Blizzard Throws Down With Valve Over DOTA Trademark

[Vigormortis]

I've made my stance on this whole sordid affair abundantly clear. I'm not entirely sure I'm 100% okay with Valve trademarking the name, but I can say I'm calling bull**** on Blizzard.

What really fascinates me is all of the people supporting Blizzards move as if Blizzard's some paragon of virtue, standing up for the modding community. All the while claiming Valve is trying to exploit and undermine the same community. It just baffles me. I can understand being against Valve's decision, but actually supporting Blizzard over this is confounding.

Blizzard creates the most restrictive mod system I've seen short of paid licensing (see Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3) and Valve just releases the Steam Workshop. Yep. Blizzard clearly supports modders more than Valve. :|

And let's face it here. Blizzard is only using this case as a guise to either stir up controversy or protect their own MOBA cash-in Blizzard DOTA. Or both. I can all but promise you that, if they win this case, they'll apply for their own trademark in the near future. Using this win as a strong backing to push it through. And you know they will. Blizzard is part of Activision. And Activision doesn't do anything for the players unless it sees a way to make money off of them.

I'm not even going to get into the whole discussion on how, if Blizzard wins and later trademarks the name themselves, it sets a very dangerous precedent wherein any company can legally claim any and all content created by the modding community as their own. Effectively meaning modders have no legal claim to anything they make.

T'would be a sad day for the modding community at large.

Blizzard has no more claim to the DOTA trademark than Valve does.

In fact, the one most in the right here would be Riot Games (the developers of popular MOBA League Of Legends, some of who worked on DOTA) who want the DOTA trademark to stay open source. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102870-DotA-Creators-Counter-File-Trademark-Against-Valve]

Actually, I'm inclined to believe that Eul and Icefrog are "in the right" as to what should and shouldn't be done with the brand. Seeing as Eul created the mod from the start and Icefrog is the one who's been with it the longest, put the most work into it, and still supports it's Warcraft 3 incarnation.

And here's the key part. Both Eul and Icefrog are employed at Valve and are both working on Dota 2. So, the way I see it, if they (and Valve) want to trademark the name, they're the ones who have the right to. Not the people at Riot who, for all intents and purposes, spent very little time on the original mod before going off to bank on their own clones/spinoffs.

This seems kinda like BS to me. Blizzard doesn't own DotA. It's a mod. It's the property of the mod's creator(s). If I make guitars, I don't own the music that other people write while using my guitar. If Blizzard's in the right, then Epic is owed some dough for Red Orchestra given that it was conceived and originally only playable on Unreal Tournament. Valve just knows how to recognize good modding, so they pay people who make good mods to make good games. Blizzard's just being an idiot, and trying to prevent Valve from releasing their game as part of an existing IP.

Small but rather important point is that the Warcraft3 Eula says that the anything created by the tools provided to create mods remain the property of Blizzard. There is nothing unique in this Bethesda, Epic Games and Crytek all do the same thing about mods and tools. Valve have not denied that the eula gives blizzard ownership over content but denies that Blizzard own the name. Which is different thing entirely.


Red Orchestra, as matter of record, was a competition winner for mods run by Epic. The prize was a full license enabling commercial distribution, waving their own rights and $1 million. Epic have the same policy as blizzard when it comes to mods. In the case of Red Orchestra, Epic effectively created a new company working on exactly the same as all the other commercial users of the U3 engine.

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

 

[Vhite]

World Edits EULA and fact that Blizzard got rights from Riot Games seems pretty solid to me.

 

[Vigormortis]

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

Actually two. Like I said above, they have both Eul and Icefrog working there.

FYI: I don't know why this hasn't been said yet but Blizzard is on the record saying DoTA should be a term for all. The problem they have with valve is valve trying to trademark it. Blizzard and Valve have been trying to work this out for ages.

And where is DotA (that name) found? Why, on the Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 servers of course!
EXCLUSIVELY FOUND THERE.

Blizzard can say what they like, but it's naive to conclude that Blizzard is spending money on legal expenses just for the benefit of the DotA community. They benefit directly from this; and given the level of legal control they claim over any Starcraft 2 maps (you know, where future installments of 'DotA' will be found if they block Valve's claim), I'd say they will benefit benefit FAR MORE than the community they claim to care about.

It's all business and PR bullshit, as usual. I'm not saying Valve is innocent here either; they want to leverage DotA exactly as Blizzard does, but at least they have SOME practical claim in the matter given they have both the creator (Eul...I did not know he was hired by Valve until recently. I guess he grew out of his Colossal Ego phase after 2003) and the only guy who has given a shit to actually maintain the map.

This is far more complex and webbed then the article implies and most people here don't seem willing to do the research on these things.

Feel free to google or youtube any of the various DOTA history articles/videos. It's fun to learn!

Some of us are part of that history..
*whistles innocently*
I still remember playtesting DotA 1.4 in RoC...Snake Ais was so broken, being able to nuke heroes AND towers for 400 damage...on a TEN level base system (rather than 25).

Thank you. Someone who is actually taking an objective point of view on this whole thing. I couldn't agree more with everything you said.

Valve's (and by extension, Eul and Icefrog) choice to trademark the name is debatable. But siding with Blizzard is laughable and naive. Blizzard is, as you said, clearly in this for the money. Pure and simple. They aren't fighting for the modders.

Out of curiosity, though, have you tried Dota 2 yet? I'm curious what a DOTA veteran thinks. I've been enjoying it so far but I'm relatively new to the game as I never really played it in the past. (the community turned me off of it)


CAPTCHA: mobarb snag,

Huh. Eerily relevant.

 

[Starke]

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Whatever he is being paid, it is ridiculous, because the game is literally identical to DOTA. Everything from voices to art is being transferred over, because he demanded it.

...Right... nothing ported.

Source [http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/]

To be fair he did go on to clarify:

EDIT: Clarification to us "porting over" Blizzard's content. I am not saying that we are directly taking their assets, but rather, that Abdul demanded that everything look and sound as close as possible to the Blizzard assets without causing copyright issues.

But the fact remains this was Blizzard's work, just with the serial numbers filed off, so to speak.

 

[Albino Boo]

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Blizzard are claiming the ownership of the name DOTA because of the title uses the term ancients which is part of the warcraft lore. IN OTHER WORDS THEY OWN THE MOD.
Here is link to Blizzards complaint http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91202572&pty=OPP&eno=1 and Valves response http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91202572-OPP-4.pdf . I strongly suggest that you read them.

 

[Vigormortis]

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Whatever he is being paid, it is ridiculous, because the game is literally identical to DOTA. Everything from voices to art is being transferred over, because he demanded it.

...Right... nothing ported.

Source [http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/]

To be fair he did go on to clarify:

EDIT: Clarification to us "porting over" Blizzard's content. I am not saying that we are directly taking their assets, but rather, that Abdul demanded that everything look and sound as close as possible to the Blizzard assets without causing copyright issues.

But the fact remains this was Blizzard's work, just with the serial numbers filed off, so to speak.

So your point of contention is a link to some random guys blogspot page. A guy who lists himself as "anonymous Valve employee".

Spoiler: ...

I've been well aware of that guys ramblings. While some of this claims hold up, a lot of them don't or require stretches of the imagination and "leaps of faith" as it were. At least, if you believe the guy is who he says he is. (or rather, doesn't say)

A lot of his "proofs" on what is and isn't going on sound very much like hearsay. Some of them are so absurd one can't help but wonder why some of them haven't come to a larger light. Why the people at Riot and S2 haven't made a bigger stink about it. (then is implied)

I'm not saying it isn't possible that it's all true. What I am saying is, it takes more than an anonymous whistle blower with an apparent 'ax to grind' to prove it's all true.

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Blizzard are claiming the ownership of the name DOTA because of the title uses the term ancients which is part of the warcraft lore. IN OTHER WORDS THEY OWN THE MOD.
Here is link to Blizzards complaint http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91202572&pty=OPP&eno=1 and Valves response http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91202572-OPP-4.pdf . I strongly suggest that you read them.

I have read them. Both. In their entirety.

Blizzard isn't claiming ownership of anything. Not yet. They are claiming potential damages if Valve is granted the right to trademark the name 'DOTA'.

However, Blizzard does not own the name. It is not theirs. Otherwise what Valve is doing would be illegal as Blizzard would already have the name trademarked.

Also, Blizzard does NOT own the mod. It is not theirs. In any way, shape, or form beyond the original Warcraft 3 assets used within. The names, concepts, and user-generated content are owned solely by the modders responsible for making them.

I still don't understand how people are not getting this. I've seen an alarming number of people thinking that a company owns a mod simply because it was made using that companies game engine or tool sets. This is not the case. At least, not with any game developer that allows 'open' mod development.

I mean, by that logic, Valve would own hundreds if not thousands of game titles. Simply because modders made custom content for the Source and Source: Gold engines. It would also mean that Epic Games owns Red Orchestra or, hell, that id Software owns that Doom 2 mod I made back in the 90's.

They don't. If a developer offers open mod development, they can't claim ownership for any user generated material unless they require the modders to sign a licensing agreement. A EULA and/or TOS is NOT a licensing agreement.

Like others have said, believing the developers own the mods made for their games is the equivalent of believing Sears and Stanley own your house because their tools were used to build it.

 

[Starke]

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Whatever he is being paid, it is ridiculous, because the game is literally identical to DOTA. Everything from voices to art is being transferred over, because he demanded it.

...Right... nothing ported.

Source [http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/]

To be fair he did go on to clarify:

EDIT: Clarification to us "porting over" Blizzard's content. I am not saying that we are directly taking their assets, but rather, that Abdul demanded that everything look and sound as close as possible to the Blizzard assets without causing copyright issues.

But the fact remains this was Blizzard's work, just with the serial numbers filed off, so to speak.

So your point of contention is a link to some random guys blogspot page. A guy who lists himself as "anonymous Valve employee".

Spoiler: ...

I've been well aware of that guys ramblings. While some of this claims hold up, a lot of them don't or require stretches of the imagination and "leaps of faith" as it were. At least, if you believe the guy is who he says he is. (or rather, doesn't say)

A lot of his "proofs" on what is and isn't going on sound very much like hearsay. Some of them are so absurd one can't help but wonder why some of them haven't come to a larger light. Why the people at Riot and S2 haven't made a bigger stink about it. (then is implied)

I'm not saying it isn't possible that it's all true. What I am saying is, it takes more than an anonymous whistle blower with an apparent 'ax to grind' to prove it's all true.

Regardless of his motives, the content within DOTA 2, as presented to the public is close enough as a pattern to give credence to his claims that Icefrog was simply having assets ported over.

Yes, Blizzard retains ownership for anything used in a mod...so long as it's something Blizzard made. I.E. in game assets. Custom content, materials, and more importantly, concepts, are the property of the modders, not Blizzard. Blizzard has no claim to any of that. (and for the record, Dota 2 was built from the ground up with all original content. nothing ported.)

Blizzard are claiming the ownership of the name DOTA because of the title uses the term ancients which is part of the warcraft lore. IN OTHER WORDS THEY OWN THE MOD.
Here is link to Blizzards complaint http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91202572&pty=OPP&eno=1 and Valves response http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91202572-OPP-4.pdf . I strongly suggest that you read them.

I have read them. Both. In their entirety.

Then go back and do it again, because you seem to have misunderstood the content of Blizzard's filing.

Blizzard isn't claiming ownership of anything. Not yet. They are claiming potential damages if Valve is granted the right to trademark the name 'DOTA'.

They are moving to have Valve's trademark application stricken under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Which is a tacit claim of ownership.

However, Blizzard does not own the name. It is not theirs. Otherwise what Valve is doing would be illegal as Blizzard would already have the name trademarked.

With trademarks filed in 2003, 2004, and 2008, as well as a trademark acquisition in 2011, they certainly do, as well as any number of related marks.

Also, Blizzard does NOT own the mod. It is not theirs. In any way, shape, or form beyond the original Warcraft 3 assets used within. The names, concepts, and user-generated content are owned solely by the modders responsible for making them.

Actually it's not, as the developers surrendered their rights to the mod when they agreed to the terms of the EULA.

I still don't understand how people are not getting this. I've seen an alarming number of people thinking that a company owns a mod simply because it was made using that companies game engine or tool sets. This is not the case. At least, not with any game developer that allows 'open' mod development.

You're technically correct, as a general concept they don't. As a mater of contract law, the modders surrendered their rights to the work in order to have access to the tools. Is this equitable? No, not really, but that is how the contract they agreed to was written.

I mean, by that logic, Valve would own hundreds if not thousands of game titles. Simply because modders made custom content for the Source and Source: Gold engines. It would also mean that Epic Games owns Red Orchestra or, hell, that id Software owns that Doom 2 mod I made back in the 90's.

That all depends on the licensing agreements in each case. Epic Games does not own Red Orchestra because the developers of RO obtained a commercial license, which is not the same as the license that DOTA was produced under. Seriously, this is fucking simple as hell: not all contracts are the same. This is contract law, not some normative law regarding trademarks and copyright.

They don't. If a developer offers open mod development, they can't claim ownership for any user generated material unless they require the modders to sign a licensing agreement. A EULA and/or TOS is NOT a licensing agreement.

I'm sorry, can you try that again, the "End User License Agreement is not a 'license agreement'"? How the fuck does that make sense to you?

Like others have said, believing the developers own the mods made for their games is the equivalent of believing Sears and Stanley own your house because their tools were used to build it.

It is if Sears and Stanley made you sign a contract agreeing it was before they let you buy the tools. They didn't. Blizzard did. I get that this is complex, but please wrap your head around this before making vague generalizations on things you don't begin to understand.

 

[ResonanceGames]

Actually it's not, as the developers surrendered their rights to the mod when they agreed to the terms of the EULA.

I could hang a sign on my door that says if you enter my house I own everything you're wearing, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

The copyright status for mods is far from clear and has never been tested in court. Until a judge says one way or another, we don't know if the EULA is correct or not. It's very possible that it's not.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Out of curiosity, though, have you tried Dota 2 yet? I'm curious what a DOTA veteran thinks. I've been enjoying it so far but I'm relatively new to the game as I never really played it in the past. (the community turned me off of it)

I actually haven't touched it yet.
My friends all dragged me onto League of Legends last year, kicking and screaming, and even that I haven't played much lately simply due to my workload for classes (though part of it has to do with how the LoL community constantly makes me re-evaluate my value of human life).

When I go on Spring Break at the very end of this month, I may give DotA2 a fair shake if possible.
Based on what I've seen second-hand, I'm somewhat mixed on the issue. Too many of the assets look lifted straight out of Warcraft, and this is something I find confusing given that this is Valve, and not some random modders we're talking about.

The familiarity will help me ease into the game better than LoL for sure (hardcore Rhasta player here) but I can't help but wonder if there isn't more they should be doing here; taking established gameplay concepts and applying their own style to them.

Even the name "Defense of the Ancients" is a direct allusion to Warcraft lore.

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

I'll grant you, my general use of the term doesn't make sense, but what I was referencing is different. Still, that was my slip up. I'm so used to lumping those two acronyms together for other discussions it slipped my mind. Though, the EULA the players agree to is not the same as the licensing agreement and other contracts another developer would agree to in order to use that devs tools and assets. Especially given that the other dev is using said tools and assets for monetary gain. For the end user, Fair Use (somewhat) applies. Though that could be a stretch, admittedly.

"They are moving to have Valve's trademark application stricken under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Which is a tacit claim of ownership" - Except, in this case, their claims aren't that they own the name, but rather that Valve using the name would create brand confusion. I.E. people would see the name "Dota 2" and assume it's a Blizzard product. Basically, that everyone automatically associates DOTA with Blizzard. (which in-and-of itself is BS. though seeing the reaction of some on this topic, maybe not as farfetched as I thought.)

Resonance Gamer put it well. In a vacuum it seems clear cut. But in practice, the terms are vague and until a definite decision is made, it's all, in effect, meaningless.

