Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (92 users) | |
|
| rabidch Singapore. May 12 2012 13:58. Posts 8069 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 12:36 OopsOopsBaby wrote:
i think the blizzard hate stems from them never caring or contributing to the dota and starcraft scene when they started out. but once dota and starcraft became somewhat big and there is a potential to profit from them, they start meddling and establish ownership when they never there at the start.
this, pretty much. i find it hilarious that blizzard for some reason now cares about dota despite having at least 6 years to actually support the map and scene and doing near jack crap about it. |
| |
|
| Erasme France. May 12 2012 14:17. Posts 4073 | Profile Blog # |
On May 12 2012 13:58 rabidch wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 12:36 OopsOopsBaby wrote:
i think the blizzard hate stems from them never caring or contributing to the dota and starcraft scene when they started out. but once dota and starcraft became somewhat big and there is a potential to profit from them, they start meddling and establish ownership when they never there at the start.
this, pretty much. i find it hilarious that blizzard for some reason now cares about dota despite having at least 6 years to actually support the map and scene and doing near jack crap about it.
They started it by, you know, making the game and stuff. Btw you have to separate dota's case and starcraft's one. They don't want that valve gets DotA name trademarked, they don't try to get money from icefrog or valve work. |
| | 'Reading all your blogs make me feel warm inside, it's like I know you already and I hope you would like to know me too' | |
|
|
| Madbanana Malaysia. May 12 2012 14:36. Posts 125 | Profile # |
| need me pandas up in dota2 |
| |
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 12 2012 18:17. Posts 710 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 12:14 superstartran 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.
This is too funny. If you seriously think Activision Blizzard was not looking to pretty much steal DotA from the creators of the game I don't know what to tell you. Blizzard was in it for the money from the start, and it was blatantly obvious that 1) they had no case and 2) if they had somehow miraculously won the case, they would have proceeded to file claims to try and claim ownership over said trademark. Blizzard's intent from the start was obvious, and it certainly wasn't to "protect the map makers."
Blizzard gets nothing out of stealing the DotA trademark for themselves. You can't copyright a genre of gameplay, so all of the MOBA games out will still exist. League of Legends demonstrates that you don't need the actual name "Dota" to become successful, and even if Blizzard ruled that only they can use Dota, Valve can simply change the name of their game into something else and still be incredibly successful since the community is well aware that Valve's game is more true to Dota than whatever Blizzard is making.
I have my own complaints regarding Blizzard, but people are really trying too hard to cast them in a bad light in this case. Blizzard has absolutely nothing to gain out of this weird "stealing Dota for themselves" conspiracy. The case was settled with an agreement that benefits everybody, and yet people still try to single out a bad guy. Ridiculous behavior from these forums. |
|
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 18:59. Posts 334 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 18:17 Spawkuring wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 12:14 superstartran 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.
This is too funny. If you seriously think Activision Blizzard was not looking to pretty much steal DotA from the creators of the game I don't know what to tell you. Blizzard was in it for the money from the start, and it was blatantly obvious that 1) they had no case and 2) if they had somehow miraculously won the case, they would have proceeded to file claims to try and claim ownership over said trademark. Blizzard's intent from the start was obvious, and it certainly wasn't to "protect the map makers."
Blizzard gets nothing out of stealing the DotA trademark for themselves. You can't copyright a genre of gameplay, so all of the MOBA games out will still exist. League of Legends demonstrates that you don't need the actual name "Dota" to become successful, and even if Blizzard ruled that only they can use Dota, Valve can simply change the name of their game into something else and still be incredibly successful since the community is well aware that Valve's game is more true to Dota than whatever Blizzard is making. I have my own complaints regarding Blizzard, but people are really trying too hard to cast them in a bad light in this case. Blizzard has absolutely nothing to gain out of this weird "stealing Dota for themselves" conspiracy. The case was settled with an agreement that benefits everybody, and yet people still try to single out a bad guy. Ridiculous behavior from these forums.
You're arguing that Activision would get nothing out of the claim on the Dota trademark, yet at the time they were spending enormous resources for legal costs and for acquiring DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games for the sole purpose of having a better claim at the trademark. Doing so would be actually criminal towards their shareholders as the sole purpose of a corporation is profit-maximization for the shareholders, as some of you were all too happy to point out when discussing some of their other questionable recent actions. |
| |
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 12 2012 19:11. Posts 710 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 18:59 qyk05328 wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 18:17 Spawkuring wrote:
On May 12 2012 12:14 superstartran 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.
