Jimquisition: The Saga Scrolls: Edge of Candy

[Adam Locking]

@ Jim, saying letting any company produce Playstations would be bad

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing? Other companies are allowed to make DVD players and the like, and would help consumer choice. Someone (ie me) would happily spend an extra £100 on a console made from "premium" parts designed to last more than a decade, someone else might want one in a silver finish to match their stereo system, or one with removable storage, or a combined PS3/4 to take up less space on their shelf.

Would also make it easier to buy PS1/PS2/N64/Dreamcasts/whatevers new when one breaks, rather than going for referbed used models of questionable lifespan.

 

[Knight Templar]

Off to check this one out as well. I've been looking for a fun TCG style game that doesn't try to forcefully suck the money out of my pocket like Magic the gathering.

How does MTG do that, outside the fact its a TCG?

@ Jim, saying letting any company produce Playstations would be bad

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing?

Consoles are expensive to make, they normally take years to make their money back. The PS3 for example was released in late 2006, but Sony only started to make money for selling them in early 2010. Consoles themselves spend most of their time not making any profit, and when they do its a miniscule amount, that level of investment is simply absurd when any company can just copy what you made and can deprive you of licence fees in addition to direct hardware sales.
If the copystations actually cause any harm isn't even the point though, if they were permitted it would discourage creative, inventive works and jeopardize the ability of the creator to benefit from their work.

That's the same reason why excessive and predatory actions like King's are a bad thing, it runs counter to the very point of these laws and regulations. As broken as the system is, there is a reason for it to exist.

 

[altdoom]

I said your name and I ejaculated.

 

[McKitten]

One important thing that Jim doesn't mention is that trademark law doesn't actually work the way extortionists like King claim. Yes, there is, in principle, the idea of "use it or lose it" in trademark law. But that doesn't mean King are being forced to sue anyone using "Candy" or "Saga". It only applies if Trademark infringement is causing significant harm, and the trademark owner sued with unreasonable delay. I.e. you can't just ignore someone who's making millions of your trademark for a couple of years and then go sue them. If you do that, the other party can argue that you've implicitly given them permission. Which by the way also doesn't mean that everyone else immediately gets permission as well. Trademark law may still be idiotic, but it isn't that idiotic. If King decides to sue the creators of The Banner Saga it's not because they're required to in any way. It's because they choose to be assholes, and anything else they say are just excuses to try and avoid the bad publicity.

@ Jim, saying letting any company produce Playstations would be bad

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing? Other companies are allowed to make DVD players and the like, and would help consumer choice. Someone (ie me) would happily spend an extra £100 on a console made from "premium" parts designed to last more than a decade, someone else might want one in a silver finish to match their stereo system, or one with removable storage, or a combined PS3/4 to take up less space on their shelf.

Would also make it easier to buy PS1/PS2/N64/Dreamcasts/whatevers new when one breaks, rather than going for referbed used models of questionable lifespan.

It would be bad for Sony profits, which is the only thing that counts. Copyrights and patents used to work when they were still doing what was intended: give creators a time-limited monopoly on their inventions so they can be the first to profit from them, reimbursing them for their work. Ever since it has progresses into 100+ years and "intellectual property" (a recently made-up propaganda term by the way) it stopped working as it should and is actually stifling creativity. (imagine if people still had to pay license money to Mercedes Benz for building "automobiles", and if they could simply deny granting the licence to any unwelcome competitors)

 

[Orekoya]

Patent laws are just as arbitrary and awful. I was denied a patent for the exterior being an open topped box that was similar to what was listed in someone else's patent in the same field despite being completely different products. My appeals landed on deaf ears and now I'll have to wait up to thirteen more years for that patent to expire.

Fist of the North Star is fucking awesome. It is so damn awesome that we need more of it:

Agreed [http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/i-cant-take-credit-for-this-joke].

 

[Abnaxis]

Oh, yes, if I were King and I had made a successful rip-off of Bejeweled, Peggle, and Puzzle Bobble, why, I sure would be mad about a company copying my games, too!

Oh wait...

Mechanics have absolutely 0% to do with this discussion. King is suing over the Candy Crush brand. It's not hypocritical of them to do so even if their work is derivative (in fact, every creative work is derivative, which is why some corners of patent and copyright law are ridiculous, but that's another topic of discussion). Yes, they made a Bejewelled clone with Farmville micro-transaction and sharing features, but did they call it "Begemmed" to trick everyone into buying King's game when they really wanted Bejeweled? No.

At the same time, when you search any relevant mobile store, you will find countless apps with a name and an icon similar to Candy Crush (I mean, there's "Candy Crunch" ffs) that are clearly trying to fool King's customers. These parasites aren't creating derivative works, they're trying to trick consumers.

