Blizzard Throws Down With Valve Over DOTA Trademark

[CaptainKoala]

If Blizzard had picked up Counterstrike when it was still a mod and made whole game out of it, they'd be within their rights to copyright it. Same goes for Valve and DOTA.

 

[Realitycrash]

Uh, Valve? Why try to sucker-punch Blizzard like this? You got plenty of great games to make money from, and DotA is clearly a Warcraft 3 Mod, so..What's up?
Oh, you think you can make your OWN DotA-like game with your own characters? Near! Then why don't you name it something other than DotA 2?

 

[Starke]

Actually, DotA has nothing to do with blizzard other than being on warcraft 3...

...which, according to the Warcraft 3 map editor EULA, grants them the copyright to anything created with it.

So unless DotA was secretly developed on privately generated tools, which is, I guess possible, the trademark actually belonged to Blizzard all along.

And i also believe Valve avoided that by turning it from an acronym into a word.

Attempted to, at any rate. But simply turning it into an acronym, while simultaneously, continuing to ape the Warcraft 3 art style and retaining the overall game mechanics is much dicier.

I mean, the conceptual test (not the actual legal test) for Trademark is "can this confuse the consumer as to who is producing this?" In this case, yeah, yeah it can.

This isn't a Valve is always right but Blizzard does not have a leg to stand on here and they have literally no case as far as I can see.

Nice to see all the legal experts weighing in. They didn't act on the other DotA clones because they didn't look like Blizzard products, and they weren't named in such a way that they appeared to be Blizzard products.

 

[Akisa]

Uh, Valve? Why try to sucker-punch Blizzard like this? You got plenty of great games to make money from, and DotA is clearly a Warcraft 3 Mod, so..What's up?
Oh, you think you can make your OWN DotA-like game with your own characters? Near! Then why don't you name it something other than DotA 2?

Well one of the creators who should own part of the rights to DotA has join valve. So unless the others who created the mod challenges Valve or Blizzard has purchased the rights from the modders then there is no violations.

 

[Realitycrash]

Uh, Valve? Why try to sucker-punch Blizzard like this? You got plenty of great games to make money from, and DotA is clearly a Warcraft 3 Mod, so..What's up?
Oh, you think you can make your OWN DotA-like game with your own characters? Near! Then why don't you name it something other than DotA 2?

Well one of the creators who should own part of the rights to DotA has join valve. So unless the others who created the mod challenges Valve or Blizzard has purchased the rights from the modders then there is no violations.

The creators used tools given with WC3, as far as I know, and used WC3 characters/mechanics. Creating a mod gives you zero ownership what you have created, basically it's something the owners allow, as long as you don't try to market it.
Yes, Blizz isn't officially owning DotA, but Valve trying to create a whole new game and call it "DotA 2" is just a fucking dick-move.

 

[Starke]

Uh, Valve? Why try to sucker-punch Blizzard like this? You got plenty of great games to make money from, and DotA is clearly a Warcraft 3 Mod, so..What's up?
Oh, you think you can make your OWN DotA-like game with your own characters? Near! Then why don't you name it something other than DotA 2?

Well one of the creators who should own part of the rights to DotA has join valve. So unless the others who created the mod challenges Valve or Blizzard has purchased the rights from the modders then there is no violations.

It's this... well, sort of. Most game editor EULAs specify that anything you create with it is the property of either the developer or the publisher. Warcraft 3's sides with the developer (as I recall), and so the original DotA actually belongs to them. Now, (and this is just my recollection) Blizzard has said that they have no interest in capitalizing on that trademark, but, that they would defend it to ensure it stayed available for (at least their) community('s) use.

 

[Starke]

Yes, Blizz isn't officially owning DotA,

you have ninjaed me... But, in all seriousness, they actually do officially own DotA thanks to the aforementioned EULA, and as I recall did claim a trademark on it at some point, though my own apathy on the subject means I've no idea when that was exactly.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Icefrog was the developer of the DoTA mod. Valve owns them now, and has Icefrog working on DoTA 2. I think Valve wins.

 

[Realitycrash]

Yes, Blizz isn't officially owning DotA,

you have ninjaed me... But, in all seriousness, they actually do officially own DotA thanks to the aforementioned EULA, and as I recall did claim a trademark on it at some point, though my own apathy on the subject means I've no idea when that was exactly.

Well, what I wanted to say is "Noone was registered DotA as a trade-mark", probably because it was already covered by the EULA.

 

[somonels]

[HEADING=1]/whine, prease![/HEADING]

This is Blizzard cockblocking Valve who lusts for his daughter.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Icefrog was the developer of the DoTA mod. Valve owns them now, and has Icefrog working on DoTA 2. I think Valve wins.

I have an idea! get one of the original devs of DOTA to copyright it for himself, and then just let Valve have it! I'm sure that the original devs have a better case than either of the 2 companies!(I have no idea how these copyright laws work!)

