the actual court? Not that I dont trust the source we have now, but a link to the court itself is beyond reproach, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried searching around for a copy from the actual court, but it appears that it may cost money to download through the court's PACER system. I've found other sites that do post the same court order, so if the credibility of the host of the document is in question, perhaps we could attempt to find one with higher credibility. Eugenecli (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We also need some non-primary sources that discuss the case. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a major update in light of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling -- it is no longer a district court case. I made a few tweaks but there is more to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.30.185 (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]