This is why we have trademark laws. It is fraudulent, underhanded, and petty to pull this kind of fraud to gyp people out of their money, and it is bad for everybody. That's why it's illegal.

Again, I'm not saying King is completely in the right. They have hundreds of leeches in the cesspools that are the app stores, yet they go after a small kickstarted PC developer that King themselves admits isn't doing them any harm. It's also pretty ridiculous to trademark "Saga," when that's not really a prominent part of King's brand. These are dick moves.

At the same time though, it isn't fair to jump down their throats for trying to trademark "Candy" when they probably really are losing a lot of money to "Candy X" dickheads who are hurting consumers to boot. That's how you're supposed to respond to people defrauding your customers.

 

[Abnaxis]

@ Jim, saying letting any company produce Playstations would be bad

Why would this necessarily be a bad thing? Other companies are allowed to make DVD players and the like, and would help consumer choice. Someone (ie me) would happily spend an extra £100 on a console made from "premium" parts designed to last more than a decade, someone else might want one in a silver finish to match their stereo system, or one with removable storage, or a combined PS3/4 to take up less space on their shelf.

Would also make it easier to buy PS1/PS2/N64/Dreamcasts/whatevers new when one breaks, rather than going for referbed used models of questionable lifespan.

I might be speaking for Jim here, but I don't think he would have a problem if a company besides Sony started producing consoles that can run Playstation games at lower cost. The problem comes if that third party starts calling their consoles "Playstation", try to trick people into thinking it is a Sony machine when it isn't, and try to charge them the higher-quality price for their knock-off. As long as you can tell the difference between the products it's all gravy (though there's probably some patent bullshit that means it would still be impossible) it's when rip-offs try to defraud everyone that it starts turning ugly.

 

[ran88dom99]

Sell right to that one word to people who don't deserve to be sued and the system isn't caustic. The lawyers knew that so the lawsuits were frivolous at least.

 

[TheIceQueen]

Oh, yes, if I were King and I had made a successful rip-off of Bejeweled, Peggle, and Puzzle Bobble, why, I sure would be mad about a company copying my games, too!

Oh wait...

Mechanics have absolutely 0% to do with this discussion. King is suing over the Candy Crush brand. It's not hypocritical of them to do so even if their work is derivative (in fact, every creative work is derivative, which is why some corners of patent and copyright law are ridiculous, but that's another topic of discussion). Yes, they made a Bejewelled clone with Farmville micro-transaction and sharing features, but did they call it "Begemmed" to trick everyone into buying King's game when they really wanted Bejeweled? No.

At the same time, when you search any relevant mobile store, you will find countless apps with a name and an icon similar to Candy Crush (I mean, there's "Candy Crunch" ffs) that are clearly trying to fool King's customers. These parasites aren't creating derivative works, they're trying to trick consumers.

This is why we have trademark laws. It is fraudulent, underhanded, and petty to pull this kind of fraud to gyp people out of their money, and it is bad for everybody. That's why it's illegal.

Again, I'm not saying King is completely in the right. They have hundreds of leeches in the cesspools that are the app stores, yet they go after a small kickstarted PC developer that King themselves admits isn't doing them any harm. It's also pretty ridiculous to trademark "Saga," when that's not really a prominent part of King's brand. These are dick moves.

At the same time though, it isn't fair to jump down their throats for trying to trademark "Candy" when they probably really are losing a lot of money to "Candy X" dickheads who are hurting consumers to boot. That's how you're supposed to respond to people defrauding your customers.

You can relax, hon. I was just making a joke. It's all about the hee-hee's and the ha-ha's. I couldn't care less about this entire situation. I didn't even read what you said past the first paragraph, that's how little I care.

 

[Abnaxis]

You can relax, hon. I was just making a joke. It's all about the hee-hee's and the ha-ha's. I couldn't care less about this entire situation. I didn't even read what you said past the first paragraph, that's how little I care.

Eh, I have way too much time on my hands today, and it was irritating me that people don't seem to know the difference between trademark, patent, and copyright laws. I always kinda took it for granted that people knew the difference...

That'll learn me

 

[direkiller]

Another interesting thing to note, the US actually has little respect itself for things like international copyright and trademarks. Everyone's heard the name of stuff like Kobe beef or Champagne. I forget all the details here but these are actually long standing international awarded trade marks for products created in specific regions in the world. The US never used to give a shit for these things though so they just ignore it and have let their own business use the names to sell their products.

I'm Canadian and we pretty much do the same thing, but at least we're not going around the world cock slapping everyone else with copyright & trademark laws that are important to our own businesses.

