Quote:Original post by iceware
"I am right and you are wrong. But I know your game; you want me to waste my time, effort and attention on your stupid threat, and waste money on lawyers. Well, I'm not spending one second on your foolish game after I hang up this phone, and I will not waste one penny on lawyers either. Goodbye. Click".

Ask A Guy Who Knows A Little Bit About Dealing With These Lawyer Types

> If lawyers and judges give such clear, reliable opinions,
> then why are endless legal battles waged in this country?

Same as engineering. You can't be certain of a result / outcome until it has been tried.

> To those who disagree with me, you are welcome to your opinions.

You are treating the topic as a "Can I" issue where it all boils down to a risk / reward calculation. If the calculation fails, then a big pile of money needs be payed. Odds are, it won't - or so this is what I read from your posts.

It should instead be regarded as a "Should I" issue, where risk / reward calculations are replaced by ethics. This industry's bread and butter is IP. Once people start believing there are no victims in copying / distributing someone else's IP (or parts thereof) - or worse, stop believing in the value of IP altogether - then the industry slips into oblivion. I don't believe this avenue restricts your creativity; it merely vectors it into uncharted territory where the odds of making something really outstanding are much better.

-cb

Quote:Original post by cbenoi1
> If lawyers and judges give such clear, reliable opinions,
> then why are endless legal battles waged in this country?

Same as engineering. You can't be certain of a result / outcome until it has been tried.

> To those who disagree with me, you are welcome to your opinions.

You are treating the topic as a "Can I" issue where it all boils down to a risk / reward calculation. If the calculation fails, then a big pile of money needs be payed. Odds are, it won't - or so this is what I read from your posts.

It should instead be regarded as a "Should I" issue, where risk / reward calculations are replaced by ethics. This industry's bread and butter is IP. Once people start believing there are no victims in copying / distributing someone else's IP (or parts thereof) - or worse, stop believing in the value of IP altogether - then the industry slips into oblivion. I don't believe this avenue restricts your creativity; it merely vectors it into uncharted territory where the odds of making something really outstanding are much better.
-cb

Your reply is one of the more reasonable, even though I would say it is somewhat over-simplified. I am not sure why you ignored my repeated, repeated, repeated statements that my first rule is "do not violate ethics or legalities". Once you recognize I said that (repeatedly), the next question becomes "does my art/work gain enough by containing some degree of similarity to previous works". If not, obviously all of us would say "why bother?".

However, if someone has an idea that *does* greatly benefit from pushing the limits further than "super-duper-hyper-crazy safe sort of advice", a person could then try to become clearer about "where actually is the legal limit". Once the artist understands what is the legal limit to a modest degree of clarity (and makes sure he is on the safe side, or near it), his next question (according to me) is "how do I decide whether this will be worth it". That *is* a risk/reward calculation, like it or not. Notice that I always put that risk/reward calculation *after* estimates of "legal or not". Did you notice that? I understand it may be easy to ignore I say that, because "legal or not" consumes one sentence, and discussions of risk/reward can run into pages (and many hours (and/or many lawyer dollars) if you are serious).

So yes, what I discuss mostly in my posts is how to estimate risk/reward once you considered the necessary first elements, including "be legal". Even so, I was not flippant. I did not suggest everyone be as self-confident in their own analysis and judgement as me. In fact, I explicitly advised people they should not mess with bullies trying to indimidate them from doing legal work *unless* they are comfortable in that situation. I am today. It was not as easy the first time, even though I was certain I was right.

Since you seem like a reasonable person, I scratch my head when I read you attach certain ideas to me, including "there are no vicims in copying/distributing someones IP". Where did I imply that? In every case, the point *is* to attempt to identify where is the ethical and legal limit of their IP. That is my point, BTW, except the way I talk about it might be confusing because I am fighting against massively out-of-whack "common wisdom" about what do the owners actually own, really and legally. That is a difficult conversation for someone like me to have, because the vast majority of people do in fact parrot the propaganda sound-bites those lawyers paid by big fat bullies repeat endlessly. Most people are easily manipulated by Jedi mind tricks like this (the notion that propaganda and sound-bites issued by lawyers have some legal standing). Though in retrospect *everyone* knows that lawyers issue PR-lies-propaganda-soundbites on behalf of their selves/clients/positions (with no legal content whatsoever), many people do not slow down and reflect long enough to identify every Jedi mind trick and reject or discount them accordingly.

