Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Solid Snake on Ice

By Brent Lorentz on March 11, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Fans of the Metal Gear Solid franchise received disappointing news earlier this week when Project “Shadow Moses”–an ambitious fan reboot of the original game using Unreal Engine 4–was canceled.  A trailer showing the progress of the project prior to its termination is below:

This would have represented a significant improvement from the 1998 original Metal Gear Solid.

While disappointing, this wasn’t a terribly shocking development from the perspective of an intellectual property lawyer.  The developers of Shadow Moses made no secret of the fact that they were undertaking the development without formal permission from Konami, and given the importance of intellectual property rights to content companies, I would suggest that the eventual icing of this project was a foregone conclusion. Simply put, intellectual property rights can be incredibly valuable, but they also require incredible diligence.  Failure to vigorously protect those rights can result in signficant erosion of value over time, potentially culminating in an entire loss.  It was simply unreasonable to expect that a large multinational corporation like Konami would let a project like this continue.

While I think Konami’s position and actions were correct from the perspective of our current laws, I don’t necessarily agree with them from a cultural perspective or from the perspective of what I wish the law actually was.  As I’ve written on other occasions, the current state of our “sharing” society requires a soul-searching reexamination of what we want our intellectual property laws to be, and what we want them to do.  In the United States, our intellectual property laws are based on the constitutional prerogative “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”  Stated differently, our intellectual property laws are supposed to provide sufficient incentives for people to create.  Our current laws have pursued promotion through a profit motive and structure.

This structure, however, has largely become obsolete in many contexts.  Incentives for creation have changed and the costs and burdens associated with creation and distribution have shrunk enormously. Content is not just being consumed, its being reused and repackaged for individual self-expression.  Music, movies, and video games are no longer just forms of entertainment.  They are common languages that can create quick and lasting connections.  In such an environment, intellectual property laws can just as easily serve as an obstacle to progress as they can an incentive.  Our laws need to adapt to appropriately reflect and enhance our shared culture.

 

Brent Lorentz

View my professional biography

Sitting here, composing a profile for a blog on creativity and the law, I can’t help but recognize the irony of my overwhelming writer’s block. But, here we go…Although I wish I could say my path to the law…

View my professional biography

Sitting here, composing a profile for a blog on creativity and the law, I can’t help but recognize the irony of my overwhelming writer’s block. But, here we go…Although I wish I could say my path to the law was the result of a lifelong dream or calling, it was more the result mere curiosity and an affinity for leather-bound books. My gravitation towards intellectual property law, specifically, was probably less accidental, given the immeasurable impact of being a college student during the Napster® era. I’m the product of a modest, small-town Minnesota upbringing combined with some polish from a diverse educational background. I received my engineering degree from the University of North Dakota and then, on a whim, moved to North Carolina to attend law school at Duke University. The drastic temperature swing was certainly not the only difference between the two locales, and come to think about it, the only real similarity is probably the word “North.”

An engineer by training, I appreciate both quantitative and qualitative valuation. These two concepts collide head-on in IP law, creating what is, in my humble opinion, the most entertaining and exciting area of law. As we move towards an information-based economy, the laws which govern the incentivization, protection and distribution of information will only become more important.  I see IP law as the front line.

When I’m not focusing on the law, I can typically be found (WARNING: stereotype coming) on the golf course. I also enjoy skiing (downhill and water). Unfortunately, as is the case with most hobbies, my skill level has not yet caught up to my enthusiasm. Perhaps when I retire…

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    DuetsBlog
  • Organization:
    Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo