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

[Treblaine]

Spoiler

Come on, surely you have seen all the inflammatory comment and accusations I have had to deal with for the past 5 pages, before you even arrived I have had to deal with an undending stream of escalating nonsense.

There were some inflammatory remarks being said in this thread, yes, going back to the OP. If you don't take offense at me saying it, you've been one of the most polarizing and inflammatory figures in the debate, though. You argue your points extremely emotionally, you switch gears rapidly and randomly, and you seem to project ideas onto the people you're talking to, and then attack those ideas. When I link you logical fallacies I'm not saying "Ha ha you're dumb!" or trying to undermine your argument. I'm trying to draw your attention to the fact that a lot of what you're saying isn't supported by anything more than your personal need to believe it. That doesn't mean it can't be true. It just means that we don't really know. And yes, I know you don't know, because it was one of the first things we discussed, in which you admitted to having absolutely no legal background whatsoever, and no interest doing the leg work required to. And that's alright, that's a lot of fucking work. I have no intention of doing it myself. But without doing that work, we cannot actually claim to know what's going on.

1. You don't know what laws specifically are being referenced in the lawsuit. Which sections of which laws, specifically.
2. You don't know the legal process Notch went through to apply for his trademark, or any of the legal ramifications of what could arise from his proposed compromises.
3. You don't know the valuation Bethesda places on their Elder Scrolls trademark, or what their projected threat to that trademark was.
4. You don't know what damages they sought, based on what contingencies.
5. You don't know what the potential outcomes are, what a settlement is likely to look like, what it means for both parties if they lose.

All we have for this is guesswork. Or your gut feeling, because you like Notch and think corporations are evil. Or maybe you love Skyrim and think Notch is a turd. It doesn't matter. Without knowing, it's all just guesswork. It's all just "I have a strong feeling about something I read and sort of understood, and now I'm ANGRY and will do X!" Not a lot of patience, prudence, or critical thinking is going into this boycott or this furious indignation.

You've got three possibilities.

1. Notch is a dolt.
2. Zenimax are sinister necromancers.
3. Trademark Law is annoying and stupid.

Based on the knowledge we laypeople on a video game forum have, any of those three can be true. It's not about the one we WANT to believe because of our personal confirmation biases. It's about us not knowing. And I think collectively...as a GENERATION...we like to shoot our mouths off about stuff we only tangentially understand.

This was never about you, or your affection for Notch, or your irritation at Zenimax. You're welcome to your feelings. I like Notch. I love Minecraft. I want him to succeed. I love Bethesda. I want them to succeed. I am not the OP. I don't think it's anyone's fault, because without facts to support my opinion what would be the use of it?

Over and over again I repeat the same points that show Zenimax's case is beyond flimsily but utterly frivolous but they again they are ignored as it is convenient to them.

I'm not ignoring your points. I'm trying to make you understand that your opinion of the frivolity and flimsiness of the case is irrelevant. You have a layman's understanding of the law. Without understanding it in depth...its ramifications...it's potential setbacks and perils for each company...the ins and outs and loopholes that can be exploited without prudence, we're just apes throwing bones at an obelisk.

Then you come in and tell me I need to "educate myself". Do you realise how inflammatory that is? Have you any idea how many times I have had challenging ideas cut down by attempts at being overly pedantic? That is the trap I'm talking about.

You're interpreting it as a snide attack. I'm seriously saying...you feel this strongly about it, educate yourself. You come in here screaming in all caps about Notch and his twitter, and I'm going to chalk you up as another loud opinion without a clue to underwrite it. If you did a little studying and calmly came in here to explain trademark law, how it was being applied in this circumstance, what the particular charges were, what the damages discussed were, etc, etc, you'd be a hero. Sway people with facts, and logic. Not emotional outbursts and personal attacks.

How about you calm down for a moment and consider that that really is the kind of demand that conspiracy theorists make: "prove something didn't happen. Can't? then I'm right!"

You need to understand that I am, and have been, calm. I've been irritated at points, because I feel you just talk right past me to throw drunk punches at phantom opponents you assume I represent. But I'm not emotionally invested in this on any level.

I'm not asking you to "prove something didn't happen". I'm asking you to stop using supposition as the ground work for your points. Supposition is fine when you're just hashing stuff through with friends. You don't need to send a friendly chat up for peer review. But you've been hectoring people to within an inch of their lives. All caps. Bellowing. Repeated phrases. Personal attacks. The whole nine yards. And you can roll that way, but you need to have facts. Nice, hard facts. Not "things that are common sense!" and "things that I know are sane!" because I've seen you use "ad hominem" a few times now, so you're familiarizing yourself with logical fallacies and you know why that's not okay.

TLDR Version: There's nothing wrong with your opinions. I neither agree, nor disagree with you. There is something wrong with the aggressive, fundamentalist way you present your opinions, because you are not sufficiently informed to speak with that level of authority.

NOW.

If you want to continue discussing this we can, but discussion only. I'm not getting sucked into another tirade of bellows. I'm aware of the things Notch said. I'm aware of from whence your ire towards Zenimax springs. It's all good. Just calm it down...accept that there's another way of looking at this situation, and respect that there's another way of looking at this situation. And while we're all still using blogs and twitters as our "facts", we need to not jump to militant conclusions, or we will look like fools for fairly obvious reasons.

