All this doc says is that they're opposing the trademark. Sorry - don't see a problem with that.
They give a reason they're opposing the trademark. I have a problem with that reason.
All this doc says is that they're opposing the trademark. Sorry - don't see a problem with that.
Read the filing and the answer, Blizzard makes a decent argument that deserves to be heard, let the courts decide.
They should probably just sue over Morphling pretty much being exactly a War3 Water Elemental.
Blizzard isn't trying to obtain the rights to Dota, they're trying to protect it from being commercialized when Valve has little right to title their MOBA game 'Dota 2'. They aren't sueing Valve, they're attempting to block the trademarking, and good for them.
Dota should be public domain, period. To many individuals have participated in its success and iterated it in various seperate directions for any one company or individual to be able to claim ownership. That's why Pendragon and Guinsoo called their stand alone product League of Legends instead of calling it something like 'Dota AllStars 2'.
It depends if Blizzard had anything in their EULA for WC3 that made them entitled to all mods made for the game.
and8. Use of the World Editor (and Warcraft III) is subject to the terms of an
End User License Agreement ("EULA") between Blizzard and users of Warcraft III. The
EULA sets forth the relative rights and responsibilities of the parties regarding their use
of Warcraft III and the World Editor. The EULA is displayed to users during the
installation of Warcraft III and the World Editor. All users of Warcraft III and the World
Editor must consent to the EULA by clicking on a button labeled "Accept." If the user
declines to assent, he or she may click a button labeled "Decline," at which point the
installation will terminate, denying access to the user. If a user declines to accept the
EULA, he or she may request and obtain a full refund from Blizzard of the purchase
price.
9. Pursuant to the EULA, Blizzard grants to the user, subject to the terms of
the EULA, a limited, non-exclusive license to install Warcraft III and the World Editor
on his or her computer, use the game for noncommercial entertainment purposes, and
distribute Warcraft III mods to other users via the Battle.net game service. Warcraft III's
EULA clearly specifies that all underlying intellectual property rights in and to Warcraft
III are owned by Blizzard: "All title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in
and to the Program and any and all copies thereof (including, but not limited to, any
titles, computer code, themes, objects, characters, character names, stories, dialog, catch
phrases, locations, concepts, artwork, animations, sounds, musical compositions,
audiovisual effects, methods of operation, moral rights, any related documentation, and
`applets' incorporated into the Program) are owned by Blizzard or its licensors."
10. The EULA prohibits the use of Warcraft III or the World Editor for any
commercial purpose without Blizzard's prior written consent. In addition, the EULA
restricts any distribution of "New Materials [defined as modifications of Warcraft III
created using the World Editor] on a stand-alone basis... through any and all distribution
channels, including, but not limited to, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution
without the express written consent of Blizzard.
Much of the rest of the argument is built up from this concept: That clicking 'Assent' on the EULA licensed DotA (not just the actual code, but the name) to Blizzard. They discuss how they used DotA to promote their game through their website and through other websites, how it's commonly known that DotA is a Warcraft III mod, how the mod uses in-game assets, how it can't run independent of Warcraft III... but the central pillar is that EULA. This is summed up nicely in the Introduction:13.
The DotA Mods are not stand-alone products and cannot be played
independently of Warcraft III. From a technical standpoint, the DotA mods are small
computer files that use the Warcraft III "extension" .w3x. The DotA Mods cannot be
opened, accessed, played, or used in any manner without the user having first installed
Warcraft III and assented to the Warcraft III EULA. From the user's standpoint, the
DotA Mods are Warcraft III scenarios, or "maps," that users can loaded into Warcraft III
and enable them to play Warcraft III in a slightly different manner from the original
game. The DotA Mods use the same game engine, graphical elements, artwork, sound
recordings and user interface of Warcraft III. All of the elements of the DotA Mods,
including the heroes, items, leveling system, abilities, spells, fighting mechanics,
environments, and structures, are from Warcraft III. All or nearly all of the models,
textures, animations, ability or spell effects, and icons are from Warcraft III. Further,
many of the names, sounds, and character icons of the heroes in the DotA Mods are the
same as those used by Warcraft III characters. All of these elements were utilized by the
DotA Mods under license from Blizzard and pursuant to the EULA.
14. Since its release in 2003, the DotA Mods have been downloaded and
played by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the United States and the world
via the Warcraft III game software and Blizzard's Battle.net system. The DotA Mods can
be played only after a user has installed Warcraft III onto his or her computer, assented to
the EULA, launched the game software (at which time the user is presented with the
Warcraft III game screen and Blizzard logo), and entered Blizzard's "Battle.net "
multiplayer online system. At all times, the DotA Mods have been marketed, advertised,
and promoted as Warcraft III scenarios that require purchase and installation of Warcraft
III and knowledge of Warcraft III's gameplay mechanics, user interface, and on-screen
display. The fact that the DotA Mods are "mods" of Warcraft III and that to be played
the user must first purchase Warcraft III is well-known and well-publicized throughout
the United States and the world
By this Opposition, Blizzard seeks to prevent registration by its competitor
Valve Corporation ("Valve") of a trademark, DOTA, that for more than seven years has
been used exclusively by Blizzard and its fan community, under license from Blizzard.
By virtue of that use, the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of
consumers with Blizzard, including to signify a highly popular scenario or variant of one
of Blizzard's best-selling computer games, Warcraft III. Over the past seven years, the
mark DOTA has been used exclusively in connection with Blizzard and its products,
namely Warcraft III. Most notably, DOTA has been used as the popular name of a
Warcraft III software "mod" file that has been distributed, marketed, and promoted by
Blizzard and its fans (under license from Blizzard); that utilizes and is built upon the
1 Warcraft III game engine, interface, and gameplay mechanics; that is comprised of
Warcraft III characters, items, spells, artwork, textures, and color palates; that can be
played only using Warcraft III software and via Blizzard's online service Battle.net ; and
whose name (DOTA, an acronym for "Defense of the Ancients") is a reference to
Warcraft III characters known as the "Ancients."
No it doesn't. EULA is not legally binding.
Interesting. Most people here support Valve where as most people talking about it on reddit support Blizzard. Wonder what that's about..
so true.only dota can bring out the worst in people
Here's the bit I object to:
So for me the legal case rests upon whether or not you support the notion that click-through EULAs have such force of law that any creations built on top of a EULA'd product- not the original artwork, not the specifics of the mod code, not even the lore, but specifically an acronym that was not present in the original game- can immediately by considered "owned" by the party conferring the EULA to the extent that licenses can be granted and trademarks denied.
I think that's an absurd standard and I hope Valve's legal team goes about dismantling it.
So your argument is that because the creator of the mod was ignorant of signing permission of these even though it would have explicitly said, 'read these terms and conditions' (like they usually do) that there is a chance the original modder can somehow win?
He signed them knowing full well that they were signing over the rights of that game. If not explicitly, it must have occured to him that Blizzard could do such a thing as it is not an uncommon practice given that you usually buy a license for a product rather than full ownership.
On top of that your intentionally omitting the fact of the similarities between the DOTA 2 and DotA games.
That's not cricket.
CEN 800 - Law and Ethics. Study of the legal and ethical aspects of engineering practice, including Canadian legal system and business organizations, tort liability, business contract law, intellectual and industrial property, principles of arbitration and alternative dispute resolutions, the practice of engineering, occupational health and safety, ethical aspects of engineering practice, ethical dilemmas in project management, sustainable development and ethical behavior, and globalization and international standards for ethical and social responsibility.
Your contribution to society/this_thread is...
?
I think Valve is the one who are the villans, Blizzard isn't trying to claim the DOTA name as much as they are trying to prevent it from falling in Valve's hands.
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.
Valve hired Icefrog. That gives them 1000x more legitimacy to claiming the DOTA name.
What`s up with Blizzard nowadays?
if that guy wanted to own the Dota name he shouldn't have released it as a fan mod for a commercial game in the first place.
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA and ignored it for 7 years, now they want to say they own it despite having neither developed it nor promoted it nor hiring any DOTA developers for 7 years.
Valve hired Icefrog. That gives them 1000x more legitimacy to claiming the DOTA name.
Activision probably told them to. Activision sues everyone
Nope, that's not my argument.
