• 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Jace (1094 posts) -

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91202572&pty=OPP&eno=1

Update: Kotaku has an article out http://kotaku.com/5883938/blizzard-is-suing-valve

Thoughts? I didn't see this coming. This is going to be worth watching.

#2 Edited by Asurastrike (2167 posts) -

The whole situation is kind of weird. Really do either of those companies have the right to use the name DOTA?

#3 Posted by SexualBubblegumX (542 posts) -

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

#4 Posted by Aetheldod (3594 posts) -

Valve FTW!!!!!

#5 Posted by SomeJerk (3262 posts) -

I thought it was interesting, because Blizzard said it was no problem up until now.  It sounds fishy for more reasons than;
"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."
 
With the people Valve have working on DOTA2 and what the design goal for DOTA2 is, it would be stupid to have any other name. Feels like Blizzard were slapped around by Boaby Goatshit for not suing.

#6 Posted by Jace (1094 posts) -

I might be mistaken, but I think the outcome is hanging on whether or not the fact that DOTA was apart of the WC3 map editor inherently gives Blizzard the rights to DOTA.

#7 Posted by cyraxible (688 posts) -

The name has grown outside of Blizzard's properties, this just seems like throwing a tantrum because Valve beat them to the punch.

Really the name belongs to the community and the people who developed the mod... Well, that is until Valve slapped some money down on the table.

#8 Posted by RobertOrri (1132 posts) -

This has been a looooong time coming.

#9 Posted by Animasta (14698 posts) -

they have to call it MOBA 2 instead

#10 Posted by Hailinel (24973 posts) -

That it stemmed from the name of a Warcraft III mod doesn't really give Blizzard license to claim it as their own.

#11 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4540 posts) -

This should be interesting...though I can't imagine Blizzard walking out of this in a good light.

#12 Posted by Encephalon (1267 posts) -

So it's finally happening.

My money's on Gabe. You don't have that many goddamned knives without knowing how to kill with them.

#13 Posted by RobertOrri (1132 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

That it stemmed from the name of a Warcraft III mod doesn't really give Blizzard license to claim it as their own.

Not according to their license agreement. This case will hinge on whether the terms in that agreement are enforceable.

#14 Edited by Marz (5655 posts) -

Dota 2 was a stupid name anyways.. I can see why Blizzard wants to enforce this, if Valve got the trademark unopposed then Blizzard would have to scrap Starcraft DOTA because Valve may just sue them for the name in a reversal.

#15 Posted by Hailinel (24973 posts) -

@Animasta said:

they have to call it MOBA 2 instead

They should have called it MOBY 2 and themed the game after electronica music.

#16 Posted by Metal_Mills (3001 posts) -
@RobertOrri said:

@Hailinel said:

That it stemmed from the name of a Warcraft III mod doesn't really give Blizzard license to claim it as their own.

Not according to their license agreement. This case will hinge on whether the terms in that agreement are enforceable.

They never licensed the name and even said that. The guy who made Dota is working on Dota 2. Blizzard has no claim to it.
#17 Posted by CaptainTightPants (2834 posts) -

@Animasta said:

they have to call it MOBA 2 instead

I would love that.

So so much.

#18 Posted by Shirogane (3578 posts) -

I'm more suprised at how they're not getting sued for Lina Inverse....

But that picture, rofl...

#19 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -

@Jace said:

I might be mistaken, but I think the outcome is hanging on whether or not the fact that DOTA was apart of the WC3 map editor inherently gives Blizzard the rights to DOTA.

I think that part of the EULA was added in SC2. I believe that all maps created in SC2 are considered to be owned by Blizzard, but I don't think it was like that in WC3.

#20 Posted by allworkandlowpay (874 posts) -

I know, they should change the name to TRENCHED. That'll avoid all copyright issues.

#21 Edited by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

To quote someone from TeamLiquid.net

Er, Blizzard isn't suing valve at all, they're putting up a notice of opposition against Valve trademarking the Dota name, which is completley different to suing valve and fully expected because Blizzard wants Dota to be public domain.

And in my opinion rightfully so. But whatever, "x sues y" makes for better stronger headlines.

Edit:

@Jack268 said:

@Jace said:

I might be mistaken, but I think the outcome is hanging on whether or not the fact that DOTA was apart of the WC3 map editor inherently gives Blizzard the rights to DOTA.

I think that part of the EULA was added in SC2. I believe that all maps created in SC2 are considered to be owned by Blizzard, but I don't think it was like that in WC3.

Wrong, it was there in Wc3 already. First thing you see when opening the World Editor. I was a Wc3 modder myself.

#22 Posted by IBurningStar (2173 posts) -

In what will surely be considered one of the great dick moves of the year, Blizzard waits for Valve to sink a lot of time and money into DOTA2 before getting pissy about Valve actually using the DOTA name. I'm not the most well versed when it comes to these types of legal matters, but could Blizzard possibly stop the game from ever coming out and force Valve to start rebuilding the game again from scratch? Could they claim that the character models are too similar to ones from WCIII and that it infringes on their copyright? 

#23 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4540 posts) -

@allworkandlowpay said:

I know, they should change the name to TRENCHED. That'll avoid all copyright issues.

That would quite literally be the greatest thing to happen to gaming if only to see the reaction of the Double Fine crew.

#24 Posted by StarvingGamer (8284 posts) -

And thusly another case of "people believing an incendiary headline without bothering to find out the facts then immediately bandwagoning against X like the sheep they are" was born.

#25 Posted by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -

@IBurningStar said:

In what will surely be considered one of the great dick moves of the year, Blizzard waits for Valve to sink a lot of time and money into DOTA2 before getting pissy about Valve actually using the DOTA name. I'm not the most well versed when it comes to these types of legal matters, but could Blizzard possibly stop the game from ever coming out and force Valve to start rebuilding the game again from scratch? Could they claim that the character models are too similar to ones from WCIII and that it infringes on their copyright?

Nah obviously a name change would suffice. However, yes, some of the models look fairly similar to the Wc3 ones. At least from a basic design standpoint you could probably argue, that there are just too many models looking similar.

But that doesn't seem to be what Blizzard wants, in the first place, they just don't want Valve to license the "Dota" term.

Also I find it funny how people are always like "awesome Valve, trademarking Dota!" when the DotA community never wanted anyone, not even Blizzard to license DotA, as it was ( / is) a public domain really...

#26 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

Since when does Blizzard own DotA.

#27 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1546 posts) -

Look up "defense" in a thesaurus, find synonym, change title.

#28 Posted by Jace (1094 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

And thusly another case of "people believing an incendiary headline without bothering to find out the facts then immediately bandwagoning against X like the sheep they are" was born.

What? I literally posted the lawsuit itself. If people come to a general consensus based on it, then so be it. There's no need to armchair crusade.

#29 Posted by huntad (1941 posts) -

I think the whole thing is just stupid.

#30 Posted by dudeglove (7907 posts) -

@Encephalon said:

So it's finally happening.

My money's on Gabe. You don't have that many goddamned knives without knowing how to kill with them.

#31 Posted by mlarrabee (2971 posts) -

@BabyChooChoo said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

I know, they should change the name to TRENCHED. That'll avoid all copyright issues.

That would quite literally be the greatest thing to happen to gaming if only to see the reaction of the Double Fine crew.

Schafer would be out bustin' caps in foo's. I'd give good money to watch that...

#32 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

To quote someone from TeamLiquid.net

Er, Blizzard isn't suing valve at all, they're putting up a notice of opposition against Valve trademarking the Dota name, which is completley different to suing valve and fully expected because Blizzard wants Dota to be public domain.

And in my opinion rightfully so. But whatever, "x sues y" makes for better stronger headlines.

This seems totally reasonable to me.

#33 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@xobballox said:

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

To quote someone from TeamLiquid.net

Er, Blizzard isn't suing valve at all, they're putting up a notice of opposition against Valve trademarking the Dota name, which is completley different to suing valve and fully expected because Blizzard wants Dota to be public domain.

And in my opinion rightfully so. But whatever, "x sues y" makes for better stronger headlines.

This seems totally reasonable to me.

BUT KOTICK IS TEH EVIL!