This is too funny. If you seriously think Activision Blizzard was not looking to pretty much steal DotA from the creators of the game I don't know what to tell you. Blizzard was in it for the money from the start, and it was blatantly obvious that 1) they had no case and 2) if they had somehow miraculously won the case, they would have proceeded to file claims to try and claim ownership over said trademark. Blizzard's intent from the start was obvious, and it certainly wasn't to "protect the map makers."
Blizzard gets nothing out of stealing the DotA trademark for themselves. You can't copyright a genre of gameplay, so all of the MOBA games out will still exist. League of Legends demonstrates that you don't need the actual name "Dota" to become successful, and even if Blizzard ruled that only they can use Dota, Valve can simply change the name of their game into something else and still be incredibly successful since the community is well aware that Valve's game is more true to Dota than whatever Blizzard is making. I have my own complaints regarding Blizzard, but people are really trying too hard to cast them in a bad light in this case. Blizzard has absolutely nothing to gain out of this weird "stealing Dota for themselves" conspiracy. The case was settled with an agreement that benefits everybody, and yet people still try to single out a bad guy. Ridiculous behavior from these forums.
You're arguing that Activision would get nothing out of the claim on the Dota trademark, yet at the time they were spending enormous resources for legal costs and for acquiring DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games for the sole purpose of having a better claim at the trademark. Doing so would be actually criminal towards their shareholders as the sole purpose of a corporation is profit-maximization for the shareholders, as some of you were all too happy to point out when discussing some of their other questionable recent actions.
Activision had nothing to do with the case. It was purely Blizzard vs. Valve, and I doubt they were spending "enormous" costs since they both settled on an agreement rather than Blizzard pushing it to court and dragging the case out.
As I said before, there is nothing to gain out of Blizzard taking Dota for themselves. There's nothing they can do with it other than slap the name on their game, and people identify Dota more by its gameplay than its name alone. |
|
|
| qyk05328 Germany. May 12 2012 19:43. Posts 334 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 19:11 Spawkuring wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 18:59 qyk05328 wrote:
On May 12 2012 18:17 Spawkuring wrote:
On May 12 2012 12:14 superstartran 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.
This is too funny. If you seriously think Activision Blizzard was not looking to pretty much steal DotA from the creators of the game I don't know what to tell you. Blizzard was in it for the money from the start, and it was blatantly obvious that 1) they had no case and 2) if they had somehow miraculously won the case, they would have proceeded to file claims to try and claim ownership over said trademark. Blizzard's intent from the start was obvious, and it certainly wasn't to "protect the map makers."
Blizzard gets nothing out of stealing the DotA trademark for themselves. You can't copyright a genre of gameplay, so all of the MOBA games out will still exist. League of Legends demonstrates that you don't need the actual name "Dota" to become successful, and even if Blizzard ruled that only they can use Dota, Valve can simply change the name of their game into something else and still be incredibly successful since the community is well aware that Valve's game is more true to Dota than whatever Blizzard is making. I have my own complaints regarding Blizzard, but people are really trying too hard to cast them in a bad light in this case. Blizzard has absolutely nothing to gain out of this weird "stealing Dota for themselves" conspiracy. The case was settled with an agreement that benefits everybody, and yet people still try to single out a bad guy. Ridiculous behavior from these forums.
You're arguing that Activision would get nothing out of the claim on the Dota trademark, yet at the time they were spending enormous resources for legal costs and for acquiring DotA-Allstars, LLC from Riot Games for the sole purpose of having a better claim at the trademark. Doing so would be actually criminal towards their shareholders as the sole purpose of a corporation is profit-maximization for the shareholders, as some of you were all too happy to point out when discussing some of their other questionable recent actions.
Activision had nothing to do with the case. It was purely Blizzard vs. Valve, and I doubt they were spending "enormous" costs since they both settled on an agreement rather than Blizzard pushing it to court and dragging the case out. As I said before, there is nothing to gain out of Blizzard taking Dota for themselves. There's nothing they can do with it other than slap the name on their game, and people identify Dota more by its gameplay than its name alone.
You're right, Blizzard is Activison's subsidiary and not a division, and the claim was in their name and not in the name of the holding company. I stand corrected. Other than that, I still think my arguments stands--if they had absolutely nothing to gain from this it would be criminal for them to spend a single cent on this thing.
