Why the Skyrim boycott is a waste of time and missing enjoyment.

[The Irate Pirate]

IT IS OBVIOUS HOW DEAD ISLAND GOT IT'S TRADE MARK!

They simply applied for it, and were rightfully granted it without any problems.

Why? Because anyone with elementary school education can tell that "Dead Island" and "Dead Rising" ARE DIFFERENT NAMES!!! They don't split hairs over a SINGLE WORD being in common and the companies nave began ANY legal action! They do not, they never have, they never plan to.

Just like how "Scrolls" and "The Elder Scrolls" ARE DIFFERENT GOD DAMN NAMES!!!

The whole lawsuit arose due to a trademark application by Notch. If that trademark application hadn't been filed then this whole court case may or may not have arisen, even if the product was named "Scrolls".

However once you go start down the road of legal action you can't stop in situations like this as it creates legal precedent. If they accepted Notch's offer of adding a subtitle, then it is quite conceivable that in the future another company could create a game called, Elder Scrolls: "Subtitle". Now that example is extreme any company actually looking to perniciously infringe on the trademark would probably be more subtle . The point is they could then point to the subtitle and essentially say, well it was fine when Notch did this so fuck off.

As sad as it is, this sort of argument would work in most court rooms based on the way most trademark law works.

Once again no point in getting angry at the parties involved, its how the law works.

So who knows how things would have turned out if Notch didn't file that trademark, but I highly doubt that "Scrolls" would have got on Bethesda's legal department radar.

Oh and all your dead examples don't really apply from a trademark POV. It's not about a one word difference, when any of those names were filled as trademarks they didn't exclude previous holders of trademarks from exercising theirs as they weren't trademark-ing "dead" for example.

Confusion wise, once again its all about precedent if any of those titles filed a conflicting trademark and then dropped it and a court case was in progress, the holders of the original trademark would probably have to continue a law suit against them as well. You also have to take into account commonality with regards to words in trademarks with regards to conflicting claims. For example Dead Space / Dead Rising and Zanzibar Space/ Zanzibar Rising. No issue with first, issue with second.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Confusion wise, once again its all about precedent if any of those titles filed a conflicting trademark and then dropped it and a court case was in progress, the holders of the original trademark would probably have to continue a law suit against them as well. You also have to take into account commonality with regards to words in trademarks with regards to conflicting claims. For example Dead Space / Dead Rising and Zanzibar Space/ Zanzibar Rising. No issue with first, issue with second.

You have to be kidding me.

I've been working on Zanzibar Rising for MONTHS, and now you tell me this?!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

OK and my brain tells me that nobody should ever own the rights to a single word unless they created the word themselves.

MY brain tells ME you might have wanted to read through the thread before chiming in with this stunner.

 

[Treblaine]

Oh and that "giving up 'scrolls'" thing? Let's just say that that also does not really convey the whole truth of the situation. If you really want me to, I can spell out for you how even the specifics he posted about appear to screw over Bethesda, but I've already posted too much here, and I can just imagine you going tl;dr.

>Notch tells truth
>"makes Bethesda look bad"
>Repeatedly says he holds no grudge
> Repeatedly tries to defuse any tension

"HURRF A DURF! He Must be lying! That's the only possible explanation, not that Zenimax's lawyers may actually be in the wrong"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

>Notch tells truth
> "makes Bethesda look bad"
> Repeatedly says he holds no grudge
> Repeatedly tries to defuse any tension

"HURRF A DURF! He Must be lying! That's the only possible explanation, not that Zenimax's lawyers may actually be in the wrong"

These are all opinions, not facts. I don't understand why you repeatedly attack people for their opinions, while presenting nothing but your own opinions as support for your position. Unless your goal is to be pointlessly argumentative, and not to further the discussion in any tangibly constructive way.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No thanks, the thread's too long, but what argument has been made in favor of people trademarking a word they didn't make?