One of the original devs is in Valve now

 

[Starke]

Yes, Blizz isn't officially owning DotA,

you have ninjaed me... But, in all seriousness, they actually do officially own DotA thanks to the aforementioned EULA, and as I recall did claim a trademark on it at some point, though my own apathy on the subject means I've no idea when that was exactly.

Well, what I wanted to say is "Noone was registered DotA as a trade-mark", probably because it was already covered by the EULA.

Yeah, which gets into a really weird place, honestly. Though, and again, this is faint recollection, my recollection was that Blizzard did file a trademark on Defense of the Ancients, at some point. But, hell if I can remember the details.

Icefrog was the developer of the DoTA mod. Valve owns them now, and has Icefrog working on DoTA 2. I think Valve wins.

Valve bought him in Dubai?

But, yeah, it doesn't work like that. Icefrog worked on the original Mod for Warcraft 3. Blizzard owns Warcraft 3, and due to their EULA anything made for Warcraft 3. Ergo, Blizzard owns Defense of the Ancients. Icefrog does not. Icefrog would never have owned Defense of the Ancients even if it wasn't a Warcraft 3 mod because it wasn't his project, he just helped. Now he works for Valve, but we can hope he isn't "in Valve now" because that just sounds dirty. He can tell Valve what he did, and how he did it, but he can't give them something he never owned.

 

[Realitycrash]

Yes, Blizz isn't officially owning DotA,

you have ninjaed me... But, in all seriousness, they actually do officially own DotA thanks to the aforementioned EULA, and as I recall did claim a trademark on it at some point, though my own apathy on the subject means I've no idea when that was exactly.

Well, what I wanted to say is "Noone was registered DotA as a trade-mark", probably because it was already covered by the EULA.

Yeah, which gets into a really weird place, honestly. Though, and again, this is faint recollection, my recollection was that Blizzard did file a trademark on Defense of the Ancients, at some point. But, hell if I can remember the details.

Icefrog was the developer of the DoTA mod. Valve owns them now, and has Icefrog working on DoTA 2. I think Valve wins.

Valve bought him in Dubai?

But, yeah, it doesn't work like that. Icefrog worked on the original Mod for Warcraft 3. Blizzard owns Warcraft 3, and due to their EULA anything made for Warcraft 3. Ergo, Blizzard owns Defense of the Ancients. Icefrog does not. Icefrog would never have owned Defense of the Ancients even if it wasn't a Warcraft 3 mod because it wasn't his project, he just helped. Now he works for Valve, but we can hope he isn't "in Valve now" because that just sounds dirty. He can tell Valve what he did, and how he did it, but he can't give them something he never owned.

Why don't Valve just create a DotA-esque game and market it "developed by/with some/one of the creators of the original DotA!"?
I mean, movies are marketed like this all the time..

 

[kasperbbs]

Modders made it, so it belongs to them, it was never Blizzards property, and since one of these modders has joined Valve and others have no objections that means its just petty jealousy 'why didn't we think of that!?'. But i'm no expert in trademark laws, it might not work that way.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Now he works for Valve, but we can hope he isn't "in Valve now" because that just sounds dirty.

Man's gotta do what, he gotta do.

 

[Starke]

Why don't Valve just create a DotA-esque game and market it "developed by/with some/one of the creators of the original DotA!"?
I mean, movies are marketed like this all the time..

The completely unverified scuttlebutt I recall running across on a blog was, "Icefrog". Basically it was someone claiming to be from Valve throwing a shitfit over Icefrog on an anonymous blog. The upshot was, Icefrog was hired as "a personality", and he proceeded to be a dictatorial diva. He was the one that insisted that the game be Defense of the Ancients 2 or he'd walk. He was the one that insisted it had to be as close to the Blizzard assets as legally possible, and so on.

At the time I took it with a grain of salt and wandered off. This surfaced about the same time as the EA Louse thing, so there's every reason to believe that the blog no longer exists, but I'll poke around and see if I can find it.

EDIT: Rather surprisingly, it's here [http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/]. I'm actually a little surprised it's still up and rolling. The October 13, 2010 post is the one you want, btw.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Actually, DotA has nothing to do with blizzard other than being on warcraft 3...

...which, according to the Warcraft 3 map editor EULA, grants them the copyright to anything created with it.

So unless DotA was secretly developed on privately generated tools, which is, I guess possible, the trademark actually belonged to Blizzard all along.

And i also believe Valve avoided that by turning it from an acronym into a word.

Attempted to, at any rate. But simply turning it into an acronym, while simultaneously, continuing to ape the Warcraft 3 art style and retaining the overall game mechanics is much dicier.

I mean, the conceptual test (not the actual legal test) for Trademark is "can this confuse the consumer as to who is producing this?" In this case, yeah, yeah it can.

This isn't a Valve is always right but Blizzard does not have a leg to stand on here and they have literally no case as far as I can see.

Nice to see all the legal experts weighing in. They didn't act on the other DotA clones because they didn't look like Blizzard products, and they weren't named in such a way that they appeared to be Blizzard products.

Nice to see people can't read. Everyone who is an actual gamer knows mechanics mean more. So when you actually take the time to read what someone has to say get back to me. I never once claimed to be an expert.

 

[Realitycrash]

Why don't Valve just create a DotA-esque game and market it "developed by/with some/one of the creators of the original DotA!"?
I mean, movies are marketed like this all the time..

The completely unverified scuttlebutt I recall running across on a blog was, "Icefrog". Basically it was someone claiming to be from Valve throwing a shitfit over Icefrog on an anonymous blog. The upshot was, Icefrog was hired as "a personality", and he proceeded to be a dictatorial diva. He was the one that insisted that the game be Defense of the Ancients 2 or he'd walk. He was the one that insisted it had to be as close to the Blizzard assets as legally possible, and so on.

At the time I took it with a grain of salt and wandered off. This surfaced about the same time as the EA Louse thing, so there's every reason to believe that the blog no longer exists, but I'll poke around and see if I can find it.

EDIT: Rather surprisingly, it's here [http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/]. I'm actually a little surprised it's still up and rolling. The October 13, 2010 post is the one you want, btw.

Hahahah oh, this has gone from "silly copyright infringement" to "hilarious nerd-ascension". The guy pretty much thinks that he's such a mastermind that he can bully Valve into such an action? And he gets away with it?

Oh, this gonna be fun.

 

[Wintermoot]

considering DOTA was announced months ago I,m surprised Blizzard just now took action.

 

[Starke]

Nice to see people can't read.

Yeah, unfortunately, sooner or later you'll need to actually come out of the bathroom and interact with the rest of the human race.

Everyone who is an actual gamer knows mechanics mean more.

Not in a court of law. Not in litigation. Not in this context.

So when you actually take the time to read what someone has to say get back to me.

I did actually, but, out of deferance I didn't want to embarass you by pointing out how many mistakes you made, shal we review them?

I never once claimed to be an expert.

I never claimed I wasn't a sarcastic bastard. It goes back to that whole reading comprehension thing you seem to have problems with.

So, let's begin.

This isn't a Valve is always right but Blizzard does not have a leg to stand on here and they have literally no case as far as I can see.

And here you are pretending to understand the law.

They have done nothing about the other clones out there for one.

This would make sense if the universe worked the way you wanted it to, unfortunately it doesn't. Trademark protects the integrity of a brand, in this case, Warcraft's but it doesn't protect game mechanics. You can make a DOTA clone, or a Diablo clone or a Doom clone, but you can't turn around and actually call it DOTA, or Diabolical or Doomed, and rip off the aesthetics of the original.

When you look at Demigod, for instance, you're not going to be confused, "am I playing a Blizzard game?" where as with DOTA2, the character design, the trailers, it's all very Warcraft 3, right down to the individual hero units themselves.

Secondly, this was a mod made by people not affiliate with Blizzard it just happened to be on Warcraft 3. I may wrong on that with a clause in an EULA or something.

You are, actually, as the modder surrenders all rights to their work to Blizzard. Now, there may be games out there where the modders retain their rights, usually when they're using third party tools to do the modding, but the norm is for the rights to go to the publisher or developer and Warcraft 3 is no exception.

Thirdly, thus far no modders that I know of who were involved in the project have come out against it and 1 is even working on the game.

Which is about as relevant as a tap dancing iguana. In this case, the modders have no right to their own work, so what they want is completely irrelevant. Not that it matters, but it's worse than that in this case because the modder in question is emulating trademarked designs that they did not create. (IE: Reusing specific unit designs from Warcraft 3, such as the Demon Hunter, the Ranger, the Water Elemental, the Pandaran brewmaster, and that's just from a cursory glance at the steam store page.)

So as far as I know with the copyright laws in America over the whole Scrolls thing with Zennimax needing to enforce copyright or lose it.

Nope. And again, you're pretending to be a legal expert. Copyright is copyright, you make something and it's yours, unless you give it up for some specific reason.

What's more, that's not what happened with Zennimax and Scrolls, that was a trademark dispute, as is this. Now, I get how the terms sound similar... well, actually, no, I don't. But they're about as similar to each other as they are to patent cases. Which is to say, barely.

That is how it works.

Again, no, it's not.

So since Blizzard has not been enforcing its copyright it should in legal theory going by of course that this is how it works has already lost copyright.

Again, not how this works. The only way you loose copyright is if you actually give it up, IE: Sell it, or relinquish it to someone else, as an affirmative action, or if you die, and stay dead for about 70 years, give or take.

Now this may be a steaming pile as I do not know a lot about the laws but it seems this is the case.

You don't need to tell me that. This is filled with downright incorrect assumptions made from one or two news articles and assuming that everything is the same. It's not.