Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for The KillSmith

Real Name The KillSmith   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname The KillSmith
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 16, 2011, 19:11
Total Comments 10 (Suspect)
User ID 56172
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

News Comments > Blizzard's Overwatch Hits TM Snag
18. Re: Blizzard's Overwatch Hits TM Snag Jan 12, 2015, 18:42 The KillSmith
Wallshadows wrote on Jan 12, 2015, 11:56:
Either way, Blizzard has enough money to make a conflicting TM go away if that's what it'll take the secure the title. This is just karma for them going after New Line for for having a movie called Diablo.

It's also ironic because they tried to go after Valve for DotA2.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DOTA Trademark Settled
27. Re: DOTA Trademark Settled May 13, 2012, 13:10 The KillSmith
How exactly did Blizzard "stand up for gamers"?

Big corporations shouldn't get to decide the fate of someone else's creative works (even the name), especially when they toiled at it for years with no pay. The original DotA map and name was Eul's, and as I understand it he works at Valve. Also, the dev who continued the development for the longest and most recent period time was Icefrog, who also works at Valve. Blizzard's only claim was to the "Allstars LLC", which is not the same as an intellectual property nor a trademarked name of a product. That claim was all from a deal with Pendragon, who was really just the webmaster of the dota-allstars website, which declined in relevance once Icefrog's became the pillar.

I like the development portion of Blizzard, but I hate the lawyer/publishing part of Activision-Blizzard. In the end, this turned out exactly as it should have: with the rights in the creators' hands. Valve's dev support also worked out the best for the community, who wouldn't have gotten this superb sequel otherwise (since Blizzard originally turned down helping Icefrog). "Blizzard never tried to capitalize on it" is a twist on the real situation, which is that they turned down the chance to bring on the devs and give them the pay and staff they needed to work on their ideas and turn them into even better products for the community, despite what kind of monetization may or may not have been involved.

I'm proud of Blizzard for letting this go, and I'm proud of Valve for doing what they've always done: given really great community members the chance to create their dreams and the rest of us the chance to play in them. It's funny because a handful of the gaming community sees Valve's motives like a Publishers and assume they try to "steal" others' ideas and profit from them. Those who think that should go to the modders and indie devs who actually created those ideas and ask them what THEY think. You can actually find those perspectives in interviews all over the web, and you'll see a much different story.

This comment was edited on May 13, 2012, 13:25.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
59. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 12, 2012, 10:04 The KillSmith
^Drag0n^ wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 02:46:
I think you kinda missed my point. No one can trademark something that has "prior art" in the public domain, or published under another creator's name. I wasn't saying that Blizzard had any claim to the title-- quite the contrary-- I fully expect that a judge, when presented with the evidence, will deem the title the property of NEITHER party involved.


The problem is that technically, in the legal world, public domain only applies to intellectual property... and to actually be IP in the first place then at one time it would have needed "rights" (like a trademark) that expired or were basically given up by the owner. In this case, the trademark for the name "DotA" was never started by Eul (the creator), hence he could have decided to apply for it at any point. Valve, and Eul who is a part of Valve, eventually did. So I don't think that argument works.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
55. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 14:45 The KillSmith
Prez wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 14:27:
It's a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo bullshit that means nothing to anyone not a wannabe paralegal. All I know is that it's all noise and bullshit involving scumbag lawyers and scumbag corporate shenanigans.

Well, perhaps the larger point should mean something to you if you care about gaming and the future of developers who make them. News sites post this as a Activison-Blizzard vs Valve thing in their titles because that's what it is on the surface... but in essence this as a large publishing corporation vs developers and their original ideas. Others should see through the veil of carefully crafted PR statements and lawyer documents. I agree... this is a bunch of BS involving scumbag lawyers and corporate execs. Who would want to defend them? I look forward to a day where most of the middlemen in this industry are long gone. Digital distribution and the possibility of fan funded projects is the answer. It's no suprise then that Valve is implimenting that exact plan. Publishers know this and they are afraid, because they will become largely a moot point if that structure takes over. Fans should be cheering it on because we'll get better, more creative games for less money.

This comment was edited on Feb 11, 2012, 16:18.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
51. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:40 The KillSmith
nin wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 12:33:
You're welcome.

I didn't bother. I'm just saying when you start a post as "none of you know what you're talking about, here's a cut and paste I did from elsewhere" you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't make a great impression.

1) You misquoted me, that's not what I said. You're paraphrasing with a slant to the negative. But the truth remains: a lot of posters don't understand what's going on. That's not a slight to their person as it's hard to understand if you haven't followed it.
2) I know full well why you made that snide comment. I was being facitious in my response.
3) If you don't want to read it, don't read it. No skin off my back. The post was meant for those who are interested, not trolls.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
49. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:27 The KillSmith
nin wrote on Feb 11, 2012, 12:16:
Oh boy!!!!!!!!!!!

You're welcome.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
47. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 12:06 The KillSmith
Wow, I can tell a lot of posters here don't understand what's going on, so I'm going to copy a post I made on another forum about this to give some insight that will hopefully keep the uninformed comments to a minimum and lessen the confusion of readers:

As far as the Allstars LLC claim Blizzard has: An LLC is not the same as an intellectual property nor a trademarked name of a product. The LLC was basically nothing (owned no trademarks that I know of, otherwise this would be a shut case already) - the majority of the LLC's claim was basically just the dota-allstars website (created by Pendragon aka Mescon the glorified webmaster of a glorified DotA clan) which really had been replaced by the developer Icefrog's, since Icefrog was the one who continued the development after others had gone on to other things and the dota-allstars domain declined. Also don't forget that this all revolved around the dota allstars variant, the starting of which was Feak's main contribution... NOT the original DotA creation which was Eul's. How is it that one of the many offshoot developers that came and went in the organic creation of a mod-based sub-genre gets sole ownership of the IP and it's name? That's not how intellectual property works in almost any country, and especially not the United States.

There's just no getting around this. The DotA concept and name was Eul's, and it CERTAINLY was never Blizzard's. I'm not even certain why Mescon went to trademark the full "Defense of the Ancients" title back when this all started... when did HE become a major developement contributor in the history of all this? Even now, working for Riot Games, he's not a developer. He's just the "Director of Community Relations". Where is his stake in all this exactly?

The thing that really ticks me off in all this is that each party making a grab for a piece in this pie all claim to be doing it for the "DotA community and fans". Let me pose this question: what does the majority of the DotA community that's been around throughout the years to see this unfold think about all this? If someone would ask them, they may find the time to answer in between beta matches as they anxiously await DotA2.

This isn't so much a Blizzard bashing as it is a developer defending. Big corporations shouldn't get to decide the fate of someone else's creative works, especially when they toiled at it for years with no pay. Try to see this from Eul's shoes (who now works at Valve along with IceFrog).

Valve has been semi-gracious in that they've basically taken the genre's acronym-become-term as the title rather than the original full title of the mod (or "map", depending on your subjective terminology choice here). Valve (including Gabe) has openly admitted to being huge fans of Blizzard and wanting to work with them on multiple fronts before this, during this, and even after... but Blizzard has remained exclusive, totalitarian, and integrated, even more so after the Activision merger since they are now beholden to stockholders. While an amazing artistic team, their new business direction is something akin to the Apple of PC gaming devs, and this whole DotA thing is just embarrassing. I wish they would just stick to making games, and I wish the dev portions of Blizzard would have chosen artistic freedom rather than more cash. Then again, maybe it wasn't their decision.

That being said: I'm still looking forward to Diablo 3

This comment was edited on Feb 11, 2012, 14:41.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
40. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 11, 2012, 00:02 The KillSmith
Yifes wrote on Feb 10, 2012, 14:25:
It's a nice rant, but you missed the part about how Icefrog didn't create DotA and has no right to sell it to Valve

I didn't miss anything.

A) He didn't "sell" it to Valve because it wasn't something he could sell. No one had claimed rights to the name yet. This wasn't some established IP with rights.

B) Eul, the original creator, also works at Valve. I only referenced Icefrog (who in the end has done more for DotA than anyone) because he was the one who originally went to Blizzard and was turned down, and then was mainly responsible for the decision to move development to Valve and the Source engine. In context, he was the fulcrum of the opportunity Blizzard lost, which was half the point of my post.

Always helps to read up before you post.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM
28. Re: Blizzard Sues Over DOTA TM Feb 10, 2012, 13:07 The KillSmith
Valve isn't pulling the dick move, Blizzard is. Blizzard is just butthurt they didn't jump at the opportunity to utilize their community by bringing certain mod members on board WHEN THEY WERE APPROACH BY THOSE MEMBERS! Yes, in case some of you were not aware, Blizzard originally turned down helping certain key DotA mod members. Icefrog went to Valve and they were behind him. This has happened before with other mod teams that start on one engine, and then go commercial with their own intellectual property on another. In this case, rather than just the engine, they also used Valve's development team support by simply becoming members of Valve. If I had my own idea for a game and was able to flush that out as a mod, when I want to go commercial I should be able to take my ideas and name with me anywhere I want. Law protects this right so that other people can't steal what's mine, and now Blizzard is trying to say law gives them the right to do that. What a bunch of pompous pricks.

Tough crap Blizzard. You missed your chance. That's what happens when you get too big and start merging with Publishers. Now they're just money grubbers. What a bunch of sellouts.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Gabe Newell Interview Part 2
16. Re: Gabe Newell Interview Part 2 Feb 16, 2011, 14:15 The KillSmith
Kastagir wrote on Feb 15, 2011, 15:03:
Silence doesn't make you look cool, or busy, or calculated. It only makes you look foolish and helpless.

You say that as if looking cool, busy, or calculated is the actual reason they are remaining silent in the first place. I imagine those things have nothing to do with it, and that once it IS revealed and they say WHY they had been silent all that time, you'll nod your head and say "Ohhhh".
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
10 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


Blue's News logo