Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

User avatar
Sudanna

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Sudanna » Fri May 12, 2017 6:07 pm

You can call companies names like "douchebags" and "assholes" and refer to their executives as "massive douches", if you want, but at the end of the day, trademark law is what it is.


laws that enable jackassery do not absorb or excuse the jackassery of jackasses :p
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri May 12, 2017 6:39 pm

Retsam wrote:Because, yes, any two drinks probably would qualify for "reasonable confusion". I don't think I could make a "Monster coffee roast" and say that it's not infringing the Monster energy drink trademark, just because one is a soda and the other is a coffee, even though any reasonable person knows the difference between soda and coffee.


How about if I made pepsi cola.Would you say that infringes the coca cola trademark?Or how about if I made a video sharing site redtube.Would you say that infringes youtubes trademark?Yet a brief search of those does not reveal any trademark disputes.If there were any(which Im surprised there dont seem to be),they are buried deep,and obviously did not work.So I dont buy that its just how trademark law works.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Thomas » Fri May 12, 2017 7:12 pm

I think the coffee example might be infringement. The issue isn't that someone thinks the Monster Coffee is the same thing as Monster Energy Drink, it's that they think the Monster Coffee is made by the same people who make Monster Energy drink. If it's really bad coffee then Monster the company might suffer from the association, and if Monster wanted to expand into the coffee market they'd be unable to bring their brand with them. I don't think those are unreasonable rights to protect.

Like all things, you'd have to settle it in court to be sure. Trademarks apply to "Identical goods" ie two energy drink products, but also "similar goods" and deciding what counts as similar goods is probably tricky, it depends on the likelihood of the goods being confused, on the likelihood of people thinking they can from the same company, how similar the names are and how famous the names are. For example, it was decided that trying to Cannon VHS tapes infringed on the trademark of Canon selling camcorders.

Given how famous Monster is, and that there's already some sort of connection between coffee and energy drinks, I think people would be afraid of trying to make Monster Coffee.

So I think the Prey example is completely fair game. Imagine if Prey for the Gods became the next DayZ indie wonder hit and everyone knew its name. And then both they and Zenimax tried to release a spin-off game, a Mariokart/Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball style spin-off, completely in a different genre. Both have worked hard to earn their reputation and deserve the brand recognition to help the spin-off be successful, but the public are now unsure of which brand the PreyKart game is from. The way to avoid that is to make sure no game gets big with the name 'Prey'.

I'm sure the case wouldn't get thrown out because the games are different genre's. That's way too similar. But I think it might fail because "Prey" is just a really generic term and the Prey videogame brand is currently not very well known.
-------------------------------
In Youtubes case, if they'd make a super successful Twitch style spin-off called "LiveTube", they probably could have won against someone starting a RedTube site. But since they didn't want to expand into the porn industry (under the same brand name), and they didn't want to make 'Tube' a thing, I guess they didn't bother.

I'm guessing "Cola" was becoming a generic term before Coca Cola was famous. Even if it wasn't "Cola" has hit generic status now and they wouldn't be able to defend it - that's why "Hoover" isn't a trademark in the UK, we call all vacuum cleaners hoovers, so Hoover lost the right to say their name was distinctive. Google are really scared this will happen to them, so Google never talks about "Googling" thing, they talk about "Internet searching"

EDIT: I can't find anything that tells me when "Cola" became the name for coca flavoured beverages, but Pepsi-Cola as a name is super old (pre 20th century), so maybe trademark law wasn't as developed back then. It wouldn't matter if it developed later because by then "Pepsi-Cola" would have it's own significance as a brand.

EDIT EDIT: Still nothing, but it's worth noting that I have now read that Coca-Cola are supposed to be very aggressive with their branding and even trademarked the shape of their bottles successfully (and the font of their logo).
Last edited by Thomas on Fri May 12, 2017 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Trix2000 » Fri May 12, 2017 7:29 pm

Another big example would be Kleenex.

I actually had a relative who worked for another competing company and they were VERY adamant about calling their product 'facial tissue'.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri May 12, 2017 7:52 pm

Thomas wrote:So I think the Prey example is completely fair game. Imagine if Prey for the Gods became the next DayZ indie wonder hit and everyone knew its name.


No need to imagine when we have warcraft/starcraft and minecraft.And its not like blizzard does not sue small potatoes,they did shut down a bunch of stuff that they deemed infringing to their stuff(like those wow servers).

Thomas wrote:I'm guessing "Cola" was becoming a generic term before Coca Cola was famous.


Exactly how prey and scrolls are generic words that already have defined meanings outside of video games.
Steve C

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Steve C » Fri May 12, 2017 11:36 pm

Thomas wrote:Google are really scared this will happen to them, so Google never talks about "Googling" thing, they talk about "Internet searching".
Google isn't worried about that *anymore* as they lost that battle a while ago. However that is a separate element of trademark law. It has nothing to do with this nonsense with Prey vs Praey.
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Thomas » Sat May 13, 2017 4:10 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Exactly how prey and scrolls are generic words that already have defined meanings outside of video games.

That's not what genericised means in this context, but any way that is why Prey (and Scrolls to a lesser extent) would probably be able to win an actual dispute, it's a totally normal word and hearing it in a full sentence title wouldn't make anyone connect it with Prey. Especially since Prey itself isn't a well established franchise. The videogame genre stuff not so much.

-------------

Also Google have not lost the battle for Google becoming genericised, which is fairly obvious because you don't have other search engines setting themselves up as "Duck duck google" or whatever. Well at least the last court case on it I found was 2014 where Google managed to scrape a win, has it happened more recently?

EDIT: As a fun example of the shenanigans Google has been up to, they put pressure on Merriam-Webster which led to the dictionary defining google [lowercase] as "to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet". I think Microsoft are actually accidentally helping Google out by trying to make "Binging" a thing
Steve C

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Steve C » Sat May 13, 2017 8:00 pm

I stand corrected. Though I can imagine why I thought so with headlines like: "Court said term was still insufficiently "generic" to void protection." I read that wrong the first 3 times before I caught the convoluted double-negative.
User avatar
ecto_stantz_tial
Location: New England, USA
Contact:

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby ecto_stantz_tial » Sat May 13, 2017 11:09 pm

If I'm not late to the party, it seems Alan Wake is being pulled from "shelves" due to music licensing BS. On sale on both Steam, and GOG.com, I'm sure as well as other places, before it's no longer available for sale. Not that I love the game by any means, but this sucks. Who's ready to burn some film role so we can make space in the storage room, eh?
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sat May 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Wait,what?....Since when does licensing work like that?That would be akin to all of the older spiderman movies being pulled from shelves now that marvel got him back.

While I wouldnt recommend the base game to anyone,the dlcs were actually good.Definitely worth a purchase.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Ringwraith » Sun May 14, 2017 1:36 am

American Nightmare is not affected by this, by the way.

It's that all the musical licenses weren't perpetual I would imagine, therefore as they're "selling" the music in a sense as it's in something else that's sold, it'll not able to be sold when they expire.

These things happen, when Capcom lost the rights to Marvel characters in video games, Marvel vs Capcom 3 was pulled from digital storefronts.
They later got it back (as they're making a new MvC game) so it was reinstated, but for quite some time you simply could not buy it digitally.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Supahewok » Sat May 20, 2017 4:03 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Wait,what?....Since when does licensing work like that?That would be akin to all of the older spiderman movies being pulled from shelves now that marvel got him back.


That could actually happen, depending on the exact wording of the license and if using Spider-Man in that way was a license, but it won't because Sony still holds the Spider-Man movie rights and it was never a license (licenses do not grant ownership, whereas the Spider-Man movie rights means that Sony does own Spider-Man for movies). The MCU Spider-Man is a collaboration between Sony and Marvel.
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Retsam » Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:49 pm

There was a pretty extensive Complete Oral History of Halo. It's a lengthy (~35K) look into the history of the Halo franchise by a good number of the people who made it. I'm not a huge Halo fan (though I have fond memories of the original trilogy and Reach), but it's frankly just an interesting look into the team and business dynamics behind AAA development.

Especially the parts concerning the Bungie games where they're all pretty frank and specific about what went down and why. (By contrast the stuff with the current studio is, perhaps necessarily, a bit more tightlipped, since they're actively working on the project still)
User avatar
Thomas

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Thomas » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:20 pm

Valve Writer Watch has now ended. There are no longer any known writers working at Valve.

They aren't working on Half Life 3 folks.
Ninety-Three

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Ninety-Three » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:19 pm

Thomas wrote:Valve Writer Watch has now ended. There are no longer any known writers working at Valve.

They aren't working on Half Life 3 folks.


I mean, they say they're working on 3 VR games (full games, not tech demos like The Lab). There's still a chance we'll get Half Life 3 VR! It could happen! Right? Please?
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Trix2000 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:43 pm

I've always found it better to just assume they were never really working on it, so in the (unlikely) event that they trot it out of the blue, it'll come as a pleasant surprise.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:27 am

Say what you will about bethesda and its push towards paid mods,whether you think its good or bad,at least they arent swinging their lawyer dicks around to establish that mods are illegal(even though that wouldnt surprise me,considering the behavior of their parent company).Take two on the other hand.....
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Retsam » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:23 pm

So Marc Laidlaw, a former writer at Valve released a version of the script for Half-Life: Episode 3. (Link is for a Github mirror with the correct character names: the original is on his website with changed character names, the story of "Alex Vaunt" and "Gertrude Fremont")

Obviously this isn't an official confirmation of anything, but people seem to be taking it as a confirmation that the project is dead. The first and last paragraphs are pretty clearly meant to be commentary on the state of the project as a whole, at least. (The whole premise of "fictional letter from Not!Gordon Freeman" seems like a questionably legal attempt to dodge a non-disclosure agreement)

---

To me, though, as someone who enjoyed the Half-Life games, but was never super invested in them, it just feels like confirmation of my long-held suspicion that the Half-Life story is just the video game equivalent of Lost: a bunch of mysterious stuff that feels like it should have an explanation, but there's never any satisfying answers. If this is the sort of story we would have gotten, it largely just raises more questions than answers.

