|
| T O P I C | |
|
Not-So-Intellectual Property
July 1st 2000, 05:40 CEST by andy Let's hope the Apogee boys and girls are sitting comfortably, because here's a little something to stir things up... THQ and Heavy Iron Studios have unveiled the new web site for their forthcoming game based on the Evil Dead movies. The title of the game, and also the web site, is: "Evil Dead : Hail To The King" "Hail To The King" is a phrase used in the Evil Dead movies, but later adopted in the Duke Nukem games by Apogee's eponymous hero. Some people have commented that it was a teensy bit naughty of Apogee to take a line from a film and then claim it as their own -- even going so far as to register it as their own trademark, the cheeky scamps. But those people can stop worrying, because it turns out that Apogee hasn't been entirely honest with us... You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark. THQ applied for it in early February, several months before Apogee claimed ownership. There's no direct hyperlink at the moment because the application is still pending, but you can see for yourself that Apogee doesn't own it by going to this page, clicking the Free Form Search link, and then entering "hail to the king" in the search box, complete with quotes. (Note: If you use a download manager such as GetRight, you'll need to disable it for the search to work.) Update: It turns out that Apogee's IP license, published in May this year, makes a few other false trademark claims... For a start, there's no such trademark as "General Phil Graves". There's boring old "Phil Graves" (#75162460) but he ain't no General, and all three registered uses (comics, computer games and arcade games) were abandoned in August 1997. According to the trademark office, this trademark is now "dead". The "Lo Wang" trademark (#75272379) is dead too, with all four registered uses (computer games, comics, hand-held games and arcade games) having been abandoned in October 1999. And finally, it's a bit sneaky of Apogee to claim ownership of "Zero Hour". Not only was their registration (#75603132) abandoned in January this year, but the trademark is currently registered by Warner Bros (#1874656) and applies to comics. All of the informtation in this update can be verified at the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Not-So-Intellectual Property
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
<b>#187</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote... <QUOTE>Sadly games like Thief, System Shock, Deus Ex and adventure games like say Sam n Max DONT sell because the public has been getting steadily dumbed down due to being fed shite via TV and the mainstream press. face it, the youth of today, is shit thick and rude to boot. </QUOTE> The youth of every age is "shit thick and rude to boot". Most non-youth are are shit thick and this aint something that going to go away. It is one of those constants over time. However people like the idea that there was a golden age in past or maybe there will be in the future. Hence the reason so many sheep join the major religions or believe in the various other kooky things (ie Aliens are coming to help us etc)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Andy, you ask what problem we have with this story. You dance around about how truthful the story is and wonder what could possibly be the cause of the fuss. Yes, your facts are correct. The problem that Scott and I both have are with the conclusions you make based on those facts. You are, in effect, making 2+2=5. For example: <quote>And finally, it's a bit sneaky of Apogee to claim ownership of "Zero Hour". Not only was their registration (#75603132) abandoned in January this year, but the trademark is currently registered by Warner Bros (#1874656) and applies to comics.</quote> You take the fact that Zero Hour is expired (we've shown that is not a problem, it's still defendable). You then point out that the trademark is currently registered by Warner Bros. At least you point out that it is for comics, but the conclusion you are reaching and trying to impress on the reader is that Warner Bros. is in fact the current person able to claim the trademark so our claim is false. Either you are deliberately twisting those facts to mislead the reader, or you truly don't understand that both of those trademarks could be live at the same time. In fact, if you look at the dates, the Warner Bros. "Zero Hour" has been active since 1995. The Apogee one was applied for in late 1998 and wasn't abandoned until Early 2000. Both trademarks were live at the same time. Why did you not include that information? And why did you try to use the Warner Bros. trademark as helpful proof of your position? Those two clearly have nothing to do with each other and yet you twisted them as if they did. <quote>Had been written as this: <i>You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark. (Ownership must be determined by a court.) Indeed, THQ applied for the registration in early February, several months before Apogee claimed ownership.</i> Could all of this unpleasantness have been avoided? Have I really just made a 650+ word post, when an extra eight words in the topic would have been enough?!</quote> It would have helped, but it wouldn't have avoided our problems with the article. It would have helped because it would have at least let us understand what you meant in terms of ownership. Now this is where I get confused: You agree that many companies claim ownership of trademarks that have not been determined in court. You then state that Apogee's problem lies in claiming a trademark that someone else has applied for. Then in the topic you state that Apogee is making false claimes with Lo Wang (because it has expired) as well as Phil Graves (because it doesn't have the "General" in front of it, though Scott has explained that one already for you). Why were those two included? They aren't being registered by somebody else. As far as we know nobody else is using them for similar purposes. Which is the problem? Just the inherent claiming of trademarks in our IP license or claiming trademarks in our IP license that others are currently applying for? <quote>Apogee wants people to believe that they own a number of trademarks that they don't own at all. You can't expect the 'Crap to sit by and let that sort of misinformation go unchecked, can you? ;-)</quote> Here is my question: Could you please point me to the law or at the very least a stylebook which states that you can not claim a trademark in an IP license unless it has been proven in court or registered? Or perhaps a stylebook on the USPTO webpage or some other trademark authority which states that Apogee is in fact doing something wrong with their IP license. As far as I know, there is nothing technically wrong with what Apogee has done. You may personally have a moral problem with it, but the article does not paint it that way. You present it in a manner which makes it look like Apogee is doing something inherently wrong. <quote>This is why you will notice, for example, that a Coca Cola can doesn't say: "The Coca Cola Company owns the Coca Cola trademark." Instead, it says that "Coca Cola" is a registered trademark.