And you're severely underestimating the power of trademarks. As it stands, "dota" as a term has higher mindshare than "starcraft" for example. It would be quite the blow for competition if you could deny them the right to retain the already hugely popular name of their game. Even Blizzard argues so in their claim, saying that the name alone could be causing "consumers to falsely believe that Valve's products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard". By their own arguments it follows that if their own product was named Blizzard Dota a lot of consumers might have been misled to it thinking that it had connection with the real game. |
| |
|
| Kolapz Croatia. May 12 2012 21:22. Posts 3 | Profile # |
| It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done. |
|
|
| superstartran United States. May 12 2012 21:41. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
TL, the land of law experts.
No; EULAS do not hold up very well in the court of law, even in the United States. If you seriously think Blizzard wouldn't have shut this down the second they could I don't know what to tell you. What Blizzard essentially did was throw the kitchen sink, the bathtub, and the toilet and hope something hit. Unfortunately for them it didn't. They had no case to begin with.
Considering Blizzard's trackrecord as of late, it looks extremely shady when they attempt to contest the trademark with another company. You'd have to be pretty dumb as hell to seriously believe Blizzard was not going to attempt to claim ownership over said trademark if they managed to win this first case.Last edit: 2012-05-12 21:48:49 |
|
|
| lololol May 12 2012 22:00. Posts 5197 | Profile # |
Woohoo, GOOD defeated EVIL yet again!
Don't forget to put your tin foil hats on, or the EVIL company will make you think that in fact they aren't completely and utterly EVIL! May god have pity on the soul of all those that don't wear their tin foil hats.Last edit: 2012-05-12 22:00:15 |
| |
|
| Unleashing Denmark. May 12 2012 22:02. Posts 2403 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
EULAs and even ToS don't automatically win you a court-fight.
Let's take the extreme example: Windows suddenly updates their EULA and anything made on windows belongs to microsoft, you think that's gonna get them anywhere in court? Nope.
It's hilarious that people think so, though. |
| | "Back then teams that won were credited, now it's called throw. I think it's sad." - KuroKy | |
|
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 12 2012 22:07. Posts 710 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 21:41 superstartran wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
TL, the land of law experts. No; EULAS do not hold up very well in the court of law, even in the United States. If you seriously think Blizzard wouldn't have shut this down the second they could I don't know what to tell you. What Blizzard essentially did was throw the kitchen sink, the bathtub, and the toilet and hope something hit. Unfortunately for them it didn't. They had no case to begin with. Considering Blizzard's trackrecord as of late, it looks extremely shady when they attempt to contest the trademark with another company. You'd have to be pretty dumb as hell to seriously believe Blizzard was not going to attempt to claim ownership over said trademark if they managed to win this first case.
Okay I'll bite. Why do you believe Blizzard would "shut down" anything just because they claimed the DotA trademark? There's nothing Blizzard could do with DotA other than slap the name on a game, and LoL has already proven that the gameplay of DotA is more important than the name itself, which is why LoL manages to be so popular despite being called something else. It almost sounds like you're saying that Blizzard would try to stop people from making DotA games just by trademarking the name, but there's a pretty major difference between trademarking a name and claiming ownership of an entire genre. |
|
|
| Quotidian Norway. May 12 2012 22:11. Posts 1626 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 13:49 Erasme wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 12:33 Quotidian wrote:
On May 12 2012 11:52 Erasme wrote:^
On May 12 2012 11:06 Quotidian wrote:
People actually think Blizzard were genuinely the good guys? They wanted the trademark because it's worth a lot of money.. that's it. Everything else is just rhetoric and public relations
After that post, you show that you are disgustingly naive.
how am I naive?
You doubt of blizzard's action but don't question a document of valve. Like wtf ? Blizzard evil but Valve good guys, look at their paper that I didnt read but i'll still say it was awesome cuz it's VALVE. I can draw it if you still don't understand the irony.
So you haven't you read their document but you still make posts about it? Or are you saying I haven't read it? (pretty sure I stated explicitly that I have read it)
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said Blizzard are evil, I said I prefer Valve more and I stated FACTUAL reasons why. You're the one that's naive if you think there aren't very noticeable difference to working under the pressures of share holders vs being your own masters. Valve could've just as easily hired Icefrog and Eul and made a completely new dota styled game with a new intellectual property, but they're also shrewd businessmen and they realize that - in an overcrowded space with a lot of DOTA-clones, there is more power in making a direct sequel to DOTA.
I didn't think the document would be the kind of thing that would provoke conspiracy theories, but I guess everything does now a days. It's a manual for new employees that describes how their creative process works and what their corporate culture is like. Sure, it's also a recruitment tool and I have no illusions about how working at Valve wouldn't be a difficult thing, considering you have to be extremely self motivated. The entire tone of the text is that "working here is VERY difficult and confusing at first." I probably wouldn't be able to work there, because I tend to get very self-critical and this critique eats away at my productivity, but whether you want to believe it or not, Valve is extremely unique as far as relatively big companies go. |
|
|
| Sumadin Denmark. May 12 2012 23:39. Posts 382 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 22:02 Unleashing wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
EULAs and even ToS don't automatically win you a court-fight. Let's take the extreme example: Windows suddenly updates their EULA and anything made on windows belongs to microsoft, you think that's gonna get them anywhere in court? Nope. It's hilarious that people think so, though.
There is limitation on what you can put in a EULA just like there is with an ordinary contract. But going to court and assume they are automaticly could get the EULA rejected would be insane.
http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/archives/2002/03/you-may-read-th.html
This is an old blog(and by old i mean over 10 years by now) that explains the legal properties and issues regarding EULAs and such. It is a good read and i always like to quote.
+ Show Spoiler +Time and again, forum board dwellers seem to believe that software license agreements cannot be binding. They seem troubled by the fact that you have to buy the game before even seeing the agreement. The licenses usually appear inside the game packaging and state that by installing the software you agree to the terms of the license (a "shrink-wrap license"). Alternatively or in addition, the license pops up during installation and requires you to click "Yes" to accept the agreement before the installation will proceed (a "click-wrap license"). There is a third type of license called a "browse-wrap license" you might find on internet sites. Such licenses are posted at a site and purport to regulate how you use the site, even though you need not directly indicate your assent in order to access the site. Such licenses usually assert that by looking at the site, you agree to the terms.
It is not a new idea that EULAs aren't legally binding. And like any contract they aren't if their terms break the law. But that is the court that will decide that. If they ruled that the EULA was legal and binding then Valve would have had nothing. The case would be over and Valve could go home with one less trademark on their hands.
So it is probably safe to assume they were having some concerns going to court, and were pushing for a deal. It is impossible to say what the closer terms for this deal is, we might never know.
I still like the outcome. Blizzard All-stars sounds better(with BALLS as the obvious abbreviation, through i think it would end up being BAS if it ever became a serrious E-sport. |
| | Balance is a science. It cannot be determined by general opinion. |
|
|
| superstartran United States. May 13 2012 01:08. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On May 12 2012 22:07 Spawkuring wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:41 superstartran wrote:
On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
TL, the land of law experts. No; EULAS do not hold up very well in the court of law, even in the United States. If you seriously think Blizzard wouldn't have shut this down the second they could I don't know what to tell you. What Blizzard essentially did was throw the kitchen sink, the bathtub, and the toilet and hope something hit. Unfortunately for them it didn't. They had no case to begin with. Considering Blizzard's trackrecord as of late, it looks extremely shady when they attempt to contest the trademark with another company. You'd have to be pretty dumb as hell to seriously believe Blizzard was not going to attempt to claim ownership over said trademark if they managed to win this first case.
Okay I'll bite. Why do you believe Blizzard would "shut down" anything just because they claimed the DotA trademark? There's nothing Blizzard could do with DotA other than slap the name on a game, and LoL has already proven that the gameplay of DotA is more important than the name itself, which is why LoL manages to be so popular despite being called something else. It almost sounds like you're saying that Blizzard would try to stop people from making DotA games just by trademarking the name, but there's a pretty major difference between trademarking a name and claiming ownership of an entire genre.
Getting the trademark would be the first step in attempting to take over someone else's intellectual property. It would not be a huge stretch for Blizzard to try and do it if they could have taken over the trademark rights, especially if they were able to claim ownership of said trademark. You must be seriously out of your mind if Blizzard wasn't trying to take DotA away from Valve. The amount of money to be made in DotA is absolutely ludicrous, especially when you consider how much money League of Legends has made, and how big the potential market is for DotA 2 in South East Asia. People keep saying that Activision had no say in this, but you're seriously out of your mind if you think they weren't pushing Blizzard to go for this.
Not to mention that the name DotA itself is a tremendous marketing tool in a sea of MOBAS that are absolutely god awful. Everyone that plays "MOBAS" knows what DotA is.
On May 12 2012 23:39 Sumadin wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 22:02 Unleashing wrote:
On May 12 2012 21:22 Kolapz wrote:
It baffles me that some people think Valve actually "won" this dispute when it's pretty obvious they had to pay a hefty sum to Blizzard out of court to be able to keep the Dota name. There is no way in hell Blizzard wouldn't have won this if it went to court. All they had to do is show the part of the ToS where it says "anything ever created on our platform is our intelectual property and not of the creator" and it would have been done.
EULAs and even ToS don't automatically win you a court-fight. Let's take the extreme example: Windows suddenly updates their EULA and anything made on windows belongs to microsoft, you think that's gonna get them anywhere in court? Nope. It's hilarious that people think so, though.
There is limitation on what you can put in a EULA just like there is with an ordinary contract. But going to court and assume they are automaticly could get the EULA rejected would be insane. http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/archives/2002/03/you-may-read-th.htmlThis is an old blog(and by old i mean over 10 years by now) that explains the legal properties and issues regarding EULAs and such. It is a good read and i always like to quote.
Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +Time and again, forum board dwellers seem to believe that software license agreements cannot be binding. They seem troubled by the fact that you have to buy the game before even seeing the agreement. The licenses usually appear inside the game packaging and state that by installing the software you agree to the terms of the license (a "shrink-wrap license"). Alternatively or in addition, the license pops up during installation and requires you to click "Yes" to accept the agreement before the installation will proceed (a "click-wrap license"). There is a third type of license called a "browse-wrap license" you might find on internet sites. Such licenses are posted at a site and purport to regulate how you use the site, even though you need not directly indicate your assent in order to access the site. Such licenses usually assert that by looking at the site, you agree to the terms.
It is not a new idea that EULAs aren't legally binding. And like any contract they aren't if their terms break the law. But that is the court that will decide that. If they ruled that the EULA was legal and binding then Valve would have had nothing. The case would be over and Valve could go home with one less trademark on their hands. So it is probably safe to assume they were having some concerns going to court, and were pushing for a deal. It is impossible to say what the closer terms for this deal is, we might never know. I still like the outcome. Blizzard All-stars sounds better(with BALLS as the obvious abbreviation, through i think it would end up being BAS if it ever became a serrious E-sport.
If Blizzard had any sort of legal argument that stemmed from their EULA they would have used it, and they would have drilled Valve into the ground until they got the trademark right. Their past legal history has demonstrated that Blizzard wouldn't think twice if they didn't have some sort of legal ground to stand on. However, this is the best Blizzard could hope for.
Blizzard is a business first. Period. People who think otherwise are absolutely crazy. If you actually read the legal documentation, Blizzard's argument basically was throw the whole fucking bathroom at Valve and pray that the judge agreed on some silly grounds. They had a flimsy argument at best. For Blizzard to actually try to contend with a company as large as Valve, there has to be some sort of monetary payoff, and Blizzard had to be hoping that by establishing trademark rights to the name DotA, they would have been able to use that as a launchpad to make claims to the intellectual property of DotA itself since it was created in the WC3 map editor.Last edit: 2012-05-13 01:13:44 |
|
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 13 2012 01:26. Posts 710 | Profile # |
On May 13 2012 01:08 superstartran wrote:
Getting the trademark would be the first step in attempting to take over someone else's intellectual property. It would not be a huge stretch for Blizzard to try and do it if they could have taken over the trademark rights, especially if they were able to claim ownership of said trademark. You must be seriously out of your mind if Blizzard wasn't trying to take DotA away from Valve. The amount of money to be made in DotA is absolutely ludicrous, especially when you consider how much money League of Legends has made, and how big the potential market is for DotA 2 in South East Asia. People keep saying that Activision had no say in this, but you're seriously out of your mind if you think they weren't pushing Blizzard to go for this.
Not to mention that the name DotA itself is a tremendous marketing tool in a sea of MOBAS that are absolutely god awful. Everyone that plays "MOBAS" knows what DotA is.
The most Blizzard would have been able to do is take the name Dota and force Valve to rename its game. Blizzard wouldn't actually get the game itself since Dota 2 has nothing that infringes on copyright other than its name, which was ruled to not be owned by Blizzard anyway. In addition, simply owning the word "Dota" doesn't mean you own the genre itself, otherwise LoL and HoN would have to be "acquired" by Blizzard. The mere idea of owning a game genre is ludicrous and has no legal precedent, which is why I simply don't buy this "Blizzard is trying to steal Dota" business.
The Dota-clone business is big, that much is true. But the genre itself is more community-driven than anything. The average Joe doesn't know what Dota means or what it stands for, so the whole idea of "using the name Dota = instant cash" doesn't have much ground. In fact, the most popular Dota game is LoL, which doesn't even use the original name. People aren't just gonna rush to the nearest game that says "Dota" because the only people who are familar with that term are those who are already aware of which games stay true to the classic gameplay (HoN/Dota2) and those which diverge from it (LoL, Blizzard All-Stars). You don't need the name nor the trademark to get into the business; what you DO need is an actual game. Regardless of how this case could have turned out, Blizzard would still have to make their own game, and create their own community for it. |
|
|
| superstartran United States. May 13 2012 01:54. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On May 13 2012 01:26 Spawkuring wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 01:08 superstartran wrote:
Getting the trademark would be the first step in attempting to take over someone else's intellectual property. It would not be a huge stretch for Blizzard to try and do it if they could have taken over the trademark rights, especially if they were able to claim ownership of said trademark. You must be seriously out of your mind if Blizzard wasn't trying to take DotA away from Valve. The amount of money to be made in DotA is absolutely ludicrous, especially when you consider how much money League of Legends has made, and how big the potential market is for DotA 2 in South East Asia. People keep saying that Activision had no say in this, but you're seriously out of your mind if you think they weren't pushing Blizzard to go for this.
Not to mention that the name DotA itself is a tremendous marketing tool in a sea of MOBAS that are absolutely god awful. Everyone that plays "MOBAS" knows what DotA is.
The most Blizzard would have been able to do is take the name Dota and force Valve to rename its game. Blizzard wouldn't actually get the game itself since Dota 2 has nothing that infringes on copyright other than its name, which was ruled to not be owned by Blizzard anyway. In addition, simply owning the word "Dota" doesn't mean you own the genre itself, otherwise LoL and HoN would have to be "acquired" by Blizzard. The mere idea of owning a game genre is ludicrous and has no legal precedent, which is why I simply don't buy this "Blizzard is trying to steal Dota" business. The Dota-clone business is big, that much is true. But the genre itself is more community-driven than anything. The average Joe doesn't know what Dota means or what it stands for, so the whole idea of "using the name Dota = instant cash" doesn't have much ground. In fact, the most popular Dota game is LoL, which doesn't even use the original name. People aren't just gonna rush to the nearest game that says "Dota" because the only people who are familar with that term are those who are already aware of which games stay true to the classic gameplay (HoN/Dota2) and those which diverge from it (LoL, Blizzard All-Stars). You don't need the name nor the trademark to get into the business; what you DO need is an actual game. Regardless of how this case could have turned out, Blizzard would still have to make their own game, and create their own community for it.
1) By establishing the trademark rights, Blizzard has established a connection that their EULA in fact actually does hold firm in the court.
2) By establishing the connection of DotA 2 with the EULA on legal grounds, it would not be a stretch for Blizzard to make claim that DotA 2 is their intellectual property because it has been so heavily influenced by the mechanics of the WC3 engine and map editor. Most of the abilities, models, etc. in DotA 2 are directly influenced by the WC3 map editor/game. If you seriously think that Blizzard couldn't make this argument in a court of law after they established rights to the trademark, I seriously do not know what to tell you.
3) Seriously, I have not even talked about Blizzard "owning" MOBAS. I'm talking about Blizzard fucking taking over intellectual property that belongs to Valve/Eul/Icefrog/The DotA fucking community. As stated above, it would not have been a stretch for Blizzard to put a stop on all the work Valve has done if they were able to claim supremacy over the trademark of DotA, since that would lead to the precedent that in fact, Blizzard's EULA actually has LEGAL GROUND to stand on. Good thing that it didn't, otherwise we'd have another shitjob of a game.
Blizzard for 6 years did jack diddly squat. Nothing to support Icefrog. Nothing. Period. They practically twiddled their thumbs and laughed at Icefrog pretty much. And now all of a sudden they are up in arms over the trademark name over some dubious legal argument (a very shady one in fact too with their acquisition of the DotA-Allstars website from Pendragon) just as Valve announces DotA 2. It's a load of bullshit and you know it. No sane person would ever think Blizzard wasn't making an attempt to either shutdown or take DotA away from Valve. If you actually READ their legal documentation that has their claims, you would see that they attempted to lay down the precedent that such and such models, abilities, etc. etc. so closely resemble their WC3 counterparts that it (DotA) should be Blizzad's.
Their whole argument was extremely dubious. Anyone can see that they were attempting to launch pad their way to the DotA Intellectual Property THROUGH the establishment of the trademark rights. By doing that, it would have been easy for Blizzard to then make further claims that because the EULA states that "all things made in the WC3 map editor" is essentially Blizzard's property, they can actually extend that claim to the Intellectual Property itself. Now, that's a huge claim that Valve would have fought tooth and nail against, but the fact of the matter is that it was pretty fucking obvious what Blizzard was doing.Last edit: 2012-05-13 02:02:16 |
|
|
| Spawkuring United States. May 13 2012 04:33. Posts 710 | Profile # |
On May 13 2012 01:54 superstartran wrote:Their whole argument was extremely dubious. Anyone can see that they were attempting to launch pad their way to the DotA Intellectual Property THROUGH the establishment of the trademark rights. By doing that, it would have been easy for Blizzard to then make further claims that because the EULA states that "all things made in the WC3 map editor" is essentially Blizzard's property, they can actually extend that claim to the Intellectual Property itself. Now, that's a huge claim that Valve would have fought tooth and nail against, but the fact of the matter is that it was pretty fucking obvious what Blizzard was doing.
See the thing here is that we both agree that the case had no water to stand on, but we both have wildly different interpretations of it. You see it as Big Bad Blizzard getting put down, while I just see it as a long dispute finally being settled so nobody has to worry about the Dota name being abused.
Part of the reason why I don't see Blizzard as having any "evil" motives in this is precisely because trying to own the Dota trademark is an argument that has no ground. You have to keep in mind that Dota is:
- A massively successful genre that is worth millions.
- Is supported and created by a wealth of different people working for different companies, so no one person can stake a true claim over it.
- The sequel, Dota 2, is being made by a massive corporation that has more than enough money to handle a court case, and not have to worry about being bought out or intimidated by another corporation.
Looking at these three points, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that any attempt to force another person to "shut down" is utterly ridiculous. The only people who could reasonably be shut down are minor mapmakers who make a similar game using the name "Dota", which is precisely what Blizzard and Riot were trying to prevent. My problem is that your argument goes off the deep end by claiming that Blizzard was trying to claim complete ownership so that they could shut down Dota 2. This in itself is silly because forcing a multi-million dollar corporation to shut down a product requires rock fucking hard evidence to back it up with. Arguments of "their models/spells/gameplay look like ours" don't go very far because making things similar isn't enough to force an entire company to shut down a product.
And another reason why I don't believe your argument is because even if Blizzard DID put a stop to Dota 2, they would ultimately have nothing to gain for it, mainly because:
- The biggest Dota-style game, League of Legends, is still going strong. Taking down enemy #2 doesn't mean much when enemy #1 can still crush you.
- The shut down of Dota 2 wouldn't automatically lead people to Blizzard Dota. There are two types of Dota games: those that try to mimic and recapture the WC3 version, and those that try to innovate on it. HoN and Dota 2 are the former, LoL and Blizzard A-S are the latter. People who were looking forward to Dota 2 aren't going to rush to Blizzard's game because that game isn't giving them the classic Dota gameplay they were looking for.
- Fan backlash would be pretty damn immense. It's not exactly good press to say that you caused a highly anticipated game to crash and burn because you want people to play yours instead, especially since Blizzard A-S isn't even trying to recapture the original Dota feel, making it even more pointless to shut down Dota over it.
And I repeat, all that is assuming Blizzard would somehow be able to shut down a game over it, which I feel is pretty ridiculous. I know people love to hate on corporations, but this whole issue is really going into the world of lunacy. Blizzard has a well-trained legal team at their disposal. I highly doubt that any of them were trying, or were even intending to, to claim the Dota trademark for the purposes of trying to kill Dota 2. It's a silly move that does nothing and gains nothing. |
|
|
| superstartran United States. May 13 2012 07:28. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On May 13 2012 04:33 Spawkuring wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 13 2012 01:54 superstartran wrote:Their whole argument was extremely dubious. Anyone can see that they were attempting to launch pad their way to the DotA Intellectual Property THROUGH the establishment of the trademark rights. By doing that, it would have been easy for Blizzard to then make further claims that because the EULA states that "all things made in the WC3 map editor" is essentially Blizzard's property, they can actually extend that claim to the Intellectual Property itself. Now, that's a huge claim that Valve would have fought tooth and nail against, but the fact of the matter is that it was pretty fucking obvious what Blizzard was doing.