Not true - these days you can't find U.S.-made "champagne" in U.S. stores, instead finding "sparkling wine". The same holds true for port - if it's origin is the U.S. they aren't allowed to call it port (I've spoken to vineyard owners about this, because I'm a nerd and that's what I do when I go wine-tasting). If you see champagne, port, burgundy, etc in the U.S. that is actually labeled as such, read the bottle, and you'll see that it isn't made in the U.S. (though it might be bottled here).

I haven't paid attention to the current status for non-alcoholic beverage items, like meat and cheese, so I'm not sure how they are currently working.

Okay fair enough, I remember reading about this I think just a year ago so it must have been pretty recent?

It happened in the 1890's

Although there is one company that can use the term Champagne when the product it makes is not from the Champagne region, but they are protected by a trade agreement made around that time so they are respecting Trademark law.

 

[daxterx2005]

Next a company will try and copyright "The" or something idiotic like that.

 

[Strazdas]

Jim, i completely agree with your opinion here, but you are wrong on one fact. And you are wrong on it probably because companies continuously lie about it to the point where it has became a myth known to many.
complanies do not need to sue anyone with a similar trademark to keep it [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet]. Companies that tell you that are either hiring incompetent lawyers or are lieing because they dont want to be seen as cocks.

(Next week, Microsoft youtube corruption?)

already happened during the youtube fiasco highlights.

Next a company will try and copyright "The" or something idiotic like that.

You are aware that Apple has trademark on "round edges" actually, and any phone that has round edges is technically breaking their copyright.

 

[leviadragon99]

Huh, so that's what this was about... yeah fuck King.com.

 

[Andreas Hallqvist]

I agree and disagree.

I disagree that King is a patent troll, they actually have a game in the market to base their claims on. They oppose a trademark application because of their own trademark application for an identifier of their games. They fight people trying to steal their thunder.
I believe they are in the right for actually going ahead, but the people who look at the case of Banner Saga should find that they are not in the same market (and perhaps require that Banner Saga state they are not a King game, but not more).

I agree that trademark and patent trolling is hurting most industries (except the lawyer business) and modernization is required, and that not having a product in the market OR in development with adequate work being done should invalidate trademarks and general idea patents.

King makes addictive microtransactiondriving simple games. They are not pushing the cultural side of gaming ahead and are perhaps hurting efforts to present serious games as art. But they are also a company in the business of making addictive games that people pay to play - which they are doing great at.
I think the consumer needs to be educated and the discussion of what is good and bad games needs to continue, because in the end all companies want to print money with something like Candy Crush. But those of us who wants to see games elevated don't care about money, just good games.

 

[Knight Templar]

Jim, i completely agree with your opinion here, but you are wrong on one fact. And you are wrong on it probably because companies continuously lie about it to the point where it has became a myth known to many.
companies do not need to sue anyone with a similar trademark to keep it [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet]. Companies that tell you that are either hiring incompetent lawyers or are lying because they don't want to be seen as cocks.

It seems that King doesn't currently hold a trademark for the word "saga", they are applying for it. If true then in this case they kinda do need to go after anybody using it, because it undermines their claim (for entirely obvious and valid reasons, in my uneducated opinion).

 

[Something Amyss]

IP laws don't need a huge overhaul. They need a few well-placed patches.

Things do definitely need to change, though.

 

[Something Amyss]

I disagree that King is a patent troll, they actually have a game in the market to base their claims on.

It'd be hard to be a patent troll in a trademark dispute. However, having a stake in the market doesn't mean they're not effectively trolling through zealous threats of litigation.

First off, some clarification. I can't find a "Candy": trademark from the owners of King.com. All I can find is a trademark on the phrase "Candy Crush." I'm wondering if this whole thing is misinterpretation, because none of the articles link to anything definitive. The idea of trademarking "candy" is a bad one in the first place. Part of the issue with trademark is mark strength. Trademarking something like "candy" already puts you in a tenuous position. And Langdell lost because his net was too wide, despite having a brand to protect.

"Candy Crush" is a more reasonable trademark, but the problem is that they're firing off legal notice to everyone with "candy" in their name, even if it's the only similarity. That is where this all veers into troll territory. Imagine if Pizza Hut started filing claims against anyone using the word "pizza."

And there is literally no reason for anyone to have to make a disclaimer about a game with "saga" in the name.

Let's be specific: the problem here is that they're not likely going to be able to keep their trademark on challenge, but that they're capable of doing a lot of damage until they lose. That they can go beyond any reasonable scope and threaten to shut down people over use of a common word is damaging to gaming, even if nobody else involved cared about the money. They can tank people. It's no different than someone "outside the industry" doing it.