Square Looks To Block Trademark App Of Indie Game Over Game Franchise It Acquired A Decade Ago And Did Nothing With

from the conflict:-trademark-law dept

You will recall that several years back there was a very stupid trademark dispute between Notch, maker of MineCraft, and Bethesda, which owns the rights to the Elder Scrolls franchise. At issue was Notch's new game Scrolls (which has since been retitled Caller's Bane) with Bethesda crying trademark infringement, claiming it owned the trademark rights to basically everything "scrolls." Disappointingly, the whole thing ended in a settlement with Notch getting to keep his game's name but not getting his trademark.

While in that case one could at least lend Bethesda the acknowledgement that Elder Scrolls games are very much still active in the marketplace and haven't become simply methods for retro enjoyment, the same cannot be said of Square's ownership of the Conflict series. And, yet, Square has decided to oppose the trademark application of an indie developer in Malta for its title Conflict Of Nations: World War 3.

Dorado Games recently attempted to trademark Conflict of Nations: World War 3, an online strategy game which released on Steam earlier this year. Quickly thereafter, it received an opposition filing from Square Enix's lawyers, claiming that there "is a clear likelihood of confusion" with the publisher's long-established Conflict franchise. Between 2002 and 2008, Square Enix published six games under the branding, such as Conflict: Desert Storm, and Conflict: Denied Ops.

In a letter to Dorado Games seen by GamesIndustry.biz, Square Enix's lawyers argue that the publisher has been using the trademark for 16 years, and has "educated consumers" to recognise the "Conflict + tagline" pattern.

There's a ton that's misleading in Square's letter. For starters, while there were six games published between 2002 and 2008, Square didn't publish a single one of them. Other publishers did, mostly EIDOS, which Square bought in 2009. In other words, Square acquired the rights to the games, but wasn't responsible for publishing any of them. Likewise, Square itself hasn't been using these trademarks for 16 years, having only acquired them ten years ago. Finally, it can claim that it's "educated" gamers to recognize the naming convention of the games all it wants, but it hasn't created a new game in the franchise for over a decade.

Which is why, along with the fact that the naming convention used by Dorado Games isn't all that similar, concerns about customer confusion in this case don't make a great deal of sense.

Nick Porsche, managing director of Dorado Games, compared the move to Bethesda's "Scrolls trademark calamity".

"Having been in the games industry for 20 years this type of behaviour is exactly the reason we decided to do our own thing - without publishers, based in an island nation with its own jurisdiction," he told GamesIndustry.biz. "It's really ridiculous to which degree the majors are trying to crush anyone within their space, while preventing smaller companies from effectively marketing their products online - even when there is no contextual overlap whatsoever."

What Square will rely on is that the old Conflict series games are still available as retro-titles. But the idea that a single publisher could lock up a word like "Conflict" in the video game industry by continuing to offer decades old games and just sitting on the trademark is insane. Fortunately, the real bar when it comes to trademark law is customer confusion in the marketplace. Unfortunately, most small indie developers don't have the resources to fight court and trademark battles, and typically just bow down before the larger corporations.

It's not clear yet which way Dorado Games will go, but I hope they take this conflict head on.

Filed Under: conflict, games, trademark, video games
Companies: dorado games, square eniz

Press Parrots Cybersecurity FUD From Former NSA Boss Without Mentioning Massive Conflict Of Interest

from the do-some-freaking-research dept

Not this again. Nearly three years ago, we wrote about the growing hype around "cyberwar" in the US government -- much of it being pushed by one Michael McConnell. News reports love to cover McConnell's fear-mongering about how the internet is at risk. He used to always talk about "cyberwar" but that term went out of fashion, so lately it's all "cyberattacks" and "cyberterrorism." The reason the press loves McConnell is that he's a former head of the NSA (under Clinton) and director of national intelligence (under George W. Bush). What those reports don't like to mention is that since leaving the government, McConnell has a very cushy job as Vice Chairman of Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Booz Allen is a company that regularly seems to do $100 million+ deals with government agencies, many of them related to cybersecurity. You think that having a former NSA director running around scaring agencies about how they're at risk of "cyberwar" or "cybersecurity" isn't useful for business?