Well if you want to gauge the tone of this thread look at the OP's post.

And I think it is a bit disingenuous to shoot down my whole argument by telling me to "educate myself" doing "a lot of fucking work. I have no intention of doing it myself." So you are prepared to simply declare that I am wrong, because I am not a trademark lawyer... even though you yourself are not a trademark lawyer and has repeatedly said you have put precisely zero effort into research (while I have) yet you keep slandering me with accusations of wilful ignorance "I asked him to educate himself and he rants about conspiracy theories"

That's inflammatory.

You're not saying "you may be missing something" you are saying "You are wrong because you are not a lawyer, I can say you are definitively wrong even though I am not a lawyer"

I'm trying to draw your attention to the fact that a lot of what you're saying isn't supported by anything more than your personal need to believe it.

This is just disingenuous.

You keep acting as if I have given nothing but opinion but every post fact after fact:
-Precedent of "Edge" trademark on single words
-Notch's offer to drop trademark
-Notch's offer the expand the name of this game to eliminate any trace of confusion
-Countless precedents of similar products with single-word similarity living side by side without confusion

And the only times these are ever addressed is in the most ridiculous way, such as suggesting maybe there have been huge legal disputes that I cannot find trace of anywhere. There is no evidence for that!

This was never about you, or your affection for Notch, or your irritation at Zenimax.

You seem to get extremely irritated at the mere suggestion that you hate Notch or that you love Zenimax... yet you post stuff like that. Bit hypocritical, it's inflammatory and people are not going to think that you are Notch-fan when you say things like that. It's like if someone says:

"look at those N**** lovers!"

Does it seem like

Not a lot of patience, prudence, or critical thinking is going into this boycott

OK this line is getting old, there is no Boycott. There is no popular thread on this forum calling for a boycott, Notch doesn't even want a boycott, I certainly am not following it. And frankly that has been a straw man argument from the very start.

I'm not ignoring your points. I'm trying to make you understand that your opinion

Again:
-Facts
-Opinions
Pick one

You can't just dismiss every FACT I present to you as an irrelevant amateur opinion (that somehow you can divine even though being an amateur yourself).

Can't you see, in itself, how all these legal and marketing precedents add up to MORE than a misinformed opinion? My opinion comes from fact (Legal Precedent + Notch's concessions + Established distinctions in franchise names) and have presented it as such, yet in a down right inflammatory way you repeatedly dismiss all that and act like I am just yelling without a single reference to reality to back it up.

That is disingenuous.

You're interpreting it as a snide attack. I'm seriously saying...you feel this strongly about it, educate yourself.

I HAVE educated myself, only you have asked I educate myself MORE. You are essentially asking me to be a lawyer, something which is hugely expensive and time consuming. Which is insulting considering you haven't bothered to reasonably consider all that I have argued to you, something that really should be obvious to anyone if you could just get beyond a sense of lawyer elitism.

Again:
-Notch's Concession
-Outcome of Edge- Games dispute
-Precedents of both the video games industry and all other trademarks

I'm asking you to stop using supposition as the ground work for your points.

It's not supposition.

YOU are using supposition when you say:

paraphrased: "Suppose there was a trademark dispute between Dead Island and Dead Rising, or between Star Wars and Star Trek? Suppose we just can't find any of these examples because they are perfectly hidden from up? Suppose all the examples of cases similar to Zenimax-vs-notch are hidden but really there"

My point - without supposition - is that Zenimax's claim is without Precedent.

The closest precedent is the "Edge Trademark" dispute that was thrown out of court, dramatically.

But as to your central accusation - that you seem to use as justification for your inflammatory and condescending attitude:

But you've been hectoring people to within an inch of their lives. All caps. Bellowing. Repeated phrases. Personal attacks. The whole nine yards. And you can roll that way, but you need to have facts. Nice, hard facts.

I resort to bellowing because those facts are quite simply ignored.

You do it worst, I present all these factual examples then you post a reply that directly contradicts what I have just presented to you. It's like you are just skimming over my text without or as if hard of hearing, or just selective hearing you are deaf to any argument that challenges your stand. I am trying to correct for your selective deafness and now you are as if "ohh no, don't yell, my poor sensitive and acute ears!"

And they are ignored in such an insultingly repetitive way.

You still seem to be under the impressions - to spite the FACT that I have told you the FACT that notch has offered to drop the trademark claim - that is is about Zenimax protecting themselves from a conflicting trademark.

So, I have made a concession. I have eased off on the caps. Stopped the "bellowing". Now could you please recognise the facts that I have presented to you, and please do not resort to fallacious logic as that... that is inflammatory.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You keep acting as if I have given nothing but opinion but every post fact after fact:
-Precedent of "Edge" trademark on single words
-Notch's offer to drop trademark
-Notch's offer the expand the name of this game to eliminate any trace of confusion
-Countless precedents of similar products with single-word similarity living side by side without confusion

You do like to fight, don't you? Maybe it's the internet. You, after all, keep implying I'm losing my mind with excitement over here, when primarily I just feel tired. You have calmed it down and stopped screaming though, and I appreciate that.