See the thing here is that we both agree that the case had no water to stand on, but we both have wildly different interpretations of it. You see it as Big Bad Blizzard getting put down, while I just see it as a long dispute finally being settled so nobody has to worry about the Dota name being abused. Part of the reason why I don't see Blizzard as having any "evil" motives in this is precisely because trying to own the Dota trademark is an argument that has no ground. You have to keep in mind that Dota is: - A massively successful genre that is worth millions. - Is supported and created by a wealth of different people working for different companies, so no one person can stake a true claim over it. - The sequel, Dota 2, is being made by a massive corporation that has more than enough money to handle a court case, and not have to worry about being bought out or intimidated by another corporation. Looking at these three points, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that any attempt to force another person to "shut down" is utterly ridiculous. The only people who could reasonably be shut down are minor mapmakers who make a similar game using the name "Dota", which is precisely what Blizzard and Riot were trying to prevent. My problem is that your argument goes off the deep end by claiming that Blizzard was trying to claim complete ownership so that they could shut down Dota 2. This in itself is silly because forcing a multi-million dollar corporation to shut down a product requires rock fucking hard evidence to back it up with. Arguments of "their models/spells/gameplay look like ours" don't go very far because making things similar isn't enough to force an entire company to shut down a product. And another reason why I don't believe your argument is because even if Blizzard DID put a stop to Dota 2, they would ultimately have nothing to gain for it, mainly because: - The biggest Dota-style game, League of Legends, is still going strong. Taking down enemy #2 doesn't mean much when enemy #1 can still crush you. - The shut down of Dota 2 wouldn't automatically lead people to Blizzard Dota. There are two types of Dota games: those that try to mimic and recapture the WC3 version, and those that try to innovate on it. HoN and Dota 2 are the former, LoL and Blizzard A-S are the latter. People who were looking forward to Dota 2 aren't going to rush to Blizzard's game because that game isn't giving them the classic Dota gameplay they were looking for. - Fan backlash would be pretty damn immense. It's not exactly good press to say that you caused a highly anticipated game to crash and burn because you want people to play yours instead, especially since Blizzard A-S isn't even trying to recapture the original Dota feel, making it even more pointless to shut down Dota over it. And I repeat, all that is assuming Blizzard would somehow be able to shut down a game over it, which I feel is pretty ridiculous. I know people love to hate on corporations, but this whole issue is really going into the world of lunacy. Blizzard has a well-trained legal team at their disposal. I highly doubt that any of them were trying, or were even intending to, to claim the Dota trademark for the purposes of trying to kill Dota 2. It's a silly move that does nothing and gains nothing.
God you are so fucking thick and ignorant it is unbelievable.
1) Read the fucking legal documentation that Blizzard presented. They attempt to lay the precedent in there that if their claim to the trademark stands, that they would also be able to make claim to the intellectual property of DotA themselves.
2) By establishing the legitimacy of their EULA through the trademark argument, Blizzard would have easily been able to stretch their claim over the intellectual property IF they had ground to stand on. This is why Blizzard threw the most dubious and widespread argument possible at Valve in order to see if anything would stick, because if it did, they would have been in business.
3) Why the fuck did Blizzard all of a sudden after 6 years goes uppidy uppidy about the DotA name? Because they want in. They wanted a cut of the money, or they wanted the intellectual property of DotA itself. Don't fucking kid yourself; Blizzard is a business first, and this was a business opportunity for Blizzard.
There is no "faking" going around here. The only people faking are people like you who actually seriously believe Blizzard's claims that they were attempting to protect map mapkers. If Blizzard had access to both the DotA trademark and the IP, they would have made their own DotA, shut down Valve's, and proceed to make the most craptacular DotA 2 we'd probably ever see. There's a reason why various people like me do not want Blizzard involved, ever. Anyone attempting to defend Blizzard is flat out wrong, no ifs and or buts. Blizzard did what any large corporation would do and attempted to get their cut of the pie under dubious arguments. Thankfully for once, they didn't succeed. For Blizzard to even contemplate going head to head with a company like Valve, there had to be some sort of monetary incentive.Last edit: 2012-05-13 07:35:04 |
|
|
| urashimakt United States. May 13 2012 08:29. Posts 1524 | Profile # |
News: "Amicable resolution, DOTA remains free to use for the community."
Discussion: "Which company is the bad one?" |
| |
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
