Candy Crush Studio" Banner Saga Complaint Is To Fight "Real Copycats" - UPDATED

[Strazdas]

Doesn't this mean that King just admitted that their action against the Banner Saga is frivolous and a waste of the court's time? Does that open them up to some liability?

Objectively and morally? Totally. They're straight-up admitting "Yes, we know they aren't trying to infringe on us and there is no actual copyright infringement in this case. But we're trying to block them from using the name anyway."

Technically and legally, they are actually probably in the right. Under US copyright law, if a studio doesn't defend their copyright against ALL potential infringement, it actually weakens the copyright and their ability to protect it down the road. Or that is the reasoning a lot of big companies use, at any rate. It's the same reason that a lot of the big videogame companies go around shutting down fan-projects, no matter how respectful to the material they are, or how much the makers assure that it is non-profit. It isn't actually about whether or not someone does damage to your IP, it is about the legal perception of how strong your hold on the IP is. It's all very dumb.

In this particular case, it's a staggeringly wealthy company (these Candy Crush guys literally make millions a day on their game) being patent trolls simply because they can. They probably make more in a week than The Banner Saga will ever make in its entire release lifetime, and they know it.

as has been pointed before This is absolutely false [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet]
They do not need to persecute companies to hold their trademark. Thisi s trademark law, which is DIFFERENT from copyright law.
IP is a made up word that has no actual meaning and should never ever be used. it does not represent anything real. There is no such thing as intellectual property.

 

[Raioken18]

I'm thinking of making a game, Lolly Crush Adventure. Avoids all the copyright stuff XD totally legit.

 

[craddoke]

Technically and legally, they are actually probably in the right. Under US copyright law, if a studio doesn't defend their copyright against ALL potential infringement, it actually weakens the copyright and their ability to protect it down the road.

Yes, I understand that (and actually work in an industry where similar actions are commonplace). My point was that you generally don't want to say -- and especially be recorded saying -- that your legal action is insincere. My experience is that everyone pretends in all recorded meetings and communication that the case is legitimate (even if the water-cooler talk is more honest). This message from King.com could be admissible as evidence in the hearing.

 

[Sean Strife]

So "these guys aren't infringing, but we want to hurt them anyway, just in case someone does infringe in the future".

What a fuckin' load of horseshit. What kind of idiot thinks like that? And then to go online and flat-out admit that you're wrong and don't care? Double idiots.

I get the feeling they're admitting it because of the backlash and are trying to calm people down because there's been backlash against them: everybody getting mad about their pursuing of The Banners Saga, plus the Candy copyright has led to Candy Jam, which is no doubt a form of protest against what they did to Candy Slots.

If King wants to see where their future is going: just look at Zynga. Zynga was thought to be this unstoppable monster for a few years, and now look at them: scratching at the walls just to survive. They cater to a market that isn't as dedicated as the hardcore market: all you have to do is show them something else shiny and new and they'll flock to it like sheep. It happened to Zynga's Ville games, and it'll happen to Candy Crush. So go ahead King.com... enjoy your time at the top, because it will come to an end before you know it and you will wind up just like Zynga right now: trying to survive because your "loyal fanbase" have moved on to their new shiny toy of the year.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

I wonder what King envisions a "real copycat" might be. They wouldn't really have any basis for a suit on any title unless it were something like Candy Crash Saga, and The Banner Saga really has nothing to do with that.

Maybe if there were some kind of "Saga" game that had the same sort of font and aesthetic as their games, which again does not apply to The Banner Saga.

Honestly it seems like King is just trying to kick the dog [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog].

I haven't heard a leap in logic this bad since the Reapers. "We preserve organic life by killing it so it doesn't get killed by synthetics even though we are synthetics that just killed said organics."

The Catalyst says that the Reapers are a temporary solution to the problem of organic-synthetic conflict and that every Cycle is an experiment to find a permanent solution. Also I suppose from it's synthetic perspective the organics slaughtered in each harvest aren't really dead since a wide sampling of each species' intelligences and genetic codes are preserved by the Reapers.

 

[Micalas]

Why should you be able to trademark words that have existed for thousands of years? Why should you be able to trademark things that you didn't create. Next they'll be after Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga

Nah, they wouldn't do that. Then they'd be fighting companies that actually have the means to fight back.


I think the funniest part about this whole thing is that NO ONE calls the game "Candy Crush Saga." They just call it Candy Crush. I've seen people on my friends list playing Banner Saga but I didn't really have any interest in it. Now I'm going to buy it to help the company.

 

[Auberon]

Square Enix included, as mentioned above - they retroactively infringe by 14 years.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This isn't even an issue with modern copyright law (or trademarks). It isn't necessary to defend your IP from precedent that doesn't exist. Hell, precedent didn't exist at all until King dragged them into court over nothing.

The only reason they're going after Banner Saga is because the developers lack the financial resources to fight back. It's predation of the sickest kind.

It's very fitting that the oppressor here is King; Bankers and Lawyers rule the world; as kings and their vassals.
Everyone else is just permitted to live (or die) in their domains.

 

[sageoftruth]

Doesn't this mean that King just admitted that their action against the Banner Saga is frivolous and a waste of the court's time? Does that open them up to some liability?

He certainly seems to believe that, probably because it is, thanks to broken copyright laws. Reading other comments, I'd say he's handling this matter with a good deal of class. His main faux pas was deciding to copyright "Saga". That's just wrong.

 

[Liviola]

Ugh, go away King, you greedy producers of utter crap and leave this legitimately good game alone. The Banner Saga is more of an appropriate use of the word "saga" than Candy Crush.

Makes me sad when a company that has made billions out of a cheap exploitative pay-to-win game has to power to put down companies that want to make real art with a game.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Everyone, please say it with me.
THIS. IS. NOT. A. COPYRIGHT. ISSUE. THIS. IS. A. TRADEMARK. ISSUE.
This is not a copyright issue, this is a trademark issue.
Trademark, not copyright.
Not copyright, trademark.
The two are completely different, and have completely different laws that apply to each.
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished.
Trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others.

I'm sorry, but I've just seen the word "copyright" thrown around too much when this isn't about copyright at all.

 

[demoman_chaos]

This coming from a company that all but blatantly ripped off Bejeweled. By the gods these fuckers need to just die horrible and painful deaths.

 

[Greymanelor]

Does anyone else find it ironic that King claims they were pursuing this to prevent "player confusion," yet it is entirely due to their action that The Banner Saga and their own games have become associated?

I'd be deeply surprised if a Google search for 'Candy Crush Saga' prior to this turned up even a single hit for The Banner Saga until you got to the high hundreds.

 

[marioandsonic]

Today's Penny Arcade comic made me laugh about this whole situation:

Spoiler

And as others have pointed out before, I find it bizarre that a company that pretty much just ripped off Bejeweled is trying to get rid of copycats.

 

[blackbishop]

Technically and legally, they are actually probably in the right. Under US copyright law, if a studio doesn't defend their copyright against ALL potential infringement, it actually weakens the copyright and their ability to protect it down the road.

Yes, I understand that (and actually work in an industry where similar actions are commonplace). My point was that you generally don't want to say -- and especially be recorded saying -- that your legal action is insincere. My experience is that everyone pretends in all recorded meetings and communication that the case is legitimate (even if the water-cooler talk is more honest). This message from King.com could be admissible as evidence in the hearing.

No, they have no grounds to claim what they do and they don't need to do it to begin with.

Just like @Strazdas said, it is not necessary.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet