Mojang Vs Bethesda

[Shamanic Rhythm]

The only real point of contention here, far as I can see, is not Bethesda's rights, but the broadness of the "scrolls" application. Notch really is the bad guy here, for attempting to pull something that broad. Rather than it being Mojang infringing, Mojang's trademark would effectively make it so Bethesda was infringing.

Absolutely.

In other news, I got sued last night by Bethesda because I used the word 'Rage' in a story title. That's right, apparently they trademarked the term for their ID-developed shooter 'Rage' and because of how broad that application was, they can sue anyone they like.

 

[Knusper]

I love Fallout 3 and Oblivion, but I'm still siding with the little guy here. Personally, I think it's because Bethesda is jealous of Mojang for winning the Developers Showdown last year.

 

[Tharwen]

I think it is absurd that they are trying to take sole ownership of a word.

They're not. Everyone keeps saying that, but it's wrong. Their claim is that Scrolls will be unfairly taking advantage of the Elder Scrolls trademark that they have built up over the last decade or so. While I agree that that's a fairly tenuous claim, it is simply wrong to say that they are trying to own the word.

 

[vivalahelvig]

The ignorance in these threads is AMAZING!!
I mean, seriously folks, this isnt bethesda being mad at mojang or just lawyers being lawyers.

This is lawyers fighting a trademark because IF THEY LET MOJANG CALL THIS GAME SCROLLS, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE NO LEGAL BACKING AND ANYONE COULD MAKE A GAME USING SCOLLS OR SOME KNOCKOFF OF A ELDER SCROLLS GAME. It isn't about confusion, its about TRADEMARK infringment and if they don't defend their trademark, PEOPLE CAN MAKE GAMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY CONFUSING AND CAN TAKE REVENUE AWAY FROM BETHESDA AND ZENIMAX.

I've had enough of so many people saying "How could one confuse that?" or "This is just Bethesda being dicks to the little guy".

And Notch didnt say he would drop the trademark, he just said he would ADD A SUBTITLE, not call it something else like "Jeff brown's card battle game".

Fucking hell, guys.

 

[Something Amyss]

In other news, I got sued last night by Bethesda because I used the word 'Rage' in a story title. That's right, apparently they trademarked the term for their ID-developed shooter 'Rage' and because of how broad that application was, they can sue anyone they like.

Cute, trite, but seems to be missing the point. Unless, of course, you're just trying to take the piss out of things.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I lately read an article which stated that this whole ordeal is not about the fact that the two games may be confused, but that if Mojang gets trough with the copyright of 'Scrolls' they have the legal right to sue Bethesda instead for the fact that 'The Elder Scrolls' contain the word 'Scrolls'.

The only logical thing I've heard about the case so far. I chalk it up as repercussions of Tim Langdell.

But I wonder how much water it really holds, as Bethesda has had the TES copyright, far longer. Kinda puts me in mind of when the Turkish town of Batman sued DC comics for name stealing, despite being founded nearly five decades after the titular character.

 

[JochemDude]

Apple Corps v Apple Computer.
Apple Corps was using the name first. They won an $80,000 settlement AND Apple Computer weren't allowed into the music distribution business.
If this goes to court, Bethesda's lawyers can pull out this precedent, win the case and possibly put Mojang out of business. Even if Mojang change the name, there's still the possibility of a massive settlement.

Don't know about that, they are fighting this out on Mojang's turf Sweden which is ( very ) lenient when it comes to copyright ( Like 'justifying' the pirate bay ) So I actually doubt wether Bethesda should even dare to make a copyright claim in Sweden court 'cause it doesn't end well for them.

 

[spartan231490]

Poll this and I will quickly choose Bethesda, despite hating all of their games. Lawfully, and logically, it seems to be the right choice.

^this. Majong is the one being a dick in all this. Rename your game, how hard is that? it's not even like your game has any goddamn thing to do with scrolls in the first place anyway. Name it "Majong Pyramid" that would make sense.

Bathesda didn't even jump straight to lawsuit, they informed Majong that they were infringing on "The Elder Scrolls" copyright, and asked them to stop. Majong continued, and deserves what they get.

I think it is absurd that they are trying to take sole ownership of a word. If they win, anyone who has written a book, produced a movie or TV show with any of the words the/elder/scrolls, should launch a lawsuit against bethesda and site this lawsuit as reason they should win. Claiming sole ownership over a word is insane, and name one elder scrolls game where you call it elder scrolls 4 or 5. Most people call them Skyrim, Oblivion, Morrowind, etc. If mojang named their game Skyrim, sure bethesda would have a case.

Besides, are bethesda's lawyers busy trying to stop Fallout online? Do they really have time for another frivolous lawsuit?

Imagine if Dungeons and Dragons could take over total control of those those words, or final fantasy, or any of these series. It's a recipe for madness.

Just a little fun fact: It is not Bethesda who tried to take the ownership of this word. Mojang tried it and Bethesda fought back because this word is in the title of their franchise. Just so you start thinking:

Scrolls trademark is over 300 words long, applies in TV, radio and every form of virtual media.

The Elder Scrolls trademark is limited to some things like T Shirts (The Elder Scrolls in full use) and "fantasy games printed on CD and DVD". I can tattoo this trademark on my little finger.

So yes, it is clearly Bethesda who wanted to take control over 1 word. Please people, start to inform yourself before you blabber bullshit.

Also: I call games from The Elder Scrolls series always with "TES [Number]: subtitle". When I speak about it I always start with the full name.

I call the games "TES [Number]: subtitle" as well, I think it's more common among gamers who were alive when the earlier ones came out, but I can't be sure.
to clarify, I often shorten to just the subtitle on the internet, but I often write u, i, and etc as well

And Majong really tried that, fuck they were/are being even bigger dicks than I thought.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

Poll this and I will quickly choose Bethesda, despite hating all of their games. Lawfully, and logically, it seems to be the right choice.

this seems fairly accurate, but I personally like some of their games, but the Scrolls series isn't one of them (oddly enough though, all my other friends are crazy for it).

I think Mojang are just being babies.

 

[spartan231490]

I call the games "TES [Number]: subtitle" as well, I think it's more common among gamers who were alive when the earlier ones came out, but I can't be sure.

And Majong really tried that, fuck they were/are being even bigger dicks than I thought.

http://kotaku.com/5846111/mojang-v-bethesda-or-i-hate-it-when-mommy-and-daddy-fight

There you can find it. Interesting article, together with the recent article on escapist I simply fail to see a clear victim in one of those two. To be honest, it is more likely that they are both victims of the trademark laws.

Also: I am not really old enough to have played the older TES games, I started with the third installment. But I tend to call games the way they are called on the box. And my The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind box clearly says that the title of this game is not "Morrowind".

To clarify, I said people who were born when the early ones come out. In retrospect, it would have been faster to just say what I fricking meant and say people who played any of the TES games before TES IV: Oblivion.
Again, no idea if that's accurate or not, but it's the impression that I have gotten

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

In other news, I got sued last night by Bethesda because I used the word 'Rage' in a story title. That's right, apparently they trademarked the term for their ID-developed shooter 'Rage' and because of how broad that application was, they can sue anyone they like.

Cute, trite, but seems to be missing the point. Unless, of course, you're just trying to take the piss out of things.

I don't believe it's missing the point, no. I fail to see how the breadth of Mojang's 'Scrolls' trademark application is anywhere near out of the ordinary in terms of what people nail down the rights to. People are blowing it out of proportion because it's just a single word and they're inventing ridiculous stories about how they would be able to do what Tim Langdell did with 'Edge' - ignoring the fact that he got his ass handed to him for trying that, and that there have been other single words trademarked for longer without them being removed from our vocabulary or indeed from trademarks (hence there is Apple, and Apple Corps, and only one makes iPhones).

Not to mention that Notch offered to change the trademark so that it was "Scrolls: Something Something", which would invalidate any of these ridiculous arguments that he's trying to remove the word Scrolls from the language. But that wasn't good enough for Bethesda, who believe that trademarking the term 'The Elder Scrolls' gives them the right and the legal obligation to go after anyone who uses one of those words in isolation, and they are pursuing the lawsuit, so if he does end up owning the word 'Scrolls', it will be because Bethesda pursued the matter to court.

And people can seriously argue that Notch is the bad guy in all this?

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't believe it's missing the point, no. I fail to see how the breadth of Mojang's 'Scrolls' trademark application is anywhere near out of the ordinary in terms of what people nail down the rights to. People are blowing it out of proportion because it's just a single word and they're inventing ridiculous stories about how they would be able to do what Tim Langdell did with 'Edge' - ignoring the fact that he got his ass handed to him for trying that, and that there have been other single words trademarked for longer without them being removed from our vocabulary or indeed from trademarks (hence there is Apple, and Apple Corps, and only one makes iPhones).

Which is nice, except Langdell did cost people money in the process and do damage. Similarly, Spike Lee did the same, suing people who used "Spike." Oddly enough, the fact that he had his "ass handed to him" has little comfort.