My understanding of trademark law (which is far from being complete, I might warn you) is that they don't want to control every use of the word "Scrolls", but rather the specific use of the word "Scrolls" as used to describe some manner of fantasy game. In the same way that George Lucas owning a trademark on "Star Wars" doesn't stop someone from making "A Star is Born", but might stop someone from making a sci-fi epic entitled "Star Battles". That's the best I can describe it.

Treblaine is angry because he can find anecdotal incidences where it would appear trademarks have not been enforced in this fashion, but he's fairly adamant about A) not understanding trademark law and B) not understanding why anecdotal evidence is never an argument for anything, so he's just settling for shouting at people in all caps.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes how dare you spend your time in a way that won't benefit others, and how dare you have a different idea of what would make the world a better place.

I'm not sure what the point of this was. I made a sarcastic chiding remark about someone's sarcastic chiding remark about a sarcastic, chiding OP. Did you imagine you were blowing the lid of some boiling cauldron of hypocrisy here? Settle down.

 

[praise bezu]

I won't be buying Skyrim, not because of the Notch/Bethesda punch up but mostly because I just don't like Elder Scrolls >.<
I played Morrowind and the moment I got into a fight I gave up because the combat mechanics were awful to the point that any other game with an association to it would have to be truly TRULY outstanding. Oblivion failed, Skyrim will too.
I'll stick to pissing about with whatever Steam puts on offer and grabs my attention with until Bethesda can make me care again

 

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

If you think I have no right to comment on something then you have a poor grasp of Freedom of Speech, and that is not a "legal right" that is a vital aspect of modern and free civilisation.

How am I infringing in any way on your freedom of speech? Have I prevented you from making any statements? You are, of course, free to make as many fallacious arguments as you want. You seem to be sensitive and easily riled by criticism of said arguments, so I was merely suggesting ways in which you might avoid repeating those errors. There was no need to take umbrage.

If you want to tell me how I am wrong, then TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG!

How would I know whether you are wrong or not? I'm not a lawyer. I don't fully understand the facts of the case. Therefore, I don't have a loud and fully formed opinion about it that I badger people with on forums.

You aren't doing that, you are only piling innuendo that I shouldn't even be talking about this until I have done a ball aching amount of legal research which would be utterly pointless as there is no reason to even take it that far as from the prime-face evidence there is not case.

Define "shouldn't". I have suggested that you might not want to speak from a position of complete ignorance on a subject, because it undermines the aura of authority you try to project when you shout things in all caps, or post something you heard about on twitter multiple times in bold, italics and underlined text because you think it makes a spurious argument more forceful. You seem to be confusing "volume" with "legitimacy" when it comes to arguing a position.

I do not have specific example as I am neither an American lawyer nor Swedish lawyer

Then you might not want to present yourself as an authority on a legal issue because you read a few articles on the internet. Note that I said "might not". Naturally your right to freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, assuming that is in fact the country you call home, and me disagreeing with your apparent desire to represent yourself as an authority on an internet forum about a subject you don't fully understand should in no way be viewed as a forceful attempt by myself to silence you.

Do you think I'm such a fool that I will back down or go off on a wild goose chase for some legal text when it is obvious from the very outset that this is frivolous.

It appears some confusion has arisen because you and I disagree fundamentally about this aspect of our discussion. I don't believe that it is foolish to educate yourself about a subject before claiming to be an authority on it. Your mileage, as always, may vary.

What nonsense are you talking about? Are you telling me ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES are a case of failure to enforce the law? So everyone else is wrong and Zenimax are the only ones going to the correct extent? Bollocks. Utter bollocks and YOU KNOW IT!

Actually I don't have any idea. You have also admitted that you have no idea. Yet you persist in suggesting that you "just know" because it's "common sense". This is fallacious reasoning.

IT IS OBVIOUS HOW DEAD ISLAND GOT IT'S TRADE MARK!

They simply applied for it, and were rightfully granted it without any problems.

Is it obvious? Do you actually know this? Can you point me towards the material you've read regarding Techland's acquisition of the trademark for Dead Island? You've used it repeatedly as a talking point in your argument, which would indicate that this is something you've actually established as a fact, rather than just an assumption.

