PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
Not-So-Intellectual Property
July 1st 2000, 05:40 CEST by andy

Let's hope the Apogee boys and girls are sitting comfortably, because here's a little something to stir things up...

THQ and Heavy Iron Studios have unveiled the new web site for their forthcoming game based on the Evil Dead movies. The title of the game, and also the web site, is: "Evil Dead : Hail To The King"

"Hail To The King" is a phrase used in the Evil Dead movies, but later adopted in the Duke Nukem games by Apogee's eponymous hero.

Some people have commented that it was a teensy bit naughty of Apogee to take a line from a film and then claim it as their own -- even going so far as to register it as their own trademark, the cheeky scamps.

But those people can stop worrying, because it turns out that Apogee hasn't been entirely honest with us...

You see, despite what they claim in their intellectual property license, Apogee doesn't own the "Hail To The King" trademark. THQ applied for it in early February, several months before Apogee claimed ownership.

There's no direct hyperlink at the moment because the application is still pending, but you can see for yourself that Apogee doesn't own it by going to this page, clicking the Free Form Search link, and then entering "hail to the king" in the search box, complete with quotes. (Note: If you use a download manager such as GetRight, you'll need to disable it for the search to work.)


It turns out that Apogee's IP license, published in May this year, makes a few other false trademark claims...

For a start, there's no such trademark as "General Phil Graves". There's boring old "Phil Graves" (#75162460) but he ain't no General, and all three registered uses (comics, computer games and arcade games) were abandoned in August 1997. According to the trademark office, this trademark is now "dead".

The "Lo Wang" trademark (#75272379) is dead too, with all four registered uses (computer games, comics, hand-held games and arcade games) having been abandoned in October 1999.

And finally, it's a bit sneaky of Apogee to claim ownership of "Zero Hour". Not only was their registration (#75603132) abandoned in January this year, but the trademark is currently registered by Warner Bros (#1874656) and applies to comics.

All of the informtation in this update can be verified at the United States Patent and Trademark Office web site.

Home » Topic: Not-So-Intellectual Property

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "BloodKnight"
2000-07-01 05:42:57
#2 by "BloodKnight"
2000-07-01 05:43:37
Damn first post, I feel so damn good.  Why is that?
#3 by "superion"
2000-07-01 05:53:03
search url is broke, i think you need to show where to 'login', cause that link still has your login info.
#4 by "superion"
2000-07-01 05:53:10
#5 by "superion"
2000-07-01 05:55:32
im the best.

getright was trying to save gate.exe everytime i tried to search.
#6 by "Andy"
2000-07-01 06:01:01
<b>#5</b>, superion:
getright was trying to save gate.exe everytime i tried to search.
Aye, that caught me out at first too. ;-)
#7 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-07-01 06:05:09
Welp, someone should point out the origin of the phrase has something to do with Elvis...
#8 by "Andy"
2000-07-01 06:07:07
Steve, I'm sure the real origin had something to do with a real king. :)
#9 by "Dethstryk"
2000-07-01 06:07:21
<b>#7</b> "Steve Bauman" wrote...
<QUOTE>Welp, someone should point out the origin of the phrase has something to do with Elvis...</QUOTE>
Are you suprised this is being blown out of proportion? :)

Damage Gaming
#10 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 06:07:49
Gozilla was activated by a search as well.  
It's not cheap to register a lot of phrases and such, so it doesn't surprise me that 3D Realms didn't trademark a shitload of lines from Duke/Evil Dead.  

From the screenies of the new Evil Dead game, I'm not expecting much from it.  Me, Myself and Irene is a terrible film.  I fell asleep during the last 30 mins.  

Ever since I told the world of FGN dropping me, I've had a bunch of offers to join other networks, so ole Hulka will be just fine.  

Blind date is on TV (US Show), gotta watch!  Later.
#11 by "Kevin"
2000-07-01 06:37:31
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I knowledgable concerning the law, so I'll try not to sound like an idiot....

If Apogee did at one time own the "Hail to the King" trademark, perhaps they sold it to THQ or Iron Studios?

Regardless...Andy, did you try and contact 3DRealms and THQ for this story before posting?
#12 by "None-1a"
2000-07-01 07:08:00
Interesting, that's it nothing more to see move along.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "Scott Miller, 3D Realms"
2000-07-01 07:21:56
Allow me to clarify Andy's deep confusion, for which he'll still not understand a thing I said, but everyone else here can benefit.  ;-)

Steve is oh-so correct, "Hail to the king" was not an Evil Dead invention, it was used to reference Elvis much like "The Duke" was used to reference John Wayne.

Now then, on to the part that will have Andy as confused as a compass in a magnet factory...

Even though Hail (shortened for brevity) was in ED (Evil Dead), they did not make a special point of that phrase, hence they cannot make a special claim to it.  IOW, they didn't use that phrase in their advertising, promotions, etc.  It was simply one of hundreds of lines Ash spoke in the movie -- and anyone who understands intellectual properly law will merrily tell you that lines (or even characters, etc.) in any media are not individually protectable -- only if they're used in special ways ("called out" is one of the common terms).

So, even though they used that line, they do not have any special ownership of it.  Andy, still with me?

Now then, Duke first used this line in 1996, along with 100+ other spoken lines in the game.  Most of those lines are not protectable for the same reason Hail isn't protected by ED.  However, a few key lines from the game, like "Come get some," "Hail to the king," and a few other, we used on commercial tee shirts, action figure boxes, strategy guides, and game boxes.  Therefore, we passed the qualifications required to acquire federal trademark protection.

Andy states--without having much of a clue about trademark law and the registration process--that THQ applied for the trademark of Hail before we did, but what Andy is utterly ignorant about is that that doesn't mean jack shit.  Our registration for the Hail mark shows we used it in 1996, and prior use *always wins*, regardless of who registers first.  (I'm sure we lost Andy a while ago, but I bet everyone is still with me.)

Finally, I'll add just for bonus knowledge, software entertainment is a different class than movies, so even *if* Hail had been registered in conjunction with the ED movies, Duke would still be able to use it in the computer games class (unless a game using that phrased in a called out way would have appeared commercially first).

Now then, this is all simplified, but covers Trademark Law 101.  A few people here might be able to find some holes, but that's only because I'm not going to try to plug up every hole in the damn in this message.

The key point to remember, as usual, is that Andy doesn't have an educated clue as to what he's talking about.  Maybe he should be nick'ed, The Clueless Ranter.  ;-)

#14 by "None-1a"
2000-07-01 07:35:11
Scott could be please clarify one thing, the following is the test from the search (the only Hail to the king to show up).

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: electronic games, namely software games recorded on CD-ROM and digital video discs for computers; software games recorded on CD-ROMs and cartridges for console and individual, portable gaming systems; and computer software for electronic games that is downloadable from a remote computer site
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75910652
Filing Date February 3, 2000
Owner (APPLICANT) THQ Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 27001 Agoura Road Suite 325 Calabasas Hills CALIFORNIA 91301 </i>

That's clearly states that HAIL TO THE KING is registed as electronic games/software, and THQ. Is your trademark for the phrase just not in the database, and thus not showing up?

O and one more thing that I'd like to know did you guys ever put out a cereal or candy bar using the Duke Nukem name? I'd just like to know if it was ever released and didn't do well, or just planed (and thus the mark class was abandoned). <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Speed"
2000-07-01 07:47:40
Kewl !
Come Get Some Duke-Snickers !
#16 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 07:58:00
I certainly appreciate Mr. Miller posting that info here, I think we should have all learned a little bit more about trademarks regarding game software now, I know I did.  Thanks Scott!

BTW: Don't you think the cost associated with trademarks are outrageous?  For a company that has mega $$$ it's not really an issue I'm sure, but to people like myself working on a shoestring budget, $300 bucks to trademark something is an awful lot of dough!  Especially now that I don't get that monthly $7 FGN check anymore.

The Man is keepin me down, Man!
#17 by "Paul"
2000-07-01 09:05:59
since it's been mentioned quite a few times(and you just did), it's none of my business, but out of interest, did they ever tell you how many click throughs your site got?