#34 Posted by Jace (1094 posts) -

@xobballox said:

@NaDannMaGoGo said:

To quote someone from TeamLiquid.net

Er, Blizzard isn't suing valve at all, they're putting up a notice of opposition against Valve trademarking the Dota name, which is completley different to suing valve and fully expected because Blizzard wants Dota to be public domain.

And in my opinion rightfully so. But whatever, "x sues y" makes for better stronger headlines.

This seems totally reasonable to me.

That's exactly right. But the point is that if Valve doesn't go through with this, it will turn into a lawsuit. I think the reason "suing" is used is because that is the potential full swing.

#35 Edited by Deusx (1905 posts) -

This is now a thread where we post new Valve DOTA names:

VALVOTA... Calling it...

EDIT:

DOGABEN... Calling it...

#36 Edited by djaoni (338 posts) -

Defense of the Gaben.

#37 Posted by Masha2932 (1241 posts) -

After reading Blizzard's statement I can see their reasoning and don't fault them for their lawsuit.

Statement below from Kotaku:

In contrast to Blizzard, Applicant Valve Corporation ("Valve") has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public. By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and in its Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III. Valve has no right to the registration it seeks. If such registration is issued, it not only will damage Blizzard, but also the legions of Blizzard fans that have worked for years with Blizzard and its products, including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve's products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.

#38 Posted by Deusx (1905 posts) -

@djaoni said:

Defense of the Gaben.

You win sir. This thread is done. Everyone go home.

#39 Posted by NickL (2246 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

Since when does Blizzard own DotA.

Technically they own anything that was made in the wc3 map editor (which dota was) but that doesn't really matter

Blizzard isn't trying to take it for themselves, they just want it to stay in the public domain. (at least for now)

#40 Posted by Snickersnee (12 posts) -

@djaoni: I can go with this

on a serious note though fuck blizzard and always being a buzz kill

#41 Posted by sungahymn (1018 posts) -

???

#42 Posted by Jaytow (695 posts) -

Gabes gonna eat him.

#43 Posted by jetsetwillie (857 posts) -

@Snickersnee said:

@djaoni: I can go with this

on a serious note though fuck blizzard and always being a buzz kill

when else have they done something like this then. or is always a typical internet exaggeration

#44 Posted by Talis12 (488 posts) -

im pretty sure valve knows when they can use a name and when they cant..

#45 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

Dota = Warcraft = Blizzard.
 
If you say DOTA2 the first thought in my mind would be the new Blizzard DOTA game, not Valve's.
Valve should fuck off and make Half Life 3.

#46 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

What does DOTA even stand for?

Hell, what is it?

#47 Posted by probablytuna (3684 posts) -

This is gonna be interesting.

#48 Posted by masterpaperlink (1843 posts) -

Apparently, some of the original designers got snapped up by valve, this changes EVERYTHING, valve now has more right to the name than blizzard ever did.

END OF STORY.

#49 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Jace said:

I might be mistaken, but I think the outcome is hanging on whether or not the fact that DOTA was apart of the WC3 map editor inherently gives Blizzard the rights to DOTA.

Unless it was stated that anything created with that editor was property of Blizzard, it wouldn't suddenly belong to them. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't until SC2 that any sort of language along those lines was in the EULA of Blizzard games.

Even then, the name itself shouldn't belong to anyone, as the NAME wasn't made in the editor. Sort of like using Unreal Engine for your game. You owe unreal for the technology, not anything else. They don't get anything for the game design, the assets, plot/concept, or the IP.

@Marz said:

Dota 2 was a stupid name anyways.. I can see why Blizzard wants to enforce this, if Valve got the trademark unopposed then Blizzard would have to scrap Starcraft DOTA because Valve may just sue them for the name in a reversal.

It'd be easy to name that Starcraft Dota something else. "Starcraft of Legends" or something clever like that.

@cyraxible said:

The name has grown outside of Blizzard's properties, this just seems like throwing a tantrum because Valve beat them to the punch.

Really the name belongs to the community and the people who developed the mod... Well, that is until Valve slapped some money down on the table and hired those people.

This seems a little more accurate. I hate when people say a game belongs "to the community". No, it belongs to whoever made it.

#50 Posted by Olu (95 posts) -

@masterpaperlink: except icefrog wasn't sole creator of Dota.