So for me the legal case rests upon whether or not you support the notion that click-through EULAs have such force of law that any creations built on top of a EULA'd product- not the original artwork, not the specifics of the mod code, not even the lore, but specifically an acronym that was not present in the original game- can immediately by considered "owned" by the party conferring the EULA to the extent that licenses can be granted and trademarks denied.
I think that's an absurd standard and I hope Valve's legal team goes about dismantling it.
Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III?
Could easily argue that War3 was as successful as it was due to DotA.
yes lets stop the modding community creating stuff for games, makes sense, I mean who needs counter strike, team fortress, alien swarm or day of defeat?
EULA is a contract........ a contract is more than enough of a force of law for Blizzard to lay claim to the Defense of the Ancients trademark. This is trademarks you are talking about, do you honestly think that Valve can successfully argue that "DoTA" is a distinct trademark from "Defense of the Ancients"? If you do then you obviously do not know anything about trademark laws.
The EULA made it very clear, by making a mod you are giving away the right to ever use your creation for commercial purposes.......... if Eul is unhappy about that then why didn't he spend time and money to make his own RTS game engine? Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III? That the MOBA craze would have been possible if not for Blizzard giving their fans the right to modify their games? Which they spent millions of dollars to develop?
I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks Blizzard has no rights to the DOTA trademark.
In fairness, the name Defense of the Ancients is based around Blizzard lore, so it's kind of a different thing.I haven't seen anything in the EULA about names and trademarks.
There is also the factual error where they state the only way to play Dota is to use Battle.net
EULA is a contract........ a contract is more than enough of a force of law for Blizzard to lay claim to the Defense of the Ancients trademark. This is trademarks you are talking about, do you honestly think that Valve can successfully argue that "DoTA" is a distinct trademark from "Defense of the Ancients"? If you do then you obviously do not know anything about trademark laws.
The EULA made it very clear, by making a mod you are giving away the right to ever use your creation for commercial purposes.......... if Eul is unhappy about that then why didn't he spend time and money to make his own RTS game engine? Also, do you guys seriously think DOTA would have been a fraction as successful as it was had it not leech off the success of Warcraft III? That the MOBA craze would have been possible if not for Blizzard giving their fans the right to modify their games? Which they spent millions of dollars to develop?
I have a hard time understanding why anyone thinks Blizzard has no rights to the DOTA trademark.
Good thing Icefrog isn't the creator of DOTA, and the actual creators of DOTA specifically chose to avoid using the DOTA name because they felt it belonged to the community.I think if I was the creator of DOTA I would be pretty annoyed at Blizzard for trying to pull this now.
Good thing Icefrog isn't the creator of DOTA, and the actual creators of DOTA specifically chose to avoid using the DOTA name because they felt it belonged to the community.
Jesus christ, Blizzard... do they really think this will be worth the bad PR they are going to get over suing Valve and claiming a trademark over a name that was 100% fan created?
Blizzard seems to be trying hard to throw out all the goodwill it has accumulated with its consumers throughout the years as quickly as they can. They messed up on battlenet, LAN, realid, and forcing online sp. Now they want to control dota this late into it, something they didn't give two shits about before. I'm rooting for Valve on this one
Oh, but click-wrap agreement has been held as a valid contract in certain cases dating back to the late 90s (e.g. Specht v. Netscape). Including Blizzard's own WoW Glider case.No, these things are NOT self evident as you seem to believe. The act of putting "End User Licensing Agreement" at the top and an "Accept" button at the bottom in a window created by the installation script doesn't mean that any and all words between the top and the bottom are enforceable as a contract.
This is about trademarks, not "the ideas behind the mod". It's solely about the right to use the name DOTA in commerce.I haven't seen anything in the EULA about names and trademarks. Just like Apple's (pre-update) iBooks EULA claimed ownership of the iBook-produced file, not the book itself, WC3's EULA seems to claim ownership over the WC3 implementation and distribution of the mod itself and it's assets, not the ideas behind the mod.
You also think Google should have the rights to a song I write myself and upload to YouTube just because it would have never gotten popular without using YouTube's infrastructure? That's nonsense!