11 ms·

King: Our approach to IP

50 points by robert-boehnke 13y ago

JakeStone 13y ago
The first two, I could accept from a certain IP lawyer viewpoint. The first contained an amusing non-admission admission, but they took down the game, and I'll let it slide, from my perspective. The second one was a stretch, but they provided existing examples, and I can see their point even if I don't agree with it. That last one though was ludicrous: "We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games." In order to save the village, we had to destroy it. I don't play that many games on my phone or tablets, so I don't have a dog in this fight directly, but now I guess I'll never make my app SagaNoteAngryFruit.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  They are right that in order to protect a trademark you have to actively prosecute users, but it makes me wonder why not sue Candy Crush™ instead of the overtly generic Saga.
- DanHulton 13y ago
  As I understand trademark law (which is, poorly), if you don't take the opportunity to prosecute things which MIGHT infringe, you lose credibility when you attempt to prosecute things which DO infringe. For example, a company could create a game that DOES use "Candy" and "Saga" in an infringing manner, and they could argue that since King didn't prosecute The Banner Saga, that they're no longer actively protecting their trademark, and thus it's no longer valid. Now, I disagree with a bunch of things King has done in general, but this part specifically seems to be largely due to shitty trademark law. I could easily be wrong though, but I've seen this reason cited for a bunch of other cases, the Scrolls/Elder Scrolls case in specific.
jameskilton 13y ago
The expected next step. Instead of self-reflection on whether their actions are evil, or at least unscrupulous, they post a rationalization with all fluff and no content. If there was any honesty at King before, it's gone now.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
"We’ve been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common word for specific uses. Think of “Time”, “Money” “Fortune”, “Apple”, and “Sun”, to name a few." Are any of those words trademarked wrt the title of a computer game? Isn't this analogous to trademarking words within song, film, or book titles?
- officemonkey 13y ago
  Bethesda trademarked "Scrolls" (as in "The Elder Scrolls.") Most people thought that was overreaching too.
- chilldream 13y ago
  I think a better analogy might be if Fortune magazine tried to claim that because of their (valid) claim to the name "Fortune", no one should be able to start a magazine whose title starts with the letter "F".
  - VLM 13y ago
    Your analogy is good, but an even better one would be no one should be able to start a magazine who's title is "Bitcoin Fortune", your guide to financial news in the new online economy, or something like that. You could even imagine the front cover of the infringing magazine, a tiny little BTC at the very top and the standard "FORTUNE" right underneath along the top of the magazine, just like the real magazine.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  Titles of standalone literary works are generally not trademarkable. You need to have a series (Harry Potter) or significant commercial tie-ins (Spaceballs: The Lunchbox) to pull it off. King's "Saga" games do not appear to be a series so much as an attempt at a branding umbrella. That's much weaker than "Elder Scrolls", which is a series with common elements. Just "Scrolls" by itself is a long stretch, as the company did not produce other series with that word in it, like perhaps "Younger Scrolls" or "Forbidden Scrolls" or anything other than "Elder Scrolls", so confusion with "Magnetic Scrolls" was very unlikely. Again, as software falls largely under copyright, I don't think King has a leg to stand on from legal tradition. But our courts don't necessarily do what we think they should, either.
jaegerpicker 13y ago
I'm so extremely annoyed at King. Banner Saga is such a fantastic indie game that is quite obviously not related to King's games. IP law in America is completely broken and them exploiting it to harm a small indie is enough to land on my hated companies list.
- VLM 13y ago
  "quite obviously not related to King's games" How so? It fits the regex of numerous King games, something like /^.+\s+Saga$/ What I don't understand about the response is if they wanted to be jerks they'd sue Banner Saga guys and "Lego Star Wars: The complete SAGA" also. Or if they wanted to get massive internet karma basically for free they'd license the use of the "banner saga" name to the makers with an extra clause that its only $1 as long as its the last time they ever name something "* Saga". But no they march right down the middle taking neither side. I don't think anyone involved would be very amused if I changed my HN name to "jaegerpicker saga" and started posting rants about how "I" love american IP law. Of all the stinky things about IP law, this sort of reputation management / consumer protection system is the least stinky. Oh don't get me wrong, it is in fact stinky, just everything else in that general area is worse.
  - masklinn 13y ago
    > How so? It fits the regex of numerous King games, something like /^.+\s+Saga$/ That's really surprising, considering "$whatever saga" has meant "the story of $whatever" ever since saga was first imported into english.
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    It's not related because King's games are on completely different platforms and of a completely different type. The overlap in players has to be pretty small. Beyond that the word Saga has been used for an extremely long time prior to King existing. The name Saga as in the Scandinavian Saga's are central to the games themes. Honestly I wouldn't care if you posted under jaegerpicker saga, that doesn't affect the quality of my posts. Sure there are worse things about IP law but all of it's bad and I'm against any company that uses it as a weapon.
aviraldg 13y ago
A lot of the statements here don't even make sense. For example: " We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games. Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play. " Except, that is exactly what they're doing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sgdesign 13y ago
  IANAL, but my understanding is that if they didn't sue (or oppose the trademark, or whatever it is they're doing), they're afraid somebody else could create a "XYZ Saga" that is copying King's game and use the very existence of Banner Saga as a precent to why XYZ Saga is entitled to using the word "saga" as well. What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga. For example, could they sue Banner Saga, but then settle out of court and allow them a special exception?
