|
| 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 - »»| |
|
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> |
|
Leave 'em long enough and they'll hang themselves... <b>#236</b>, Scott Miller, 3D Realms: <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 </QUOTE> That's interesting. That's very interesting indeed. ;-) Let's have another look at it... <QUOTE> the VAST MAJORITY of players thought it was cool to hear phrases that they might recognize </QUOTE> Surely you've just lost your prior use claim? If you thought the "VAST MAJORITY" of players might recognise the phrases, that undermines something you said back at the beginning of the thread... <b>#13</b>, Scott Miller, 3D Realms: <QUOTE> Andy states--without having much of a clue about trademark law and the registration process--that THQ applied for the trademark of Hail before we did, but what Andy is utterly ignorant about is that that doesn't mean jack shit. Our registration for the Hail mark shows we used it in 1996, and prior use *always wins*, regardless of who registers first. (I'm sure we lost Andy a while ago, but I bet everyone is still with me.) </QUOTE> So in post #13 you claim prior use of "Hail To The King". But in post #236 you say you expected people to hear the line in Duke and recognise that it was from Evil Dead. How are these arguments compatible? How can you claim prior use of a recognised phrase? And just for the hell of it, I'll point out something that I missed before: In post #13 you claimed that you have a registration for "Hail To The King", even though you don't even have an active application. Weird, eh? (Feel free to e-mail me if you don't want to continue this in public. I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to.) |
|
I think Scott that you don't realize the significance of this..and your so incorrect when you feel that Duke's use of Hail to the King Baby was better then Ash's in AOD. In fact I will use this now.. What FRIGGIN CRACK are you smoking to believe that?!! The line in AOD was infinitely a better use of it then Duke3d's use of it! IT was better because it was used in context with the story and scene in question.. Not just a line tossed off for no reason in a game. Again.. If your not creative enough to create all new lines.. I feel very sad for you. |
|
I beg to differ, Ash's use is superior and it gets used by me and friends quite a bit :) then again we are Evil Dead fans :) Yo, She bitch, *snickchack*, lets go Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
What other lines did Duke use from other sources? Hail to the King Baby, that's obvious. I'm gonna cut off your head and shit down your neck -- that's from Full Metal Jacket. Nobody Steals our chicks and lives.... Forgot this one, but I'm thinkin' evil dead / AoD. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
JeffD says:<quote>What other lines did Duke use from other sources? </quote> Just thought I'd interject that one of Duke's best lines was spoken better in They Live by the inimitable "Rowdy" Roddy Piper. "I'm here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I'm all out of gum!"<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Yeah That's right Dave!! That was definitely better in They Live. Hmm.. how many lines in Duke3d were superior in the movies they came from ? Hmm. |
|
Well, I didn't mean that Duke's interpretations were ALL inferior... I don't think I ever heard a better "OH SHIT!" than when I evaded about 5 rockets at one time in Dukematch... I said it right along with him!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Groovy. Yet another stolen line from Evil Dead/AOD, and used the same way (when you got a new weapon, just like ash in ED2 and AOD) A pure rip off. I enjoyed Duke the first time it came out simply because of the humor, not gameplay, or originality. I found quake a thousand times better in all other respects. I laughed at duke, but after a few hours the laughs wore off and I stopped playing it, and actually became annoyed after hearing all the other lines ripped off. One or 2 lines for the "pop" kick is ok, but it got rediculous. I actually prefer the side scrolling shooter Duke, which had basicall no ties to anything that pre-existed. No bullshit, and no rip-offs. They NEEDED Evil Dead in order to make Duke popular. The strippers didnt do it for the game, neither did the weapons, aliens, or anything else. It was duke's lines. Seeing as how most of his lines came from ash, you guys should be licking the sweat off of the asses of anyone who has anything to do with Evil Dead, since they were the cause of 3D realms actually making a cent. I know why the production of the game is under wraps. The Matrix, wazzup commercials, blair witch project, tv's survior, who wants to be a millionaire, south park, star wars, the x-men, and other shows/movies have sequals, new seasons, or are just about to come out. Since they will need some new material for the lines in this game, they have to wait for these things to come out first. You read it hear first! Seizure later, Evil Adam <a href="http://www.eviladam.com">www.eviladam.com</a> <a href="http://www.mp3.com/eviladam">www.mp3.com/eviladam</a> ps. The delivery of the lines from the original sources were ALL better. Duke's voice was pretty poorly acted. It was the cheese factor that i guess lended to its amusement, not its sheer astouding quality. |
|
Andy: (assuming I'm not on your ignore list) <QUOTE>So in post #13 you claim prior use of "Hail To The King". But in post #236 you say you expected people to hear the line in Duke and recognise that it was from Evil Dead. How are these arguments compatible? How can you claim prior use of a recognised phrase? </QUOTE> Because, <B>for the nth time</B>.... The specific uses and genres are different. The lines were in various movies...so they WILL be recognizable. Apogee was the first to use those lines in a <B>computer game</B>, as a <I>tag-line</I> and part of <I>advertisements</I> for that series of games. If anyone else tries to use it in a similar fashion, like a game, prior use will protect them. If I use it for my new breakfast cereal, I'm safe as long as the usage is slightly different. The movie used the lines, so they were recognizable, but they can't claim prior use over Apogee's use because movies and games are different genres. The exceptions to this are: - The ED game...since that game will based on the movies, they'll be able to use them. - The owners of the movie could have objected to Apogee's usage, claiming that they wanted to reserve those for their own games...but that would require a previously registered trademark or a court battle. That didn't happen...so Apogee's previous use in this genre stands. How many times does this have to be explained before you get it? You act like Apogee is trying to claim that the lines didn't originate from the movie or something. -Valeyard |
|
Andy - Prior use for marketing purposes... the point of a trademark. On top of that, prior use in a *video* game. For example, Duke uses the Quake name, as well as a reference image from Doom. Apogee could never claim prior use to those because they were used in the same medium as Duke was created in. If anybody goes and listens to the two lines (any of them ones spoken by Duke as well as Ash) they will see that there isn't anything similar about them beyond the words themselves. They are stated completely different, sound completely different, have different inflections, pacing, etc. The *only* reason you *know* that they were in reference to Hail to the King is because we freely admit it. The actor that spoke the lines did not mimick Ash in any way, shape, or form. ----- Flamethrower: Tell me about some of the comedy movies you've enjoyed? I don't know your taste in movies so I can't just assume any of them. Did you enjoy Wayne's World? Spaceballs? Do you enjoy Saturday Night Live? If not, please let me know of any in a similar feel that you might have enjoyed. None of those movies may attempt any claim to "artistic" brilliance, all they want to be is funny and fun. In case you haven't figured it out yet, Duke's entire world is loosely based around a parody of current pop culture. It pokes fun at current events, it references personalities and phrases that people have enjoyed, etc. This is a common tactic in all forms of media. Musicians reference each other. TV shows parody movies and such. MAD magazine based it's entire function around parody and references to pop culture. What Duke did isn't anything out of the ordinary and it's a tribute to how blinded some of you can be by anger over this that you can't just look around you and see far worse offenders. No, I don't have any problem with working for a company that made a game like Duke 3D and made reference to other movies like Evil Dead. That's one part of what I and my friends enjoyed so much about Duke when we played it for so long. It's what got me started in this silly industry in the first place. I've got a list of every Duke Nukem phrase put forth by 3D Realms. Does anybody really want to challenge us and continue saying that most of Duke's lines are ripped off? I've done my research into this topic, I doubt any of you have. Go ahead and tell me again that Duke is a complete ripoff and there is no creativity or nothing he says is original. The words are just a small fraction of the game. We'll then need to move on to artwork. Character design. Weapon design. Level design. Every element of those contains elements that reference pop culture as well but are for the most part 100% original. For some reason you people get so hung up on the Evil Dead lines. Why aren't you here screaming about the other movies referenced? Is your problem with the use of material you recognize, or is there simple some emotional attachment to Evil Dead? Why aren't any of you out there protesting magazines like MAD and Cracked? Why didn't you scream and complain about the 30 minute direct ripoff of "The Graduate" that Wayne's World had? Where is the protest of Saturday Night Live? If you are just complaining because you didn't like the game, don't like this company, or don't like Scott Miller... then that's your problem to deal with, not ours. If you actually have a problem with the principle of it though, then you have a lot of catching up to do. I enjoy parody and references. I take them for what they are. I don't try to think of them as art, they are just fun. I'm not in this industry to make art, I'm here to make games that I think are fun. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
<quote><b>Seeing as how most of his lines came from ash</b>, you guys should be licking the sweat off of the asses of anyone who has anything to do with Evil Dead, since they were the cause of 3D realms actually making a cent.</quote> I challenge you to prove this statement true. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
Hmm.. now Charlie did you read what your boss Scott said? Or are you blind. 1:) He stated that Duke's use of the Ed2/Aod phrases was better then their original use in the movies. 2:) He also took a pot shot at the game saying that according to sources that it was a "STINKER" First off as many others have said he is wrong about the first. Secondly his second comment is nasty and makes him sound like a jerk. I haven't seen DNF in action.. I don't know how its going to be... but then again 3drealms hasn't released any info on it.. to clarify anything.. only middle issues about the UT engine and D3d and other inconsequencial bits of info. We do have info about The Evil Dead game.. but no one has played it either.. Its amusing to see Scott bash a game no one has played.. and have his own title that no one has played either.. Doesn't that reek of hypocrisy and unfprofessionalism? |
|
I'm not Scott, Reuben. I'll not defend his opinions, they are his. Could you please point me to anything about what I said that has anything to do with what Scott's opinions you quoted are. Charlie Wiederhold |
|
By the way, I played the ED game at E3, and as an ED fan I was insulted by it. I can't believe Bruce would put his stamp of approval on it. Maybe it will get better before it's done. Charlie Wiederhold |
| 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
|