Support NeoGAF

[balladofwindfishes]

Nah, Blizzard should make a cartoony team-based multiplayer FPS/hat simulator and trademark the name "TF3". No one would have a problem with that, I bet.

no, that's not a good analogy

this would be like Activision hiring the team that made Zombie Panic Source, and then releasing a game called "Zombie Panic" which was an enhanced remake of the Source mod.

DOTA was a Warcraft mod, TF2 is a game Valve owns and produced in-house. The best analogies for this would be Blizzard/Activision taking a Source mod and making it into a game.

 

[TheExodu5]

He works at Riot now.

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT

 

[Doc Holliday]

Exactly. This just proves the absurdity of all of this. Fans arguing over which billion/multimillion dollar company gets to make more money off of them. Sweet.

Exactly! Also I see people calling Blizzard greedy at the same time saying it's their fault for not trademarking it sooner. Dota has been pretty big for a while, if Blizzard wanted to they could have cashed in ages ago.

Both games will be free-to-play

Have you seen the amount cash LoL brings in???

 

[Togglesworlh]

I don't know about "claim" it, but Blizzard claims explicitly that DOTA is under license from them in their notice of opposition.

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.

There's little ambiguity in their position.

Actually, I made this mistake pretty early on in the thread.

They aren't claiming that DOTA is under license to the fans, but rather that their fans are under license from Blizzard. Specifically, the EULA that they all agree to when using Blizzard's products.

I'm guessing it's legalese so most lawyers would interpret it more correctly than I initially did.

Either way, it's bullshit. No one reads EULAs. There's no way they would hold up under court in most cases. (Or so I'd like to believe.)

 

[NG28]

Exactly! Also I see people calling Blizzard greedy at the same time saying it's their fault for not trademarking it sooner. Dota has been pretty big for a while, if Blizzard wanted to they could have cashed in ages ago.



Have you seen the amount cash LoL brings in???

Blizzard has cashed in. Tons of people purchased Warcraft 3 just to play DOTA. Also I could be wrong, but doesn't Blizzard run ads on battle.net?

Making cash through micro-transactions doesn't change the fact it will be free to play. People who don't want extra stuff don't have to buy it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

okay this has annoyed me long enough

what the hell does DOTA mean

4 letters then the enter key is all it would have taken to ask Google that question.

But they've got a pending trademark for "Defense of the Ancients", and they're opposing Valve's claim to "DOTA" on the grounds that the IP is rightfully theirs. If their counter-claim goes through and they don't go through with their own trademark, what does that say about their case against Valve?

Considering that the claim relies on association rather than ownership, it probably says "we're telling the truth".

 

[idolminds]

Not quite the same. Valve already has a trademark for "Team Fortress", a product they've been working on various iterations of for over a decade. Blizzard does not have one for "Defense of the Ancients", a product they have never actively worked on until the very recent Blizzard DOTA.

I didn't say Blizzard should call it "Team Fortress". I said they should call it "TF3". Completely different.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I didn't say Blizzard should call it "Team Fortress". I said they should call it "TF3". Completely different.

You guys are getting pretty sad, but okay. TF2 is actually a registered trademark of Valve Corporation. An application for a trademark for a similar game called TF3 would be rejected on those grounds.

 

[Togglesworlh]

I didn't say Blizzard should call it "Team Fortress". I said they should call it "TF3". Completely different.

How so?

 

[kodt]

Both games will be free-to-play

Free to play, but it will still make Valve tons of money.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Blizzard has cashed in. Tons of people purchased Warcraft 3 just to play DOTA. Also I could be wrong, but doesn't Blizzard run ads on battle.net?

Making cash through micro-transactions doesn't change the fact it will be free to play. People who don't want extra stuff don't have to buy it.

The fact that Blizzard made money on Dota or WC 3 has nothing to do with the fact that Dota 2 will make money. Pretending Valve doesn't care about the tremendous cash cow DOTA 2 can be doesn't make sense. People are acting like Valve releasing DOTA 2 is philanthropic gesture the the community. They see cash just like any other company.

 

[SteveWinwood]

no, that's not a good analogy

this would be like Activision hiring the team that made Zombie Panic Source, and then releasing a game called "Zombie Panic" which was an enhanced remake of the Source mod.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

 

[phosphor112]

Good God. Fuck Activision Blizzard. I can't stand them.

Glad DOTA was "licensed" by Blizzard all of a sudden!

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Nope, not in the slightest. That's exactly the situation with Natural Selection 2 as someone pointed out on this very page.

 

[Neuromancer]

Because you need Warcraft 3 to play the original DOTA, Blizzard owns the trademark for the name of the game that they didn't even come up with?

Man WHAT?

also
fuck bobby kotick.

It's not that Blizzard has the trademark; it's that they don't want Valve to have it. Big difference.

 

[NG28]

The fact that Blizzard made money on Dota or WC 3 has nothing to do with the fact that Dota 2 will make money. Pretending Valve doesn't care about the tremendous cash cow DOTA 2 can be doesn't make sense. People are acting like Valve releasing DOTA 2 is philanthropic gesture the the community. They see cash just like any other company.

Obviously they aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that either.

 

[idolminds]

How so?

Thats what I'm wondering. I'm simply playing devils advocate and maybe chose the wrong example (since apparently Valve trademarked TF2 as well as Team Fortress). But my point is Valve is attempting to trademark Dota, which is somehow completely different from DOTA or Defense of the Ancients, which Valve has no prior dealings with. Neither does Blizzard, except "Ancients" refers to something inside of Blizzards game.

Its a trademark dispute and Blizzard is pointing out that if you say "dota" to anyone they will immediately think of Blizzards game and characters, not Valve and whatever they have done in the past. So why is Valve trying to take that name for itself?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Nope, not in the slightest. That's exactly the situation with Natural Selection 2 as someone pointed out on this very page.

Hmm did natural Selection use assets from Half life? Did it use actual Half-life Lore for the game. I mean just look at the screen shots of Wc3 and DOTA. I remember before actually playing LoL that I used to think of Dota as a Warcraft III map.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Obviously they aren't doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. I don't think anyone in this thread has said that either.

Well people are saying Blizzard are just being greedy and Kotick is the devil when basically valve got greedy first lol. Also Blizzard is not stopping Valve from making money or even releasing the game. Just don't trademark the game. This is actually a pretty interesting dispute.

 

[Kunan]

Blizzard won't, and shouldn't win this. But Valve are not really any better in this whole debacle. Of course, their method of making DOTA 2 is indicative of the fact that the person they hired was in charge of curating, maintenance and extending a base game.

Also, as said above, Valve were greedy first. LALALASTEAMISAWESOMECANDONOWRONG. No.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Thats what I'm wondering. I'm simply playing devils advocate and maybe chose the wrong example (since apparently Valve trademarked TF2 as well as Team Fortress). But my point is Valve is attempting to trademark Dota, which is somehow completely different from DOTA or Defense of the Ancients, which Valve has no prior dealings with. Neither does Blizzard, except "Ancients" refers to something inside of Blizzards game.

Its a trademark dispute and Blizzard is pointing out that if you say "dota" to anyone they will immediately think of Blizzards game and characters, not Valve and whatever they have done in the past. So why is Valve trying to take that name for itself?

Because Valve gave jobs to the people who made the mod so that they could work on a sequel for them.

Hmm did natural Selection use assets from Half life? Did it use actual Half-life Lore for the game. I mean just look at the screen shots of Wc3 and DOTA. I remember before actually playing LoL that I used to think of Dota as a Warcraft III map.

The original NS did use assets from Half-Life and required Half-Life to play. You're stretching like a gymnast if you think that the "lore" of DOTA or DOTA 2 are a huge part of either game, but okay I guess there's that.

At its core, DOTA is the progenitor of a genre which emphasises gameplay and skill over everything else. E-sports becomes more popular and lucrative every year, that's the reason ownership of it's being contested. The art and lore are largely irrelevant.

 

[BeesEight]

Blizzard won't, and shouldn't win this. But Valve are not really any better in this whole debacle. Of course, their method of making DOTA 2 is indicative of the fact that the person they hired was in charge of curating, maintenance and extending a base game.

Also, as said above, Valve were greedy first. LALALASTEAMISAWESOMECANDONOWRONG. No.

We could use more Valve greed from developers. Matchmaking, replays, tournaments and support, high quality production values, hiring the talent behind the mods...

Or there's Blizzard's greed. Ignore the mod and community than file an objection when the two big creators seek a trademark.

 

[rac]

Good, i always thought it was wrong of Valve to trademark the DOTA2 name. By all means call the current DOTA2 something else but don't steal a name that belongs to the community.

I have less of an issue of it going towards Blizzard, but i hope Blizzard does what Riot wanted to do and make it for the 'community'.

Seriously, fuck Blizzard and Valve. The community needs to take both of them to court.

 

[Togglesworlh]

Its a trademark dispute and Blizzard is pointing out that if you say "dota" to anyone they will immediately think of Blizzards game and characters, not Valve and whatever they have done in the past. So why is Valve trying to take that name for itself?

The only association DotA ever had with anything Blizzard was that it was a mod of a video game Blizzard released. As such, it naturally used Blizzard's assets and et cetera et cetera, but that was a matter of circumstance and necessity rather than deliberate choice. Also, the core of the gameplay design is purely to the credit of the creator of Aeon of Strife, which inspired Eul to create Defense of the Ancients for WC3.

Maybe Valve should just change the name of their game to Aos 2.

 

[Sentenza]

Gabe will prevail.

 

[JaseC]

Gabe will prevail.

This is the most majestic thing I have ever witnessed.

 

[mattschwabby]

Diablo 3 delayed until Q2 2013 confirmed

 

[derFeef]

Hooly moly.

 

[Zen]

Bull shit, Eul has every right to it. As far as I see it, this is just a case of Kleenex, Band Aid, Jacuzzi and Xerox. Pendragon and Guisoo didn't call their stand alone product because they didn't coin it. Eul did.

Well sorry, but Eul doesn't own Dota, legally and otherwise.

 

[LCGeek]

If blizzard is really doing this I don't want them touching dota or mobas to be quite honest. This reeks of shady especially since they all the time in the world before valve stepped in to do DOTA right. Hopefully the courts side with valve or neither of this companies they didn't make dota and are only in it because of how huge it's become.

Hopefully valve's lawyers are smart in showing blizzard role in dota both keeping it down and interest. Funny how when the ball finally gets rolling blizzard wants to come in with what is apparently a washed down casual version of it.

 

[HK-47]

I honestly don't care who wins or who the name goes to, as I don't have and have never had any interest in playing DOTA. I'm just baffled why Valve would want to name their game that. It seems like you'd generate more buzz pretending like it's a totally new concept than you would trying to foster brand-recognition from Warcraft III players who were probably already aware of your game anyway.

Because Dota is huge. The name has lots of cash with the EU, Chinese and Southeast Asian markets.

 

[TheExodu5]

Gabe will prevail.

:O

Right Click -> Set As Desktop Background

 

[Stahsky]

Because Dota is huge. The name has lots of cash with the EU, Chinese and Southeast Asian markets.

It's pretty remarkable just how oblivious people are with the success of this game and name.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Blizzard should of put a ring on it.

Valve did kind of swoop in and swipe it, but I know everyone is pro-Steam and Valve around here.

Valve didn't really "Swoop" in, DOTA has been around for YEARS Blizzard had what? 7+ years to make it their own? But they never did. Valve hired the dude who made DOTA and trademarked the name YEARS later.

Blizzard can blame no one but themselves.

 

[Bowdz]

Gabe will prevail.

I will follow him to whatever end...

 

[Avocado]

Valve didn't really "Swoop" in, DOTA has been around for YEARS Blizzard had what? 7+ years to make it their own? But they never did. Valve hired the dude who made DOTA and trademarked the name YEARS later.

Blizzard can blame no one but themselves.

Seriously - Valve did what Valve has always done. Hired the talent and secured the rights for it.

 

[lexi]

I'm not sure what's legally right, but I'd just like to say fuck Blizzard on this one. They have done nothing for Dota when it was theirs for the taking. They were more than happy to ride on the coattails of a mod that became insanely popular, and do sweet FA for the community and the creators.

Valve deserves the game, Blizzard doesn't deserve anything.

 

[Sibylus]

Here's the bit I object to:
and
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:


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.

Yes, this came to mind also as a very bad precedent to allow. If EULAs now grant automatic rights to all acronyms, terms, and beyond that emerge from mods after the fact (ie, "Dota" the noun didn't ship with the original maps, as far as I know), then could we possibly be in for one hell of a chilling effect on modding and mod IPs revitalizing the market in general? Earnest question, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[questionmark]

People are acting like Valve releasing DOTA 2 is philanthropic gesture the the community.

Sorry, but this is something that is entirely made up in your head, and has no bearing on reality. No one is denying that Valve wanted to make a Dota game too make a shitload of cash, and they also chose that name to make more cash than they would have if they had come up with something original.

Exactly. This just proves the absurdity of all of this. Fans arguing over which billion/multimillion dollar company gets to make more money off of them. Sweet.

There is nothing absurd about it. On one hand, you have Blizzard who have proven time and time again that they are more than happy to fuck over their consumers and communities to get more cash and control over their products. On the other spectrum, you have Valve. Who, while also in the business of making a shitload of cash, does so without coming off as typical corporate assholes.

 

[Nekrono]

Gabe will prevail.

Holy....

This will be my phone's wallpaper from here to eternity.

Also someone should add a hat to that picture.

 

[lupinko]

Well sorry, but Eul doesn't own Dota, legally and otherwise.

Of course not, but he does work for Valve, and Valve does own Dota. Shymalalan.jpg

 

[Sibylus]

Hmm did natural Selection use assets from Half life? Did it use actual Half-life Lore for the game. I mean just look at the screen shots of Wc3 and DOTA. I remember before actually playing LoL that I used to think of Dota as a Warcraft III map.

Uncertain about assets, pretty sure there was no lore usage, but Natural Selection would have almost certainly been running on top of Half-Life code and would have passed through Valve's mapping tools. Valid example.

 

[Junie12]

Gabe will prevail.

Just came to say thanks for the wallpaper

 

[Valnen]

Yeah okay Blizz

Why are you laughing? Any mod you make for a Blizzard game is Blizzard's property. If they want to take claim to a name you use in their service, it's their legal right to do so.

 

[Moaradin]

Blizzard owns you!

 

[Uriah]

Why are you laughing? Any mod you make for a Blizzard game is Blizzard's property. If they want to take claim to a name you use in their service, it's their legal right to do so.

Based on what precedent?

 

[Valnen]

Based on what precedent?

You agreed to it if you play Blizzard games.

 

[SteveWinwood]

You agreed to it if you play Blizzard games.

Already said a thousand times, EULAs aren't legally binding.

 

[Uriah]

You agreed to it if you play Blizzard games.

I assume you are referring to the EULA? Just because something is in the EULA doesn't make it legal.

 

[Slayer-33]

Gabe will prevail.

Holy shit someone frame this.