  - RossM 13y ago
    That's my understanding as well. For trademark law to be enforceable you have to have shown that you've acted defensively in the past.
  - grabeh 13y ago
    When it comes down to it, it is a matter of whether or not the consumer is likely to be confused by the usage. King's statement seems to say that it is the combination of the usage of the 'Saga' suffix and a similar game mechanic that would give rise to confusion. The question therefore arises as to what should be done with the 'Banner Saga' application. If King let it go, then this could serve as evidence that they are not concerned about the 'Saga' suffix. If they oppose, then they are seen to be attempting to take control of the 'Saga' suffix regardless of the game mechanic it is applied to. The main problem is that the trade mark application would be unlikely to specifically identify the specific game mechanic that will be used. It is more likely to include reference to 'computer games' for example. If King therefore let the application through, 'Banner Saga' could potentially be used with any game mechanic (and therefore serve as evidence that any game could use the 'Saga' suffix). King could have taken this approach and restricted Banner Saga's use via a coexistence agreement (mentioned below)(or by amending the classification), but negative PR aside, there is not much incentive for them to do this. Further, although they could rely on the above strategy of showing confusion via a similar game mechanic AND the usage of 'Saga', this would be more difficult to prove if they permitted the registration. King are in a stronger position if they are able to say they are actively opposing applications, even if in certain cases this will result in negative PR. On your last point, companies often enter into coexistence agreements, acknowledging that both parties can use an identical or similar marks (registered or unregistered) but under limited circumstances. This could be the case with Banner Saga for all I know...
macspoofing 13y ago
I'ts a non-answer answer. No new information. No real information period.
i_have_to_speak 13y ago
Hey King, fight someone your own size: "Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga".
sandbags 13y ago
Yet another example of the problem of companies being beholden only to the interest of their shareholders. They can follow a stupid law, even go beyond it, but it never occurs to them to spend some of that cash pile on, instead, trying to fix a broken system that would allow them & others to trademark common words like "candy" or "saga" in the first place.
sethrin 13y ago
I don't want to be an IP abolitionist, per se. I know enough artists who would be outraged at the very suggestion, even though they make essentially nothing from direct sales of their work. Still, examples like this give one pause. It is hardly an isolated case, that the large company acts with impunity, and the infringed party is limited to at best a moral victory and perhaps some trivial restitution. If the system is designed to favor the interests of those with the greatest ability to protect their own interest, as seems to be the case, then is it not superfluous, if not indeed harmful? The actions of King here are certainly fuel for the discussion, but clearly the self-serving justification is enough to leave a bad taste in the mouths of all but the most devoted adherents to their cause. On the other hand, they seem to say often enough that they are an ethical company and do not attempt to restrict the rights of others. The pessimist in me fears this is true.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I don't understand your angle with respect to this particular situation. Stoic is filing for the right to enjoy exclusive use of the term "Banner Saga" with respect to online games, and prevent others from using the term. King filed an objection to that application, not saying that Stoic couldn't use the name, but saying that they shouldn't get exclusive use of the name because King already had a series of games with that naming pattern. What's the outrage here?
  - benched 13y ago
    "Saga" is much, much more sweeping than "Banner Saga". It's like the difference between trademarking "Quest" vs. "King's Quest". In fact, it's just like trademarking "Quest", "Legend", "Adventure", "Story", etc.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      ... So it's good that someone is stopping a company from having exclusive use of "saga" for online gaming, right? So that means that you agree with the actions of King here.
michaelbuddy 13y ago
So they are subjecting Banner Saga to a lawsuit, harming them, their reputation, with full knowledge that it's not an applicable argument. So they are knowingly causing monetary harm to another company not affecting them, who will then have to deal with legal costs. These guys are evil. And a blog post does not refute that.
skizm 13y ago
Ummmm, how is Candy Crush not a straight up clone of Bejeweled? What am I missing here?
- DanBC 13y ago
  Candy crush has shaped boards, and is thus a clone of any of the other similar match 3 games. Candy crush has some different power up me hanics too. There are a gajillion match 3 games and they're all similar, but that doesn't make them all clones. Especially when they're as different as candy crush and bejeweled are.
  - benched 13y ago
    Except, Candy Crush does go beyond simply being a match 3 game, in that all the base mechanics as far as what happens when you match 3, 4, and 5, are pretty much lifted exactly as-is from Bejeweled.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      ...they're the same as very many other match three games. Candy Crush includes special actions when you match 2 power ups. Bejeweled clears the board if you match two spinning cubes (the result of a match 5) but other than that matching two power ups doesn't do anything special.
mcescalante 13y ago
I just don't know where to even start with King, their games, and whatever "Riccardo" thinks he's saying in this horribly written thing.
staticelf 13y ago
TL;DR: King just raised their finger at all indie developers out there.
noptic 13y ago
Creating a good brand is hard work, and king was not willing to invest in it. "Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play." Well it IS fair play. If king wants a unique brand choosing a genric word used in many game titles in the last decades was a bad move. King messed up all others developers must pay the price.