I thought you might like this article, over a week old, from the Escapist...entitled "The Basics of the Battle".

Shortly after the announcement of Scrolls Bethesda?s legal team took action. Bethesda?s legal team sent a letter to Mojang explaining that Bethesda felt Scrolls had ?significant visual, audio, and conceptual similarities with ? The Elder Scrolls,? and that consumers might therefore believe Scrolls and The Elder Scrolls came from the same people.

This last bit is important because there has been a lot of disinformation on the internet regarding exactly what this complaint is about. While it is possible to take someone to court for Trademark Infringement because you believe they are copying you and your trademark, this is not the immediate complaint presented by Bethesda. Bethesda is not claiming consumers will pick up Scrolls when they wanted to buy The Elder Scrolls, Bethesda is arguing that someone who picks up Scrolls might believe they are picking up a game by Bethesda. Those are two different legal claims[/b], and while both will likely be addressed during a court proceeding, there is a big difference between a consumer being confuse as to what product they are buying and a consumer being confused as to the origin of the product they are buying.

Bethesda?s claim wasn?t exactly ?out of the blue? though. Mojang was doing a bit of legal work themselves in attempting to register a trademark for the word ?Scrolls.? Bethesda already had a Trademark registered for ?The Elder Scrolls? on the books, and had immediately contacted Mojang when they learned of the ?Scrolls? registration.Bethesda believed that the registration of the word would interfere with their own trademark, and wanted to know the scope of what this trademark was meant to entail. After a bit of back and forth regarding the title, Bethesda sent their letter and demanded Mojang cease using the word ?Scrolls? for their upcoming game.

You have repeatedly asserted that Bethesda is suing because they're afraid people will confuse "Scrolls" with "The Elder Scrolls" and buy the wrong game by mistake. This is not the case.

You still seem to be under the impressions - to spite the FACT that I have told you the FACT that notch has offered to drop the trademark claim - that this is about Zenimax protecting themselves from a conflicting trademark.

I am under the impression that you are under the impression that you are in possession of a great deal of FACTS, when in fact you appear to be in possession of a great number of ASSUMPTIONS.

I have said that until this case is settled and/or we have better reporting on the details of it, we should cease to leap to conclusions based on the contents of the defendant's twitter feed.

I have said that until you can support your facts with evidence beyond anecdotal examples and twitter feeds, you should cease to present yourself as an authority on the subject.

I have never said you are wrong to think what you do. I have never said "you are wrong because you are not a lawyer". I never said that. I said you need to stop browbeating people as though you are the sole voice of reason on this, because all you have is your opinion.

You appear to wish to continue browbeating anyone who responds to you though, and as there's no law against browbeating people, I certainly cannot stop you.

And this...

It's like you are just skimming over my text without or as if hard of hearing, or just selective hearing you are deaf to any argument that challenges your stand. I am trying to correct for your selective deafness and now you are as if "ohh no, don't yell, my poor sensitive and acute ears!"

HAS to be a joke.

Selective hearing?

I told you to educate yourself, you said I was leading you into a trap.

I told you to educate yourself, and you called me a conspiracy theorist.

I told you to educate yourself, and you called me a liar, and accused me of using "libel" to defame Notch.

I told you to educate yourself, and you accused me of being angry, and of "squirming desperately" to disprove your points.

I told you about hasty generalizations, you claimed they weren't a logical fallacy, then when I provided you with a link to hasty generalizations on an index of logical fallacies, you said "oh that wasn't a hasty generalization" (in spite of the fact it was the working definition of a hasty generalization) and moved on to make a great deal more hasty generalizations.

You're now accusing me of using logical fallacies in my arguments. I invite you to quote the fallacies in question, and the specific fallacy being employed. I will offer you a public apology in this thread each one you find, if you then submit to the same.

I've told you repeatedly this isn't about what Notch did or didn't say on his Twitter, or whether he offered to return a trademark or not, because our understanding of the case...our complete understanding of the case, including Bethesda's motivations...is insufficient to form a fully informed opinion. Instead I get the same blurb about Notch offering to return a trademark in every single post.

And yet I'm hard of hearing, have selective hearing, and I'm "deaf to any argument that challenges my stand". "My stand"...which is that I have no opinion on the lawsuit. Oh, the rigidness of my "stand"!

 

[Treblaine]

I have said that until this case is settled and/or we have better reporting on the details of it, we should cease to leap to conclusions based on the contents of the defendant's twitter feed.

If that is your opinion, what are YOU doing on this thread? You can't have your cake and eat it.

You can have an opinion (including a conclusive one) of something without waiting for a court approval.

Yes, Notch's twitter feed is a reliable source, as well as all the other sources I have used.

You are happy to yourself talk with authority on trademark law:

My understanding of trademark law 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.

And also agree with others when they conclude that Zenimax are using trademark law appropriately, yet you hypocritically object when I use evidence of examples of why Zenimax are using it in an inappropriate way.

This whole thread started from a twitter feed, if you dismiss that then why are you even in this story?

 

[Treblaine]

I told you to educate yourself, you said I was leading you into a trap.

I told you to educate yourself, and you called me a conspiracy theorist.

I told you to educate yourself, and you called me a liar, and accused me of using "libel" to defame Notch.

I told you to educate yourself, and you accused me of being angry, and of "squirming desperately" to disprove your points.

Yes, you did tell me to educate myself, but that in itself was not a reason for me to suspect you were leading me into a trap. I have explained I objected to you demanding pedantic detail.

But I never called you a conspiracy theorist. I did say you used the same fallacious logic of a conspiracy theorists but I did not say that because you said "Educate yourself".

When did I call you a liar? That's not unreasonable if you had in fact lied.

I did say it was libel to defame Notch as your argument was that he was using his twitter feed to lie and deceive. The fact that you said "educate yourself" has no bearing on that, and should in no way prevent me from calling you out on resorting to fallacious "big lie" logic to back up your argument.

When did I say you were angry? And honestly I did think you were "squirming desperately" to disprove my points. Not because you said "educate yourself" but because you refused to address the evidence I presented to you directly but depend on the poisonous idea that Notch has been lying to us all (though Zenimax never corrected such lies) or that there were other hidden examples you didn't have evidence for. That's what you get by saying Notch's twitter feed is an unreliable source, you are saying Notch could be lying.

So if there is evidence that there was a lawsuit between "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" trademark-rights holders, I'd like to see you present that. Same with "Dead Island" and "Dead Rising". Also between trademark holders of "Black" and "Black Ops".

http://media2.playstadium.dk/img/marty/Black/cover1.jpg (notice the "TM" after the name Black, that is certainly reasonable precedent that "scrolls" would be possible to trademark)

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Who's the OP to tell us what's awesome? Personally i think it looks like a really uninteresting game and i was never planning on getting it in the first place.

If they count me as part of the boycott and feel like i hurt them in some way, then fine by me, but i don't want to take a stand in the trial 'cause both sides are being equally silly.

 

[rdm]

You keep acting as if I have given nothing but opinion but every post fact after fact:
-Precedent of "Edge" trademark on single words
-Notch's offer to drop trademark
-Notch's offer the expand the name of this game to eliminate any trace of confusion
-Countless precedents of similar products with single-word similarity living side by side without confusion

Let's consider each of these, in turn:

- -Precedent of "Edge" trademark on single words

This is at most a neutral issue for the issues that Zenimax needs to address. It alters how they need to express their case, but does not make it go away. If anything, it makes their case more urgent.

- -Notch's offer to drop trademark
- -Notch's offer the expand the name of this game to eliminate any trace of confusion

Dropping "scrolls" for "scrolls:" as a prefix is not an offer to drop, unless you ignore the second half, where "scrolls:" prefix gets added back in. Since it was a trademark "scrolls" by itself would probably already have been used as a prefix, so the prefix part is pretty much a non-issue. That leaves the addition of the ":" character as the only meaningful change here. And that's not much of a change when "The Elder Scrolls" is already usually used with a ":" character.

Meanwhile "the name of the game" and "trademark" are already two different concepts, at least in the general case. And, since Zenimax is suing about the trademark and not suing about the name of the game, that makes the name of the game irrelevant to the legal action.

- -Countless precedents of similar products with single-word similarity living side by side without confusion

But these are all different. Most of them are two different trademarks that share a word in common but where both of them contain words which are not in the other. Of the remainder it's not at all clear that the trademark subjects overlapped. (This overlap issue would be based the wording on the trademark application -- and this would not be based how you feel about the examle products).

Which leaves me with the question: why can you not see these issues for yourself?

 

[Treblaine]

- -Countless precedents of similar products with single-word similarity living side by side without confusion

But these are all different. Most of them are two different trademarks that share a word in common but where both of them contain words which are not in the other. Of the remainder it's not at all clear that the trademark subjects overlapped. (This overlap issue would be based the wording on the trademark application -- and this would not be based how you feel about the examle products).

Which leaves me with the question: why can you not see these issues for yourself?

That is PRECISELY what Notch offered so that they would "share a word in common but where both of them contain words which are not in the other."

He didn't offer to just add a Colon, he offered to add a colon and a whole load of other words like "Scrolls: Power of Parchments", that would be the trademark only he hadn't decided (or simply hasn't revealed publicly) what the extra parts of the trademark/title would be. As would be prudent, someone could rush in and grab his trademark before he's decided.

"Of the remainder it's not at all clear that the (Star Wars and Star Trek) trademark subjects overlapped."
What? Isn't it obvious?!? Star Wars and Star Trek have a trademarks for both TV and feature film productions, the only domains where this distinction matters.

I think that settles all that confusion. And my conclusion is in line with experts in trademark law:

http://theelectricgeneration.com/2011/09/28/bethesda-v-notch-pt-1-the-basics-of-the-battle/

I don't see what else there is to this. I have addressed every one of your points and clarified on all your concerns, it is clear as day that there is no trademark dilution, confusion or obfuscation.

If Star Wars and Star Trek can both release feature films at the same time without confusion and trademarks still valid, why can't "The Elder Scrolls V: SKYRIM" and "Scrolls: something of something"? Well, they can for one. Zenimax just has to learn to play nice and share their words of the English dictionary just like all the other boys and girls, they shouldn't be selfish. Especially over things they do not own.

If you have any more concerns about this I will be glad to clarify them but please, don't repeat the same points I have already shown as irrelevant. It grows tiresome having to repeat myself.

 

[rdm]

That is PRECISELY what Notch offered so that they would "share a word in common but where both of them contain words which are not in the other."

If he really wanted that he should have filed a trademark that did not claim to be about all computer games. If his trademark had just been about card games and stuff explicitly related to card games, I doubt the lawsuit would ever have happened.

Or, now that it has happened, it's up to him to fix it.

So he can want to share all he wants, but until he fixes up his legal claims this "want" of his is, in my opinion, deceptive.

He didn't offer to just add a Colon, he offered to add a colon and a whole load of other words ...

I addressed that in the message you are responding to. But since you did not read my point there I doubt repeating it will help.

"Of the remainder it's not at all clear that the (Star Wars and Star Trek) trademark subjects overlapped."
What? Isn't it obvious?!?

Those are not a part of the remainder. "Wars" is not contained in "Star Trek" and "Trek" is not contained in "Star Wars". Again, I already covered this issue in the post you were responding to. And my conclusion is that you either have severe comprehension problems or you ignore things that you do not want to pay attention to or you have not slept for days (which just about amounts to the same thing).

I think that settles all that confusion.

Only in the sense that you are conveying to me that you do not read what I write.

http://theelectricgeneration.com/2011/09/28/bethesda-v-notch-pt-1-the-basics-of-the-battle/

I don't see what else there is to this.

That is a significant problem: you not seeing what else there is to this.

I have addressed every one of your points and clarified on all your concerns, it is clear as day that there is no trademark dilution, confusion or obfuscation.

You have ignored my points.

If Star Wars and Star Trek can both release feature films at the same time without confusion and trademarks still valid, why can't "The Elder Scrolls V: SKYRIM" and "Scrolls: something of something"?

For one thing "Scrolls: something of something" is not the current situation.

Do you understand that? It's a hypothetical situation and it's a hypothetical situation that we cannot research by looking at the trademark application -- the trademark application was never made. So we do not know the specifics of Notch's letter to Bethesda -- or I have never seen it. And we do know that he never dropped his current trademark. So that trademark is still relevant.

For another there are a lot of star trek trademarks and there are a lot of star wars trademarks. I have not studied them all. But, for example, a trademark covering "recordings from the original television series" is only going to cover one of the two, regardless of the words used.

If you have any more concerns about this I will be glad to clarify them but please, don't repeat the same points I have already shown as irrelevant. It grows tiresome having to repeat myself.

Claiming an issue is irrelevant without even looking up what the issue is does not count, in my opinion.

 

[Treblaine]

That is PRECISELY what Notch offered so that they would "share a word in common but where both of them contain words which are not in the other."

If he really wanted that he should have filed a trademark that did not claim to be about all computer games. If his trademark had just been about card games and stuff explicitly related to card games, I doubt the lawsuit would ever have happened.

Or, now that it has happened, it's up to him to fix it.

So he can want to share all he wants, but until he fixes up his legal claims this "want" of his is, in my opinion, deceptive.

Ah, well this is what you seem to misunderstand it IS a computer game with card-game mechanics. And I did mention how reasonable it was to cover all variant of electronic media as he had Minecraft was reverse engineered on XBLA and iOS but they were so terrible his brand was damaged as everyone thought her had just released terrible low quality ports.

I did address this before.

Since it was a trademark "scrolls" by itself would probably already have been used as a prefix...
That leaves the addition of the ":" character as the only meaningful change here.

I addressed that in the message you are responding to. But since you did not read my point there I doubt repeating it will help.

I am afraid this does not adequately address the issue, the point is not the mere assumption that "Scrolls" would be used as a prefix. The point is this trademark WOULD have scrolls permanently bonded with another set of words completely separate from any Zenimax property.

So it is simply untrue that colon would be al that would be added.

"Wars" is not contained in "Star Trek" and "Trek" is not contained in "Star Wars"...

For another there are a lot of star trek trademarks and there are a lot of star wars trademarks. I have not studied them all. But, for example, a trademark covering "recordings from the original television series" is only going to cover one of the two, regardless of the words used.

That's a bit of a pedantic distraction, when it is obvious that "Star..." Is the first word of both name of which there are ony two words in the title and the second word is only 4 letters long. You are focusing on the ONE SINGLE BIT where they are different and ignoring how in every other way they are the same. The chances of confusion of brand origins are HUGE!

I know for a fact Star Trek AND Star Wars trademark cover both feature film and TV applications. So don't worry about speculations that they don't cross over, they do.

That is a significant problem: you not seeing what else there is to this.

Like what?

You have ignored my points.

Which points have I ignored?

For one thing "Scrolls: something of something" is not the current situation.

The point is Mojang offered that situation to Zenimax and they refused it. They are at fault, not Mojang. Is that your point? That Zenimax are in the wrong for refusing to allow this situation?

Claiming an issue is irrelevant without even looking up what the issue is does not count, in my opinion.

What I am saying is that once I have looked it up and made a counter-argument you can't just make the same argument again without addressing my counter argument, that is badgering and circular logic. Also also please use relevantl ogic

Like for example saying "Star Wars doesn't contain the word Trek of 'Star Trek'" doesn't address my argument that "Star Wars and Star Trek both contain 'Star' as the first word - while 2nd word is only 4 letters".

That also isn't relevant to Zenimax vs Mojang as:

"'Star Wars' doesn't contain the word 'Trek' of 'Star Trek'" which you imply is acceptable
"'Scrolls' doesn't contain the word 'Elder' of 'Elder Scrolls'" which in a contradictory way you state is acceptable

 

[jacobythehedgehog]

I don't think we should Boycott Elder Scrolls V, it is bad enough it has to compete with the two high rated first person shooters of all time

 

[rdm]

So he can want to share all he wants, but until he fixes up his legal claims this "want" of his is, in my opinion, deceptive.

Ah, well this is what you seem to misunderstand it IS a computer game with card-game mechanics.

No, I am afraid not.

"it" is a trademark.

Zenimax is NOT suing about the game.

Zenimax IS suing about the trademark.

Do you understand how they are different?

Do you understand why this difference is relevant?

Meanwhile, to address a suggestion you made earlier:

Yes, I know it covers a lot, because Mojang go screwed applying for only a narrow trademark of Minecraft only for terrible minecraft clones to appear on iOS that everyone thinks is a "shitty port" that damages the brand.

After looking at how Star Trek and Star Wars trademarks were handled, I am going to have to disagree with you on this issue also. Those trademarks are very narrow. There are also dozens of them, each trademark being on a different product category.

So, in other words, Notch got screwed by not filing for additional trademarks to cover the other product categories he wanted to trademark. More recently, filing one trademark that covers everything in the world is also screwing him.

Which points have I ignored?

Let's see if we can narrow the scope of this discussion down to trademark, first. There's no point in re-hashing my points if we are not even discussing the same topic.

 

[Treblaine]

rdm, I am going to directly ask you, do you have another account on The Escapist?

Because you joined on the 6th of October and you have made only 9 posts solely in this thread and solely in counter to my posts. There are zero details on your rdm account and all these 5 days you have had no other activity except for posting in this threat in counter to my posts. you have no badges so it seems you have watched no significant number of videos.

Do you realise it is against the rules to have multiple accounts? That it is an instant ban if caught? Of ALL related accounts.

If he really wanted that he should have filed a trademark that did not claim to be about all computer games. If his trademark had just been about card games and stuff

So he can want to share all he wants, but until he fixes up his legal claims this "want" of his is, in my opinion, deceptive.

Ah, well this is what you seem to misunderstand it IS a computer game with card-game mechanics.

No, I am afraid not.

"it" is a trademark.

Zenimax is NOT suing about the game.

Zenimax IS suing about the trademark.

Do you understand how they are different?

Do you understand why this difference is relevant?

What do you mean?

Of course when I say "it is a computer game" I mean "Scrolls is a Computer game"

Scrolls is both a Game AND a Trademark!

Which IS relevant because Zenimax's concern is that BOTH The Elder Scrolls series AND "scrolls" are both computer games! That is the basis of their case that there could be confusion (and so violates their trademark), not what the trademark is under but the actuality.

Yes, I know it covers a lot, because Mojang go screwed applying for only a narrow trademark of Minecraft only for terrible minecraft clones to appear on iOS that everyone thinks is a "shitty port" that damages the brand.

After looking at how Star Trek and Star Wars trademarks were handled, I am going to have to disagree with you on this issue also. Those trademarks are very narrow. There are also dozens of them, each trademark being on a different product category.

So, in other words, Notch got screwed by not filing for additional trademarks to cover the other product categories he wanted to trademark. More recently, filing one trademark that covers everything in the world is also screwing him.

Really, you're just going to "have a look at it" and without sources nor explanation just say that's enough to disagree?

That's not much to go on.

I know for a fact that LucasArts' trademark is not narrow at all, he applies it to all media, even comic books and cartoons. Same with Star Trek. Yet they have lived together without dispute nor confusion for decades.

There is no reason that Notch should have to file multiple identical trademark claims of the same words but for separate media. That is a pointless waste of money. You certainly haven't explained how them all being under one filing jeopardises Zenimax's trademark or brand in any way. It has no bearing on the actual issue.

Which points have I ignored?

Let's see if we can narrow the scope of this discussion down to trademark, first. There's no point in re-hashing my points if we are not even discussing the same topic.

So... I haven't ignored any of your points pertaining to Trademark. What this ENTIRE thread is all about. Right, then I was probably right to ignore things like personal attacks and so on.

 

[rdm]

rdm, I am going to directly ask you, do you have another account on The Escapist?

No, I just never had anything here I wanted to post about before. Mostly I just watched Yahtzee videos, but even those haven't been very interesting for the past year or longer.

Do you realise it is against the rules to have multiple accounts? That it is an instant ban if caught? Of ALL related accounts.[/quote[

Oh dear! However will I survive with this limitation? *cough* Nice diversion though.

Ah, well this is what you seem to misunderstand it IS a computer game with card-game mechanics.

No, I am afraid not.

"it" is a trademark.

Zenimax is NOT suing about the game.

Zenimax IS suing about the trademark.

Do you understand how they are different?

Do you understand why this difference is relevant?

What do you mean?

Of course when I say "it is a computer game" I mean "Scrolls is a Computer game"

Scrolls is both a Game AND a Trademark!

I mean that Zenimax is not suing about the game. They are suing about the trademark.

(Furthermore, a trademark is invalid if you cannot refer to the underlying entity using generic (non-trademark) terms. This is why I said, earlier, that the best trademarks are essentially adjectives.)

So, anyways, it's "Scrolls card game" or something like that if you want to refer to the game. If you use "Scrolls" by itself, you are either referring to the trademark or you asserting that you view the trademark as invalid.

Really, you're just going to "have a look at it" and without sources nor explanation just say that's enough to disagree?

No, that is not at all what I said.

You got the tense wrong, and you are making stuff up -- my source was uspto.gov. Unfortunately, I cannot link to the documents I read there, but if you want to see what I was reading, you can do a "basic search" for "star wars" and another one for "star trek" and you can read the content of the "live" trademarks.

I know for a fact that LucasArts' trademark is not narrow at all, he applies it to all media, even comic books and cartoons. Same with Star Trek. Yet they have lived together without dispute nor confusion for decades.

You are confused.

Go read the bloody trademarks and you will see what I mean. Or maybe you will not be able to understand them. So I will tell you again, and then you can ignore what I have written here:

There are DOZENS of "star wars" trademarks.

Dozens.

Do you know what this word means?

Here, I will get you started. This is from memory so I am not being precise, but it should give you the general gist of how they work:

Star Wars (trade mark on shoes)
Star Wars (trade mark on duffel bags)
Star Wars (trade mark on cartoons)
Star Wars (trade mark on mugs)
...

Those are all different trademarks.

Do you understand what "different" means?

Trademark is not just about the spelling of the word. I am sure you can think of lots of examples of this rule if you thought about it.

 

[Treblaine]

rdm, I am going to directly ask you, do you have another account on The Escapist?

No, I just never had anything here I wanted to post about before. Mostly I just watched Yahtzee videos, but even those haven't been very interesting for the past year or longer.

Do you realise it is against the rules to have multiple accounts? That it is an instant ban if caught? Of ALL related accounts.[/quote[

Oh dear! However will I survive with this limitation? *cough* Nice diversion though.

Ah, well this is what you seem to misunderstand it IS a computer game with card-game mechanics.

No, I am afraid not.

"it" is a trademark.

Zenimax is NOT suing about the game.

Zenimax IS suing about the trademark.

Do you understand how they are different?

Do you understand why this difference is relevant?

What do you mean?

Of course when I say "it is a computer game" I mean "Scrolls is a Computer game"

Scrolls is both a Game AND a Trademark!

I mean that Zenimax is not suing about the game. They are suing about the trademark.

(Furthermore, a trademark is invalid if you cannot refer to the underlying entity using generic (non-trademark) terms. This is why I said, earlier, that the best trademarks are essentially adjectives.)

So, anyways, it's "Scrolls card game" or something like that if you want to refer to the game. If you use "Scrolls" by itself, you are either referring to the trademark or you asserting that you view the trademark as invalid.

Really, you're just going to "have a look at it" and without sources nor explanation just say that's enough to disagree?

No, that is not at all what I said.

You got the tense wrong, and you are making stuff up -- my source was uspto.gov. Unfortunately, I cannot link to the documents I read there, but if you want to see what I was reading, you can do a "basic search" for "star wars" and another one for "star trek" and you can read the content of the "live" trademarks.

I know for a fact that LucasArts' trademark is not narrow at all, he applies it to all media, even comic books and cartoons. Same with Star Trek. Yet they have lived together without dispute nor confusion for decades.

You are confused.

Go read the bloody trademarks and you will see what I mean. Or maybe you will not be able to understand them. So I will tell you again, and then you can ignore what I have written here:

There are DOZENS of "star wars" trademarks.

Dozens.

Do you know what this word means?

Here, I will get you started. This is from memory so I am not being precise, but it should give you the general gist of how they work:

Star Wars (trade mark on shoes)
Star Wars (trade mark on duffel bags)
Star Wars (trade mark on cartoons)
Star Wars (trade mark on mugs)
...

Those are all different trademarks.

Do you understand what "different" means?

Trademark is not just about the spelling of the word. I am sure you can think of lots of examples of this rule if you thought about it.

How is any of that relevant though? If it is under multiple separate trademarks or all under one trademark? What could that possibly mean? How is it relevant to this case?

 

[rdm]

Trademark is not just about the spelling of the word. I am sure you can think of lots of examples of this rule if you thought about it.

How is any of that relevant though? If it is under multiple separate trademarks or all under one trademark? What could that possibly mean? How is it relevant to this case?

It's relevant because Mojang has registered the trademark "Scrolls" as a trademark for all sorts of computer games.

The trademark is not just about card games.

If it had been just about card games, I think it would be no big deal.

Notch did not have to register it so that it covered all kinds of computer games.

Notch did register it so that it covered all kinds of computer games.

Note, by the way, that Apple Music sued Apple Computer when Apple Computer got into the business of selling music. Originally, they were just dealing with different markets. And then they agreed that Apple Computer would not use their "Apple" trademark to sell music. And then Apple Computer started selling music and their markets were too close so they went to court to sort it out.

Anyways, the issue of "what the trademark covers" is an important part of a trademark. The trademark used on Delta faucets does not cover passenger air services. If it did, there would almost certainly need to be a court decision to decide whether the trademark was valid.

 

[Treblaine]

Trademark is not just about the spelling of the word. I am sure you can think of lots of examples of this rule if you thought about it.

How is any of that relevant though? If it is under multiple separate trademarks or all under one trademark? What could that possibly mean? How is it relevant to this case?

It's relevant because Mojang has registered the trademark "Scrolls" as a trademark for all sorts of computer games.

The trademark is not just about card games.

If it had been just about card games, I think it would be no big deal.

Notch did not have to register it so that it covered all kinds of computer games.

Notch did register it so that it covered all kinds of computer games.

Note, by the way, that Apple Music sued Apple Computer when Apple Computer got into the business of selling music. Originally, they were just dealing with different markets. And then they agreed that Apple Computer would not use their "Apple" trademark to sell music. And then Apple Computer started selling music and their markets were too close so they went to court to sort it out.

Anyways, the issue of "what the trademark covers" is an important part of a trademark. The trademark used on Delta faucets does not cover passenger air services. If it did, there would almost certainly need to be a court decision to decide whether the trademark was valid.

You conventionally trademark my media type. Not by intricacies of game design.

Notch DID have to trademark by multiple media types.

Though his game is based on card-game mechanics it would be impossible to play with real cards, it IS a computer game and even if he makes it for PC he must trademark on every platform it could be ported-to or reverse-engineered on. He can't just register this trademark under "Card Games" because de-facto it is not a card game, it is a piece of software! It can be played on

"The trademark used on Delta faucets does not cover passenger air services."

You can bring up all the other dis-similar non-infringing examples you like. You can't ignore the similar: Star Wars and Star Trek clearly cover the same media AND subject matter with no problem, you can't ignore that.

PS: Apple Music vs Apple Computer, Apple is still selling music under the common name Apple.

 

[rdm]

You conventionally trademark my media type. Not by intricacies of game design.

Nevertheless, these are separate trademarks:
THE ELDER SCROLLS Pre-recorded CD's and DVD's featuring fantasy games
THE ELDER SCROLLS Clothing, namely, T-shirts, shirts, sweatshirts, fleece pullovers; headwear, namely, hats.
THE ELDER SCROLLS Computer and video game user instruction manuals, books, and strategy guides.
THE ELDER SCROLLS Providing on-line forums for transmission of messages among computer users concerning computer games.
THE ELDER SCROLLS computer game programs.

Notch DID have to trademark by multiple media types.

I'm just saying he'd be in a lot better shape if he had those as separate trademarks.

Though his game is based on card-game ...

I thought you just got done saying that the card playing aspect is irrelevant to the trademark? You can't have it both ways.

Either the card playing part is relevant -- in which case his trademark app is broken because it's way more general than card playing. Or the card playing part is not relevant -- in which case your bringing it up is bogus because it's not relevant.

You can bring up all the other dis-similar non-infringing examples you like. You can't ignore the similar: Star Wars and Star Trek clearly cover the same media AND subject matter with no problem, you can't ignore that.

And they also each contain a word in the trademark which the other does not. This is a distinction which is relevant for Star Wars, and which is relevant for Star Trek. This distinction is not relevant for "Apple" and is not relevant for "Scrolls".

PS: Apple Music vs Apple Computer, Apple is still selling music under the common name Apple.

Yes -- and that one went to court, and they are now living by the results of that court decision. They pretty much had to go to court because the law by itself and the trademarks by themselves did not say how this conflict should be resolved.

 

[Wargamer]

Boycotting a game is pointless

At some point you will give in and buy the game.

Bethesda aren't bad people, their legal team are just being assholes who won't do the Quake 3 match.

This is only true if you're a dumbass who claims to boycott every damn game. I have made a conscious choice not to buy Syrim, and I will stick to it.

 

[Mr.Tophat]

Can we all love a little more, not hate?

Instead of being pissed at both sides for being just a little stupid, realize that hey, since they were both a little stupid, lets not punish either of them. Let their own stupid punish themselves. Come on Escapists. Lets all hug it out.

 

[Jasta11]

Notch should trademark ''Craft'' and sue Blizzard over it.

More seriously, why does anybody defend Beth's lawyers on this? Regardless of Skyrim's quality or promises, this is as frivolous and stupid as lawsuits get. Seriously, ''Scrolls'' is copyright infringement? What next, sue Nintendo because ''SKYward Sword'' infinges on ''SKYrim''? I don't know the intention behind this, but it's stupid regardless. Between that and the hilariously bad Interplay trial, this legal team has proven time and again to be composed of massive twats.