Why is everyone using such backward ass thinking on this? Their automatic assumption seem to be that Zenimax are automatically in the right because they sent a freaking letter and are demanding a day in court. Anyone can do that over ANYTHING! You know damn well that any judge presiding over this will have no idea about video games and would not be able to immediately detect Zenimax's bullshit claim that there is the chance of confusion.

You seem to be speaking for an awful lot of people here. This is called "hasty generalization". It is also an example of fallacious reasoning.

NO ONE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THESE GAMES COULD CONFUSE THEM!!

And once again, hasty generalization. It's alright, lots of people fall into logical fallacies when arguing on the internet. I do it all the time. It's one of the reasons you may not want to A) get emotionally invested in debates and B) attempt to assume a position of authority when you are arguing your position purely on an emotional, reactive level, and not with the support of anything resembling factual evidence to support your claims.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist:

"maybe there is all the time loads of conflict over trademarks behind the scenes with money changing hands all the time it's just it's all super top secret ... somehow ... and we don't know. See now you have to prove something that didn't happen. I know full well proving something that didn't happen when it could have happened any time and any where is impossible... that is how conspiracy theorist protect their delusions"

Techland has OBVIOUSLY reserved the trademark, that is clear enough. The game is on sale under that name and it is trademarked. They get to have it, why can't Mojang with "Scrolls"? Don't dance around this saying "well maybe something happened in secret" YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT! And most of all THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFUSION! No one has bought Dead Island thinking it had ANYTHING to do with Dead Rising, or that they were made by the same people, or it was a spin off.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a judge (who is usually has to have been a lawyer for many years so almost invariably is old) is not going to be familiar with video games. This case will get dragged through the courts at huge expense to prove the obvious to the court system and Mojang may very well fail as they cannot afford competent enough lawyers to not fall into a logical trap and get screwed on a technicality. I've seen this shit happen before, I suppose you will now demand specifics, no doubt so you can go off on a tangent to somehow concoct some bullcrap about how specific examples of flagrant injustices were actually fair. No, do you think I am going to fall for that?

This is not a hasty generalisation (and even that is not a "logical fallacy"), you are just demanding me to talk in specific that no one can speak of with certainty. You are squirming SO MUCH to fight this argument in a position where you can roll out a trap like catching me out as lying by trying to be specific on a point you can "disprove", do you take me for a compete muppet? I know the game you are playing, you are trying desperately to lure me away from the damning position that:

"Zenimax are being extremely petty and manipulative over a trivial point"

Really, be HONEST WITH ME! You CANNOT genuinely mix up this game:

with one that has this title:

Do. Not. Lie.

I can tell if you are lying when you say ridiculous and illogical things.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

Man, I wish I had half the patience to deal with people as you do... or even half the satisfaction.

Keep it up, it's very entertaining. (no snide remark, or underhanded comment here... it's genuine support)

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You sound like a conspiracy theorist:

"maybe there is all the time loads of conflict over trademarks behind the scenes with money changing hands all the time it's just it's all super top secret ... somehow ... and we don't know. See now you have to prove something that didn't happen. I know full well proving something that didn't happen when it could have happened any time and any where is impossible... that is how conspiracy theorist protect their delusions"

But I never said any of those things. This is what's known as a straw man.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Techland has OBVIOUSLY reserved the trademark, that is clear enough. The game is on sale under that name and it is trademarked. They get to have it, why can't Mojang with "Scrolls"? Don't dance around this saying "well maybe something happened in secret" YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT! And most of all THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFUSION! No one has bought Dead Island thinking it had ANYTHING to do with Dead Rising, or that they were made by the same people, or it was a spin off.

I never said anything about anything happening in secret. I asked if you knew anything about the process they went through to secure that trademark. About what considerations they needed to make, about any titles they considered and were unable to reserve, or anything beyond the parade of knee jerk assumptions powering this position you've taken.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a judge (who is usually has to have been a lawyer for many years so almost invariably is old) is not going to be familiar with video games. This case will get dragged through the courts at huge expense to prove the obvious to the court system and Mojang may very well fail as they cannot afford competent enough lawyers to not fall into a logical trap and get screwed on a technicality. I've seen this shit happen before, I suppose you will now demand specifics, no doubt so you can go off on a tangent to somehow concoct some bullcrap about how specific examples of flagrant injustices were actually fair. No, do you think I am going to fall for that?

What exactly are you meant to be falling for, here, again? The trap of educating yourself on an issue before sounding off about it? Why is "knowing what you're talking about" some trap you refuse to fall into?

I'm pleased to see that you're beginning to realize that you're operating on a chain of assumptions, though. Naturally you think they're reasonable, as they're your assumptions.

This is not a hasty generalisation (and even that is not a "logical fallacy")

Actually it was the very definition of a hasty generalization.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

You are squirming SO MUCH to fight this argument in a position where you can roll out a trap like catching me out as lying by trying to be specific on a point you can "disprove", do you take me for a compete muppet? I know the game you are playing, you are trying desperately to lure me away from the damning position that:

Now you're attacking me instead of actually responding to anything I'm saying. This is known as an ad hominem attack, and also "poisoning the well".

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

I'll try asking you again. Why not educate yourself before sounding off on an issue? Do you think it's reasonable to have fully formed and aggressive opinions on a subject you've already admitted you don't know the first thing about?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Man, I wish I had half the patience to deal with people as you do... or even half the satisfaction.

Keep it up, it's very entertaining. (no snide remark, or underhanded comment here... it's genuine support)

God, I'm glad someone is getting entertained. I'm getting a headache. Apparently I'm a conspiracy theorist now! Booga booga! Education is a conspiracy!

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Spoiler

If you think I have no right to comment on something then you have a poor grasp of Freedom of Speech, and that is not a "legal right" that is a vital aspect of modern and free civilisation.

How am I infringing in any way on your freedom of speech? Have I prevented you from making any statements? You are, of course, free to make as many fallacious arguments as you want. You seem to be sensitive and easily riled by criticism of said arguments, so I was merely suggesting ways in which you might avoid repeating those errors. There was no need to take umbrage.

If you want to tell me how I am wrong, then TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG!

How would I know whether you are wrong or not? I'm not a lawyer. I don't fully understand the facts of the case. Therefore, I don't have a loud and fully formed opinion about it that I badger people with on forums.

You aren't doing that, you are only piling innuendo that I shouldn't even be talking about this until I have done a ball aching amount of legal research which would be utterly pointless as there is no reason to even take it that far as from the prime-face evidence there is not case.

Define "shouldn't". I have suggested that you might not want to speak from a position of complete ignorance on a subject, because it undermines the aura of authority you try to project when you shout things in all caps, or post something you heard about on twitter multiple times in bold, italics and underlined text because you think it makes a spurious argument more forceful. You seem to be confusing "volume" with "legitimacy" when it comes to arguing a position.

I do not have specific example as I am neither an American lawyer nor Swedish lawyer

Then you might not want to present yourself as an authority on a legal issue because you read a few articles on the internet. Note that I said "might not". Naturally your right to freedom of expression is protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, assuming that is in fact the country you call home, and me disagreeing with your apparent desire to represent yourself as an authority on an internet forum about a subject you don't fully understand should in no way be viewed as a forceful attempt by myself to silence you.

Do you think I'm such a fool that I will back down or go off on a wild goose chase for some legal text when it is obvious from the very outset that this is frivolous.

It appears some confusion has arisen because you and I disagree fundamentally about this aspect of our discussion. I don't believe that it is foolish to educate yourself about a subject before claiming to be an authority on it. Your mileage, as always, may vary.

What nonsense are you talking about? Are you telling me ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES are a case of failure to enforce the law? So everyone else is wrong and Zenimax are the only ones going to the correct extent? Bollocks. Utter bollocks and YOU KNOW IT!

Actually I don't have any idea. You have also admitted that you have no idea. Yet you persist in suggesting that you "just know" because it's "common sense". This is fallacious reasoning.

IT IS OBVIOUS HOW DEAD ISLAND GOT IT'S TRADE MARK!

