3 ms·
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 fro
by 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 agoI 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.
- benched 13y agoI have no idea what you're saying here.
- logfromblammo 13y agoThis is both correct and concise. Trademarking the three single words "candy", "crush", and "saga" is much broader in scope than those same three words in combination, as "candy crush saga". Some parts of trademark convention are oddly specific, down to fonts, colors, capitalization, and parts of speech. For instance, you can't play with "Legos." They do not exist. You can only play with "LEGO bricks." The trademark is all caps and is an adjective, never a noun. You define narrowly, and enforce broadly, so that there is a clear no-man's land of similar marks around your brand. Companies with competent lawyers will often spend thousands of dollars on trademark research reports before using a mark in commerce, and then spend tens of thousands every year on brand protection services. Back when I worked for a company that sold exactly those services, our research reports for "candy" and "saga" would have essentially summarized to "Register a different mark, dumbass," translated into tactful legalese.