Gaming sites(last time i checked) generally get 1 to 3 click throughs per 100 impressions. Some sites are less, others slightly more. Then figure in $.10 per click(which is what i think eads currently is).

Let's say you got 3/100
So about 30 cents per 100 views, you got 500,000
.3(500,000/100) = $1500.

As far as TMs, $300 is probably the level at which pays for the paperwork, and prevents all sorts of people trademarking all sorts of things. $300 is nothing to 3drealms seeing they spend millions making a game(sin cost 2million, my guess is duke is much much more, but i doubt 3drealms will release that, nor do I believe they should) Now that I am stuck on numbers, Ion Storm at one point was up to 30 million. Romero could have TM'ed 100,000 of his favorite phrases. A book of Romero's 100k phrases probably would crash less, and sell more.

Now back to waiting for Wildtangent to release their latest gamedriver beta. I've been waiting for months. Their March release was just too buggy, and too slow.

- Paul

- Paul
#18 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 09:42:08
#17 - Yeah, I'm sure they told me how many click throughs there were, I don't remember offhand, probably two or three.  Doesn't really matter.  I never paid much attention to the reports.  Like I said, I'm not making money on the site, it's more of a creative outlet for me than a revenue making site, I mean, for money I sell my body to women who just got out of prison and need some manly lovin.
#19 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 09:51:40
Also, that's 500,000 hits, which is much different that page views.  A hit consitutes a graphic download, so a page might have twenty graphics on it, so that would be 20 hits in the log, or something like that. I'm not real clear on the whole situation.  I've got a log analyser proggie that tells me all sorts of shit from the logs, but I don't quite understand it all and have never taken the time to read up on it, I'm too busy selling crack to children.  Anytime someone mentions page hits, it's always much higher than actual page traffic.

My Analysis for the Month of Feb, 2000.
Server Activity Totals for Period:
 Total sessions served :   27939  
 Total hits made on server :    568325  
 Total page view hits :    81597  
 Total non page view hits :    486728  

So by FGN standards that equals $7.00 US dollars.  I'm a simple man, I was not graced by god with a fully funtional brain.

Right now I'm arguing with some idiot on Yahoo Messenger about the Vermont Gay Union law thingie poo. Should be fun!
#20 by "RzE"
2000-07-01 10:09:13
Trademarking (TM) something and getting it Registered (R) are two different things..

So, yes, it's who ever put the (TM) on it first owns it for now, if it gets registered there's likely to be a lawsuit (and it'll be a tough case)...

Forgive me if I'm wrong, i might be thing of copywrites
#21 by "RzE"
2000-07-01 10:12:52
"there's likely to be a lawsuit (and it'll be a tough case)..."

I'm wrong about this, the first person who slapped TM on it owns it..
#22 by "George Broussard"
2000-07-01 10:52:04
I dunno what to say.  Scott's right.  And Andy has yet again put his foot in his mouth.

You can got TM something right now (take Coke for example if they didn't TM is).  It doesn't give you any claim.  It only starts a 2 year process to try and get the TM.  Along the way many will be in your way.  Especially guys like us that have 4 years of prior use to stand behind.

In the end, this is why I never read PC anymore.  It really used to be good.  But IMO Andy is poison to PC.

Since I know that most of what he writes about us is nonsense, I then have to wonder about how much of what they rest he writes about is nonses? (shrug).

Signing off...I'll be back when Andy's gone.

George Broussard, 3D Realms
#23 by "None-1a"
2000-07-01 11:29:10
<b>#22</b> "George Broussard" wrote...
<QUOTE>You can got TM something right now (take Coke for example if they didn't TM is).
It doesn't give you any claim. It only starts a 2 year process to try and get
the TM. Along the way many will be in your way. Especially guys like us that
have 4 years of prior use to stand behind.

Acctauly acording to this <a href="">page</a>, just using the word is enough to have a clame (it also says that doesn't nessasarly make it valid). Apogee can stop THQ from registering based on prior use, The only way to stop them from using it would be to take the whole mess to court, of course since THQ's registration would be blocked no body would have a registed mark. Then of course THQ could stand on the fact that their game uses the line as a tie in with the movie, making the whole thing a complicated mess that would be interesting to follow. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 11:51:49
I just finished with some yahoo, on yahoo, I posted the log on the forums under weird and strange.. it's called Yahoo Messenger - Sgt Hulka is gay, enjoy..
#25 by "PiRaMidA"
2000-07-01 12:34:37
Post <b>#19</b> by Sgt Hulka:
<QUOTE>Total page view hits : 81597

So by FGN standards that equals $7.00 US dollars.</QUOTE>

lol. They get slightly more than that (20$ / 1000 pageviews, which would be around 1500). But who likes to share? :) They send you a report which says that somehow you've been displaying non-paying banners only, and there ya go.

P.S. they say they have over 60 sites waiting in line to join... Poor guys, I'm very happy that our 2-year contract is almost over.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "Andy"
2000-07-01 13:50:14
It's disappointing that Scott and George can only respond to factual information with personal insults and derision.

THQ applied for the "Hail To The King" trademark, for use in computer game products, at the beginning of February this year.

Apogee's intellectual property license, published in late May this year, states that "Hail To The King" is one of Apogee's trademarks. It is not.

Unless either Scott or George would care to point out a factual error in my reporting, I do not feel the story needs any further clarification.
#27 by "ReubenRosa"
2000-07-01 14:05:46
I tell ya what.. 3drealms would lose this one.

AOD had the line before the DNF.

All it would take is a lawyer and a judge with comone sense..
to say this..

The movie came first.. Lots of the lines in The DNF
are obviously taken as tongue and cheek references to the movie..
The movie is a cult classic with fans world wide.

Many people Got excited over the lines in DN Not because
they had never heard of the lines before and thought
they were original... But because many people saw them for what they were..
cool hip references to the Evil Dead films.
There were many lines that were based of these films...

And if 3drealms wants to BS that they came up with the idea first.. that's one thing..
but please admit it... you were fans of the movie like everyone else..
and you tried to tradmark lines that were developed in the movie first..

And My brother and Myself have found t-Shirts of AOD and other Evil dead
goodies that have some of these self-same lines printed on them..

Which would render your case Null and Void..

all it would take is several of these T-shirt with some of those ligns printed on them..
to show up in court... And the judge would
look at 3drealms attempt at a case and through it out.

Want to show creativity come up with your own lines..
and don't try and pass of the creativity of others as your own.

Next thing you know 3drealms will try and say their "Duke'd Evil Dead lines"
are what are going to get people to buy the evil dead game..
because those who never saw the movie.. haha.. will hear a trailer and say...
oh thats a DN line..

Ahem yeah okay..I buy that for a dollar.

do you know that the Evil Dead trilogy was also huge in Japan?
One of my authentic Evil Dead 2 shirts is from Japan. :)

Talk about overestimating the popularity of their character..
and underestimating the popularity of the Evil Dead series.

Did you know at this past e3 Bruce CAmpbell was there?
And He was signing autographs for Tachyon..

The line was the largest in the entire Event and streched all the way outside..

Hmm.. Guess somebody knows Bruce..from something..wonder what it could be?
maybe... AOD?
#28 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-07-01 14:22:04
Scott, George - you pair of arrogant twats. I hate to resort to crudity, but those two posts were among the most childish and catty words I have ever read on this site. If you genuinely believe that Andy has misunderstood the situation, explain it calmly, clearly, and above all, <b>civilly</b> - for god's sake, that's half the point of Planetcrap: rumours and misconceptions can be corrected by the subjects themselves, so why not simply do that and move along, rather than resorting to personal insult? I somehow suspect that it's all tied in with this bloody geek supremacy ethos that pervades most of this industry, rather than any particular desire to set the record straight.
One other thing - this site is slowly becoming more and more in the public eye, thanks to links from Blue's, sCabby's and so forth - that means that more and more of your customers are reading this immaturity (and there is no way you can claim that it's personal views when you're posting under the name 'Scott Miller, 3drealms', as if trying to make perfectly clear just how famous you aren't). I for one have had my conceptions of 3d Realms entirely reversed over the last few months. Please rest assured I shan't be buying any more 3dR products.
Now please grow up a little.
#29 by "podfish"
2000-07-01 14:39:36
Apogee and other people's intellectual property... Ringworld anyone?
#30 by "podfish"
2000-07-01 14:40:56
[28] Tom: "that's half the point of Planetcrap: rumours and misconceptions can be corrected by the subjects themselves"

And the other half would be starting those rumours and misconceptions...
#31 by "Mugwum"
2000-07-01 14:49:13
Er TomC, what 3DR products? :)
#32 by "lechifre"
2000-07-01 14:53:28
Hey folks time out here. There seems to be a little unnecessary ill-feeling going on here.

Scott Miller's first post was quite personally patronising towards Andy, and George Broussard was downright rude to Andy. Although you both have a reason to feel aggrieved because Andy does seem to "bash" Apogee and 3DR quite a bit, persnoally insulting a critic reflects very badly on Apogee and 3DR. Are you both responing as spokesmen for 3DR ( Scott your title refers to 3DR ), are any comments you post here the official 3DR line? Is 3DR as a company pissed off with Andy, and stating that as a public fact? Although you may feel that Andy's criticism's are unwarranted, and baseless scarmongering, I feel that as professional representatives, when you insult Andy on an open forum, you do yourselves, and the company you represent no favors. A dignified rebuttal and explanation of the facts as you see tham would do far more for you and your company than insults.
#33 by "Andy"
2000-07-01 15:02:13
Some more info has been added to the topic.
#34 by "Speed"
2000-07-01 15:34:34
<i><b>[32] lechifre</b> : Andy does seem to "bash" Apogee and 3DR quite a bit</i>

Euhm... The posts on PC bash on anyone that's proud subject of a main post. I don't think PC bahes on anyone in particular, just takes a fruitful subject and kicks its ass.
That's what I like about PC. They don't spare anyone.

#35 by "Desiato"
2000-07-01 16:13:08
Oh good, Tommie is upset and 3DR loses *one* customer.

Way to go -- I'm sure that $40+ purchase price on DNF is going to hurt them greatly.

If anything Tom, what has happened on this site lately has hurt it's "credibility" in relation to the big game sites.

So they link to us now and then. Keep your head small, we aren't any "Slashdot" by any means.

As far as this thread goes -- okay, so Andy demonstrates his lack of IP knowledge. I for one love a good laugh, so the entertainment value is certainly there. What I *really* like is the unskilled debate by people not trained in the art of Intellectual Property on this board.

Notice? I don't try to tackle it -- because *gasp* I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO. But hey, please throw up your two cents because you "feel" that what you "think" is *right*. Heheheheh oh man.

I feel the urge to paraphrase Saturday Night Live when I type -- "Andy, you ignorant slut."

[/Flame On!]

#36 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-07-01 16:20:07
<quote>Oh good, Tommie is upset and 3DR loses *one* customer.</quote>

That's not the point. I hope you're just deliberately trying to appear ignorant, and not actually as cretinous as you sometimes appear.
The point is that 3dR have lost one customer (read again, and you'll note that I didn't say 'I won't buy DNF', but 'I shan't be buying any more 3dR products', meaning that they're actually losing more than £40, but that's neither here nor there.). If they had any business sense, they would acknowledge and regret that. To any company, customers are the be-all and end-all. Without customers, it wouldn't matter how great a game was, the company would be dead, and thus any company should treat its customers, potential or otherwise, with respect and deference. Posting personally abusive comments on a public messageboard is really not the best way to do that, and neither will a response by Broussard or Miller of 'Oooh, one customer - big deal!' be a great way of doing it.
'Nuff said.
#37 by "Desiato"
2000-07-01 18:00:20
Aww Tommie, I didn't know you cared. £40? Wouldn't that be more like £60? Oh well, don't want to pull a *McCorled*...heh.

Your comment:

"I hope you're just deliberately trying to appear ignorant, and not actually as cretinous as you sometimes appear."

What is with europeans and the word "cretin"? is like americans and the word "dude"...or..."shut the fuck up"...

No Tommie, I'm not a cretin or ignorant -- I just don't see how your hissy fit has any basis in reality -- but please, enlighten me.

Oh and by the way -- the underlying tenet in business is - "Lose one big pain in the ass customer, no big deal.. Lose a loyal customer -- *that* is a big deal."

I define "pain-in-the-ass" as say -- someone who goes to a retail store and does the "churn-return" like people who review video cards for an online site, but they return or exchange all their merchandise constantly -- or just bitch when an item goes on sale -- they already bought it and the store doesn't have a policy that offers a discount to prior customers who purchased it before the sale -- but there they are, bleating loudly about "I'm the customer, serve me! SERVE MEEEeeee!!!"

Guess what -- companies are usually *better* off without you.

If a customer returns a product, doesn't have a history of being a complete whining resource-hog, then yes -- a company should worry that a loyal customer of theirs lost faith in the company or product.

I'm sure you'll do your best to poke holes in these specific examples, but hey -- that is fine, it only reinforces the type of "customer" you are.

Something to think about, elHo (Not that I'm implying you will.)

#38 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-07-01 18:13:05
<quote>I just don't see how your hissy fit has any basis in reality</quote>
How exactly was that a 'hissy fit'? I believe I (admittedly, somewhat crudely) expressed my opinion of George Broussard and Scott Miller's actions on this forum, and offered some warning that they might want to consider whether a public forum is the best place to act in such a fashion. Incidentally, is the repeated use of the name 'Tommie' supposed to be somehow a put-down, or patronising? Because, if it isn't, I'd rather you called me Tom (since that's my name, logically), and if it is - well, it's not a very good one. On the subject, exactly what do you mean by 'elHo'? Made up form of address? God knows.
For your information (and god knows, you need a bit more than you have in most respects), the average computer game over here costs around about £40. So, no, that wouldn't be £60. It would be £40, like I said.
Lose a loyal customer -- *that* is a big deal.</quote>
...and losing a large number of customers as a result of one's behaviour in a public forum <i>isn't</i>? The mind boggles.
#39 by "Show Time"
2000-07-01 19:02:26
#35 isn't this a public site? Lack of "IP knowledge" prevents anyone with a brain from presenting what they say as fact, but should it prevent them from having an opinion? Maybe we should all shutup and have no opinions if we didn't dedicate our lives to the subject matter. I mean, what is this, some sort of "discussion" thread? Where we "post opinions" and react to the stories? By your logic no one should be commenting on the Hulka or EA stories just based on the possibility that they aren't avid readers. Nevermind the fact that they might think what reportedly happened is wrong. Are you a communist?
#40 by "Creole Ned"
2000-07-01 19:19:17
<b></b> is still available.
#41 by "BarneyQue"
2000-07-01 20:05:57 http://N/A
Through use of the information available from this post, you agree to abide by the terms included in this message. If you do not agree to the terms contained herein, please exit this post immediately.

I've read Andy's story, I listened to Scott's rebuttal. I believe I understood both.

But #14 has a really good comment, and I'd like to see some comment on that, as it does seem to suggest that Andy is right, and no one from 3DR has explained it away yet.  

I wanted to highlight that one consideration before we get onto other topics.


Ownership of Comments, Intellectual Property and Other Posts:
BarneyQue does not own or maintain this site, disclaims all rights to copyright, trademark, logo and servicemark of all material at this site and will not enforce such rights to the full extent of the law. Other posts and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders. BarneyQue has not reviewed any posts linked to this site and is not responsible for the content of other posts. Linking to any other posts is at your own risk. You should not assume that this post is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose that you have in mind when using it. In some cases the material may incorporate or summarise views, standards or recommendations of third parties. Such material is assembled in good faith, but does not necessarily reflect the considered views of the readership, or indicate a commitment to a particular course of action. Unless specific provisions of legislation are quoted, BarneyQue does not make statements of the law in relation to any matter. Any comments contained in this post about the law are summaries which may not be comprehensive or complete. If you wish to know the law, you should either go to the relevant legislation or obtain advice from a qualified professional such as a solicitor, patent or trade mark attorney. All representations of persons living or dead are unintentional.

No Warranty
The material in this post is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, to the fullest extent permissible pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement and may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. BarneyQue further assumes no responsibility for, and makes no warranties that, ideas contained in this post will be error-free, that defects will be corrected, or that the post or the server that makes it available will be free of viruses or other harmful components. BarneyQue shall not be liable for any damages, services, repairs or corrections that must be performed on your computer caused by your use of this post, including any infection of viruses. BarneyQue cannot control and cannot edit all comments prior to transmission of the Web Site, nor can BarneyQue ensure the prompt removal of inappropriate or unlawful Content after transmission. Third party submissions and postings are not reviewed for truth or accuracy and do not represent the opinion, beliefs, or statements of BarneyQue, my employer, or any of its officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries, agents, parents, or affiliates. The information contained in this post is not intended to be advice. It is general information only. The information contained in this post is not adapted to any particular person’s circumstances and therefore cannot be relied upon to be of assistance in any particular case. The links to other web sites that BarneyQue may have incorporated in this post do not and should not be taken as implying an endorsement or approval of the content of those web sites or the activities of the organisations and businesses responsible for those web sites.

These Terms of Service constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces all prior or contemporaneous understandings or agreements, written or oral, regarding such subject matter. Any waiver of any provision of the Terms of Service will be effective only if in writing and signed by BarneyQue.

Liability Waiver
Under no circumstances, including but not limited to negligence, shall BarneyQue, his employer, or any of its officers, directors, employees, subsidiaries, agents, parents, or affiliates be liable for any special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use, the comments at this site, even if BarneyQue has been advised of the possibility of such damages. In no event shall BarneyQue’s total liability for any and all damages and causes of action exceed the amount paid by you, if any, for the use of this site. You hereby release BarneyQue from any and all obligations, liabilities and claims in excess of this limitation.

Indemnification: You agree to indemnify BarneyQue from and against any and all liabilities, expenses (including attorneys' fees) and damages arising out of claims based upon your submissions to the Web Site that are subsequently published by BarneyQue on the Web Site, including any claim of libel, defamation, violation of rights of privacy or publicity, loss of service by other customers and infringement of intellectual property or other rights.  No confidential relationship shall be established in the event that any User of this Web Site should make any oral, written or electronic response to BarneyQue (such as feedback, questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, etc.). Such response and any information submitted therewith shall be considered non-confidential, and BarneyQue shall be free to reproduce, publish or otherwise use such information for any purposes whatsoever including, without limitation, the research, development, manufacture, use or sale of products incorporating such information.
#42 by "Russ"
2000-07-01 20:11:04
Scott, George, and Charlie:
You won't be losing a sale to me because of anything posted here. I wouldn't normally feel it necessary to say so, but since Tom seems to think you're hurting sales by the tone of your posts, I thought I would disassociate myself from him and anyone else who thinks that way. I would only purchase DNF or any other forthcoming games based solely on the game's own merit. Isn't this the way it's supposed to be?

Does anyone else here still want to talk about games? I mean, actually playing and enjoying games? This place has gotten all about persecuting developers and questioning ethics. The only reason I still come here is because the level of discussion is still pretty high. But, if certain people keep driving off others, it won't remain that way long. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#43 by "Show Time"
2000-07-01 20:26:28
I will say that refusing to buy 3DR products based on what has been said here is a little too out there, but it's his money and his call. I just don't think retarded social skills means you can't make a good game. Look at it this way, maybe if they're insulting jerks to everyone they know they'll have more time to work on games, and DNF might come out while I'm still young and in control of my own blatter. Because don't get me wrong, I'm sure the graphics alone will make me piss my pants.
#44 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-07-01 20:32:03
#40 is still available.

LOL!  That was a good laugh first thing in the morning, thanks!

Hulka Prediction #274
Scott and George will be back.  They lurk, they watch, they're reading this sentence right now.  Something will spark either their emotions or imagination and they will be compelled to reply, either by their old Nick, or they'll use an alias.  I know it, I can feel it, use the force Luke, ya punk ass bitch!  Whatever the hell that means.. I think you get my drift, or do you?  I hope not, I haven't taken a shower yet.
#45 by "Kevin"
2000-07-01 20:50:42
I've lurked here for quite some time and finally feel the need to speak up...

I have to side with the 3DRealms guys on this issue (and others brought up before).  As far as I can tell, no one here understands the law as well as they do (or perhaps their lawyers).  Yet, everyone repeatedly makes baseless legal arguments that Scott diligently refutes each time.  I'm honestly surprised he bothers posting here anymore as it seems *no one* understands his posts.

Andy, you never answered my previous question.  Did you try and get 3DRealms' and THQ's input before posting this article?  My guess is 'no' since Scott replies to every 3DRealm article, explaining 3DRealms' side of the story.  If 'no' I suggest attemping to obtain input from the parties in question for future articles.  Not only are issues potentially resolved in this communication, but the articles are more likely to contain factual information or rebuttals.

Andy, why don't you take Scott's suggestion (made in an earlier post) and consult a lawyer on these IP issues you're raising questions about before posting the article?  Granted, it will most likely cost you money, but the lawyer will be able to explain how the law works in this matter.  Also, if you want to construct these articles as a professional journalist, you really should get an authority on the law to interpret your concerns with 3DRealms' IP.  Otherwise, you risk posting incorrect information and discrediting yourself.

If you refuse to obtain the consult of a lawyer on articles regarding the law, you really shouldn't be writing articles here on PC dealing with the law.  You owe that to your readers and your credibility.
#46 by "flamethrower"
2000-07-01 21:26:21
<b>#22</b> "George Broussard" wrote...
<QUOTE>Signing off...I'll be back when Andy's gone. </QUOTE>

That's some cold heartless shit dude, Planetcrap without Andy is like, like, Guns & Roses without Slash.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-07-01 21:30:31
<b>#40</b> "Creole Ned" wrote...

<B></B> is still available. </QUOTE>

Better get it before <b>Nameless One</b> does!

#48 by "Uncle Jeet"
2000-07-01 21:34:40
Ok, while I think this is all very silly, I have to point out one thing.  I <i>think</i> what Andy was saying, overall, in his post was that Apogee is <b>currently</b> claiming trademarks in their Intellectual Property License that they <b>don't currently</b> have ownership of.  Granted, due to Scott's explanations, they pretty much do....or at least will, in time.  But I think what Andy was saying is that they don't have them now.  Or something.  Maybe I should just go eat some Funyons and take a bath in butter.  Yeah.  Later.

<b>Uncle</b> <i>I really need to post a new topic someday...</i> <b>Jeet</b>
#49 by "Andy"
2000-07-01 21:57:01
<b>#48</b>, Uncle Jeet:

Yep, that's right, it's straight factual reporting.


Scott and George may feel that the US trademark system is unfair, or has not worked adequately in their favour, but that is a matter for them and their lawyers to deal with privately.

By claiming ownership of a trademark that they do not officially own, Apogee may unfairly tarnish the image of the rightful owner. Apogee has made such a false claim, and we have reported it here, accurately and with evidence.

As always, if Apogee feels there is a greater public interest story to report with regard to the trademark system, they can feel free to contact us here and we may cover it. However, PlanetCrap is not the place for them to settle private disagreements with THQ or Heavy Iron Studios.
#50 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-07-01 22:06:58

Kurgan 'I have something to say, its better to burn out, than to fade away'

Neil Young, Rust Never sleeps - Hey Hey, My my 'Better to burn out, than to fade away'

Queen - Highlander theme 'Who wants to live forever anyway'

Hawkman (Brian Blessed in Flash Gordon)' 'Ah well, who wants to live forever anyway. DEEeeeeeeyiiiiiiiive'

now who should be suing who ?

Home » Topic: Not-So-Intellectual Property

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: []Cool Site[/url], [url][/url]
Email Links: []Email me[/email], [email][/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (3) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]