They simply applied for it, and were rightfully granted it without any problems.

Is it obvious? Do you actually know this? Can you point me towards the material you've read regarding Techland's acquisition of the trademark for Dead Island? You've used it repeatedly as a talking point in your argument, which would indicate that this is something you've actually established as a fact, rather than just an assumption.

Why is everyone using such backward ass thinking on this? Their automatic assumption seem to be that Zenimax are automatically in the right because they sent a freaking letter and are demanding a day in court. Anyone can do that over ANYTHING! You know damn well that any judge presiding over this will have no idea about video games and would not be able to immediately detect Zenimax's bullshit claim that there is the chance of confusion.

You seem to be speaking for an awful lot of people here. This is called "hasty generalization". It is also an example of fallacious reasoning.

NO ONE WHO WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THESE GAMES COULD CONFUSE THEM!!

And once again, hasty generalization. It's alright, lots of people fall into logical fallacies when arguing on the internet. I do it all the time. It's one of the reasons you may not want to A) get emotionally invested in debates and B) attempt to assume a position of authority when you are arguing your position purely on an emotional, reactive level, and not with the support of anything resembling factual evidence to support your claims.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist:

"maybe there is all the time loads of conflict over trademarks behind the scenes with money changing hands all the time it's just it's all super top secret ... somehow ... and we don't know. See now you have to prove something that didn't happen. I know full well proving something that didn't happen when it could have happened any time and any where is impossible... that is how conspiracy theorist protect their delusions"

Techland has OBVIOUSLY reserved the trademark, that is clear enough. The game is on sale under that name and it is trademarked. They get to have it, why can't Mojang with "Scrolls"? Don't dance around this saying "well maybe something happened in secret" YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT! And most of all THERE HAS BEEN NO CONFUSION! No one has bought Dead Island thinking it had ANYTHING to do with Dead Rising, or that they were made by the same people, or it was a spin off.

It's a pretty reasonable assumption that a judge (who is usually has to have been a lawyer for many years so almost invariably is old) is not going to be familiar with video games. This case will get dragged through the courts at huge expense to prove the obvious to the court system and Mojang may very well fail as they cannot afford competent enough lawyers to not fall into a logical trap and get screwed on a technicality. I've seen this shit happen before, I suppose you will now demand specifics, no doubt so you can go off on a tangent to somehow concoct some bullcrap about how specific examples of flagrant injustices were actually fair. No, do you think I am going to fall for that?

This is not a hasty generalisation (and even that is not a "logical fallacy"), you are just demanding me to talk in specific that no one can speak of with certainty. You are squirming SO MUCH to fight this argument in a position where you can roll out a trap like catching me out as lying by trying to be specific on a point you can "disprove", do you take me for a compete muppet? I know the game you are playing, you are trying desperately to lure me away from the damning position that:

"Zenimax are being extremely petty and manipulative over a trivial point"

Really, be HONEST WITH ME! You CANNOT genuinely mix up this game:

with one that has this title:

Do. Not. Lie.

I can tell if you are lying when you say ridiculous and illogical things.

I've seen people buy this:

When they wanted to buy this:

How do I know this? I worked in a store that sold them. One day they bought the former, then the next day they came in, fury in their eyes, claiming that we have some scam going on.

Also, don't claim that this isn't relevant, because you know... I said so.

 

[Sewer Rat]

*SNIP*

I've seen people buy this:

When they wanted to buy this:

Take a look at that though, the title font is more or less the same, the style is more or less the same, and the prominent text is very similar. Thus it is relatively easy to mix it up. With scrolls, the font art is entirely different, and the Scrolls bit on the elder scrolls isn't even the prominent text, Skyrim takes that position, and if you can honestly say that you can confuse the word Scrolls, with the word Skyrim, long enough for you to actually walk up to a counter and buy the game, you need your eyes examined. Not to mention, this is all moot because Scrolls is an ONLINE ONLY TITLE. No boxes to be mixed up in the electronic shop, and they aren't even likely to be offered in the same online store, thus, mixing up the two is nigh impossible.