Core Points - The lawsuit involves two major products and companies in the domestic gaming market, with a significant first-instance ruling of 50 million yuan in damages, attracting considerable attention [2] - The second-instance ruling overturned the first-instance decision, sending the case back for retrial, which adds a new layer of significance regarding the definition of "originality" in the gaming industry [3][5] Group 1: Legal Implications - The second-instance ruling emphasizes the need to define and judge "originality" within the context of copyright law, determining whether a work is protected under copyright law [6] - The second-instance court found that the first-instance court made errors in recognizing basic facts and in the comparison methods used, leading to the decision to revoke the first-instance ruling [8][10] - The second-instance ruling clarified that gameplay rules are considered ideas and do not constitute copyrightable expression unless presented through specific visual elements [10][11] Group 2: Industry Impact - The ruling has significant implications for all domestic game developers, affecting not only existing products but also those in development, as it sets a precedent for how "borrowing" and "plagiarism" are judged in the legal context [5][15] - The court's stance on the boundaries of "gameplay protection" is expected to help regulate the industry ecosystem, encouraging innovation within reasonable limits [12][15] - The ongoing competition in the gaming market necessitates that companies rely on product quality and innovation to maintain their market positions, as seen with the successful updates to "Three Kingdoms: Strategy Edition" [16][18]