The first two, I could accept from a certain IP lawyer viewpoint. The first contained an amusing non-admission admission, but they took down the game, and I'll let it slide, from my perspective. The second one was a stretch, but they provided existing examples, and I can see their point even if I don't agree with it. That last one though was ludicrous: "We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games." In order to save the village, we had to destroy it. I don't play that many games on my phone or tablets, so I don't have a dog in this fight directly, but now I guess I'll never make my app SagaNoteAngryFruit.

Ygg2 13y ago
They are right that in order to protect a trademark you have to actively prosecute users, but it makes me wonder why not sue Candy Crush™ instead of the overtly generic Saga.
DanHulton 13y ago
As I understand trademark law (which is, poorly), if you don't take the opportunity to prosecute things which MIGHT infringe, you lose credibility when you attempt to prosecute things which DO infringe. For example, a company could create a game that DOES use "Candy" and "Saga" in an infringing manner, and they could argue that since King didn't prosecute The Banner Saga, that they're no longer actively protecting their trademark, and thus it's no longer valid. Now, I disagree with a bunch of things King has done in general, but this part specifically seems to be largely due to shitty trademark law. I could easily be wrong though, but I've seen this reason cited for a bunch of other cases, the Scrolls/Elder Scrolls case in specific.

jameskilton 13y ago

The expected next step. Instead of self-reflection on whether their actions are evil, or at least unscrupulous, they post a rationalization with all fluff and no content. If there was any honesty at King before, it's gone now.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago

"We’ve been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common word for specific uses. Think of “Time”, “Money” “Fortune”, “Apple”, and “Sun”, to name a few." Are any of those words trademarked wrt the title of a computer game? Isn't this analogous to trademarking words within song, film, or book titles?

officemonkey 13y ago
Bethesda trademarked "Scrolls" (as in "The Elder Scrolls.") Most people thought that was overreaching too.
chilldream 13y ago
I think a better analogy might be if Fortune magazine tried to claim that because of their (valid) claim to the name "Fortune", no one should be able to start a magazine whose title starts with the letter "F".
- VLM 13y ago
  Your analogy is good, but an even better one would be no one should be able to start a magazine who's title is "Bitcoin Fortune", your guide to financial news in the new online economy, or something like that. You could even imagine the front cover of the infringing magazine, a tiny little BTC at the very top and the standard "FORTUNE" right underneath along the top of the magazine, just like the real magazine.
logfromblammo 13y ago
Titles of standalone literary works are generally not trademarkable. You need to have a series (Harry Potter) or significant commercial tie-ins (Spaceballs: The Lunchbox) to pull it off. King's "Saga" games do not appear to be a series so much as an attempt at a branding umbrella. That's much weaker than "Elder Scrolls", which is a series with common elements. Just "Scrolls" by itself is a long stretch, as the company did not produce other series with that word in it, like perhaps "Younger Scrolls" or "Forbidden Scrolls" or anything other than "Elder Scrolls", so confusion with "Magnetic Scrolls" was very unlikely. Again, as software falls largely under copyright, I don't think King has a leg to stand on from legal tradition. But our courts don't necessarily do what we think they should, either.

jaegerpicker 13y ago

I'm so extremely annoyed at King. Banner Saga is such a fantastic indie game that is quite obviously not related to King's games. IP law in America is completely broken and them exploiting it to harm a small indie is enough to land on my hated companies list.

VLM 13y ago
"quite obviously not related to King's games" How so? It fits the regex of numerous King games, something like /^.+\s+Saga$/ What I don't understand about the response is if they wanted to be jerks they'd sue Banner Saga guys and "Lego Star Wars: The complete SAGA" also. Or if they wanted to get massive internet karma basically for free they'd license the use of the "banner saga" name to the makers with an extra clause that its only $1 as long as its the last time they ever name something "* Saga". But no they march right down the middle taking neither side. I don't think anyone involved would be very amused if I changed my HN name to "jaegerpicker saga" and started posting rants about how "I" love american IP law. Of all the stinky things about IP law, this sort of reputation management / consumer protection system is the least stinky. Oh don't get me wrong, it is in fact stinky, just everything else in that general area is worse.
- masklinn 13y ago
  > How so? It fits the regex of numerous King games, something like /^.+\s+Saga$/ That's really surprising, considering "$whatever saga" has meant "the story of $whatever" ever since saga was first imported into english.
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  It's not related because King's games are on completely different platforms and of a completely different type. The overlap in players has to be pretty small. Beyond that the word Saga has been used for an extremely long time prior to King existing. The name Saga as in the Scandinavian Saga's are central to the games themes. Honestly I wouldn't care if you posted under jaegerpicker saga, that doesn't affect the quality of my posts. Sure there are worse things about IP law but all of it's bad and I'm against any company that uses it as a weapon.

aviraldg 13y ago

A lot of the statements here don't even make sense. For example: " We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games. Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play. " Except, that is exactly what they're doing.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sgdesign 13y ago
IANAL, but my understanding is that if they didn't sue (or oppose the trademark, or whatever it is they're doing), they're afraid somebody else could create a "XYZ Saga" that is copying King's game and use the very existence of Banner Saga as a precent to why XYZ Saga is entitled to using the word "saga" as well. What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect their IP without harming Banner Saga. For example, could they sue Banner Saga, but then settle out of court and allow them a special exception?
- RossM 13y ago
  That's my understanding as well. For trademark law to be enforceable you have to have shown that you've acted defensively in the past.
- grabeh 13y ago
  When it comes down to it, it is a matter of whether or not the consumer is likely to be confused by the usage. King's statement seems to say that it is the combination of the usage of the 'Saga' suffix and a similar game mechanic that would give rise to confusion. The question therefore arises as to what should be done with the 'Banner Saga' application. If King let it go, then this could serve as evidence that they are not concerned about the 'Saga' suffix. If they oppose, then they are seen to be attempting to take control of the 'Saga' suffix regardless of the game mechanic it is applied to. The main problem is that the trade mark application would be unlikely to specifically identify the specific game mechanic that will be used. It is more likely to include reference to 'computer games' for example. If King therefore let the application through, 'Banner Saga' could potentially be used with any game mechanic (and therefore serve as evidence that any game could use the 'Saga' suffix). King could have taken this approach and restricted Banner Saga's use via a coexistence agreement (mentioned below)(or by amending the classification), but negative PR aside, there is not much incentive for them to do this. Further, although they could rely on the above strategy of showing confusion via a similar game mechanic AND the usage of 'Saga', this would be more difficult to prove if they permitted the registration. King are in a stronger position if they are able to say they are actively opposing applications, even if in certain cases this will result in negative PR. On your last point, companies often enter into coexistence agreements, acknowledging that both parties can use an identical or similar marks (registered or unregistered) but under limited circumstances. This could be the case with Banner Saga for all I know...