</quote> Coke may not say they own the trademarks on their cans, but I guarantee that they claim them in the same manner that Apogee has claimed theirs. None of the Apogee products state "Apogee owns "XXXXXXXX"". If it is a registered trademark, it will state it is a registered trademark, just like Coke does. What I would like is for you to show me where Apogee has acted as if they own their trademarks in an manner more than they do. They have never acted as if they have been defended in court. They have never acted as if they are all registered. They have done the research necessary to determine wich trademarks they can properly claim and have done so. If you think they have claimed any more than that, then it is your own misunderstanding. <quote>Scott, I really don't see why you object to this story so much. You're reacting as if I've said you don't have a claim to the trademark, which I haven't said at all. All I've said is that you don't currently own it, which is true.</quote> Own it in the sense that it has been defended in court? No. Own it in the sense that we have doen the research to find out if we have proper claim to it, can use it freely, and will defend it? Yes. <quote><i>Finally, you stated that Scott was essentially lying about whether Apogee has applied for the "Hail to the King" trademark or not. I've asked you for what proof you have of this. You will not offer it, I can only assume you have none at this point.</i> My "proof" is the invalidity of the evidence you provided yourself. You said that the "Hail To The King" and "Come Get Some" applications were filed at the same time, but we've since established that they weren't.</quote> <b>That's your proof?</b> You are basing your proof on my speculation being wrong? Please re-read what I wrote. Each time I was speculating on what it might have been based on the evidence at hand. You speculated to the negative, I speculate to the positive, but neither of us has any more proof. My mistake was tying it to only the "Come Get Some" trademark claim. If you look at the rest of the applications by Apogee at the time most of them fall into late February. The timing could still very well be the cause. The fact that you are content to let my original <i>speculation</i> be your proof should be evidence enough for everyone on how you take certain facts to draw conclusions that you probably shouldn't. ----- I went digging around and tried to find something that backed up your claim that "ownership" can not happen until a trademark has been proven in court. I couldn't find anything. In fact, I found again and again where the person claiming a trademark was referred to as "owner" before a lawsuit to defend it had ever occured. Several links. Look at who they refer to as owner or ownership. http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/pct/pct27.html http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/pct/pct28.html <quote>Using and Enforcing a Trademark Advice on how to make trademark law work for you. <b>Generally, a trademark is owned by the business that first uses it in a commercial context<b>--that is, attaches the mark to a product or uses the mark when marketing a product or service. A business may also obtain ownership of a mark if it applies for federal registration of the mark and the application date is before anyone else uses the mark. See the discussion below on reserving a mark. Once a business owns a trademark, it may be able to prevent others from using that mark, or a similar one, on their goods and services.</quote> http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html <quote>Trademarks are generally distinctive symbols, pictures, or words that sellers affix to distinguish and identify the origin of their products. Trademark status may also be granted to distinctive and unique packaging, color combinations, building designs, product styles, and overall presentations. It is also possible to receive trademark status for identification that is not on its face distinct or unique but which has developed a secondary meaning over time that identifies it with the product or seller. <b>The owner of a trademark has exclusive right to use it</b> on the product it was intended to identify and often on related products. Service-marks receive the same legal protection as trademarks but are meant to distinguish services rather than products.</quote> You can continue to poke around in other sections of those pages, and you'll find again and again that ownership is not used only to refer to people who have had a court decision in their favor. http://www.ggmark.com/ Lots of links at the bottom there too, for further reference. Yes, a court can make a decision on ownership when there is a conflict, however a court decision is *not* a requirement to claim ownership. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Damn bold tag, I really should start using CrapSpy. If you don't want to bother replying to everything else Andy, please at least let me know about the last section where it refers to ownership and the requirements for claiming ownership. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<quote>ust a brief thought... why do companies feel the need to register characters' names as trademarks? I mean, Phil Graves is a pretty bland kinda name - there must be hundreds of millions of them the world over - so why does any one person have the right to 'own' the name? Feh, I dunno. I make no sense. It's only 24 hours past Monday.<quote> Because if Apogee ever decides to base a game around that character, it will be very handy to already have those trademarks in place. It is very difficult to claim a name as a trademark, and is next to impossible to defend against. However you might as well take whatever steps you can just in case. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<b>#183</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>That hits the nail on the head: Someone who THINKS they own it. Just like you THINK you own it. Hell, one day a court may rule that you DO own it. But currently, you haven't even registered the trademark. So the original story was accurate, wasn't it? </QUOTE> Registered or Unregistered...the point is that, essentially, everyone who CLAIMS a trademark "owns" it until a court decides who actually owns it in the case of a conflict. That's the way it works. Apogee's claims aren't misleading or false, they are WARNING people that they have laid claim (registered or not) to those marks within the specific context and genre in which they used them. Essentially they're saying; "We used <b>this</b> mark in <b>this</b> fashion, and if you try to do the same, we'll fight you over it." The (TM) symbol is used for UNREGISTERED marks and the (R) symbol is used for REGISTERED marks. Apogee <i>specifically</i> stated that the list of trademarks included REGISTERED <i>and</i> UNREGISTERED. From the original article: "andy" wrote... <QUOTE> But those people can stop worrying, because it turns out that Apogee hasn't been entirely honest with us... You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license</A>, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark. </QUOTE> Because of the way trademark laws in the US work, they <b>do</b> own that specific usage, <b>until</b> someone challenges them and wins. So they weren't being dishonest. <b>#183</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>So the original story was accurate, wasn't it? </QUOTE> It was less accurate than the Apogees claims that you claim were dishonest. They're not required to explain the law along with their list of trademarks. -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Charlie/Valeyard No, I'm not continuing this. I'm not bothered about how either of you interpreted the story, or what you thought I was implying or what 'conclusions' you think I reached. I reported some facts, and that's the end of it. Charlie: With hindsight, I can see that mentioning the "Phil Graves" and "Lo Wang" trademarks served no great value. Apogee, in claiming ownership of those trademarks, is doing nothing worse than many other companies do. Charlie/Scott/George: As I said in another thread, I believe the burden of proof should always be on the reporter or journalist, and disputes should be settled in court. I wrote the story, I provided the proof. If you still want to claim that the story was in any way inaccurate then I suggest you find a more formal setting than a message board. |
|
thanx Valeyard |
|
<b>#193</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>No, I'm not continuing this...I reported some facts, and that's the end of it</QUOTE> Figures. <b>#193</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>I wrote the story, I provided the proof. </QUOTE> And as soon as you were shown wrong you tried to side-step, back-step and dance a litte jig to make it look like you were right. When people who actually KNOW what the hell they are talking about wouldn't let you get away with it...you resort to "not continuing this". Typical. That's ok, we're used to you not being wrong. Heaven forbid that foundation on which you base your witch hunts should happen to crumble. -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I will defend the story in court. I will not waste time arguing here. |
|
<quote>if I can put words in his mouth, what Scott meant was "Unfortunatly, DE will not find an audience" not "Its a bad game because no one will buy it". </quote> Well, that's how I interpret it too, but how was that at all relevant to people discussing how great it is? It is a knock on a game to say it won't sell... of course I (over)reacted like a dweeb. |
|
<quote>As much as we'd all like the ideal to be games like Thief2 and System Shock2 ... the reality is that you have to have money coming in the door to keep the lights on. So there has to be SOME concern on the part of the developer as to how a game idea will sell. That's just reality </quote> Absolutely. But listening to developers talk nowadays, that seems to be the main criteria for determing how they're making their game. You can principle yourself out of business. You can also try to chase the market and put yourself out of business. Or you can create products that aren't market researched and you probably stand the same chance of having a "hit" as anyone. The Thief games sold well enough to keep a developer in business (Looking Glass seems to have disappeared in larger part because of issues tied to publishing games a few years ago). They didn't sell enough to keep them in Ferraris, which seems to be the main goal of people nowadays (if the bragging over their wheels is any indication). |
|
<quote>I will defend the story in court. I will not waste time arguing here. </quote> Yet you continue to ask Scott Miller (and others) question after question because he hasn't answered it specifically to your liking... hmm. |
|
You won't even bother to show me where your definition of "ownership" comes from? That's really what most of this hinges on, and every reference material I've found so far indicates that your definition of ownership is not accurate. Courts can make decisions of ownership, but people can claim ownership all they like. It is intentionally left open ended and left up to the user to find out for themselves if they are allowed to claim ownership or not. When a dispute does arise over ownership, only then does the court get involved and make a decision. I understand now that when a person grows tired of arguing their case on Planetcrap, all that is left to do is "take it to court". Adios Amigos. Scott was right all along. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<quote>No, I'm not continuing this. I'm not bothered about how either of you interpreted the story, or what you thought I was implying or what 'conclusions' you think I reached. I reported some facts, and that's the end of it.</quote> Flase Claims. You didn't just report facts, you also stated that Apogee has made false claims. That is not an interpretation of the post, that is not what we think you are implying. You can not deny that it is a conclusion you reached. Just reporting facts would have been a rather different article, an article that removes the "false claims" aspect of it. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Should have mentioned this yesterday but I forgot. If you look at THQ's <a href="http://www.evildeadgame.com/terms.asp">T&C</a> page you'll see their "partial list of THQ Trademarks". This is it: <quote> THQ, THQ INC., the THQ logo, THQ INTERNATIONAL, THQ GERMANY, RUSHWARE, SOFTGOLD, GAME FX, PACIFIC COAST POWER & LIGHT, the PACIFIC COAST POWER & LIGHT logo, HEAVY IRON STUDIOS, the HEAVY IRON STUDIOS logo, SNOWBOARDING, CHAMPIONSHIP MOTOCROSS FEATURING RICKY CARMICHAEL, SLAP HAPPY, FELONY PURSUIT, ASHES 2 ASHES, GAME FX, and KOKOPELI DIGITAL STUDIOS. </quote> Notice that even though they've applied for "Hail To The King", they don't claim ownership of it. This, I assume, is because they realise that there are multiple claimants, so they will not claim ownership until they at least complete the registration process. Meanwhile, Apogee claims ownership without even having filed an application. (They may have tried to file one, but they failed, otherwise it would be in the USPTO database.) |
|
Charlie, On second thoughts, perhaps a compromise is in order: If either Scott or George still feels the story was inaccurate, I'll discuss it with them by e-mail. I'm willing to continue discussing it, I'm just not willing to argue on a public forum. (It's impossible to discuss something like this when other people keep interrupting all the time.) Can't say fairer than that. |
|
Andy : <quote>I will defend the story in court. I will not waste time arguing here. </quote> If this is going to be your response when cornered, I would suggest not riding people like Scott Miller and Jason Hall into the ground with questions in the future. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. |
|
If I recall correctly, Trademarks are far more fragile than other forms of intellectual property. Patents are held for a fixed amount of time. Copyrights are in theory held for a fixed amount of time, but if the current wave of copyright extension continues, as long as you renew your copyrights they'll last to the heat death of the Universe. Trademarks on the other hand, IIRC, are indefinite, as long as there is a distinguishing mark in the eyes of the public. So if you let your term become generic (as the "Ketchup" spelling did, as I believe "Aspirin" did, and as "Xerox" very nearly did), then you are SOL. Moreover, IIRC, Trademarks must be defended in every case, or you risk losing them in any case. Unlike copyrights, where ignoring one violation does not preclude your ability to act against another, if I am remembering correctly, failing to act against one violation of a Trademark is grounds for losing in court if suing someone else for violating it. Specifically, IIRC, you have one year from the time a reasonable person could be assumed to have known about the violation to act. Not that this answers any of the flames going back or forth about who has what mark, whether they were deceptive, if they need to be sued about it, or whether or not any or all of the participants are being reasonable in this discussion. It's just more information, subject to the usual disclaimers. I am not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV. I have however, had the pleasure of discussing intellectual property law with some fairly skilled lawyers. Some of it may even have stuck. If not, I am firm and confident in my misinformation. CP |
|
<b>#196</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>I will defend the story in court. I will not waste time arguing here. </QUOTE> Fine, let Apogee do the same. Frankly, what difference does it make what they do, or do not, have trademarked? It doesn't make ANY difference. You've already proven you don't have the first clue about the trademark issue, and you've also proven that you'll relentlessly dig to find any hint of wrong-doing on the part of anyone you don't like. Even if it's a completely hypothetical wrong, invented to stir discussion and raise suspicion. Apogee did nothing wrong, they didn't mislead anyone...except for those who were desperately looking for something "wrong". 'Life's no big mystery to a cop. You find a dead guy and you think his brother did it, you're going to find out you're right.' (paraphrased from The Usual Suspects) People see what they want to see...start looking for faults and you're going to find them. <b>#203</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>I'm willing to continue discussing it, I'm just not willing to argue on a public forum.</QUOTE> Why post a thread and start a discussion only for you to continue it in private? Now, more than ever, this is looking like your personal little forum. People prove you wrong? Doesn't matter, you won't admit it. People want you to live up to your own expectations and demands? You refuse and offer to continue in private. Seeing all the old defense mechanisms show up, I'm wondering how long until we'll see the famous "fuck off and stay fucked off"? -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
It's about time this ended. I've been lurking this thread since the start and saw how it evolved/degenerated into a giant pissing contest. You're all right to an extent so for chrissakes, do what they teach you in grade school; make a compromise, meet in the middle, and shake hands. Bushido. |
|
Posting from a friend's house. Everyone else is alseep, they aren't quite as used to the late night hours that I am. ;) Kinda ironic that their Windows Theme is "Army of Darkness", heh. Andy, thanks a TON for posting the THQ trademark claims! I had read through them but didn't really give them much though to check them out. However I decided to give them a run after you posted them and boy was I suprised by the results. You sure you want to use THQ as your poster child for how to properly claim trademarks? Lets take a look at THQ's trademark claims, shall we? These trademarks are registered and live: <i>THQ, the THQ logo, KOKOPELI DIGITAL STUDIOS</i> I couldn't find these trademarks, but they are most likely just fine: <i>THQ INC, THQ INTERNATIONAL, THQ GERMANY</i> These trademarks are applied for and live: <i>HEAVY IRON STUDIOS, FELONY PURSUIT</i> I couldn't find these trademarks, but they are most likely just fine: <i>the HEAVY IRON STUDIOS logo</i> Now we start to get into the areas that Andy has problems with in our license agreement when he originally wrote the topic, but aren't a big deal to me. These trademarks are not to be found: <i>RUSHWARE, PACIFIC COAST POWER & LIGHT, the PACIFIC COAST POWER & LIGHT logo, ASHES 2 ASHES</i> Now things get wierd. I'll go down each one of these specifically cause each one is a special case. <i>SOFTGOLD:</i> This one is not registered by THQ, however there are three dead registrations for "War Inc." and similar names by a company called "Softgold". I don't know if Softgold is a current or old property of THQ or not. They do operate with video game properties so it is possible. Softgold itself, however, is not registered. <i>GAME FX:</i> Live and registered to a company named "Gamer FX". I'm going to assume that this is a property of THQ. If it's not, then the problem is rather clear. <i>GAME FX:</i> No, that's not a typo. I list it twice because THQ listed it twice on their agreement. And some people accused *us* of having a lazily put together license agreement. Yeesh. ;) <i>SNOWBOARDING:</i> Anybody who is aware of trademarks and how they function will see an instant problem with this one. Snowboarding is a common phrase and as such can not be claimed. It's like trying to claim "Fishing". If anybody doesn't believe me on this I'll be more than happy to point you in the direction of the resources needed to see what I mean. Some of them I've already linked on this page. Why is THQ trying to claim a trademark that not a single entity on this planet would be allowed to claim? By the way, there were lots of trademarks that have "snowboarding" in their descriptions, but none that have it as part of the actual mark itself. <i>CHAMPIONSHIP MOTOCROSS FEATURING RICKY CARMICHEAL:</i> This was not to be found in any variation. However, it also falls under a few problems. "Championship Motocross" is going to be rather difficult to claim as it is a common noun (just like snowboarding). The person's name is referencing a specific live purpose and I believe any trademarks that could be made about him have to be made by him. Getting your name trademarked though, is damn hard. <i>SLAP HAPPY:</i> I got a good laugh at this one. Go up to the topic again and read the section about "Zero Hour" at the very end. You back? Ok, there is only one live application for this one, and it goes to a company named Morton-Norwich Products that makes air freshners. All other registrations for it are dead, including the one by THQ. There is obviously not a market conflict between air freshners and video games, just like there is no market conflict between comic books and video games. The Zero Hour situation and the Slap Happy situations are *exactly* the same. Now, I don't have a problem with most of the claims that THQ has made in their license agreement. They didn't claim "Hail to the King". We can speculate back and forth on why. Andy thinks they were doing the right thing, I think they were trying to slip the "Hail to the King" application by without being noticed. Neither of us knows, so nobody can believe either person on *why* they didn't list "Hail to the King". However, going off of the rest of their trademark claims, I would certainly hope that Andy has just as many problems with their license as he does with ours. I expect to see an article about the problems in the THQ agreement at some point. If I don't, then I will wonder what the true motivation for this original topic was for. ----- You want to continue this in private, Andy. I won't agree. You felt the need to write the article on a public forum in the first place and knew full well it was going to be discussed. I've presented multiple specific questions to you that you have ignored and dodged in a better manner than I have ever seen Scott or Jason Hall do. If you didn't have the fortitude to continue this to the end, you should not have posted it in the first place for discussion. It should have been written for a magazine or something else. This is the reason I won't post topics here. I rarely have the time to properly research the topic in the first place, and will certainly not have the time or willingness to defend for as long as parties are interested in discussing it. Perhaps you should consider the same. I have some suspicions about when Apogee first made a public claim to "Hail to the King" that would put a rather large dent in your argument that THQ put in the application before Apogee put up it's IP license. That doesn't matter, however I'm willing to work with what you've given me. I'll post about it tomorrow once I've seen whether my suspicions are true or not. I don't have any of the products around me right now. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
I will tell you why you won't find Ashes 2 Ashes.. Cause that is not the title of the game anymore.. Duh! Any Way... Charlie as far as straining your brain to come up with these interesting list of NON-RelATED material. Here is my question WTF does 90% of the stuff you listed have to do with Evil Dead? War Inc? That's a crappy rts game that came out about 2 years ago..and like maybe 2 people played. It was a mix of corporate business and military warfare. What that has to do with Evil Dead and Apogee trying to ahem register certain phrases based of Evil Dead series.. I don't know. I think everyone is pretty much in agreement here. The lines in reference to ED2/AOD.. you didn't come up with.. and to try and say that DUKE-Nukem has the rights to them? Maybe its a question of ethics and creativity ownership. But the facts of the matter are clear there is enough factual content to back up the my statements.. Apogee didn't create those lines.. There were shirts with those lines printed on,The movies were sufficiently popular that millions have seen them... And combined they equal out to Apogee trying to pass off something as their own.. when infact their best Original line is come get some. I can just imagine Apogee is very excited that Hail to The king is coming out well before DNF is released.. Gives you guys time to try and register some new material as your own. If you read the last incite magazine to probably come out,Bruce is interviewed...And as he put it.. ALl the FAMOUS LINES will be in the game.. as well as ALL-NEW MATERIAL. Are those lines associated with Duke..to a few.. More people associate them with Ash. Is it that hard for 3drealms to come up with new material? Or does creativity not run available in this company? |
|
Charlie, The reason I've offered to continue in private is because I don't want to have a discussion here with Valeyard throwing his two cents in all the time. It's impossible to have a rational discussion when some unconnected person is misquoting you (#195) and lying about you (#206). If you want to have a rational discussion then let's have one, but this thread is no longer the place to do it. How can I be any more reasonable? You want to continue discussing it, and I'm willing to do so. For what it's worth, if you're right about the THQ trademarks (which I haven't checked) then I agree with you to an extent. The claims are misleading in the way that Apogee's are. However, the THQ site doesn't hold anyone to the same obligations that the Apogee IP license does, so how is it a public interest story? (Also, nobody from THQ has posted those claims on PlanetCrap, which is what Scott did.) |
|
I have a question for you 3DR guys: Did you go after THQ for taking the "Hail to the King" phrase on their Evil Dead Web Page? Are you planning to go after THQ for any phrases they may use when promoting ED that may have been used in Duke as well?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Oh please. 1. I didn't comment until most of the relevant FACTS were in (you should try it sometime) 2. To the regulars and old-timers of the 'crap it's common knowledge that you start tap-dancing around when cornered. 3. I didn't misquote you in #195, those are exact quotes, lifted out with CrapSpy. 4. Where did I lie in #206? By saying you won't admit when wrong? Ok, fair enough, you've admitted you were wrong in the past. Let me modify that: There have been times that you were proven wrong, by several people, yet you refuse to admit it. Most notably these occur when people who know what they're talking about try to explain it to you. When it conflicts with your suspicions and limited understanding, you get defensive. You twist and turn like a twisty-turny thing. You try to divert the discussion down another path, modify your original claim or use any number of ploys to discredit those who disagree. When enough people disagree, you get a complex about people "picking on" you and the situation deteriorates. It's funny you didn't have any objection to #192, where I attempted to provide a simple explanation and finish off this argument. When confronted with facts and explanations that conflict with your premise, what was your response? Oh yeah... <b>#193</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>No, I'm not continuing this. I'm not bothered about how either of you interpreted the story, or what you thought I was implying or what 'conclusions' you think I reached. I reported some facts, and that's the end of it. </QUOTE> Way to go! Good job keeping an open mind and an open discussion. People are tired. They're tired of your conspiratorial accusations, delusions and witch-hunts. They're tired of you ignoring common sense explanations in favor of wild hypotheticals. They're tired of you refusing to live up to your own expectations and demands. Ok, maybe <i>they're</i> not <b>all</b> tired...but I am, and I don't belive I'm alone. As long as you can keep your theories within the realm of possibility, you refuse to bend and seem to derive justification from it. I've got news for you, EVERYTHING is possible...the right thing to do is try to determine what is <b>actual</b> and/or <b>plausable</b>. You keep trying to get people to do the impossible; predict the future, prove a negative or cover every possible variation of the theme. You sensationalize the trivial in your attempt to trash anyone you feel deserves it. Andy:'Oh my god, look at this they're trying to (lie, cheat, rip you off)! They'd better show up and prove that all of this information is false otherwise it must be true!' Misc:'It's not true, here's the quicky explanation.' Andy:'Would you please, in detail, outline your reasons behind A,B,C and D? Will you go on record as saying that you've never done X? Will you explain why this says A, and you appear to say B' Misc:'Here's the best explanation I can give you' Andy:'That's not good enough, you're being too elusive! You won't let me trap you with my iron-clad, black-or-white plan of attack!' Misc:'The situation just isn't that simple.' Andy:'I TOLD you they were trying to (lie, cheat, rip you off)!" Misc:'That's not true. Here's a better explanations, hopefully it'll clear this up.' Andy:'But that's not accurate enough/I don't believe you/Prove X wrong.' (Insert more proof and explantion) (Insert more people disagreeing) Andy: (Insert tap-dancing, defense mechanisms and not-so-subtle ploys to discredit) (Insert people who aren't falling for tricks) Andy: (Insert running away) Why does this go on so often? Why do you feel this need to dig for dirt and if the dirt isn't black enough, throw in some specualtive crap of your own to sully the situation? This whole situation is incredibly <b>simple</b>. Charlie has done a good job of explaining it, I tried to summarize it, Scott attempted to explain it (though he gets "fed up" with you quicker than most), others have tried to convince you, yet you still cling to this ridiculous premise. If Apogee is going to be your new target, you're going to have to dig deeper. You're going to have to find something more substantial than an accurate listing of their registered and unregistered trademarks. Keep at it, I'm sure you'll invent, er discover something. Frankly, I'm a little surprised no one has brought legal action for some of the stuff you postulate about here. I'll have to believe that the primary reason is that you just aren't worth the trouble. If you were to publish some of the things you've written here in a national or international magazine with a decent subscription base...I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd see action. Of course, that won't happen and it explains why you're posting here - <b>responsible</b> magazines won't print that sort of dribble...because they know they'll be sued. -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Got issues? Time to blank you now, I think. At least until you calm down a bit. |
|
Not surprised...though I wonder which one of us <i>really</i> has issues. -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I agree with Valeyard. Andy is clearly trying to back out of an argument he is not fairing all that well in. It's just my opinion of course, but Andy, you can't arbitrarily conclude that a discussion on Planetcrap is dead just because you say so. It's obviously your right to back out, but you do look a bit childish right now, at least in my eyes. You started it but now you're not willing to continue to discuss things because Valeyard is "lying" about you? Oh, please! That is such an incredibly weak argument. Use Crapspy, put Valeyward on ignore and you needn't be bothered by his "lies". Oh, but I'm sure there's some good reason you can't do that, isn't there, so best to just declare things done here and move along. Andy has spoken. I just wish one of the other people who has access to posting topics here on PC would get off his lazy ass and do so, so we don't get an endless parade of Andy's one-note stories. They're fine, to a point, but it's not just old now, it's ancient. And if Tom or morn or Jeet can only be bothered to post every once in a blue moon, how about letting others post topics, too? Has anyone asked? Does anyone submit stories that we never see? I've always been curious. I seem to recall Andy left PC back in version 2.0 and it got along fine without him...well, till the whole site blew up, anyway. :) I'm not suggesting Andy should pack his bags and get out, but variety is good and we ain't seeing that here now. |
|
<b>#215</b>, Creole Ned: <QUOTE> I just wish one of the other people who has access to posting topics here on PC would get off his lazy ass and do so </QUOTE> Jeez, have you ever wondered why they don't?! And now we've entered the new "Facts Are Not Enough" era, I expect they'll post even less. Why should they bother? <QUOTE> Has anyone asked? Does anyone submit stories that we never see? I've always been curious. </QUOTE> Have you noticed how some posters go for months being polite and objective, and then suddenly they change to being a lot more aggressive and disagreeable? That's how you can tell a story wasn't posted. |
|
EvilAsh/ReubenRosa, you're doing it to yourself bud. You don't need my help. ---- Andy, if George or Scott want to continue with you in private, they will. I doubt they will though, and neither will I. I have no sympathy for how you think Valeyard may be treating you or how his posting affects you in this thread. It's easy enough to ignore someone you feel isn't bringing anything to the discussion (case in point above). Valeyard is just as "unconnected" as you and I've deliberately not spoken about this with Scott or George to keep myself on the same level as you. Neither Valeyard nor I has access to any more information than you do. ---- <quote>However, the THQ site doesn't hold anyone to the same obligations that the Apogee IP license does, so how is it a public interest story? (Also, nobody from THQ has posted those claims on PlanetCrap, which is what Scott did.)</quote> THQ states that by reading the agreement you agree to the terms within. That means you agree to what their trademark claims are as well. They aren't as specific about it as the Apogee one is, but you are required to agree to THQ's claim to them, just by reading the agreement. At least in the Apogee one it makes a specific point that you have to use them before you are required to respect Apogee's claim to ownership. THQ hasn't mentioned their claims because THQ hasn't been asked about any of it. If an article were posted, and it was brought to their attention, I imagine we would see someone from there answering unless they simply didn't feel it was worth their time. ---- My speculations from yesterday haven't been shown to be true yet, but I'm still looking. ;) ---- <quote>And now we've entered the new "Facts Are Not Enough" era, I expect they'll post even less. Why should they bother?</quote> It hurts me to know that you'll never accept the irony in that statement. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<b>#217</b>, Charlie Wiederhold: <QUOTE> Andy, if George or Scott want to continue with you in private, they will. I doubt they will though, and neither will I. </QUOTE> Thank you. I didn't want to think the worst, but that was what I expected. For the record, I'm going to contact both Scott and George and ask if they have any formal objection to the story. If they do, we'll take it from there. If you object to any future Apogee stories, either contact me privately, or just sue me. I'm not going to waste any more time on this silly showboating. |
|
So as of this day this will cease to be a public discussion board, and instead is your podium to speak from. We are no longer capable of discussing it with you, only suing you. I suggest you remove the commenting ability from this page Morn, they are obviously not what this site is here for. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Let me correct myself before I'm accusing of misunderstanding you. We are no longer capable of discussing it with you in public (where it is aired in the first place). Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<b>#220</b>, Charlie Wiederhold: <QUOTE> Let me correct myself before I'm accusing of misunderstanding you. We are no longer capable of discussing it with you in public (where it is aired in the first place). </QUOTE> No, that's not quite what I'm saying. :) If you believe a story is wrong then of course you should say so. And if you're right then I'll retract the story. You have no reason to expect otherwise because I've done it several times in the past. (Sanity thread, most recently.) But when it gets to the stage of me insisting I'm right, and you insisting I'm wrong, what value is there in continuing a public discussion? All that happens is other people try to get involved, the "I agree with..." posters turn up, and the argument will be settled on emotion instead of fact. No thanks. Remember, I believe all of these disputes should be settled in court if necessary, so I don't feel obliged to discuss them at all. My responsibility is to get the story right, not to <i>convince</i> people that it's right. So okay, I'll discuss it with you to an extent, but please don't expect me to back down simply because you tell me to. In this case, you disagree with me presenting facts in a way that could make Apogee look a bit silly. And, I expect, you didn't like the "jokey" tone of the topic. But that doesn't change the accuracy -- it just means you don't like the way I wrote it. (Although having said that, I can sympathise with you. If I worked at Apogee, I wouldn't like it either.) |
|
BTW, Charlie, you don't think it should bother me that other people are throwing their own two cents into the thread? Waaay back in post #100, ReubenRosa said this: <QUOTE> This is really sad. Scott explains that based on use and ads and t-shirts.. that Apogee has the rights to certain phrases. Now myself and Another person have corraborated that WE both own t-shirts that were made well before Duke3d was released that have these self-same phrases on them. Proving that The Movie and its merchandising was first. </QUOTE> (Plus a load of other stuff.) Your response to his post was: <QUOTE> Reuben, please stop posting about this topic before you sprain your brain, and mine. </QUOTE> So if you can object to people posting relevant <b>information</b>, why can't I object to people posting personal insults? |
|
I have no problem with people bothering you. I understand completely (though for the record I don't think Valeyard's post was what you said it was). What I have a problem with is you using that as part of an excuse for no longer discussing it here with me or anybody else. Would you accept me saying that I don't like Reuben's posts so I'm going to stop answering *your* questions? I don't think so. I've dealt with EvilAsh/RR for quite some time on three seperate boards now, and have determined that it's not worth replying to him. I get the same end value out of shrugging him off as I do from responding to him. I think his own words speak volumes for him. I don't really feel the need to dust off the cobwebs of a discussion I've already had more times than I can stomach. ---- As for the rest, I've given you the specific parts of the topic that I had a problem with on several occasions. I've quoted them directly. Each fact you reported is correct. What you say those facts equal out to is not. I specifically pulled out those parts to show them to you. Beyond the topic, I've given you several specific questions/challenges in regards to what you've stated here in several posts. I even gave you the chance to throw everything out and answer one final question. If you no longer want to discuss it, fine. Drop out of the topic and leave. I'm here if you do want to discuss things, but just leave if that's what you want to do. Stop responding and move on to other threads. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
OK, let's try this (assuming I'm not on the "ignore" list): Andy makes claims that he maintains have not been PROVEN wrong...therefore his original story is factually correct. The problem is that for many of us, the facts in the story HAVE been proven wrong, they just haven't been proven wrong to Andy's satisfaction...so you'll have to take him to court to see a retraction. While Charlie has done this to some extent, let's look at the original story: The first few paragraphs are background story and "flavour", demonstrating the tone and intent of the story. Then: <QUOTE>But those people can stop worrying, because it turns out that Apogee hasn't been entirely honest with us...</QUOTE> Whether you view this as "everything they claim is truthful" or "they told the whole truth", the answer is still the same: they did. They aren't required to explain ALL of the IP law, although their license does a fairly decent job of covering the bases. To claim they weren't entirely honest (accusing them of lying), is false. You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark."</QUOTE> Yes they do. Registered or not, they've used it, claimed it and...until a court decides otherwise, they have the right to contest any other usage. If someone else registers it, they can still contest that registration because of their prior use. In the specific case of the ED game, there's not really a leg to stand on. The quote was used in a movie, the game is based on the movie...I doubt any judge would rule that Apogee can prevent this specific usage. <QUOTE>THQ applied for it in early February, several months before Apogee claimed ownership.</QUOTE> Innaccurate. It still hasn't been shown when, or if, Apogee applied for registration...but it HAS been shown when they first used it. The IP laws cover prior usage. Barring a court decision, they've "owned" it (in that specific usage) since Duke3D. The point is that because of the way IP laws work in relation to trademarks, it doesn't matter who registers what, or who registers it first...prior use is the key. <QUOTE>There's no direct hyperlink at the moment because the application is still pending, but you can see for yourself that Apogee doesn't own it by going to this page, clicking the Free Form Search link, and then entering "hail to the king" in the search box, complete with quotes.</QUOTE> Incorrect. You cannot "see for yourself that Apogee doesn't own it". All you can see is that according to that information THQ is the only entity that has applied to REGISTER it. Show me where it says that Apogee doesn't own it. <QUOTE>The "Lo Wang" trademark (#75272379) is dead too, with all four registered uses (computer games, comics, hand-held games and arcade games) having been abandoned in October 1999.</QUOTE> This, and the other examples from the "update" are a little misleading...to say the least. While those trademark registrations have expired, that doesn't necessarily mean that Apogee can't still make claims on them under prior use. It will be tougher for them to do so, but it's still possible. In much the same way that you don't have to register a TM to contest it, you don't have to keep it registered (although it appears that once you HAVE registered it, you might be best served to keep it registered). The key, and just think about this for a second, is in <i>how</i> they were used. If someone where to create a FPS where the man character was named Lo Wang, they <i>might</i> not have any problem. On the other hand, if the character had other similarities, it would be easy for Apogee to make a case based on prior use and other aspects of IP law designed to protect against this sort of abuse. That's it. I've gone through the topic and showed where you were factually incorrect, misleading, mistaken or misinformed. If you can't accept any of that, I'm sorry...nothing else I can say. So I won't. I am, however, willing to discuss it. -Valeyard |
|
And that's why I hate posting with CrapSpy... Correction: ... To claim they weren't entirely honest (accusing them of lying), is false. <QUOTE>You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark.</QUOTE> Yes they do. Registered or not, they've used it, claimed it and...until a court decides otherwise, they have the right to contest any other usage. If someone else registers it, they can still contest that registration because of their prior use. ... |
|
Steve: "I don't mean to bite your head off on this, but so what? Is the only judge of a game its final sales figures? So long as the game makes money, isn't that enough?" Not at all, Steve--somewhere you completely missed the point, though. I said that DNF would outsell all of Ion's games (joking about this), and Dethstryk said that Deus Ex might surprise me because it's so good, and I merely said that regardless of it being good, I don't think it'll find a large audience. Your message to me addresses an entirely different issue. Scott |
|
Andy: "That hits the nail on the head: Someone who THINKS they own it. Just like you THINK you own it. Hell, one day a court may rule that you DO own it. But currently, you haven't even registered the trademark. So the original story was accurate, wasn't it?" Nope, your story was uninformed speculation. I talked to my attorneys today about this entire subject. They are aware that THQ has previously filed, but filing and being accepted are not the same. My attorneys will simply show them we have prior use in the classes we're seeking, and that will prove to the court and THQ that Apogee owns the Hail to the king mark. We do own it -- that's not in question, excpept to you and THQ. My attorneys say that prior use equals ownership and therefore we own it. Just because another entity files first doesn't mean jack crap. Scott |
|
<quote>Not at all, Steve--somewhere you completely missed the point, though. </quote> Yeah well... it happens with alarming frequent. But I never claimed to have the point and you can't prove otherwise. So there. Nyah nyah. Erm, yeah! |
|
I miss Morn's old "Nothing to see here, move along" messages. *sigh* |
|
Heaven forbid that a li'l ol' lurker should crawl out of the woodwork and state that he agrees with someone's assessment of an argument taking place here and then, on top of it, have the temerity to actually post a few opinions of his own on the matter! I grovel and beg for forgiveness before shambling back into the warm, dark place where we who are silent sit back and watch the battle rage.... |
|
Funny how you say this; <b>#218</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>If you object to any future Apogee stories, either contact me privately, or just sue me. I'm not going to waste any more time on this silly showboating. </QUOTE> but you still take a jab at Apogee in a totally unrelated thread <b>But if *THEY* can do it...</b> "Andy" wrote... <quote>(Hmm, maybe Apogee should trademark that?) </quote> ho hum I agree with Scott though; it is fun watching the 'train wreck.' It gets a bit rediculous though. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Hehe so now Scott your saying that your lawyer are going to go ahead and go after THQ? And try and prove that Apogee has the right to the lines from AOD? Even when a company is producing a game based on that same movie that had this line first. Um your Lawyers really must be slick ones because if you believe they will win this case.. your tossing your money to the sharks for a loss. Guaranteed. |
|
<b>#231</b> "Tom (cyberfart)" wrote... <QUOTE>but you still take a jab at Apogee in a totally unrelated thread </QUOTE> The new thread was posted before #218. -Valeyard<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
How about MY point that using, let alone trademarking, other people's trademarks demonstrates a LACK of artistic merit, a LACK of originality, and a LACK of ability at 3D-Reams? Charlie. How does it feel to be working for a company that can't invent or make its own catchphrases but instead has to steal other people's and then trademark them? And then unleash the lawyers on all those who oppose you? Don't you think your employer is, well, a bit twatty? |
|
Reuben: <quote>Hehe so now Scott your saying that your lawyer are going to go ahead and go after THQ? And try and prove that Apogee has the right to the lines from AOD? Even when a company is producing a game based on that same movie that had this line first. Um your Lawyers really must be slick ones because if you believe they will win this case.. your tossing your money to the sharks for a loss.</quote> Golly, you still don't get it, do you. After all that's been said, I don't think you ever will. Luckily, that's no loss for the rest of us. ;-) Real quickly... We're not going after THQ, however, we will, with little effor, put a stop to their "Hail to the king" TM application. (They can still use it as part of their game name, for all I care. Frankly, I want them to use that phrase in their name, because I bet 75% of all stories about that game will mention Duke Nukem. heh heh Free pub...I'll take it every time, and with many thanks to THQ.) Scott |
|
SmallFlameThrower: <quote>How about MY point that using, let alone trademarking, other people's trademarks demonstrates a LACK of artistic merit, a LACK of originality, and a LACK of ability at 3D-Reams? Charlie. How does it feel to be working for a company that can't invent or make its own catchphrases but instead has to steal other people's and then trademark them? </quote> Actually, only a few phrases are from other movies, and the point of using those phrases is because the VAST MAJORITY of players thought it was cool to hear phrases that they might recognize from other media (a few other movies also--in total about 8 of Dukes 103 lines). We also capitalized on the O.J. trial (billboards and a video loop of the while Ford Bronco chase), and a few other things, plus lots of pop-culture references. That's part of what made Duke popular, he makes fun of current fads and uses other lines, making them uniquely his. I think everyone here has to admit, that Duke's use of "Hail to the king, baby" is much better than Ash's. The way Ash used it was not very cool, and that's why it never caught on. You just a moron if you don't think there's a ton of creativity in Duke Nukem 3D (including the lines he speaks), and if you really believe that then you are only worthy of complete dismissal on this subject. Scott |
|
<b>#236</b> "Scott Miller, 3D Realms" wrote... <QUOTE> I think everyone here has to admit, that Duke's use of "Hail to the king, baby" is much better than Ash's. </QUOTE> Think again.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Not-So-Intellectual Property
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|