[QUOTE=Zeke129;34630890]Blizzard made the game that allowed DOTA to exist in the first place
Valve is attempting to profit off what a completely unrelated modding community did[/QUOTE]
DOTA was a Mod. It just used Warcraft's Engine as a base. Valve Bought the intellectual rights to DOTA. Valve is putting DOTA 2 on the Source engine.
Valve is legal free
[QUOTE=TheTalon;34651392]DOTA was a Mod. It just used Warcraft's Engine as a base. Valve Bought the intellectual rights to DOTA. Valve is putting DOTA 2 on the Source engine.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. Because it's a mod, normally Blizzard retain the rights to charge for the mod (i.e. the mod makers cannot) and other odd rights like that, but that doesn't mean Blizzard own the IP to the mod.
The question is if Icefrog was the true owner of such IP. The whole thing sounds like such a mess, however this case will probably be the test of such issues.
If Blizzard win in this case someone should call Id software to have them sue valve for the title Team Fortress
I was completely unaware that "Blizzard DOTA" was under development.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;34652449]If Blizzard win in this case someone should call Id software to have them sue valve for the title Team Fortress[/QUOTE]
You aren't fucking reading. Valve and Blizzard had an agreement not to copyright the name "DOTA" and valve broke that agreement. Valve is in the wrong here, blizzard has a valid case.
[QUOTE=Frost 31;34641668]This is what's really important in a case like this, the wording of the EULA and its provisions on use of the game editor and products/modifications made from said editor. I don't have a copy of the WarCraft 3 EULA handy, and can't be arsed to track it down and read through it, but if it has a provision stating something along the lines of "anything you make with the WC3 tools is property of Blizzard" then that's a major blow to Valve's defense. I do not know and would rather not speculate how well this will hold up in court, as often EULAs are completely tossed when met with a legal challenge.[/QUOTE]
I've seen someone say that Warcraft III did not have this clause, but Starcraft II does (Blizzard owns the rights to your SC2 maps).
Someone posted the EULA above and I can't see anything that says that Blizzard owns your WC3 derivative works.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;34653094]I was completely unaware that "Blizzard DOTA" was under development.[/QUOTE]
I think this might be one of the reasons for them objecting to this aswell, since they probably want to leave it named Blizzard DOTA and not have to rename it to something else.
[QUOTE=hoodoo456;34653167]You aren't fucking reading. Valve and Blizzard had an agreement not to copyright the name "DOTA" and valve broke that agreement. Valve is in the wrong here, blizzard has a valid case.[/QUOTE]
Can you provide any evidence of such an agreement?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;34653309]I've seen someone say that Warcraft III did not have this clause, but Starcraft II does (Blizzard owns the rights to your SC2 maps).
Someone posted the EULA above and I can't see anything that says that Blizzard owns your WC3 derivative works.[/QUOTE]
yea warcraft 3 didn't have a clause in the eula that stated any work produced in the editor is owned by blizzard. they changed this in starcraft 2, probably because of dota specifically.
oh yea and blizzard rejected offers to buy out dota a long time ago around the time dota was booming.
and eul and icefrog works for valve SO.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;34653309]I've seen someone say that Warcraft III did not have this clause, but Starcraft II does (Blizzard owns the rights to your SC2 maps).
Someone posted the EULA above and I can't see anything that says that Blizzard owns your WC3 derivative works.[/QUOTE]
Of course EULA's never stand up in court. Its basically a middle finger to mappers, just to piss them off and discourage them.
[QUOTE=BeardyDuck;34653883]yea warcraft 3 didn't have a clause in the eula that stated any work produced in the editor is owned by blizzard. they changed this in starcraft 2, probably because of dota specifically.
oh yea and blizzard rejected offers to buy out dota a long time ago around the time dota was booming.
and eul and icefrog works for blizzard SO.[/QUOTE]
What the shit are you smoking, eul and icefrog works for valve.
[QUOTE=Crimor;34654155]What the shit are you smoking, eul and icefrog works for valve.[/QUOTE]
woops sorry
Valve should just rename it to DOLA (Defense of Le Ancients), which also works as a fun way to dig into Blizzard.
Why does everyone seem to think Valve is in the wrong for trademarking a games name.. They are going to be making money off this game.. they have to trademark the damn name.. What game studio do you know makes a game and doesn't trademark the name..
Valve are completely in the right to trademark the name seeing as the original wasn't made by Blizzard and the original creator is working with Valve.
Even Valve had to buy the rights to Counter-Strike when it was just a Half-Life mod so they would be able to work on it.. Blizzard didn't buy the rights to DOTA when it was just a mod.. so Valve did. End of story.. Blizzard can go fuck off.
I have a strong feeling that Activision is to blame since blizzard is part of activision
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
