4 ms·
Funny. Brian Hook developed a game 12 years ago called Candy Cruncher with nearly identical naming, visuals and gameplay: http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycrun
by psykotic 13y ago
Funny. Brian Hook developed a game 12 years ago called Candy Cruncher with nearly identical naming, visuals and gameplay: http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/ http://www.pyrogon.com/games/candycruncher/
Edit: He just said he successfully filed for the Candy Cruncher trademark in 2002. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78164603&docId=SPE20080626201942#docIndex=0&page=1 http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn78164603&docId...
- easy_rider 13y agoDoesn't matter who's first. But who's got the first patent. He could get sued.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- basseq 13y agoPatents and trademarks are different things, but I think in either case the idea of "prior art" would apply. In the U.S., you're granted a trademark automatically upon use. Brian should be able to say, "I've been using this since 2009" and be afforded at least a degree of protection. Of course, it's a lot harder to defend in court without a formal trademark, so he might not choose to litigate.
- bertil 13y agoActually, for a patent (and, as someone pointed out, it's a trade mark the orignal article is about) if there is documented proof of a previous invention (I doubt that would be a problem with IT) that is the easiest was to invalidate a patent. For trade marks, fame does matter, but then again: documented previous existence of a smaller brand would be enough to stay. Having one large corporation buy a small existing brand, and marketing it beyond its original scope could put them in trouble, though.
- easy_rider 13y agowoops, sorry I was sleeping!