I have to say, though, this whole thing seems very "SOPA-ish". Maybe not in it's entirety, but this whole debate on what rights the end user has and what say the big companies have in those rights seems very similar.

Whatever the case, I'm done with the whole thing. It's just not worth arguing over anymore. I'll keep my eye on the Dota 2 beta and on Blizzard DOTA. I'll let the respective companies battle out the BS. I'll just wait to see who comes out the 'victor'.

 

[Vigormortis]

Out of curiosity, though, have you tried Dota 2 yet? I'm curious what a DOTA veteran thinks. I've been enjoying it so far but I'm relatively new to the game as I never really played it in the past. (the community turned me off of it)

I actually haven't touched it yet.
My friends all dragged me onto League of Legends last year, kicking and screaming, and even that I haven't played much lately simply due to my workload for classes (though part of it has to do with how the LoL community constantly makes me re-evaluate my value of human life).

When I go on Spring Break at the very end of this month, I may give DotA2 a fair shake if possible.
Based on what I've seen second-hand, I'm somewhat mixed on the issue. Too many of the assets look lifted straight out of Warcraft, and this is something I find confusing given that this is Valve, and not some random modders we're talking about.

The familiarity will help me ease into the game better than LoL for sure (hardcore Rhasta player here) but I can't help but wonder if there isn't more they should be doing here; taking established gameplay concepts and applying their own style to them.

Even the name "Defense of the Ancients" is a direct allusion to Warcraft lore.

Apparently it's been argued that Dota 2 isn't actually an acronym for Defense of the Ancients 2. And even though that's likely true, it's still an obvious comparison. It's also an obvious attempt at brand recognition.

Frankly, the whole situation bothers me. I'm not entirely on board with Valve's decision in this, and I'm definitely not on board with Blizzards motives either.

What I'm curious about is; and this'll be a hypothetical situation; let's say Valve drops their attempts at trademarking the name. However, let's say, a month later Blizzard turns around, after winning their case, and tries to trademark the name DOTA. I wonder how many who are lambasting Valve over this, saying the name should remain 'public domain' would then side with Blizzard and say, "Well...they have a right to it. So I say they should own it."

Sadly, I'm inclined to think too many.

Though, I would champion anyone who would stand by their claims and would 'attack' Blizzard with the same zeal. Because if you're gonna call corporate BS on one; in this case; you need to call it on both.

 

[Starke]

Actually it's not, as the developers surrendered their rights to the mod when they agreed to the terms of the EULA.

I could hang a sign on my door that says if you enter my house I own everything you're wearing, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Of course if you make people sign a contract before they enter with a similar claim, you may have better luck, which is, incidentally, what's going on here.

The copyright status for mods is far from clear and has never been tested in court. Until a judge says one way or another, we don't know if the EULA is correct or not. It's very possible that it's not.

As much as I'm loathe to admit it, EULAs have held up in court, even trumping the First Sale Doctrine, which is pretty disturbing in and of itself. You're right, the copyright element is a bit dodgier, and has so far been untested, but in this case it's also kind of irrelevant. The two primary developers, the ones that would have had the IP rights for DOTA if they in fact did retain them, sold off their interests in DOTA to Blizzard in 2011, meaning, even if those copyrights and trademarks didn't belong to Blizzard before, they did after that transaction, and certainly do now, regardless of the EULA.

 

[Starke]

snip

I'll grant you, my general use of the term doesn't make sense, but what I was referencing is different. Still, that was my slip up. I'm so used to lumping those two acronyms together for other discussions it slipped my mind.

Kind of a critical thing to keep in mind, as it undermines your argument across the board. The thing to remember is a EULA is still a legally binding contract. Terms of Service are not, though they are often cited in a EULA as grounds to terminate the contract.

Though, the EULA the players agree to is not the same as the licensing agreement and other contracts another developer would agree to in order to use that devs tools and assets. Especially given that the other dev is using said tools and assets for monetary gain. For the end user, Fair Use (somewhat) applies. Though that could be a stretch, admittedly.

No, it really doesn't, and here's why: Fair Use Doctrine is a general law dealing with circumstances under which copyright infringement is in fact legally protected. I hate to phrase it as "infringement," but, that's generally what it is. If you skim ten minutes of a film off a DVD and post it to YouTube, that's infringement, fair use is an affirmative defense, basically, "yes, I did this, but it's okay because X."

As I pointed out a minute ago, a EULA is a contract, which you enter in to when you install the software. There may be circumstances where you could use Fair Use to circumvent signing said contract. IE: If you're a library and stripping out the DRM in the interest of archiving the data, or more dubiously, if you're in school and demonstrating how to unpack software from an archive without using the installer... or writing your own installer for existing archives.

But the fact remains: Fair Use Doctrine deals with copyright law. A EULA is an element of contract law. So far as this discussion is concerned, copyright is completely irrelevant.

"They are moving to have Valve's trademark application stricken under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d). Which is a tacit claim of ownership" - Except, in this case, their claims aren't that they own the name, but rather that Valve using the name would create brand confusion. I.E. people would see the name "Dota 2" and assume it's a Blizzard product. Basically, that everyone automatically associates DOTA with Blizzard. (which in-and-of itself is BS. though seeing the reaction of some on this topic, maybe not as farfetched as I thought.)

Which is in fact the point of Trademark law. Basically you seem to be conflating two seperate elements of intellectual property law. Trademark protects the integrity of your branding. Copyright protects the integrity of your intellectual property. While these can be the same thing, they're often separate things entirely.

Nearly the entire filing from Blizzard is afirmations over and over that they own the trademarks on DOTA. They refer to this both with themselves, and through the history of DOTA All-Stars.

Now, even if you're correct, that Blizzard shouldn't have obtained the trademark and copyright from the EULA directly (which I'll admit is a bit dodgy (but that's what courts are for)). They did obtain all intellectual property rights from DOTA All-Stars last year when they purchased the site's LLC from the original two devs.

Resonance Gamer put it well. In a vacuum it seems clear cut. But in practice, the terms are vague and until a definite decision is made, it's all, in effect, meaningless.

Honestly, a little bit of basic legal training in this case does clear things up massivly. It may be obtuse to those without experience reading court filings, but for those of us who have done it, it isn't really vague at all.

I have to say, though, this whole thing seems very "SOPA-ish". Maybe not in it's entirety, but this whole debate on what rights the end user has and what say the big companies have in those rights seems very similar.

I'm not seeing that, but again, basic legal training goes a long way.

Whatever the case, I'm done with the whole thing. It's just not worth arguing over anymore. I'll keep my eye on the Dota 2 beta and on Blizzard DOTA. I'll let the respective companies battle out the BS. I'll just wait to see who comes out the 'victor'.

No, it's not. But it is worth looking at and saying, this is pretty clear cut. It's also worth reminding anyone that claims that a "EULA isn't a license agreement" exactly what EULA stands for in the first place.

EDIT:

Apparently it's been argued that Dota 2 isn't actually an acronym for Defense of the Ancients 2. And even though that's likely true, it's still an obvious comparison. It's also an obvious attempt at brand recognition.

Frankly, the whole situation bothers me. I'm not entirely on board with Valve's decision in this, and I'm definitely not on board with Blizzards motives either.

What I'm curious about is; and this'll be a hypothetical situation; let's say Valve drops their attempts at trademarking the name. However, let's say, a month later Blizzard turns around, after winning their case, and tries to trademark the name DOTA. I wonder how many who are lambasting Valve over this, saying the name should remain 'public domain' would then side with Blizzard and say, "Well...they have a right to it. So I say they should own it."

Sadly, I'm inclined to think too many.

Apparently, though, Blizzard already holds a trademark on Defense of the Ancients. That citation of 15 USC 1052(d) in their filing as much as states they already had it trademarked, and the rest of the filing suggests it was filed in 2008. It's a little unclear if they filed for the trademark or DOTA All-Stars LLC did, but as Blizzard bought DOTA All-Stars last year, they would certainly have that trademark now.

Now, as to trademark law in general, it may sound, well, really stupid, but they honestly don't have a choice about pursuing this. The term "The Ancients" (referring to the units in WC3) are trademarked by Blizzard. DOTA refers to this unit. If they chose not to file in this case they would be abandoning that trademark. Meaning anyone who wanted to could then turn around and trademark "The Ancients" in some other context, and then potentially litigate against Blizzard for violating their trademark. In this case that other company would be Valve.

It's the way Trademark works, it's how we end up with Disney suing a privately owned bookstore for having a "Pooh's Corner" and then after wining the case, granting them the use of the name.

Is it right? Eh, it's certainly stupid, and probably just make-work for Lawyers, but it is the system we have.

Though, I would champion anyone who would stand by their claims and would 'attack' Blizzard with the same zeal. Because if you're gonna call corporate BS on one; in this case; you need to call it on both.

Honestly, I'm calling bullshit on the intellectual property laws as currently written, but that's a different kettle of festering fish.

 

[jizzytissue]

team fortress was a mod for quake and the gold source engine [half life 1 engine] is just a heavy modification of the quake engine. valve make good games but they can't for the life of them make original ides besides hl and portal the rest are sequels to mods so fair play to valve and blizzard activision you didn't make dota or copy right it so... you can't deny valve the right to make dota 2 m'kay

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I think they should do it together. God knows both companies probably have a epic man-crush on each other. They are both PC power houses.

 

[Kinichie]

Let's look at this from both angles here.

DOTA is a mod on Warcraft 3, and has been around for many many years. Now being trademarked by Valve.

Counter Strike is a mod for Half Life, which has been around for longer. Yes I believe Valve owns this now (And Day of Defeat), but before they did, what if Blizzard tried to make a Counter Strike 2?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Let's look at this from both angles here.

DOTA is a mod on Warcraft 3, and has been around for many many years. Now being trademarked by Valve.

Counter Strike is a mod for Half Life, which has been around for longer. Yes I believe Valve owns this now (And Day of Defeat), but before they did, what if Blizzard tried to make a Counter Strike 2?

Considering Valve co-developed Counterstrike and Half-Life 2 (I remember CS when it was called Action Quake 2, and on the vanilla Q2 engine that eventually became the Half-Life variant) there was no such conflict of interest at the time.

Valve was formed primarily from modders; or "Garage Gamers" as coined by John Carmack(IIRC), at the time (another example of that sort of relationship is Starsiege: Tribes -> Tribes 2. They called themselves "Garage Games" for a reason).

This is simply two different established companies fighting over a trademark, and I question whether Blizzard can actually claim ownership of work CONCEPTS made with their editor, since that would be like Microsoft claiming ownership of any concepts you type up in Microsoft Word.
The precedent for that hasn't been set yet, though I have little to no doubt it will favor the rich business with lawyers, as the law always does.

 

[Parnage]

The real sad bit here is how very distrusting you guys are of a company. Even more so when they are on the record for a position but you consider it a lie. Because Blizzard is well known for lieing and treating it's community horridly? Right? No.. No of course not. Just because you have a gripe against them doesn't mean they have a gripe against you.

Dota should be a term for all. Valve trying to claim it for themselves is to be blunt, bullshit. As Blizzard is the only one standing against it, of course I agree with them. And because the history shows that they are not likely to screw people over at least intentionally I am going to say they might just want it for everyone to use so they too can be part of that everyone. I am not ignorant to how the industry works but I also realize it's a Win win for Blizzard if it stays how it is now.

If they turn around and do it themselves I'd want Valve/Riot and whoever else to stop them. However I doubt they will because they don't need to.

 

[walrusaurus]

Since the article didn't really make it clear. Blizzard isn't actually trying to trademark "DotA" for themselves, they are simply trying to prevent Valve from doing so. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed the trademark to the word Dota at this point, its become synonymous with the genre.

 

[Starke]

Since the article didn't really make it clear. Blizzard isn't actually trying to trademark "DotA" for themselves, they are simply trying to prevent Valve from doing so. Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed the trademark to the word Dota at this point, its become synonymous with the genre.

Actually Blizzard already has the "DotA" trademark, either from their own filing or because DOTA-AllStars LLC registered it, and was later eaten by Blizzard.