Not that there's any coherent logic to IP law, but logically what's the difference between zero royalty paid (aka not protecting the trademark) and settling on a fixed-price perpetual royalty of negligible cost?
It's so weird to me how in some areas of the law (criminal law, for instance) the "gray area" is embraced and fully considered, where in other areas (IP/business law) decisions seem to be so black-and-white. As a total layman, I'd guess this "tone" is completely set by case law?
If so, is there any precedent that says a fixed cost perpetual royalty priced at $0.01 or similar constitutes "protecting" a trademark?
That part of IP law is actually sane. Instead of perpetual monopoly over something the "owner" doesn't even care about. Names (i.e. trademarks) will go back into the pool when they are no longer used/valued/desired by "owner". The cost and requirements of "maintenance" also stops trivial, speculative, or trollish trademarks.
Copyright use to have similar sense (must apply, must renew).
I'm not a laywer, but I think the concern with protecting trademarks is to demonstrate that you actually have an interest in said trademark, and are not simply trolling your competitor.
By having a token royalty, they demonstrate that they do care about the trademark even when it is being used by someone they would otherwise like to hurt.
> It's so weird to me how in some areas of the law (criminal law, for instance) the "gray area" is embraced and fully considered, where in other areas (IP/business law) decisions seem to be so black-and-white.
Ah, this is mostly the tension between "balancing tests" and "bright-line rules" in jurisprudence. I worked in criminal law for a while, and it's basically statutory, which means mostly bright line rules for prosecution. Sentencing involves more balancing tests, that's probably what you're thinking about. Though there are even some mandatory minimums that are bright lines.
One of the balancing tests you hear about the most is actually in IP law, the fair use standard. (People sometimes casually talk about fair use as if it's a list of four bright line criteria, but that's not really correct.)
Bright line rules are handy in that they add clarity for everyone following the law. Businesses that want to establish processes in explicit compliance tend to prefer bright lines, for example. Balancing tests are important when you're safeguarding the rights of the people against the state, or when individual cases will have unique mitigating circumstances that are too numerous to foresee or account for in a hard and fast rule. Balancing tests help add lenience, or help customize the law to particular situations. That's why you might see more balancing tests in sentencing, or in constitutional issues.
UPDATE: Statutes also tend to be more bright-line, while traditionally, judges made common law with more balancing tests. The US (thanks to the UK) is considered a common law jurisdiction, since we have some judge made law, while most European courts are said to rely on civil code. This is oversimplistic though, because these days European judges are more willing to look at precedents and adopt customs based on prior cases, and many US jurisdictions have implemented "uniform codes" which attempt to codify many areas of the law formerly left to judges. Everyone's a bit of a blend now, just with more of a common law or civil law flavor. (Pending correction from any European Advocates out there, of course.) Moreover, some judges develop bright lines, and some statutes call for fairness tests, so it's all blurred now.
Whether it's ok or not is entirely up to Zynga and their counsel.