Apple inc. and Apple Corp. Have limited purviews and agreements between them. Which were overstepped, led to lawsuits, and further agreements. Funny, though that that case DID mandate legal action, which is exactly what people are worried about here.

See, it's not so much inventing ridiculous stories. Your own examples included real ones.

Not to mention that Notch offered to change the trademark so that it was "Scrolls: Something Something", which would invalidate any of these ridiculous arguments that he's trying to remove the word Scrolls from the language.

You mean stuff which the lawyers have refuted? Yeah, good chance Notch is lying, like he was when he tried the "picking on the little guy" card.

But that wasn't good enough for Bethesda, who believe that trademarking the term 'The Elder Scrolls' gives them the right and the legal obligation to go after anyone who uses one of those words in isolation, and they are pursuing the lawsuit, so if he does end up owning the word 'Scrolls', it will be because Bethesda pursued the matter to court.

And now you're the one making up stories.

And people can seriously argue that Notch is the bad guy in all this?

Seems like most anyone who has actually paid attention thinks both companies are being asshats. Doesn't make Notch any less a liar, though.

 

[Nevermore43]

Russ Pitts wrote an interesting article that really changed my view about the entire thing: http://kotaku.com/5846111/mojang-v-bethesda-or-i-hate-it-when-mommy-and-daddy-fight

This article is so obviously biased and written by someone who isn't even trying to be objective.

And as for the Apple Computer vs Apple Corps thing - the legal precedent is all about the idea that reasonable people could be confused and think that they were the same thing. No one is going to think that a game called "Scrolls" and a series of games called "The Elder Scrolls" are related.

Hell, by the EXACT logic Bethesda is using, no one would ever be able to make a game called "Dragon" because Squeenix owns the rights to "Dragon Quest."

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Russ Pitts wrote an interesting article that really changed my view about the entire thing: http://kotaku.com/5846111/mojang-v-bethesda-or-i-hate-it-when-mommy-and-daddy-fight

This article is so obviously biased and written by someone who isn't even trying to be objective.

And as for the Apple Computer vs Apple Corps thing - the legal precedent is all about the idea that reasonable people could be confused and think that they were the same thing. No one is going to think that a game called "Scrolls" and a series of games called "The Elder Scrolls" are related.

Hell, by the EXACT logic Bethesda is using, no one would ever be able to make a game called "Dragon" because Squeenix owns the rights to "Dragon Quest."

The US patent office believes they are close enough to merit action due to possible consumer confusion there still isn't any word on what bethesda or zenimax believes on that particular issue beyond "We should do what the government office holding us by the balls says."

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Really? I think it is the opposite. It is bringing attention to me what a childish douche that Notch is. I would side with Bethesda over this in a second.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Which is nice, except Langdell did cost people money in the process and do damage. Similarly, Spike Lee did the same, suing people who used "Spike." Oddly enough, the fact that he had his "ass handed to him" has little comfort.

Apple inc. and Apple Corp. Have limited purviews and agreements between them. Which were overstepped, led to lawsuits, and further agreements. Funny, though that that case DID mandate legal action, which is exactly what people are worried about here.

See, it's not so much inventing ridiculous stories. Your own examples included real ones.

It's little comfort that they upheld the law to the point of revoking his trademark over the word 'Edge'? So the system has shown that if people try and abuse it by trademarking individual words and suing people for their use as components of trademarks, they will be punished, and that's not good enough for you?

As far as I can tell, the most the greater public suffered from the Apple vs Apple contest was that it took almost 10 years to get The Beatles on iTunes. The word 'Apple' is still in our common public vocabulary. What some people have been hyperbolically claiming is that Notch has no right to trademark a single word because he can use it to sue anyone who uses it in any context without his permission, gradually eroding it from the public vocabulary. Show me all the lawsuits that have stopped people using the word 'Apple' in titles of TV shows, as t shirt slogans etc, and I'll agree. Until then, all evidence points to the contrary of this slippery slope argument being plausible.

You mean stuff which the lawyers have refuted? Yeah, good chance Notch is lying, like he was when he tried the "picking on the little guy" card.

Link me.

And now you're the one making up stories.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113531-Bethesda-Doesnt-Enjoy-Being-Forced-into-Mojang-Lawsuit

Seems like most anyone who has actually paid attention thinks both companies are being asshats. Doesn't make Notch any less a liar, though.

Again, I'd be interested to see where your proof that he is a liar actually is.