And yet, it seems that time and time again when we see McConnell's name, reporters completely fail to mention this particular conflict of interest. Instead, they report his claims as if they're fact, despite the much simpler and more obvious fact: no one has died from an internet attack. Ever. None. Zero. Zilch.

Take, for example, this News.com article by Steven Musil. And then let me know where either of these points is made. You can't, because they're not in there. McConnell's connection to Booz isn't mentioned. Nor is the fact that "cyberthreats" are still as dangerous as a ghost story.

Instead, he throws in a couple scary scary quotes from McConnell about how we're getting close to a cyber-9/11 or a cyber-Pearl Harbor without pointing out that plenty of people think such claims are completely overblown. Also, we've been hearing about this for years now, and while it's been quite profitable for McConnell, there's been no evidence that such a threat is really any closer. But, boy does it make money for government contractors. This isn't to pick on Musil in particular -- plenty of reporters seem totally taken in by McConnell's old job and seem to throw any skepticism (or the ability to do a basic Google search about his current job) out the window. But if we keep seeing it, we're going to keep calling it out until people realize that maybe there are motives there beyond what McConnell says.

Filed Under: conflict, cybersecurity, fud, michael mcconnell
Companies: booz allen

Questions Asked About EU Appointing IFPI Lobbyist To Copyright Role

from the now,-what-will-the-answers-be dept

Following the news that the EU Commission was apparently appointing a top lobbyist from the IFPI to the position of being in charge of copyright policy, two European Parliament Members, Christian Engstrom and Marietje Schaake have asked the Commission to explain the apparent conflict of interest:

Does the Commission not see any problems in recruiting top civil servants from special interest organisations, especially when being put in charge of dossiers directly related to their former employers? If not, why not?

Does the Commission feel that such an appointment would help to build confidence with the European Parliament and the general public that the Commission can be trusted to handle copyright-related issues in a fair and balanced manner?

Elsewhere, KEI has done a good job highlighting some of Maria Martin-Plat's previously stated positions, including this lovely one: "private copying [has] no reason to exist and should be limited further than it is." Just the person to lead on 21st century copyright issues, huh?

Filed Under: conflict, eu, lobbying, maria martin-plat, politics
Companies: ifpi

Flexible Or Paradoxical? Why The NY Times' Plan Is Inherently Self-Limiting

from the putting-business-lines-in-conflict dept

The New York Times has followed up on their initial coverage of the choice to go metered with a column by David Carr discussing the move. It's worth reading, and though there are a lot of points he makes that I can't really speak to, there's one section that I think highlights the flaw in the plan:

"The decision announced Wednesday morning represents a hedge, an operating model that puts maximum flexibility in the hands of the leadership of the newspaper. As the digital czar Martin Nisenholtz said over and over in a meeting about the decision on Tuesday, "the idea is to maximize revenue" with an eye toward the cyclical state of the advertising business. With Times Select, The New York Times lost eyeballs at precisely the time when sheer tonnage of readers became the defining metric in advertising. By building a metered system, the executives have installed a dial on the huge, heaving content machine of The New York Times. Access can be gradually ramped up or down depending on macro trends in the market. Given the dynamic state of the advertising business and how quickly things change on the Web, not so dumb when you think about it."

Sounds great, right? Except that where they see flexibility, I see conflict. They've saddled themselves with two opposing business models: the old one, where the audience is the product and the advertisers are the customers, and the new one, where news is the product and the audience is the customer. The "dial" is going to become a tug-of-war between an advertising team that wants more eyeballs to sell and a subscription team that wants more walled-up content to sell. It will be virtually impossible to make business decisions that are good for both sides, and by trying to have the best of both worlds they may end up with no growth for either.

One could argue that this conflict has always existed in news organizations, but it's never been as charged as it's about to become at the Times. In the past, readers were readers, and increasing circulation was always the number one goal. But a newspaper that sacrifices casual readers, challenges the loyalty of dedicated readers and reduces its value to advertisers, all in one fell swoop, and succeeds? I'll believe it when I see it.

Filed Under: advertising, conflict, paywalls, subscribers
Companies: ny times