Does 'token trademark use' happen a lot in the gaming business?
I am shocked...SHOCKED...that a company that rebranded itself with an iconic trademark after purchasing said trademark, would actually stoop to this kind of level...what am I saying, of course Infogr...I mean Atari would do such a thing. The question is why are you suprised by this behavior? There are plenty of classic games that indies would love to reinvigorate that never leave the dustbin of history because publishers can't afford to have their predatory rivals swoop in and steal a piece of their legacy. If you consider the alternative and let anyone snatch "dead" TM legally prior to abandonment, then wouldn't the Activision's and EA's have already taken the most lucrative TMs and hoarded them for their own use? I think you have to be careful what you wish for when you consider cases such as these from a biased point of view. I'd hate to see some great indie title of the past be resurrected by a TM pirate who put nothing into the original game.
Perhaps I should explain the circumstances surrounding this matter a little, since I am a member of the same community as Scalare.
Toys for Bob is the company that originally made Star Control 1 and 2. However, the now-defunct Accolade who published the games kept the rights to Star Control. It is more complicated than TFB simply giving the rights away...they got screwed pretty badly with their contract; they even had to spend a few months working on SC2 for free because Accolade wanted to force the release of an unfinished game. They made SC3 without Toys for Bob. and it was universally panned by Star Control fans. Accolade got acquired eventually (by Crystal Dynamics? I'm not sure), and the Star Control IP has changed hands several times as various mergers and the like have taken place over the years.
At some point, TFB got back the rights to all of the intellectual property except for the name "Star Control." They are now part of Activision, and they really want to make a new Star Control. Every Star Control fan wants this of course, but the Star Control name is a bit of a problem. Though really, the biggest problem is that Activision doesn't really want to let them make one.
I just thought this should be clarified because it seems people here think that Scalare is interested in this matter because he wants to scoop up an abandoned trademark. The SC community has a vested interest in this because we really want Toys for Bob to make another Star Control. This information might not change things from a legal standpoint, but it seems some people were misunderstanding why he was interested in this matter.
Toys for Bob is the company that originally made Star Control 1 and 2. However, the now-defunct Accolade who published the games kept the rights to Star Control. It is more complicated than TFB simply giving the rights away...they got screwed pretty badly with their contract; they even had to spend a few months working on SC2 for free because Accolade wanted to force the release of an unfinished game. They made SC3 without Toys for Bob. and it was universally panned by Star Control fans. Accolade got acquired eventually (by Crystal Dynamics? I'm not sure), and the Star Control IP has changed hands several times as various mergers and the like have taken place over the years.
At some point, TFB got back the rights to all of the intellectual property except for the name "Star Control." They are now part of Activision, and they really want to make a new Star Control. Every Star Control fan wants this of course, but the Star Control name is a bit of a problem. Though really, the biggest problem is that Activision doesn't really want to let them make one.
I just thought this should be clarified because it seems people here think that Scalare is interested in this matter because he wants to scoop up an abandoned trademark. The SC community has a vested interest in this because we really want Toys for Bob to make another Star Control. This information might not change things from a legal standpoint, but it seems some people were misunderstanding why he was interested in this matter.
Interesting. Yes, it often happens that ownership of an IP gets complicated, way beyond the simple little parable I tried to paint.
Quote:Original post by nightcomesdown
Perhaps I should explain the circumstances surrounding this matter a little, since I am a member of the same community as Scalare.
Toys for Bob is the company that originally made Star Control 1 and 2. However, the now-defunct Accolade who published the games kept the rights to Star Control. It is more complicated than TFB simply giving the rights away...they got screwed pretty badly with their contract; they even had to spend a few months working on SC2 for free because Accolade wanted to force the release of an unfinished game. They made SC3 without Toys for Bob. and it was universally panned by Star Control fans. Accolade got acquired eventually (by Crystal Dynamics? I'm not sure), and the Star Control IP has changed hands several times as various mergers and the like have taken place over the years.
At some point, TFB got back the rights to all of the intellectual property except for the name "Star Control." They are now part of Activision, and they really want to make a new Star Control. Every Star Control fan wants this of course, but the Star Control name is a bit of a problem. Though really, the biggest problem is that Activision doesn't really want to let them make one.
I just thought this should be clarified because it seems people here think that Scalare is interested in this matter because he wants to scoop up an abandoned trademark. The SC community has a vested interest in this because we really want Toys for Bob to make another Star Control. This information might not change things from a legal standpoint, but it seems some people were misunderstanding why he was interested in this matter.
That definitely paints a different picture, but unfortunately there's not much in the way of suggestions or advice you're going to get a message board. Cult followings rarely amount to meeting the bottom line, so for whatever reason Activision has determined that the investment necessary to either a) purchase the mark or b) rebrand the product is too high in light of the potential return. I wouldn't blame the current mark holder at this point, which was what Scalare seemed to be suggesting.
Quote:Original post by nightcomesdown
It is more complicated than TFB simply giving the rights away...they got screwed pretty badly with their contract; they even had to spend a few months working on SC2 for free because Accolade wanted to force the release of an unfinished game.
They signed the contract. They either knew what the terms of the contract meant, in which case they can't complain when the publisher then enacts those clauses. Alternatively they didn't know what the clauses meant, in which case they were stupid for signing them.
Quote:At some point, TFB got back the rights to all of the intellectual property except for the name "Star Control." They are now part of Activision, and they really want to make a new Star Control. Every Star Control fan wants this of course, but the Star Control name is a bit of a problem. Though really, the biggest problem is that Activision doesn't really want to let them make one.
I am certainly not particularly pro-publisher. I work with developers to help them avoid doing these sorts of bad deals. However the games business is a business just like any other. TFB sold their company at some point and now they have to live with the results of that decision. Activision owns them and pays the bills so Activision gets to decide what they work on. With the very best will in the world what the fans of some old game want counts for very little. It would costs many millions of dollars to make a new SC game. If the fans want it made then they should be willing to pay the cost.... if they aren't willing to pay (or there aren't enough fans willing to pay) then why should a publisher pay?
Quote:...it seems people here think that Scalare is interested in this matter because he wants to scoop up an abandoned trademark.
Understood, but as you say it doesn't make any difference legally.
Frankly this is a fuss over nothing. Sports Interactive had to change the name of Champ Manager when they stopped working with Eidos and went with SEGA. Of course all the fans knew it was the same game... just as you would know if TFB did a new SC game but used a different title. Trust me, it won't actually burn your fingers if you play an SC game that isn't actually called SC.
Quote:Original post by Obscure
I am certainly not particularly pro-publisher.
Right. If I may borrow this statement from Dan and say, me too. My previous statements weren't meant to imply that I'm pro-publisher either.
An entity that legally owns an IP, in my opinion, has every right to protect that IP and to keep its ownership of that IP as far as legally permitted.
Which is why I was saying before with my desert and prison parables is that I see nothing wrong with this Token Trademark Use practice.
At the risk of veering off-topic, though, I think it's not so nice that the US government extends IP ownership every time it looks like Mickey Mouse is going to enter public domain.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
