Jimquisition: The Saga Scrolls: Edge of Candy
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Well, guess I'm off to check out fist of the north star. Funny how anytime Jim does a rather pointless episode (or at least one that's not controversial at all) he ends up making a reference to a show or game that I've never heard of and all the comments are about how great it is. You guys usually have great taste, so I can't wait to watch.
PS. With all this trademark stuff happening should I not be developing my latest game, Sugar Squash?
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.Mezahmay said:
PS. With all this trademark stuff happening should I not be developing my latest game, Sugar Squash?
The problem with law AS A WHOLE is that a lot of the time it's who has the most money, not who's in the right, who wins, because either you use the chilling effect to stop someone from doing something perfectly legal, or you bleed them out over time as they run out of money to pay for their lawyers. Why is there no system where the judge can force the other party to pay your legal fees, ESPECIALLY when they say "we know we're wasting everyone's time here"?
Lol, your name's quite appropriate for this one. I read once that most of the time laws and policies make a lot more sense if you consider they're not about right and wrong, but about protecting interests.Infernal Lawyer said:
@ 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.
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.
How does MTG do that, outside the fact its a TCG?AdagioBoognish said:
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.Adam Locking said:
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.
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.
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)Adam Locking said:
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.
Agreed [http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/i-cant-take-credit-for-this-joke].Bittersteel said:Fist of the North Star is fucking awesome. It is so damn awesome that we need more of it:
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.GrinningCat said:
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.
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.Adam Locking said:
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.
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 said:
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...GrinningCat said:
That'll learn me
It happened in the 1890'sRandV80 said:
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.
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.
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.
already happened during the youtube fiasco highlights.Thanatos2k said:
You are aware that Apple has trademark on "round edges" actually, and any phone that has round edges is technically breaking their copyright.daxterx2005 said:
