Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (61 users) | |
|
| dUTtrOACh Canada. May 12 2012 06:56. Posts 1639 | Profile # |
Good. They should have never tried to call it Blizzard DOTA to begin with. Way to try and rain on Valve's parade!
Blizzard All-Stars sounds better anyway. I never cared for MOBAs, but I also never cared for Blizzard's chest-puffing in this particular case. Let Valve have DOTA. They deserve it. |
| |
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 06:57. Posts 335 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 06:44 Zozo wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 06:29 EnvyUK wrote:
Well I predicted Blizzard losing/backing down from the very beginning the dispute came up, they simply had no case what-so-ever.
I'm glad this is sorted so people can stop believing otherwise.
This was exactly the other way around, they settled an agreement that favored Valve. Blizzard got big part of what they wanted, which was allow it's community to use the name. If this was dragged all the way to the end, Valve would lose.
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 06:42 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:20 motbob wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:13 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:03 motbob wrote:
Typical Team Liquid. Blizzard does something that's unquestionably good for consumers and the first few replies in the thread are all about casting what they did in as negative a light as possible.
If I started beating my wife should I get applauded when I'm finished because it's good for the her that I finally stopped beating her, or should I be arrested?
I don't think you should be arrested for beating your wife, but I do think that you should be arrested for making awful analogies. Blizzard's contention of this copyright has had zero negative effects on consumers, and now they've reached an agreement that will prevent any negative effects from happening in the future. The "copyright dispute" and "wife-beating" situations are nothing alike because Blizzard never did anything to hurt anyone.
How can you claim that it would have had "zero negative effects" when if they won and their counter claim was granted the very people that maintained the game over the years basically for free, with no support from Blizzard, would have been denied the fruits of their labor? Blizzard would have just stolen their brand and slapped it on some polished turd, catching unaware consumers thinking this is the "real" Dota. And then the lawsuit in itself was an abomination. From what I've read of it, it basically had no grounds: just piled random facts and no solid arguments but good enough to last in court for some time. If it wasn't Valve but some small squishy company the lawsuit in itself would have been a win for Blizzard as the prolonged legal battle would have been too cost prohibitive for the small developer. The only reason Blizzard backed down is that the other side had resources to fight back. This doesn't make their initial decision to file this kind of lawsuit any less abhorrent.
If Blizzard won the lawsuit, no one, NO ONE, would be able to trademark the name Dota in this lifetime. They couldn't "steal" it lol.
You do understand that they were also trying to claim the trademark for themselves, right?
On March 06 2012 19:10 shalafi wrote:
It's actually confirmed. Dota-Allstars LLC started a brand claim or whatever it's called, and then pendragon sold the LLC to Activision, so Activision is both trying to counter Valve's claim and claim it themselves.
|
| |
|
 motbob  United States. May 12 2012 07:03. Posts 11467 | Profile Blog # |
On May 12 2012 06:42 qyk05328 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 06:20 motbob wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:13 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:03 motbob wrote:
Typical Team Liquid. Blizzard does something that's unquestionably good for consumers and the first few replies in the thread are all about casting what they did in as negative a light as possible.
If I started beating my wife should I get applauded when I'm finished because it's good for the her that I finally stopped beating her, or should I be arrested?
I don't think you should be arrested for beating your wife, but I do think that you should be arrested for making awful analogies. Blizzard's contention of this copyright has had zero negative effects on consumers, and now they've reached an agreement that will prevent any negative effects from happening in the future. The "copyright dispute" and "wife-beating" situations are nothing alike because Blizzard never did anything to hurt anyone.
How can you claim that it would have had "zero negative effects" when if they won and their counter claim was granted the very people that maintained the game over the years basically for free, with no support from Blizzard, would have been denied the fruits of their labor? Blizzard would have just stolen their brand and slapped it on some polished turd, catching unaware consumers thinking this is the "real" Dota. And then the lawsuit in itself was an abomination. From what I've read of it, it basically had no grounds: just piled random facts and no solid arguments but good enough to last in court for some time. If it wasn't Valve but some small squishy company the lawsuit in itself would have been a win for Blizzard as the prolonged legal battle would have been too cost prohibitive for the small developer. The only reason Blizzard backed down is that the other side had resources to fight back. This doesn't make their initial decision to file this kind of lawsuit any less abhorrent.
I can't deal with this. Read the posts you're arguing against more carefully in the future.
