[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52245437]I thought this case was already over?[/QUOTE]
How about reading the article? This isn't about Valve vs Blizzard. Here's the gist of it:
- Over the course of its life, WC3 Dota's various versions were created by three main devs.
- Valve hired two of those devs and bought their rights to the Dota copyright. Blizzard acquired the third dev's. They clashed in court and eventually settled.
- Now there's a whole bunch of Dota imitators that are being sued by Valve (for copying Dota likeness) and Blizzard (for copying WC3 likeness).
- One of those imitator devs being sued is insisting that Dota was a collaborative effort of many devs and the three main devs don't hold enough influence to dictate who should have Dota's copyright. Nobody should own it.
- Warcraft 3's EULA forbids using mods for commercial purposes, which selling the Dota copyright would fall under.
- One of the Dota main devs passed the torch by declaring it Open Source in a forum post and giving "whoever wishes to release a version of Dota" basically free reign without his consent needed. Whether this was meant to only empower other modders or should also apply to full-on commercial standalones is up for debate.
Jury now decides whether this imitator dev is right and Valve's Dota copyright is valid.
I read it it's just really dumb because there's already a case deciding who has claim to Dota, and if WC3's EULA had any standing on that Blizz wouldn't have lost the case.
The fact that someones trying to straight up copy the IP for mobile with this argument just seems asinine. Could they not just make something similar?
I see it as an attempt to get popularity for the game using the IP in which case I think both Valve and Blizz (assuming they keep in WC/Blizz chars like Skeleton King) have a legitimate suit here.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52246197]I read it it's just really dumb because there's already a case deciding who has claim to Dota, and if WC3's EULA had any standing on that Blizz wouldn't have lost the case.
The fact that someones trying to straight up copy the IP for mobile with this argument just seems asinine. Could they not just make something similar?
I see it as an attempt to get popularity for the game using the IP in which case I think both Valve and Blizz (assuming they keep in WC/Blizz chars like Skeleton King) have a legitimate suit here.[/QUOTE]
Well they already got sued, might as well pull something out of their ass.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52246197]I read it it's just really dumb because there's already a case deciding who has claim to Dota, and if WC3's EULA had any standing on that Blizz wouldn't have lost the case.
The fact that someones trying to straight up copy the IP for mobile with this argument just seems asinine. Could they not just make something similar?
I see it as an attempt to get popularity for the game using the IP in which case I think both Valve and Blizz (assuming they keep in WC/Blizz chars like Skeleton King) have a legitimate suit here.[/QUOTE]
Are you referring to the DotA trademark dispute? Cause Blizzard didn't lose the case. Blizzard's whole point was to prevent a trademark, not to put one of their own, which was precisely what happened.
[QUOTE=Noob4life;52246269]Well they already got sued, might as well pull something out of their ass.[/QUOTE]
I guess so.
Dang. They dropped Icefrog's real name in the article. I thought it was debunked as a hoax a few years ago.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;52245735]
- Warcraft 3's EULA forbids using mods for commercial purposes, which selling the Dota copyright would fall under.[/QUOTE]
This is part of the argument i don't understand. The EULA forbids selling something made using the Warcraft 3 software...and that isn't what has happened. No one has actually sold content made using WC3 in this case, which is what it applies to.
The quote they include:
[quote] can't use the game's World Editor "for commercial purposes including, but not limited to, distribution of [mods] on a stand-alone basis or packaged with other software or hardware." [/quote]
It's specifically not allowing you to make something with the World Editor, and then sell that actual thing you've made using the World Editor, it doesn't apply to anything beyond that. DOTA copyright does not fall under it because that is not tied to the World Editor. The original DOTA files were made using that and therefore couldn't be sold itself, but the actual idea for DOTA and the rights that have been sold were not something made using the World Editor, so how is that relevant? It's only for something actually constrained by the editor that the EULA applies to.
[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;52246368]Dang. They dropped Icefrog's real name in the article. I thought it was debunked as a hoax a few years ago.[/QUOTE]
arstechnica is not a reliable news source especially for games
[QUOTE=Cronos Dage;52246610]arstechnica is not a reliable news source especially for games[/QUOTE]
We've known Icefrog's real name is Abdul for some time now. Marc Merrill of riot games (tryndamere) gave it away last year.
[editline]18th May 2017[/editline]
Not even mentioning that old blog and other rumors.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52246197]I read it it's just really dumb because there's already a case deciding who has claim to Dota[/QUOTE]
That case however was based on the assumption that the three main devs behind Dota were able to sell their copyright claims to Valve and Blizzard. The imitator dev's arguments all revolve around basically saying they never had those claims to begin with. Either because they weren't solely responsible, because one of them declared Dota 2 Open Source at some point, or because of the EULA thing.
(I should note that I personally don't think the imitator dev is gonna win this case. But I think it's worth noting how his arguments aim to subvert the Valve/Blizzard deal's validity)
[QUOTE=aydin690;52246637]We've known Icefrog's real name is Abdul for some time now. Marc Merrill of riot games (tryndamere) gave it away last year.
[editline]18th May 2017[/editline]
Not even mentioning that old blog and other rumors.[/QUOTE]
When making my claim my research also gave me the impression tryndramere was lying but whatever
[QUOTE=Cronos Dage;52246610]arstechnica is not a reliable news source especially for games[/QUOTE]
Ars Technica is a pretty solid place when it comes to technology news, IDK what you're on about.
[QUOTE=iamgoofball;52252736]Ars Technica is a pretty solid place when it comes to technology news, IDK what you're on about.[/QUOTE]
All news is fake news, trust no one because we are all stardust.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.