Core Viewpoint - The recent court ruling in favor of "Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" (referred to as "Three Wars") indicates that game rules are not protected under copyright law, which could impact the gaming industry and its approach to innovation [3][4][20]. Legal Context - The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court overturned the initial ruling that found "Three Wars" infringed on the copyright of "Rate the Land," stating that the first instance lacked a systematic consideration of the facts [1][3]. - The court emphasized that copyright law protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas or methods themselves, aligning with international standards [4][20]. Industry Implications - The ruling may set a precedent for how game rules and mechanics are treated legally, potentially encouraging more innovation within the gaming sector [3][4]. - The gaming industry has historically struggled with innovation due to the fear of legal repercussions, but this ruling could alleviate some of those concerns [20][22]. Product Performance - "Three Wars" has consistently ranked in the top 20 of the iOS sales charts, demonstrating strong market performance and player engagement [9][10]. - The game has introduced several innovative features, such as the "Red Cliffs" scenario and the "Long An Chaos" version, which have received positive feedback from players [11][13][15]. Innovation Strategy - The game has adopted a bold approach to innovation, introducing new gameplay mechanics like "Y-axis" movement and urban warfare, which distinguishes it from traditional SLG games [15][19]. - The development team aims to enhance player experience by focusing on core gameplay elements, such as team-based combat (GvG), to maintain player interest and engagement [20][24]. Future Outlook - The company plans to continue prioritizing product quality and innovation to sustain player interest and expand its user base in the competitive gaming market [28][29]. - The ongoing development of competitive events like the "Dragon Tiger Tournament" reflects the company's commitment to creating engaging and dynamic gameplay experiences [26][28].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the contentious issue of intellectual property rights related to generative artificial intelligence (AIGC), highlighting the divide between two opposing viewpoints regarding the copyrightability of AI-generated works [1][2]. Group 1: Copyrightability of AI-Generated Works - One viewpoint argues that AI-generated works should be protected under copyright law due to their appearance as works [1][3]. - The opposing viewpoint contends that AI-generated works lack the human originality required for copyright protection, as they do not involve human authorship [1][2]. - Both viewpoints center around the concept of "originality," which is crucial for determining copyright ownership [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Practical Implications - Current copyright law does not recognize AI as having legal personality, meaning AI cannot hold or exercise copyright [2][4]. - The allocation of rights to individuals or entities other than the AI raises concerns about historical legitimacy in copyright law [2][4]. - Courts face challenges in identifying AI-generated works in copyright infringement cases, often relying on the plaintiff's claims without sufficient evidence [4][6]. Group 3: Misinterpretation of Legal Concepts - The "idea-expression" dichotomy is often misapplied in discussions about AI-generated works, leading to the erroneous conclusion that AI outputs lack originality [4][5]. - Human user prompts and AI-generated content both fall under the category of "expression," which complicates the argument against the originality of AI-generated works [6][5]. - A comprehensive discussion on AIGC intellectual property issues requires acknowledging that AI lacks legal personality and differentiating between various application scenarios [6][6].