How can you claim that it would have had "zero negative effects"
Where did I claim that it would have had zero negative effects? No, sorry, I'm being passive-aggressive. What I meant to say was "I never said that it would have had zero negative effects, and you wrote a really long post attacking a position that I did not take."
Maybe I need to simplify my argument.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b6FMU.png)
I guess I don't see why the conclusion on the right is more natural to you than the conclusion on the left. To get to the conclusion on the right, you have to start with the assumption that Blizzard is evil and make the facts fit that conclusion. |
| | <marttorn> lucky I don't live in a culturally diverse place | |
|
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 07:09. Posts 335 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:03 motbob wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 06:42 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:20 motbob wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:13 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 06:03 motbob wrote:
Typical Team Liquid. Blizzard does something that's unquestionably good for consumers and the first few replies in the thread are all about casting what they did in as negative a light as possible.
If I started beating my wife should I get applauded when I'm finished because it's good for the her that I finally stopped beating her, or should I be arrested?
I don't think you should be arrested for beating your wife, but I do think that you should be arrested for making awful analogies. Blizzard's contention of this copyright has had zero negative effects on consumers, and now they've reached an agreement that will prevent any negative effects from happening in the future. The "copyright dispute" and "wife-beating" situations are nothing alike because Blizzard never did anything to hurt anyone.
How can you claim that it would have had "zero negative effects" when if they won and their counter claim was granted the very people that maintained the game over the years basically for free, with no support from Blizzard, would have been denied the fruits of their labor? Blizzard would have just stolen their brand and slapped it on some polished turd, catching unaware consumers thinking this is the "real" Dota. And then the lawsuit in itself was an abomination. From what I've read of it, it basically had no grounds: just piled random facts and no solid arguments but good enough to last in court for some time. If it wasn't Valve but some small squishy company the lawsuit in itself would have been a win for Blizzard as the prolonged legal battle would have been too cost prohibitive for the small developer. The only reason Blizzard backed down is that the other side had resources to fight back. This doesn't make their initial decision to file this kind of lawsuit any less abhorrent.
I can't deal with this. Read the posts you're arguing against more carefully in the future. Where did I claim that it would have had zero negative effects? No, sorry, I'm being passive-aggressive. What I meant to say was "I never said that it would have had zero negative effects, and you wrote a really long post attacking a position that I did not take." Maybe I need to simplify my argument. I guess I don't see why the conclusion on the right is more natural to you than the conclusion on the left. To get to the conclusion on the right, you have to start with the assumption that Blizzard is evil and make the facts fit that conclusion.
The negative effects for their consumers would be that many of them would have been mislead to believe that product they would be buying, named "Blizzard DOTA", would have had anything to do with the real game called Dota.
|
| |
|
| LiamTheZerg United States. May 12 2012 07:12. Posts 437 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 05:54 windzor wrote:
Well you can say that Blizzard got kinda what they wanted, except they didn't get to keep Blizzard Dota. But they did went into the fight with the words: "We do it for the fans to use the dota name!" which they have done. This is pretty much what you would expect to come out from it.
If you actually believe that... May god have pity on your soul.
|
| | Jjakji | Sage | Seal | Shuttle | DongRaeGu | oGsTheSTC | Bomber | Curious | Oz |
|
|
| Zozo Brazil. May 12 2012 07:23. Posts 1303 | Profile Blog # |
On May 12 2012 07:03 motbob wrote:
I can't deal with this. Read the posts you're arguing against more carefully in the future.
I'm just gonna leave this thread, people take random posts out of random threads and use as facts, they never take the time to read other sources, don't check the laws, they never admit to be wrong, and just argue for the sake of it.
It's like every single SC2 player transfer: "No honor","EG = Evil Greed", "Killing E-sports".
On May 12 2012 06:57 qyk05328 wrote:
You do understand that they were also trying to claim the trademark for themselves, right?
That is just incorrect, sorry. It was legally impossible. |
| |
|
| Qbek Poland. May 12 2012 07:31. Posts 4272 | Profile # |
| My only problem with blizz on this matter was them calling it Blizzard DOTA. Now that they abandoned that idea, I'm ok with them again. Valve and blizz were always in good terms with each other afaik so that wasn't exactly unexpected. |
| | I dojed huehue // Play for fun or try the harderest with vengeance | |
|
|
| Frazzlehoon United States. May 12 2012 07:33. Posts 914 | Profile # |
| I'm glad this is how it concluded, Valve should really have control of the Dota name, it'd be ridiculous if they didn't. Now they can keep on working without petty arguments. :D |
| |
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 07:35. Posts 335 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:23 Zozo wrote:
That is just incorrect, sorry. It was legally impossible.
