Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

_princess_

Member
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Informative
    _princess_ reacted to TetraSky in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Wrong. They ARE trademarking CALL OF DUTY WARZONE and WARZONE.
    They applied for both
    https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:guee0g.2.6
    https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:guee0g.2.7
     
    Then Warzone.com came about months later and made two filing, one for the trademark and one for the servicemark. Activision did it for both in a single filing.
    https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:guee0g.2.4
    https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:guee0g.2.3
     
     
    These are the existing, currently "LIVE" trademarks for Warzone.
  2. Agree
    _princess_ got a reaction from Muscle_Man1993 in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  3. Informative
    _princess_ reacted to Quackers101 in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    *hears ussr in the background and the final boss*
    When it comes to the US, I guess one would want anything else as there is so much that will keep you down in one way or another.
    Working with multi-million or billion worth corporations that doesn't pay some of their staff enough to eat at their own dining area.
    So how we would know if they wouldn't sue this smaller dev at some point for just using the name too, and how people wouldn't know this big franchise already, unless they were impersonated like one can see in app stores.
     
  4. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from Beskamir in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  5. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from DededeKirby in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  6. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from ARikozuM in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  7. Like
    _princess_ got a reaction from Tensimeter in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  8. Like
    _princess_ got a reaction from EL02 in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  9. Agree
    _princess_ got a reaction from Lurick in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    I agree.
     
     
     
  10. Informative
    _princess_ reacted to Lurick in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Doesn't matter if they filed after, if they were first to market they have what's known as "priority of use" or "first to use in commerce" and it's kind of like prior art for patents.
  11. Agree
    _princess_ got a reaction from Bombastinator in What's a tech term you hate?   
    Not sure offhand, but generally any term or acronym that has multiple meanings.
     
    Same with math, I dislike when math symbols that have multiple meanings, just causes confusion when you need to be precise.
     
  12. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from thechinchinsong in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  13. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from Doobeedoo in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  14. Informative
    _princess_ reacted to RejZoR in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    This brings memories when Ford was butthurt about some F1 race car named F150. Because they didn't want people to confusion it with their F150 pickup truck. Yeah, like one is going to confuse a F1 racing car with a big ass pickup truck. This seems no less stupid. With one big difference that it's not two rich corps fighting with dicks, it's one rich corp bullying an indie dev who even had the product on market before them and on top of that isn't even related to it in any way and only includes part of the name. One is turn based strategy game, other is FPS game. Activision, stop being an ass and leave this dude alone.
     
    There was also Warzone 2100 game some 2 decades ago. I'm surprised stupid Activision isn't chasing them too. Btw, Warzone 2100 is now open source free strategy game.
  15. Like
    _princess_ got a reaction from cj09beira in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  16. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from HelpfulTechWizard in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  17. Informative
    _princess_ reacted to jagdtigger in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Sounds about right, the typical corpo rat tactic "bully them around until they run out of money".....
  18. Informative
    _princess_ got a reaction from jagdtigger in Standup for Indie dev, resist AAA obliteration.   
    Summary
    Activision sues small indie developer over a trademark, which the indie developer had legal rights to.
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    Do you feel Activision is legally justified or do they have no legal grounds to do this? Do you feel Activision is morally justified or not morally justified? The Corporate argument is that employees need a paycheck, and that for the greater good of employees and consumers AAA games must be made. The Indie argument is that corporate employees are underpaid and overworked so why contribute to that broken system? The Corporate argument is that indie devs are also overworked and underpaid. The Indie argument is that indie games have more content freedom, and able to satisfy gamers more. The Corporate argument is that AAA games satisfy gamers more because there are more workers and budget to produce higher quality games. Legally speaking, trademark is trademark. The Corporate and Indie argument is that artists should not have to follow trademark restrictions, if an artist has a great idea why should they not be allowed to pursue the idea? For example, lets say an artist has a great game vision, but that vision was created earlier by a shovelware game, should the shovelware game have exclusive rights to that vision? On the other hand, should Corporations be allowed to steamroll over hardworking indies who spent a lot of work making a non shovelware game?
     
    Sources
    https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/activision-sues-warzonecom-after-negotiations-break-down
    https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/activision-suing-an-indie-dev-who-made-a-game-called-warzone-three-years-before-them
  19. Funny
    _princess_ got a reaction from Donut417 in GTA IV runs at 10 FPS permanently   
    Could be windows telemetry bloatware. They just use Windows to spy on everyone. Steam OS is the future, tired of windows bloatware and stuff running the background like Fax machine service and High Precision Event Timer that gamers dont need.
  20. Funny
    _princess_ got a reaction from Mark Kaine in Upgrading to RTX 3060 Ti has negatively impacted my PC   
    oof. glad u made this post was thinking about getting a 3060. Think i will wait for the Nvidia 4000 series
  21. Like
    _princess_ reacted to Tr3vor in Experiences with non-techies   
    my aunt who is constantly complaining about her slow Pentium 4 computer, and when people tell her to buy a new one already, she says "no its fine."
  22. Funny
    _princess_ got a reaction from DriftMan in Upgrading to RTX 3060 Ti has negatively impacted my PC   
    oof. glad u made this post was thinking about getting a 3060. Think i will wait for the Nvidia 4000 series
  23. Like
    _princess_ got a reaction from MxZeal in Upgrading to RTX 3060 Ti has negatively impacted my PC   
    oof. glad u made this post was thinking about getting a 3060. Think i will wait for the Nvidia 4000 series
×