I suspect you and I pretty much agree about everything, if you bother to read carefully and consider what is my intent. Gads! My entire life has been one of creation! I have been a scientist, engineer and product developer since I was a kid, and have invented and developed literally hundreds of what you people would consider IP. To imagine that I advocate cheating myself is laughable! Sorry if I gave that impression, I certainly did not intend to. However, I will admit that I have spent vastly more time and effort on philosophical study and reflection than most people, which most certainly includes ethics (the basis for honest law). And my conclusions are not identical to "conventional wisdom" in some ways with regards to IP ethics. Interestingly, however, the IP in question here is on the "copyright" side of IP law, which I agree has a legitimate ethical basis. On the other hand, patent law is utterly unethical at root. Please understand that I say that even though the vast majority (and by far most valuable) of my IP falls on the patent side. Which is why I do not patent what I can, and when I sell designs to companies I explicitly include my refusal to patent (or back up their patents), which killed a few lucrative deals for me. I only say this to reveal that I take these issues seriously, even to the point of willingly refusing gains of hundreds of thousands of dollars (and potentially millions depending upon how those inventions played out).

Also note the original poster was asking himself the right questions, and was taking some reasonable steps, even though he did make one huge mistake (he seems to assume "giving credit" somehow gives him "permission", which is wrong). I had hoped that everyone could throw in their real knowledge and experiences to provide a rich information-experience rich environment for him to consider his project further. Instead, just about everyone repeated what I consider information-free propagana that benefits only bullies and lawyers, but thwarts creative individuals and endeavors. Thanks for one of the more honest and thoughtful responses.

PS to another comment from someone else: Yes, I read the original post, and I do believe he could have modified his directly slightly to be well within legality but not destroy what he wanted to achieve (perhaps). See my comments just above for more about that.

PS to another comment from someone else: Please make the distinction between "what is legal" and "a specific decision by someone to change his work to appease the desires of others". Now, I suspect the example "hobbit" would have been perfectly okay, no law suit would ever have been carried to conclusion (thoug possibly threatened). Please note! A decision by someone to NOT call his creatures "hobbit" does NOT constitute any vague (much less specific or binding) legal judgement as to the legality of the word "hobbit" in a work of art. And really folks, do you believe it is *legal* to copy the substance of hobbits (which is 99% of the point) but not legal to copy the ancient word "hobbit"? Think about it seriously. This is just one more example of how far out of whack the conventional wisdom about this issue has gotten. And I do not mean that as a negative comment about the poster - just the opposite! It makes my point that conventional understanding of this topic has gone over the deep end, even for reasonable, intelligent people.

PS: one reason some of you misunderstand certain of my comments is that I respond to several comments by several posters in one message. Perhaps I shouldn't do that (or perhaps this kind of PS closing) will avoid that confusion. I will try to figure out ways to make that aspect of my replies more clear in the future. Not sure why, but I implicitly everyone knows my replies answer many opinions stated by many previous posters. I find writing one large post easier because then I can explicitly relate the relevant ideas raised by multiple folks.

[Edited by - iceware on December 13, 2008 2:06:48 AM]

Quote:Original post by Tom Sloper

Quote: Sayeth iceware:
The terms "alien" and "predator" and "quake" have been around for thousands of years, as have the referents. Just because some big company makes a movie about an alien and a predator does NOT prohibit you or anyone else from making additional media about such - as long as your alien/predator/etc are not exact copies.

IOW, as long as your alien, predator, or quake don't run afoul of copyright law (that's what you're saying). But it's also important that you don't make a movie, game, or comic book whose title uses the words alien, predator, or quake in a manner that could run afoul of trademark law.
Certainly you can use the words alien, predator, and quake in the title of a work in such a way as not to cause a lawsuit. And certainly you can portray aliens, predators, and quakes in such a way as well. The fine distinctions that can help one determine where to draw the line are best learned through an in-depth consultation with a legal professional.

