Blizzard is Suing Valve - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Saber15;34635389]Pretty much all engines can trace their roots to Quake's engine in some form. GoldSrc was basically an upgraded Quake engine, but Source only shares very low level, basic stuff with Quake.[/QUOTE] like what?

"If a user declines to accept the EULA, he or she may request and obtain a full refund from Blizzard of the purchase price" Suddenly everyone gets his money back...

Fuck off Blizzard, you greedy pig. I hope they know that by suing Valve they're going to receive A LOT of hate.

I thought valve had gotten permission from Blizzard to use the name Dota. Are you telling me that they never did? Well goddamn, they better be paying Blizzard a cut since it is their game, even if someone else "made" it, its a custom WC3 map and rightfully belongs to Blizzard since all WC3 maps, custom or not, are Blizzards property.

[QUOTE=Remscar;34643289]I thought valve had gotten permission from Blizzard to use the name Dota. Are you telling me that they never did? Well goddamn, they better be paying Blizzard a cut since it is their game, even if someone else "made" it, its a custom WC3 map and rightfully belongs to Blizzard since all WC3 maps, custom or not, are Blizzards property.[/QUOTE] Not only did the devs of the mod say they could, they trademarked the damn thing. A whole year before this even.

I think Valve is being a bit of a dick by trademarking the name, they should either leave it open to interpretation/use by anyone, as they used it, or fuck off and use another name.

[QUOTE=Remscar;34643289]I thought valve had gotten permission from Blizzard to use the name Dota. Are you telling me that they never did? Well goddamn, they better be paying Blizzard a cut since it is their game, even if someone else "made" it, its a custom WC3 map and rightfully belongs to Blizzard since all WC3 maps, custom or not, are Blizzards property.[/QUOTE] Blizzard doesn't own the trade mark, Futhermore, EULA won't hold up in court, The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C.

This won't be good no matter how it turns out.

This will be fun :dance:

[quote]Getting into the fine print, Blizzard says that, because the original DOTA required WarCraft III to play[/quote] Trying to take credit for something their modders did. Does this mean bethesda is no longer allowed to make fallout games because the original needed windows to play? [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SCopE5000;34643760]I think Valve is being a bit of a dick by trademarking the name, they should either leave it open to interpretation/use by anyone, as they used it, or fuck off and use another name.[/QUOTE] I guess they don't want someone else to trade mark it before them.

I have a feeling it's gonna play out like this, kind of. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPcazVutEmY[/media]

[QUOTE=DohEntertainmen;34645425]I have a feeling it's gonna play out like this, kind of. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPcazVutEmY[/media][/QUOTE] He forgot the part where Gabe's ball of money arrives

am I the only one who sees that Blizzard's pretty much slaves to Activision? Blizzard wants to stop this bullshit and be a cool company, like it was back in the day, but Activision is forcing their hand like some sick twisted puppet master, and causing them to do things they don't want to do.

As long as a set Dota gets published I will be happy.

[QUOTE=Lord_Biscuits;34641754]Scenarios I have predicted: If Blizzard takes the title - Possible monthly fees with a base fee of roughly $60; 20$ DLC packs that may or may not include game-enhancing items ; [b]Bad support ; An unfinished, rushed game with a lot of cut content[/b][/QUOTE] It's like you've never played a Blizzard game ever... I also don't see where Blizzard are "suing" Valve? Where are people getting that? From what I can tell, they're just opposing Valves copyright filing, not "fuck you valve were suing you for trying to copyright!!!" I could be wrong though. It doesn't really matter though, Blizzards claims seem pretty solid in that document. Especially the part about Guinsoo and Pendragon signed their rights to the mod and website, which Riot(Makers of League of Legends) purchased and then transferred it to Blizzard, so technically(As far as I know) Blizzard owns the rights to DoTA and anything affiliated with "DoTA-Allstars, LLC."