I'm not trying to bash the games: Half-Life had great gameplay, and great storytelling, but I don't actually feel like the good storytelling was really used to tell a good story. Most of the buzz I've seen about this release is grief that this game was never made, but I wonder if the game had actually been made if there wouldn't have been significant complaining about an unsatisfying ending to the story.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Trix2000 » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:03 pm

I've always found it weird how much people held onto HL3 in the first place, whereas my interest in its release has been only tangential... more of a curiosity than an actual desire for the game.

It makes me consider what was different for me, because I really did like HL2... but then I'm wondering if most of it comes down to the fact that I never played the episodes to follow. I played HL2, loved it, but ultimately moved on with that one experience under my belt. Could it be I never saw the series as a... series? I never got around to actually playing HL1 (though seen it played plenty).

But this is about the result I expected, regardless. If there hasn't been any news from them working on the game for all these years, even leaks, I think it was safe to say it just wasn't happening in the first place. I wonder if most people, deep down, kind-of realized that already or not.

Though to me it feels a little odd to happen upon a semi-definitive end to "HL3 is coming" with so little fanfare. Is this something that's been going around I just didn't notice yet?
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:31 pm

Not really news because it surprised no one:
Bethesdas "All new,mini dlc,no reskin cheap cash ins!!" thing was a lie,and its totally old skins cheap cash ins.Because its bethesda.

Its a real shame though,because I like the idea,and in the hands of someone competent this would be a great thing.
User avatar
SpammyV
Contact:

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby SpammyV » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:54 pm

No More Heroes 3 has been announced for the Switch, which means that I'll have to get one. No More Heroes 1 was a pretty good game and No More Heroes 2 was a fantastic game, so I'm hopeful for 3. Also, it's nice to see Suda 51 working on things.

Also, the developers of the Yakuza series have announced a Fist of the North Star adaptation, and it looks like they're going to be maintaining the tradition of silly sidequests and odd jobs from Yakuza. So that should be pretty interesting to see.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Ringwraith » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:12 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Not really news because it surprised no one:
Bethesdas "All new,mini dlc,no reskin cheap cash ins!!" thing was a lie,and its totally old skins cheap cash ins.Because its bethesda.

Its a real shame though,because I like the idea,and in the hands of someone competent this would be a great thing.

Bonus points for some of the mod versions being better than the paid ones.
If they weren't so historically incompetent you'd assume it was deliberately malicious.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Sep 04, 2017 3:12 pm

So Monolith decides to honor their deceased colleague and friend by making a tribute character for him in shadow of more war.But then the publisher,warner brothers,decides to sell that thing.And the justification they have for profiting off of someones death is that a portion of the proceeds from those FIVE DOLLARS to the family of the deceased.No,they cant spare the whole FIVE DOLLARS,they can only spare three fiddy.And not even all of the three fiddy,but only three fiddy from some of the states of the usa.Everyone paying for this from outside the states will give 100% of their FIVE MONEYS to warner brothers.That is downright disgusting.

So heres a suggestion:instead of buying this dlcs,donate to the family directly.In fact,an even better suggestion:Instead of buying anything from warner brothers,donate that money to the family directly.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Also Not The 9 O'Clock News

Postby Supahewok » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:13 pm

I've already had this argument elsewhere on the interwebz, so I come prepared: it is well known that Valve's cut off of everything that sells through their store is 30%. I'm sure the fees for the Xbox and Playstation marketplace is comparable. 30% of $5 is $1.50, leaving... $3.50 for profit. Except they are giving away $3.50, leaving them... no profit. WB is giving all of their profit from the DLC to the family (if anything, the internet should be getting mad at vendors for hanging on to their cut...). Except for certain US states and abroad, which is not actually unusual at all. Nearly all promotions, sales, and charity events have disclaimers that say the offer is not valid in X, Y, Z territories. Why? In the US, each state has their own set of laws governing charity and what a business can do with money they receive from a commercial enterprise, and so far as I have observed no promotion has ever been able to comply with the myriad laws of all 50 states plus territories. The states exempted are the likes of Alabama, Missouri, and Hawaii, which are far from the most populous states and ergo far from the most profitable. It's really not anything worth getting pissy about.

What is wrong with the deal is that it doesn't apply to international purchases. Although the argument of different territories having different laws applies just as well to different countries as different US states, the international market is big and therefore it would be expected of WB to work out whatever legal hoops they have to in order to make the deal stick. So that I do blame them for, but I'm willing to wait for them to clarify the wheres and whys on it before picking up a torch and pitchfork, or otherwise declaring WB the scum of the earth.

Return to “Videogames”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest