• 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for jace
#1 Edited by Jace (1153 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.

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for asurastrike
#2 Edited by Asurastrike (2305 posts) -

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

Avatar image for sexualbubblegumx
#3 Posted by SexualBubblegumX (551 posts) -

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Avatar image for aetheldod
#4 Posted by Aetheldod (3914 posts) -

Valve FTW!!!!!

Avatar image for somejerk
#5 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 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.

Avatar image for jace
#6 Posted by Jace (1153 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.

Avatar image for cyraxible
#7 Posted by cyraxible (707 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.

Avatar image for robertorri
#8 Posted by RobertOrri (1181 posts) -

This has been a looooong time coming.

Avatar image for animasta
#9 Posted by Animasta (14903 posts) -

they have to call it MOBA 2 instead

Avatar image for hailinel
#10 Posted by Hailinel (25787 posts) -

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

Avatar image for babychoochoo
#11 Posted by BabyChooChoo (6562 posts) -

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

Avatar image for encephalon
#12 Posted by Encephalon (1702 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.

Avatar image for robertorri
#13 Posted by RobertOrri (1181 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.

Avatar image for marz
#14 Edited by Marz (6018 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.

Avatar image for hailinel
#15 Posted by Hailinel (25787 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.

Avatar image for metal_mills
#16 Posted by Metal_Mills (3439 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.
Avatar image for captaintightpants
#17 Posted by CaptainTightPants (2831 posts) -

@Animasta said:

they have to call it MOBA 2 instead

I would love that.

So so much.

Avatar image for shirogane
#18 Posted by Shirogane (3629 posts) -

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

But that picture, rofl...

Avatar image for jack268
#19 Posted by Jack268 (3370 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.

Avatar image for allworkandlowpay
#20 Posted by allworkandlowpay (928 posts) -

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

Avatar image for nadannmagogo
#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.

Avatar image for iburningstar
#22 Posted by IBurningStar (2273 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? 

Avatar image for babychoochoo
#23 Posted by BabyChooChoo (6562 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.

Avatar image for starvinggamer
#24 Posted by StarvingGamer (11361 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.

Avatar image for nadannmagogo
#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...

Avatar image for lordxavierbritish
#26 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6651 posts) -

Since when does Blizzard own DotA.

Avatar image for willthemagicasian
#27 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1548 posts) -

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

Avatar image for jace
#28 Posted by Jace (1153 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.

Avatar image for huntad
#29 Posted by huntad (2346 posts) -

I think the whole thing is just stupid.

Avatar image for dudeglove
#30 Posted by dudeglove (12578 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.

Avatar image for mlarrabee
#31 Posted by mlarrabee (3849 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...

Avatar image for randominternetuser
#32 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6805 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.

Avatar image for vodun
#33 Posted by Vodun (2393 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!

Avatar image for jace
#34 Posted by Jace (1153 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.

Avatar image for deusx
#35 Edited by Deusx (1943 posts) -

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

VALVOTA... Calling it...

EDIT:

DOGABEN... Calling it...

Avatar image for djaoni
#36 Edited by djaoni (340 posts) -

Defense of the Gaben.

Avatar image for masha2932
#37 Posted by Masha2932 (1336 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.

Avatar image for deusx
#38 Posted by Deusx (1943 posts) -

@djaoni said:

Defense of the Gaben.

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

Avatar image for nickl
#39 Posted by NickL (2267 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)

Avatar image for snickersnee
#40 Posted by Snickersnee (27 posts) -

@djaoni: I can go with this

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

Avatar image for sungahymn
#41 Posted by sungahymn (1141 posts) -

???

Avatar image for jaytow
#42 Posted by Jaytow (793 posts) -

Gabes gonna eat him.

Avatar image for jetsetwillie
#43 Posted by jetsetwillie (882 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

Avatar image for talis12
#44 Posted by Talis12 (524 posts) -

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

Avatar image for taliciadragonsong
#45 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8734 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.

Avatar image for mysteriousbob
#46 Posted by MysteriousBob (6262 posts) -

What does DOTA even stand for?

Hell, what is it?

Avatar image for probablytuna
#47 Posted by probablytuna (4922 posts) -

This is gonna be interesting.

Online
Avatar image for masterpaperlink
#48 Posted by masterpaperlink (1918 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.

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
#49 Edited by MordeaniisChaos (5904 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.

Avatar image for olu
#50 Posted by Olu (97 posts) -

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