macspoofing 13y ago

I'ts a non-answer answer. No new information. No real information period.

i_have_to_speak 13y ago

Hey King, fight someone your own size: "Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga".

sandbags 13y ago

Yet another example of the problem of companies being beholden only to the interest of their shareholders. They can follow a stupid law, even go beyond it, but it never occurs to them to spend some of that cash pile on, instead, trying to fix a broken system that would allow them & others to trademark common words like "candy" or "saga" in the first place.

sethrin 13y ago

I don't want to be an IP abolitionist, per se. I know enough artists who would be outraged at the very suggestion, even though they make essentially nothing from direct sales of their work. Still, examples like this give one pause. It is hardly an isolated case, that the large company acts with impunity, and the infringed party is limited to at best a moral victory and perhaps some trivial restitution. If the system is designed to favor the interests of those with the greatest ability to protect their own interest, as seems to be the case, then is it not superfluous, if not indeed harmful? The actions of King here are certainly fuel for the discussion, but clearly the self-serving justification is enough to leave a bad taste in the mouths of all but the most devoted adherents to their cause. On the other hand, they seem to say often enough that they are an ethical company and do not attempt to restrict the rights of others. The pessimist in me fears this is true.

rayiner 13y ago
I don't understand your angle with respect to this particular situation. Stoic is filing for the right to enjoy exclusive use of the term "Banner Saga" with respect to online games, and prevent others from using the term. King filed an objection to that application, not saying that Stoic couldn't use the name, but saying that they shouldn't get exclusive use of the name because King already had a series of games with that naming pattern. What's the outrage here?
- benched 13y ago
  "Saga" is much, much more sweeping than "Banner Saga". It's like the difference between trademarking "Quest" vs. "King's Quest". In fact, it's just like trademarking "Quest", "Legend", "Adventure", "Story", etc.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    ... So it's good that someone is stopping a company from having exclusive use of "saga" for online gaming, right? So that means that you agree with the actions of King here.

michaelbuddy 13y ago

So they are subjecting Banner Saga to a lawsuit, harming them, their reputation, with full knowledge that it's not an applicable argument. So they are knowingly causing monetary harm to another company not affecting them, who will then have to deal with legal costs. These guys are evil. And a blog post does not refute that.

skizm 13y ago

Ummmm, how is Candy Crush not a straight up clone of Bejeweled? What am I missing here?

DanBC 13y ago
Candy crush has shaped boards, and is thus a clone of any of the other similar match 3 games. Candy crush has some different power up me hanics too. There are a gajillion match 3 games and they're all similar, but that doesn't make them all clones. Especially when they're as different as candy crush and bejeweled are.
- benched 13y ago
  Except, Candy Crush does go beyond simply being a match 3 game, in that all the base mechanics as far as what happens when you match 3, 4, and 5, are pretty much lifted exactly as-is from Bejeweled.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    ...they're the same as very many other match three games. Candy Crush includes special actions when you match 2 power ups. Bejeweled clears the board if you match two spinning cubes (the result of a match 5) but other than that matching two power ups doesn't do anything special.

mcescalante 13y ago

I just don't know where to even start with King, their games, and whatever "Riccardo" thinks he's saying in this horribly written thing.

staticelf 13y ago

TL;DR: King just raised their finger at all indie developers out there.

noptic 13y ago

Creating a good brand is hard work, and king was not willing to invest in it. "Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play." Well it IS fair play. If king wants a unique brand choosing a genric word used in many game titles in the last decades was a bad move. King messed up all others developers must pay the price.