Care to provide sources?
EDIT: I actually found sources for my claim, please do so for yours.
On August 9, 2010, Mescon filed an opposing trademark for "DOTA" on behalf of DotA-Allstars, LLC, a subsidiary of Riot Games, in order to "protect the work that dozens of authors have done to create the game".[15] Rob Pardo, the executive vice president of Blizzard Entertainment, the developer of Warcraft III, expressed a similar concern, explaining that the DotA name should remain within the Warcraft III community. Blizzard acquired DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games in 2011, to enforce their claim as not only the creators of the World Editor, but to have the rights from the company that made a claim to the mod previously.[16] [17] Augustine, Josh (2010-08-17). "Riot Games’ dev counter-files "DotA" trademark". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2011-08-19. [16] Plunkett, Luke (2012-02-10). "Blizzard and Valve go to War Over DOTA Name". Kotaku.
Last edit: 2012-05-12 07:42:20 |
| |
|
| SKC Brazil. May 12 2012 07:44. Posts 3264 | Profile # |
There is one thing I don't understand. In the discussions related to the name of the genre, a lot of people are fine with things like Dota-like or simply Dota as the genre name. A decent number even believed that was the best way to name it. But if Blizzard releases a game, it can't possibly be related to the name Dota.
Dota either is common property and it is fine to used to describe other games in the genre, or even put it in the title if that's what you want, or it is the name of a single game and just be used exclusively for that game. |
|
|
| figq May 12 2012 07:46. Posts 9634 | Profile Blog # |
| I guess I'm one of the few, if any, who actually sided with Blizzard on that one. IMO, the amount of WC3 used directly in DotA is so much, that it was Blizzard who deserved the rights, even though they didn't design this map and the concept. Also, Blizzard gets a huge hit by not being able to call their new map "... Dota", because that's what people recognize most easily. |
| | If you stand next to my head, you can hear the ocean. - Day[9] |
|
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 07:50. Posts 335 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:44 SKC wrote:
There is one thing I don't understand. In the discussions related to the name of the genre, a lot of people are fine with things like Dota-like or simply Dota as the genre name. A decent number even believed that was the best way to name it. But if Blizzard releases a game, it can't possibly be related to the name Dota.
Dota either is common property and it is fine to used to describe other games in the genre, or even put it in the title if that's what you want, or it is the name of a single game and just be used exclusively for that game.
A lot of people use the word "google" to mean searching the internet but this doesn't still make it fair for Microsoft the rename their search engine to "MS Google".
On a more serious note, this thing is called of generification. You're basically the victim of your own success. That's why companies disprove of using trademarks in this way. |
| |
|
| Sumadin Denmark. May 12 2012 07:58. Posts 384 | Profile # |
I like the outcome. The part with "preserve noncommercial use of DOTA for its community with regard to player-created maps for Warcraft III and StarCraft II." probably refers to stuff like Basshunters won't needing to ask for permission when they tour with their song. Which ultimately was Blizzards goal.
Taking this to the court would have been disasterous for both parts. Neither side has interest in taking so many funds away from game development. And the damage on both side image, would be devastating. |
| | Balance is a science. It cannot be determined by general opinion. |
|
|
| Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo Germany. May 12 2012 08:00. Posts 2861 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:58 Sumadin wrote:
I like the outcome. The part with "preserve noncommercial use of DOTA for its community with regard to player-created maps for Warcraft III and StarCraft II." probably refers to stuff like Basshunters won't needing to ask for permission when they tour with their song. Which ultimately was Blizzards goal.
Taking this to the court would have been disasterous for both parts. Neither side has interest in taking so many funds away from game development. And the damage on both side image, would be devastating.
Basshunters? Try mapmaking, sounds much more about that than about some weird songs that wouldn't be created now anymore. |
| | WrathBringerReturns said: No no no. Sarcasm is detected in the voice. When this forum is riddled with stupidity, you think I can tell every post apart? Fair enough it was intended sarcastically, was it obvious? Of course not. |
|
|
| benefluence United States. May 12 2012 08:10. Posts 81 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:58 Sumadin wrote:
I like the outcome. The part with "preserve noncommercial use of DOTA for its community with regard to player-created maps for Warcraft III and StarCraft II." probably refers to stuff like Basshunters won't needing to ask for permission when they tour with their song. Which ultimately was Blizzards goal.
Taking this to the court would have been disasterous for both parts. Neither side has interest in taking so many funds away from game development. And the damage on both side image, would be devastating.
I'm pretty sure Basshunter is protected under fair use anyway. |
|
|
| SKC Brazil. May 12 2012 08:18. Posts 3264 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 07:50 qyk05328 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 07:44 SKC wrote:
There is one thing I don't understand. In the discussions related to the name of the genre, a lot of people are fine with things like Dota-like or simply Dota as the genre name. A decent number even believed that was the best way to name it. But if Blizzard releases a game, it can't possibly be related to the name Dota.
Dota either is common property and it is fine to used to describe other games in the genre, or even put it in the title if that's what you want, or it is the name of a single game and just be used exclusively for that game.
A lot of people use the word "google" to mean searching the internet but this doesn't still make it fair for Microsoft the rename their search engine to "MS Google". On a more serious note, this thing is called of generification. You're basically the victim of your own success. That's why companies disprove of using trademarks in this way.
But people don't push for the word google to mean "search in a web engine" and get offended with the terms other people use for it. That's the main issue, if you want to push it as an official common usage name, don't complain if people use it. |
|
|
| Maxtor United Kingdom. May 12 2012 08:23. Posts 243 | Profile Blog # |
On May 12 2012 08:10 benefluence wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 07:58 Sumadin wrote:
I like the outcome. The part with "preserve noncommercial use of DOTA for its community with regard to player-created maps for Warcraft III and StarCraft II." probably refers to stuff like Basshunters won't needing to ask for permission when they tour with their song. Which ultimately was Blizzards goal.
Taking this to the court would have been disasterous for both parts. Neither side has interest in taking so many funds away from game development. And the damage on both side image, would be devastating.
I'm pretty sure Basshunter is protected under fair use anyway.
Could also be protected under parody/review exception. That point aside, i'm of the opinion that valve is/was in the right all along, i dont see how blizzard retaining/attaining the rights to the dota trademark would benefit the consumers anywhere near the level that blizzard would benefit by this. I've always personally had a moral objection to the view that blizzard maintained all the IP rights for the creations on their custom maps. Once owned by a large corporation, most copyright, patents and etc. are held indefinitely by said company without the company using that property, or using it poorly or rarely, completely stifling creativity. Last edit: 2012-05-12 08:44:59 |
|
|
| Zozo Brazil. May 12 2012 08:24. Posts 1303 | Profile Blog # |
On May 12 2012 07:35 qyk05328 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 07:23 Zozo wrote:
That is just incorrect, sorry. It was legally impossible.
Care to provide sources? EDIT: I actually found sources for my claim, please do so for yours.
Show nested quote +On August 9, 2010, Mescon filed an opposing trademark for "DOTA" on behalf of DotA-Allstars, LLC, a subsidiary of Riot Games, in order to "protect the work that dozens of authors have done to create the game".[15] Rob Pardo, the executive vice president of Blizzard Entertainment, the developer of Warcraft III, expressed a similar concern, explaining that the DotA name should remain within the Warcraft III community. Blizzard acquired DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games in 2011, to enforce their claim as not only the creators of the World Editor, but to have the rights from the company that made a claim to the mod previously.[16] [17] Augustine, Josh (2010-08-17). "Riot Games’ dev counter-files "DotA" trademark". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2011-08-19. [16] Plunkett, Luke (2012-02-10). "Blizzard and Valve go to War Over DOTA Name". Kotaku.
I wrote a wall of text explaning most of the notice of opposition and what came after, but then I realised you really don't care, you just like flaming everyone. So yea, gonna go eat my dinner.
@topic good thing for Dota BYS, Dota vintage, and all the other dota map variants still being updated. |
| |
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 12 2012 08:33. Posts 710 | Profile # |
| Blizzard trademarking the name DotA for themselves wouldn't really make a huge benefit for them either. I mean, what exactly would they do with full ownership of it? League of Legends has demonstrated quite nicely that you don't actually need the actual Dota name to be recognized and popular. I think people overall are looking way too hard to find traces of Blizzard malice in here. Overall the case was settled in a way that benefits everyone, so I see no reason to bash either company over this. |
|
|
| PH United States. May 12 2012 08:36. Posts 6080 | Profile Blog # |
| This is great on the part of both sides. Yay. |
| |
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
