-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blizzard Legally Opposes Valve Trademark Over DOTA Name [Up: Trial Schedule]
- Thread starter Drkirby
- Start date
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'.
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'.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
From reading that, it looks like Riot gave up on fighting Valve for the trademark.
Alex
Member
They like to run little spiels on how it didn't effect them but the correlation between the merger and them going to shit in several ways is pretty evident.
Forgotten_Taco
Member
What's the TOA in WC3 say about creating mods and ownership?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Blizzard vs. Valve. Begun the Master Race War has. Blizzard the Jedi master corrupted by Activision's dark side. Sad times, indeed.
Whatever happened to Blizzard Dota? They gave up or something?!
Whatever happened to Blizzard Dota? They gave up or something?!
walking fiend
Member
did they hire those who made WC3 and B.net, which obviously and without doubt was the only reason DotA became as popular as it is now?
DotA wasn't the sole creation of Ice Frog or Eul, its success was heavily dependent on the assets of Blizzard and WC3 creation tool and also B.Net popularity.
Would DotA become nearly as popular if it was an Age of Empires map? (well, not that it was possible to begin with).
outunderthestars
Banned
As an outsider to PC gaming, this just reminds me of how difficult it has to be in terms of allowing high level modding. It sounds, to me, like the original idea and assets came from a Blizzard game, but Valve brought the modder in house and developed a game from their own internal assets.
This could actually be an interesting court case.
This could actually be an interesting court case.
Takeda Kenshi
blew Staal
This ain't the Blizzard you knew.
LunaticHigh
Member
It's obvious as to why Riot didn't want it to go as it has a direct impact on their business, but it doesn't have any on blizzard.
I'd like to note that Riot is owned by the world's third largest internet company behind Amazon and Google, so they definitely didn't give up for lack of cash.
Ignis Fatuus
Banned
Valve has actually trademarked the DOTA name.
Blizzard is trying to launch something called Blizzard DOTA which no one will play. Valve
skullwolfgp
Neo Member
This certainly didn't stop TripWire with Red Orchestra or Valve with Team Fortress or Alien Swarm.
It's not stopping Unknown Worlds with Natural Selection either.
Also, the person who made WarCraft 3's map editor works at ArenaNet now, as do the people who made Battle.net.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
Yeah, they didn't give up due to lack of cash. I would assume that Valve just had a stronger case to claim the trademark since both Eul and Icefrog work for Valve now. Or something.
Blizzard can call it Offense of the Ancients. All the characters are lawyers who play lawyer ball.
Ignis Fatuus
Banned
You shouldn't talk about things you have no understanding of.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Something was bound to happen.
Should id sue Valve for Team Fortress then?
I'm wondering how they are going to prove that Valve stole a trademark that they never actually trademarked. Is there such a thing as a common law trademark?
Ignis Fatuus
Banned
It's the Donkey Kong legal strategy. Worked wonders for Universal.
Is that why SC2's StarEdit is such a convoluted piece of crap?
jediyoshi
Member
You seem to be confusing it with every other MOBA.
As stated before, IceFrog did not make the character models nor the games engine. The hero concept introduced by Blizzard was the only way this thing ever took off. I'm not saying Blizzard should own it either. Sure, legally, you could say IceFrog is the 'owner', but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why does it need to be called DOTA? After so many games took inspiration from it and came up with their own names? Is Valve just gonna hire Michael Toy next and say they own the name 'Roguelike'?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
shagg_187 said:
They realized it looked like shit after the dota 2 reveal.
Activision Blizzard.
EatinOlives
Member
If they trademark it, yes?
les papillons sexuels
Banned
blame blizzard for not recognizing their own communities talents and thank valve for rescuing these dev teams.
as it's been said before team fortress, alien swarm, and now dota are all better off because valve came in and hired these teams and expanded on their talents.
because valve doesn't want to see the legacy tied to the name disappear?
PsychoSoldier
Banned
Riot Games: *laughs*
and action quake, and deathmatch classic, probably every dev who has ever done CTF. The colour brown.
walking fiend
Member
The problem here, isn't with the game, it is with the name.
It's not as if Blizzard is saying why they are releasing a game similar to DotA, but why they are calling it DotA.
And those games aren't nearly as popular as DotA, even none of valve games are nearly as popular as DotA.
MW3 didn't suddenly stop selling cause the original creators left; not one single person is normal responsible for the quality or performance of a game, sometimes not even a team.
krameriffic
Member
It seems to me that they probably thought about this before they sunk millions into the development of Dota 2. Should this copyright suit ever arise, I assume they already have an ironclad case for why they can do it.
The RTS hero concept was introduced in Warlords Battlecry II first.
Um, all the games I listed use the same name as the original, that's the point.
I don't see what your second point has to do with your argument.
Because it's basically the same as *gasp* Dota!!!*gasp*
Have you played LoL or HoN? Although MOBAs, they all play differently. Why should Euls and IceFrog have to part with what they keep working on?
Yep. Not sure why people are arguging otherwise. Call the game something else like what S2 and Riot did, don't trademark a name that isn't yours. Heres a bad analogy, It's like if I wanted to trademark the name The Holy Bible 2.
Yeah, it's probably the legal department.
Togglesworlh
Banned
WC3/B.net were the backends that made DotA possible. They were not what made DotA DotA.
That would be like, well, more than enough people have already pointed out the sheer absurdity of developers suing other developers who made sequels to mods. You need to take a long, hard look at just how crazy you sound right now.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
which was an amazing game.
walking fiend
Member
So, BOps and MW3 has been made by legal department?
It's like blaming Bethesda games bugs on the programmers.
again, I am not saying that why they are making a sequel, but why they are naming it DotA 2?
As if they have any right over DotA 1, or if such a thing exists to begin with.