Exactly, but many people were giving advice that "hapless newbs" might interpret in a way that sends them down totally boring paths/careers. Is that what you want? Are you also on the side of wanting no new entries into "your domain"? Why do so many people get bent into a pretzel when one person tries to help balance an otherwise one-sided (and amazingly simplistic) point of view?

Quote:

Quote:Further proclaimeth iceware:
My advice is, "legal advice is not worth much".

Legal advice from a legal professional is worth a lot more than legal advice from you. You should refrain from giving further legal advice to hapless newbs.

You should refrain from purposely extracting selected partial quotes in order to misrepresent what I said. Which is *precisely* what you did. People are much better served by becoming as clear as possible about any issue *before* they visit a lawyer (called "doing your homework" and part of "due diligence"). Usually people can learn what they need without a lawyer, and when they cannot, they will then be in a position to ask better questions, understand the answers more thoroughly, and follow-up with important requests for clarification, elaboration and further questions immediately (not in another expensive meeting).

As I stated explicitly, and you purposely misrepresented, I gave personal advice not legal advice. Though I agree legal advice from a legal professional *should* be better than legal advice from me, but often their advice is worse (as people who later admitted after taking lawyer advice instead). But I only say that to reinforce my point that people are best served by being alert, observant, thoughtful, insightful and fundamentally engaged themselves, and by taking personal responsibility for their actions and decisions. That does not equal "never talk to an expert", but that does mean "often we will not need to, and when we *do* need to, we will be in a far better position to benefit from (and judge) their advice. I am quite certain that is a better policy than simply "pay big bucks and submit yourself unquestioningly to some expert". Often, honesty, careful research, and careful personal observation can save someone all or most expense, and all the insight gained is good "experience in their pocket". Finally, no lawyer, no matter how good, understands your needs/wants/desires/priorities as well as you do, and sometimes that matters more than a little. I would bet that if you cut and paste my entire opinion about being "personally engaged" in front of any *good* lawyer or expert, they would agree.

In the end, "I took the advice my attorney gave me" will not cancel the judgement against you, will not excuse you, and will not get you out of jail. The law is quite clear, each person is responsible for his own actions, and accepting advice from others (lawyers/experts/officals or otherwise) will not reduce judgements against you by one cent, or reduce your sentence by one day. Remember this when you decide how to act upon advice anyone else gives you. Take responsibility for yourself, observe for yourself, think for yourself, act for yourself. By all means, that may include deciding whether to pay a lawyer for his opinion, and deciding how to interpret and assess what he says. The bottom line is this. Each person is responsible for his own actions, ethically and legally. Therefore, a lawyer, expert, spouse, friend, talking-head-on-TV cannot be more than an opinion (or diabolical misleading scheme) for each of us to judge before we act. We are in the driver seat of our actions, we are responsible for our actions, and all this talk about "let someone else decide" is fundamentally backwards. By the sounds of this forum, individualism and responsibility are just about dead in the USSA, and have been replaced by elitism, authoritarianism and authority-worship. No wonder the USSA continues to spiral down the toilet of history. It turned its back on what made it great.

Quote:Original post by CodekaAnd on the topic of Hobbits, the word Hobbit is generally taken to be an invention of Tolkien. Though the topic is up for debate, it's certainly not the "ancient word" in common use as you seem to suggest - certainly the owner's of Tolkien's estate have a trademark on the word.

Other sources (and the poster I was responding to) clearly state the word is ancient. Furthermore, even when totally original terms are coined, the term of IP is limited (in the law, at least) so eventually it is not owned. Furthermore, the legal status of a newly coined term that becomes firmly generic is unspecified (until and unless somebody fights it out in court all the way to conclusion, in which case its legal status only exists afterwards).

The world is positively overflowing with utterly false claims about legal status, because the law allows people to make utterly arbitrary claims (which totally encourages the practice). To place a trademark symbol next to a term does certify any IP status. This self-serving travesty of the legal system has created a holocaust of bogus confusing claims regarding IP, possibly including "hobbit". You see, I am faced with trying to reason with a group of people who simply *see* someone place a trademark symbol next to a term, then immediately assume those people are not blatantly, knowingly, intentionally lying about its legal status, or trying the oldest "Jedi mind trick" in the book (repeat something endlessly, and many people will believe). As example, Microsoft put trademark symbols next to "Windows". Nobody said much for a few years, but then Microsoft decided their Jedi mind trick had sufficient time to take effect, and combined with their size, might, money, lawyers and arrogance they could step on somebody with the word "windows" in their product. Never mind that Microsoft did not invent window/GUI technology, never mind that "window" and "windows" were utterly common terms for exactly the same kind of "rectangular regions on computer screens" - they were going to step on someobody to show who was boss, like big, bad, arrogant, self-important bullies do. The only problem was, they flat-out lost in court. However, my point has nothing to do with that. My point is, they still put the trandmark symbol next to "Windows". Not just "Microsoft Windows", which is obviously a legal trademark, but just plain "Windows". My point is, years after they lost any legal basis to claim a trademark on "Windows", they continue to display a bogus trademark next to Windows - and "the law" does nothing. Endless examples of bogus claims exist. So what? So people can refuse to take any trademark "seriously" (assume legal validity) just because they see it displayed. Same goes for "hobbit". Same goes for endless others. Yet the only advice I ever see here is "be afraid". Why? This is the kind of problem I tried to address. Sure, we must check for legal basis before we adopt act, but that is my point. Do not believe what humans say or publish; most are liars, especially in the domain of IP and used cars.

The modern world (of officialdom especially) is 99% smoke-and-mirrors and overt outright fraud. Years of accepting this kind of fraud makes it possible for criminals to gain control of entire countries. When criminal-bankster-CEOs create inherently fraudulant financial instruments (via backroom deals with self-serving so-called rating agencies) to fleece trillions of dollars from people around the world, then steal trillions more dollars from taxpayers to hand to the exact people most responsible for destroying the world economy, people should wake up and smell the stench of the "legal world". But sadly, most humans are weak minded suckers, easily scammed by simple "Jedi mind tricks" handed down through the ages. All I say is "wake up!" and "get real". For the most part, other people will not look out for you, and claims to the contrary are part of their trick. Just because a few good lawyers exist even now, and just because ethics is important, and just because we do need ways to seek justice, does not mean we should take zero effort or responsibility for understanding reality and ethics, and simply accept the [mostly] self-serving pronouncements from [mostly] self-serving "experts".

Quote:Original post by JDXSolutions Ltd
The point these guys are trying to make is what will you do if you try to make it "different enough" and then get a threatening letter from Fox?

But what more can you do? My point is that a 100% original work just doesn't exist. Everything is influenced by something else. Just because you think your work is original doesn't mean you won't get one of these letters. And at that point, you just have to hope the legal system will work like it's supposed to and protect the work you did in good faith.

Not honest and not productive.

Quote:Original post by stimarcoIntellectual property laws REQUIRE that you ACTIVELY PROTECT any IP you claim to own. If you see someone using your trade name and using your reputation to improve sales of their own product, you are legally OBLIGED to sue their arses.

You pay no attention, or pretend to. I referred endlessly about *utterly*, *massively* invalid *claims* of IP ownership, not legitimate ones. Then you totally respond with a comment that presumes almost the opposite of what I said. Grow up!

Quote:You do NOT have the right to use Microsoft's Windows branding -- including the logo, font, etc. -- on your own products without their express permission.

And I explained *that* explicitly too. Another "bait and switch".

Quote:(Oh yes: paragraphs are your friend.)

You got me there. I apologize and will attempt to make better paragraph decisions in the future.

Quote:Because -- and I do hope it sinks in this time -- if a company's pet lawyers think you might be infringing on their IP, even if they're not 100% certain, they are OBLIGED to protect their property! See my first sentence in my first paragraph? That is why.

Again you ignore everything he said, and his entire point to the original poster. Everyone else gives advice that a reasonable newbee/person might understand as "be afraid to do virtually anything whatsoever". And this attitude is supported by an endless onslaught of purpose lies about what *extent* IP protection reaches to. I tried to *start* a discussion process that would lead to a reasonable understanding of where the facts lie. However, you and others just piled on to defend the *utterly wrong* lies and propaganda spread by bullies and IP-lawyers. You guys made little to zero effort to identify for anyone/newbee "where the ethical line is" or "where the legal line is" or "where the practical lines are" or "the different ways a person can deal with being utterly legal but still possibly raising the attention of bullies who want *vastly more* than they are legally entitled to, and know how to get it (from weak minded fools and novices) at virtually zero time/effort/expense. I tried to help, while you try to lie about what others say, defend the bullies, and be a bully yourself.

Quote:There's no such thing as a "business with a conscience": businesses are abstract legal entities, NOT people, for f*ck's sake!).

I *totally* agree with you about one part of that; businesses are "ficticious entities", both legally and actually. But abstract/ficticious entities do not exist --- except as mental content in the heads of humans. Therefore real, living, breathing, thinking good/bad/ugly/beautiful/wonderful/awful/creative/lame/helpful/bully *people* take every action, not corporations. And some of those folks are wonderful (often the creative folks), but many of them are slime (often elitist executives and their laywers). Thus, some *people* are fair minded and some people are out to destroy/inhibit/thwart others, and we must understand which we are dealing with, and act accordingly. Our only alternatives are "be controlled by the slime of planet earth" or "give everyone what they deserve, but no more", especially to fulltime cretins who spend their entire lives lying, cheating, stealing, intimidating and generally thwarting as much honest, productive, creative work by others as possible.

You are welcome to side with the slime, but do not expect my help or acquiescence.

Quote:Sure, the "little guy" could fight back. And sometimes the little guy wins... but such victories are often Pyrrhic. Business isn't a game. If you're going to swim with sharks, you don't get to whine about the risk of being eaten.

Alas, you purposely lie again about my personal advice and my personal experience. To repeat but summarize, "stay legal", then "ignore them". Now, "ignore them" does *not* suggest people look for fights. That is what bullies do. And I *did* suggest people *ignore* them, *not* fight them repeatedly, so you simply lie, lie, lie.

I explained how ignoring costs us nothing - those of us who do not waste our lives worrying about hot-air-filled liar bullies. I also explained that weak-minded non-self-conscious folks take *your* advice and live a smaller life than they might (assuming their inclinations are such that they might benefit from not being super-meek their entire lives).

Quote:

Quote:Do not believe what humans say or publish; most are liars, especially in the domain of IP and used cars.

I believe this falls under the "Well, DUH!" heading. However, you missed out "incompetent", "making it up as they go along", "flint-hearted" and "arrogant". Businessmen and lawyers are just people, with all the same foibles.

Glad to hear you have some common sense.

Quote:

Quote:... sadly, most humans are weak minded suckers, easily scammed by simple "Jedi mind tricks" handed down through the ages.

So? You're saying this like it's a bad thing!

Yes, I do believe this is a very bad thing - that arrogant malicious skumbags get vastly more than they deserve by cheating and intimidating people who know no better. Yes, that is a bad thing in fact, because it rewards evil/destruction and punishes good/creativity/productivity.

Quote:Besides, this is a games development forum, dedicated to the creation of illusions, mummery and expensive, million-dollar simulations of complete and utter bullshit for the purpose of giving punters the privilege of passing their free time a little more pleasantly.

That it is. Which makes me wonder why so many self-important people get so lathered up when someone tries to *help* others with less experience.

Quote:(As for the finance industries' recent fuck-ups: you'd be amazed at how much of it was actually due to sheer incompetence. Unfortunately, most people simply suck at numbers and statistics, so it's not surprising that the snowball became an avalanche. I won't say nobody knew what was really going on. ... the finance industries' real problems are primarily caused by short-termism, the lack of moderation and minimal accountability endemic in today's Western societies. Time was when the boss of a failed bank would fall on his sword; now they get Golden Handshakes).

Again, you totally miss (or misrepresent) the point! People are welcomed (by me) to screw up royally with their own money... or win big with their own money. But when people unilaterally take control of other peoples lives, other peoples money, even entire world economies, they are inherently wrong (though you will disagree if you are accept "divine right of kings" or "might makes right" or "dog eat dog" philosophy - which I refuse to justify as being legitimate "ethics").

In fact, virtually the entire government is *criminally* wrong by reference to the controlling legal document of the USSA (formerly the USA), namely the constitution. But of course (you might observe) they are not arrested by the FBI, which is part of the "justice department", which is part of the "executive branch", which is run by the criminals. So nobody should be surprised that criminals run everything now, because people at large have *accepted* the right of liars and criminals to run their lives, to print unconstitutional counterfeit money in endless quantities (when the constitution requires ONLY gold and silver), and to allow (actually, strongly encourage) their gangster bankster co-conspirators to play utterly untenable (worse than risky) games at up to 100 times leverage with money created out of thin air by the criminals. You believe in overt, over-the-top elitist/fascist/authoritarianism (and certainly not liberty/justice/individualism) if you support the right of some dishonest pigs to print unlimited funds, invest with unlimited leverage, run overtly self-serving and conflict-of-interest scams with rating-agencies, etc.

Time for a paragraph? My point was, like with the bully-liars in IP, these bully-liars did not "make a mistake". They are wholesale liars and criminals getting away with whatever *criminal* acts they can. The result is what you see; the evil folks print trillions to play with, then when their leverage blows up in their faces (as it had to, as I said so loudly for years), they steal additional trillions of dollars so they can remain in power, and live their elitist, fascist, authoritarian criminal lives in luxury. The scope of their crimes are so astronomical that many people believe "it must be legal" because they cannot conceive of atrocities of such magnitude can occur in plain sight of media and everyone. But surprise! Americans, perhaps originally the most honest, individual-respecting people in history, had a fatal strain of authority-worship from the beginning (religion), which mutated into the overt authoritarianism we have today. No wonder so many people are confused. Their philosophies are internally inconsistent, and at war with themselves! And as usual, the evil side wins (damn, another unintended StarWars reference).

Quote:

Quote:All I say is "wake up!" and "get real". For the most part, other people will not look out for you, and claims to the contrary are part of their trick. Just because a few good lawyers exist even now, and just because ethics is important, and just because we do need ways to seek justice, does not mean we should take zero effort or responsibility for understanding reality and ethics, and simply accept the [mostly] self-serving pronouncements from [mostly] self-serving "experts".

...Criminal versus Civil...

Criminal laws include the likes of murder and burglary. These laws are tied to a permanent enforcement branch of the civil service -- usually a police force of some sort. These laws are enforced proactively. Write that word down.

Civil laws tend to cover issues like IP, contracts, corporate governance, etc. These laws have no permanent enforcement branch of the civil service to keep a watchful eye over their application. These laws are therefore reactive: a plaintiff must get off his arse and bring a civil case to court himself if he perceives a civil law to have been broken.

There are some regulatory bodies which will look for breaches of some civil laws, but their remits are invariably limited in scope. There is no "IP Police", so all IP law is handled reactively. If you don't like the way a company is handling its (alleged) IP, YOU must bring it to the civil courts' attention. Nobody else is going to do so.

So... either put up, or shut up.

Read what *you* wrote, then *think*. Can I ask you to *please* think before you react? It is *BECAUSE* nobody stops liars from totally misrepresenting what you can and cannot do (in civil matters like IP), that we *cannot* depend upon their misrepresentations to guide our actions. So you just gave one excellent reason for my position, namely "understand what is legal, so you can take every ethical and legal advantage of your own time and efforts to create the most enjoyable (maybe even valuable) works of art as you can" (allowing for your own weaknesses).

BTW, you really should have figured out by now that "being a bully" and saying "shut up" will not intimidate me. Sheesh, I thought that would be obvious! All you did is make obvious what kind of person you are.