
King: Our approach to IP - robert-boehnke
http://about.king.com/about/our-approach-to-ip
======
aviraldg
A lot of the statements here don't even make sense. For example:

" _We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using the word Saga_ but we had to
oppose their application to preserve our own ability to protect our own games.
Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of
the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play. "

Except, that is _exactly_ what they're doing.

~~~
sgdesign
IANAL, but my understanding is that if they _didn 't_ sue (or oppose the
trademark, or whatever it is they're doing), they're afraid somebody else
could create a "XYZ Saga" that _is_ copying King's game and use the very
existence of Banner Saga as a precent to why XYZ Saga is entitled to using the
word "saga" as well.

What's not clear to me is whether there is anything King could do to protect
their IP without harming Banner Saga. For example, could they sue Banner Saga,
but then settle out of court and allow them a special exception?

~~~
grabeh
When it comes down to it, it is a matter of whether or not the consumer is
likely to be confused by the usage. King's statement seems to say that it is
the combination of the usage of the 'Saga' suffix and a similar game mechanic
that would give rise to confusion.

The question therefore arises as to what should be done with the 'Banner Saga'
application. If King let it go, then this could serve as evidence that they
are not concerned about the 'Saga' suffix. If they oppose, then they are seen
to be attempting to take control of the 'Saga' suffix regardless of the game
mechanic it is applied to.

The main problem is that the trade mark application would be unlikely to
specifically identify the specific game mechanic that will be used. It is more
likely to include reference to 'computer games' for example.

If King therefore let the application through, 'Banner Saga' could potentially
be used with any game mechanic (and therefore serve as evidence that any game
could use the 'Saga' suffix). King could have taken this approach and
restricted Banner Saga's use via a coexistence agreement (mentioned below)(or
by amending the classification), but negative PR aside, there is not much
incentive for them to do this.

Further, although they could rely on the above strategy of showing confusion
via a similar game mechanic AND the usage of 'Saga', this would be more
difficult to prove if they permitted the registration. King are in a stronger
position if they are able to say they are actively opposing applications, even
if in certain cases this will result in negative PR.

On your last point, companies often enter into coexistence agreements,
acknowledging that both parties can use an identical or similar marks
(registered or unregistered) but under limited circumstances. This could be
the case with Banner Saga for all I know...

~~~
Justsignedup
Good point: If they show strong opposition and then the courts allow an
exception then it is grounds in a future case that they do not simply take all
.* Saga games as non-competing. They must actively attack opposing trademarks
or have their claims invalidated. That's how the laws work. They can easily
make a no-fee agreement with Stoic, but the law will still see that this was a
c2c compromise and not a legal release of the Saga trademark.

------
jameskilton
The expected next step. Instead of self-reflection on whether their actions
are evil, or at least unscrupulous, they post a rationalization with all fluff
and no content. If there was any honesty at King before, it's gone now.

------
jaegerpicker
I'm so extremely annoyed at King. Banner Saga is such a fantastic indie game
that is quite obviously not related to King's games. IP law in America is
completely broken and them exploiting it to harm a small indie is enough to
land on my hated companies list.

~~~
VLM
"quite obviously not related to King's games"

How so? It fits the regex of numerous King games, something like /^.+\s+Saga$/

What I don't understand about the response is if they wanted to be jerks
they'd sue Banner Saga guys and "Lego Star Wars: The complete SAGA" also. Or
if they wanted to get massive internet karma basically for free they'd license
the use of the "banner saga" name to the makers with an extra clause that its
only $1 as long as its the last time they ever name something "* Saga". But no
they march right down the middle taking neither side.

I don't think anyone involved would be very amused if I changed my HN name to
"jaegerpicker saga" and started posting rants about how "I" love american IP
law.

Of all the stinky things about IP law, this sort of reputation management /
consumer protection system is the least stinky. Oh don't get me wrong, it is
in fact stinky, just everything else in that general area is worse.

~~~
jaegerpicker
It's not related because King's games are on completely different platforms
and of a completely different type. The overlap in players has to be pretty
small. Beyond that the word Saga has been used for an extremely long time
prior to King existing. The name Saga as in the Scandinavian Saga's are
central to the games themes.

Honestly I wouldn't care if you posted under jaegerpicker saga, that doesn't
affect the quality of my posts. Sure there are worse things about IP law but
all of it's bad and I'm against any company that uses it as a weapon.

~~~
VLM
"that doesn't affect the quality of my posts"

Its to prevent confusion. jaegerpicker, now is he the guy who likes American
IP law or hates it? Imagine you getting sued because of something a copycat
who stole your name wrote. What a drag for you.

I just don't see trademarks as all that bad. As a thought experiment, imagine
a world without a trademark system, it would suck for everyone. Customers
getting scammed, legit businessmen getting ripped off / shaken down, nobody
knows who is the "real" company so lawsuits and the like all messed up,
everyone gets to pay legal fees either directly or indirectly via higher
prices, it would basically suck.

Or to "humanize" the process you could demand words in a dictionary can't be
trademarked, which would lead to a world of cruddy brand names like "DBA VLM
inc" or something like the ridiculous pharma names, at least until every
phoneme combination is used up, which could be worked around by making every
trademark a ridiculously long string of Klingon language.

I mean, it sometimes sucks, but is there anything that sucks less, and what
would it look like? And thats where the crickets are heard. Well anecdote,
special exception, unusual situation, anecdote, anecdote isn't going to do it
if you want to apply it to the entire economic system. If you try to blue sky
the whole idea and create a new trademark system that works as well as
possible for as many as possible, it pretty much ends up as the current system
plus or minus some "minor" details about punishment and paperwork and
policies.

The totally garbage anti-capitalist copyright system and anti-capitalist
patent system give the trademark system cooties by association, although
trademarks aren't nearly as bad.

------
JakeStone
The first two, I could accept from a certain IP lawyer viewpoint. The first
contained an amusing non-admission admission, but they took down the game, and
I'll let it slide, from my perspective. The second one was a stretch, but they
provided existing examples, and I can see their point even if I don't agree
with it.

That last one though was ludicrous: "We’re not trying to stop Stoic from using
the word Saga but we had to oppose their application to preserve our own
ability to protect our own games."

In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.

I don't play that many games on my phone or tablets, so I don't have a dog in
this fight directly, but now I guess I'll never make my app
SagaNoteAngryFruit.

~~~
DanHulton
As I understand trademark law (which is, poorly), if you don't take the
opportunity to prosecute things which MIGHT infringe, you lose credibility
when you attempt to prosecute things which DO infringe.

For example, a company could create a game that DOES use "Candy" and "Saga" in
an infringing manner, and they could argue that since King didn't prosecute
The Banner Saga, that they're no longer actively protecting their trademark,
and thus it's no longer valid.

Now, I disagree with a bunch of things King has done in general, but this part
specifically seems to be largely due to shitty trademark law. I could easily
be wrong though, but I've seen this reason cited for a bunch of other cases,
the Scrolls/Elder Scrolls case in specific.

------
michaelbuddy
So they are subjecting Banner Saga to a lawsuit, harming them, their
reputation, with full knowledge that it's not an applicable argument. So they
are knowingly causing monetary harm to another company not affecting them, who
will then have to deal with legal costs. These guys are evil. And a blog post
does not refute that.

------
i_have_to_speak
Hey King, fight someone your own size: "Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga".

------
sethrin
I don't want to be an IP abolitionist, per se. I know enough artists who would
be outraged at the very suggestion, even though they make essentially nothing
from direct sales of their work. Still, examples like this give one pause. It
is hardly an isolated case, that the large company acts with impunity, and the
infringed party is limited to at best a moral victory and perhaps some trivial
restitution. If the system is designed to favor the interests of those with
the greatest ability to protect their own interest, as seems to be the case,
then is it not superfluous, if not indeed harmful?

The actions of King here are certainly fuel for the discussion, but clearly
the self-serving justification is enough to leave a bad taste in the mouths of
all but the most devoted adherents to their cause. On the other hand, they
seem to say often enough that they are an ethical company and do not attempt
to restrict the rights of others. The pessimist in me fears this is true.

~~~
rayiner
I don't understand your angle with respect to this particular situation. Stoic
is filing for the right to enjoy exclusive use of the term "Banner Saga" with
respect to online games, and prevent others from using the term. King filed an
objection to that application, not saying that Stoic couldn't use the name,
but saying that they shouldn't get exclusive use of the name because King
already had a series of games with that naming pattern. What's the outrage
here?

~~~
benched
"Saga" is much, much more sweeping than "Banner Saga". It's like the
difference between trademarking "Quest" vs. "King's Quest". In fact, it's just
like trademarking "Quest", "Legend", "Adventure", "Story", etc.

~~~
DanBC
... So it's good that someone is stopping a company from having exclusive use
of "saga" for online gaming, right?

So that means that you agree with the actions of King here.

~~~
benched
I have no idea what you're saying here.

------
macspoofing
I'ts a non-answer answer. No new information. No real information period.

------
oneeyedpigeon
"We’ve been the subject of no little scorn for our actions on this front, but
the truth is that there is nothing very unusual about trademarking a common
word for specific uses. Think of “Time”, “Money” “Fortune”, “Apple”, and
“Sun”, to name a few."

Are any of those words trademarked wrt the title of a computer game? Isn't
this analogous to trademarking words within song, film, or book titles?

~~~
chilldream
I think a better analogy might be if Fortune magazine tried to claim that
because of their (valid) claim to the name "Fortune", no one should be able to
start a magazine whose title starts with the letter "F".

~~~
VLM
Your analogy is good, but an even better one would be no one should be able to
start a magazine who's title is "Bitcoin Fortune", your guide to financial
news in the new online economy, or something like that. You could even imagine
the front cover of the infringing magazine, a tiny little BTC at the very top
and the standard "FORTUNE" right underneath along the top of the magazine,
just like the real magazine.

------
sandbags
Yet another example of the problem of companies being beholden only to the
interest of their shareholders. They can follow a stupid law, even go beyond
it, but it never occurs to them to spend some of that cash pile on, instead,
trying to fix a broken system that would allow them & others to trademark
common words like "candy" or "saga" in the first place.

------
noptic
Creating a good brand is hard work, and king was not willing to invest in it.

"Otherwise, it would be much easier for future copycats to argue that use of
the word “Saga” when related to games, was fair play."

Well it IS fair play.

If king wants a unique brand choosing a genric word used in many game titles
in the last decades was a bad move.

King messed up all others developers must pay the price.

------
skizm
Ummmm, how is Candy Crush not a straight up clone of Bejeweled? What am I
missing here?

~~~
DanBC
Candy crush has shaped boards, and is thus a clone of any of the other similar
match 3 games. Candy crush has some different power up me hanics too.

There are a gajillion match 3 games and they're all similar, but that doesn't
make them all clones. Especially when they're as different as candy crush and
bejeweled are.

~~~
benched
Except, Candy Crush does go beyond simply _being_ a match 3 game, in that all
the base mechanics as far as what happens when you match 3, 4, and 5, are
pretty much lifted exactly as-is from Bejeweled.

~~~
DanBC
...they're the same as very many other match three games.

Candy Crush includes special actions when you match 2 power ups. Bejeweled
clears the board if you match two spinning cubes (the result of a match 5) but
other than that matching two power ups doesn't do anything special.

------
staticelf
TL;DR: King just raised their finger at all indie developers out there.

------
mcescalante
I just don't know where to even start with King, their games, and whatever
"Riccardo" thinks he's saying in this horribly written thing.

