3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey 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 agoAs 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since King didn't prosecute The Banner Saga, that they're no longer actively protecting their trademark, and thus it's no longer valid.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.