[QUOTE=lavacano;34645514]am I the only one who sees that Blizzard's pretty much slaves to Activision? Blizzard wants to stop this bullshit and be a cool company, like it was back in the day, but Activision is forcing their hand like some sick twisted puppet master, and causing them to do things they don't want to do.[/QUOTE] You've got a point there. Activision being greedy fucks is very relevant to this case.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;34631017]I'm trying to think up a bad car analogy to explain my view on this but it just isn't coming to me[/QUOTE] The way I see it: A guy did a really sweet custom interior for his Ford and it gains obscene popularity. Then Volkswagen hire him as a car interior designer and ask him to make a new version of that interior for their new line of cars. Ford like the way that interior promotes their car model, so try to sue Volkswagen because that interior was first designed for a Ford.

misleading title

It's like you guys are genuinely incapable of looking at this objectively. There's a game known as DOTA. Blizzard and Valve agree it should be a community game and neither of them trademark it, because the community made it and it shouldn't be "owned". Valve initially agree, then go to trademark it later on anyway. Blizzard opposes this trademark, not because they are "money-grabbing" or because they themselves want to trademark it, but because they are sticking by what they originally said. And then you paint Blizzard as the bad guys. Seriously?

Snip

Blizzard is being a childish. Edit: Badly worded it, I meant to say that they have no good reason to do this.

Being very interested in corporate law (read: I want to become a heartless corporate lawyer), I can tell just from looking that this case is going to be a clusterfuck becuase of all the background information about the two companies agreements. The deciding factor will be whether Blizzard and Valve signed a legal document agreeing that neither of them would copyright the name, if not, than Valve will win the case due to there being no tangible evidence of the agreement and they got the copyright first and as suhc, have the rights to the copyrights of any sequels. Douchemove- certainly, but that is the law. In a moral perspective, both companies are in the wrong (but valve started it).

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;34649453]Being very interested in corporate law (read: I want to become a heartless corporate lawyer), I can tell just from looking that this case is going to be a clusterfuck becuase of all the background information about the two companies agreements. The deciding factor will be whether Blizzard and Valve signed a legal document agreeing that neither of them would copyright the name, if not, than Valve will win the case due to there being no tangible evidence of the agreement and they got the copyright first and as suhc, have the rights to the copyrights of any sequels. Douchemove- certainly, but that is the law. In a moral perspective, both companies are in the wrong (but valve started it).[/QUOTE] Please explain how it is a douche move from valve, icefrog came to them, wanted to make dota 2, valve hired him for it, icefrog owns the "dota" name. This isn't about copyrighting the "Moba" name, but "Dota", two widely different things.

[QUOTE=zombays;34634591]Isn't that a good thing? Even Portal was based off an Indie game, Narbacular Drop, and Valve hired the people who made it. Same goes with TF, CS, Alien Swarm, and Day of Defeat. Valve basically threw money at these people who had tons of potential, and it paid off in the end.[/QUOTE] Oh absolutely it's a good thing, it's a great thing, I was just stating a fact :) not to be bashful of anyone, I just thought it was moderately amusing.

I just think that if they agreed not to copyright the name, hey should have stuck to it is all. My opinion doesn't make any of the other points I made less valid.

[QUOTE=Fangz;34637083]No he doesn't according to the law papers, it was Riot Games who owned the name until Riot Games just recently sold it to Blizzard. [quote]In 2008, Feak (IceFrog) and Mescon each assigned all of their rights in and to the DotA Mods and the DotA-Allstars Website to "DotA-Allstars, LLC." In 2010, DotA-Allstars, 9 LLC was purchased by Riot Games, Inc. In 2011, Riot transferred DotA-Allstars, LLC to Blizzard.[/quote][/QUOTE] If this is true, Blizzard is probably in the right.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;34649836]If this is true, Blizzard is probably in the right.[/QUOTE] Except that is DotA-Allstars not DOTA or Dota or DotA

Here's the Warcraft 3 World Editor EULA: [url]http://pastebin.com/CmVAeLNe[/url]

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;34650539]No, Valve ask Blizzard to challenge them to a game of Team Fortress 2. [sub][sub][sub][sub]Some Valve employees own "Valve" weapons, which are [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZQutUXETZQ][I]not overpowered in the slightest[/I][/url][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/QUOTE] Challenge them to a match of dota 2 :v: [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pulov Yuran;34650499]Here's the Warcraft 3 World Editor EULA: [url]http://pastebin.com/CmVAeLNe[/url][/QUOTE] The auto transfer of ownership of anything you do is invalid in europe, and afaik icefrog is swedish.

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;34650539]No, Valve ask Blizzard to challenge them to a game of Team Fortress 2. [sub][sub][sub][sub]Some Valve employees own "Valve" weapons, which are [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZQutUXETZQ][I]not overpowered in the slightest[/I][/url][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/QUOTE] i seriously doubt blizzard has enough hats to play tf2.