Comments on: Second verse, same as the first http://www.stegersaurus.com/?p=89 Daniel Steger's blog of art and game design Sat, 04 Sep 2010 08:37:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Jimmy http://www.stegersaurus.com/?p=89&cpage=1#comment-293 Jimmy Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:33:46 +0000 http://www.stegersaurus.com/?p=89#comment-293 Hi there. I agree that it's important to view both sides of a situation before we can truly understand things, but it is unfortunate that this is happening. I think Daniel makes a good point that board members and the IGDA should help to represent the best interests of indie game developers. Although I dont believe it's a fiduciary relationship, there simply should be more care taken with how board members represent themselves and as part of the IGDA board. Even if Tim didn't intend on making the IGDA or indie game devs "look bad", the point is it will be seen that way whether anyone likes it or not. Bahhh, news on the Internet spreads like wild fires, doesn't it? :) Hi there. I agree that it’s important to view both sides of a situation before we can truly understand things, but it is unfortunate that this is happening. I think Daniel makes a good point that board members and the IGDA should help to represent the best interests of indie game developers. Although I dont believe it’s a fiduciary relationship, there simply should be more care taken with how board members represent themselves and as part of the IGDA board. Even if Tim didn’t intend on making the IGDA or indie game devs “look bad”, the point is it will be seen that way whether anyone likes it or not. Bahhh, news on the Internet spreads like wild fires, doesn’t it? :)

]]> By: Tom B http://www.stegersaurus.com/?p=89&cpage=1#comment-292 Tom B Sun, 31 May 2009 19:31:00 +0000 http://www.stegersaurus.com/?p=89#comment-292 I am speaking now for myself and NOT on behalf of the IGDA or as an IGDA Board member. But as me, Tom Buscaglia, The Game Attorney. This dispute relates to a company enforcing its properly registered Trademark. While you or I may not agree with the laws related to Trademarks, they are what they are. Moreover, the IGDA represents the individuals who make games, not the companies that make them. So, although no one is more committed to independent developers than I am, this is a legal dispute between two companies regarding an alleged Trademark infringement. So, while I laud your efforts to fight for the little guy here, these matters are for the court of law, not for a public opinion. I think this matter is a bit more complex that it has been presented too...As someone who has litigated intellectual property cases, I can tell you that these cases are never as simple as they might seem, especially when one only has access to one side of the story. I suspect that is you had spend 20 odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid to have a Trademark registered, you might also feel compelled to enforce your trade name. BTW, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you may lose it. So you may want to also take that into account in your analysis! Trade and service marks, usually both called "trademarks", are words, symbols and other things use to identify the source of a product in commerce. Some little know trademarks are Kodak Yellow and the sound of a Harley. Both are protected. But usually trademarks are names and logos. This description of a trademark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office may help: "A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks. "Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office." I personally do not think that lobbying the IGDA to intervene or even take sides in a legal dispute is the right approach. If Tim's position is correct (and I do not have enough information to determine that issue one way of the other) you are recommending that the IGDA potentially support a party who has infringed a legal and enforceable Trademark..and that's just nutty! So, I just do not see that as a viable position for the organization under any circumstances. In any case, I do not see any Board member vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of ethics in any way. I regret that Bob's thoughtful response did not satisfy you...but I agree with his position on this matter. Tom B I am speaking now for myself and NOT on behalf of the IGDA or as an IGDA Board member. But as me, Tom Buscaglia, The Game Attorney.

This dispute relates to a company enforcing its properly registered Trademark. While you or I may not agree with the laws related to Trademarks, they are what they are. Moreover, the IGDA represents the individuals who make games, not the companies that make them. So, although no one is more committed to independent developers than I am, this is a legal dispute between two companies regarding an alleged Trademark infringement. So, while I laud your efforts to fight for the little guy here, these matters are for the court of law, not for a public opinion.

I think this matter is a bit more complex that it has been presented too…As someone who has litigated intellectual property cases, I can tell you that these cases are never as simple as they might seem, especially when one only has access to one side of the story. I suspect that is you had spend 20 odd years building a Trademark to brand your studio and games, and paid to have a Trademark registered, you might also feel compelled to enforce your trade name. BTW, if you do not enforce your Trademark, you may lose it. So you may want to also take that into account in your analysis!

Trade and service marks, usually both called “trademarks”, are words, symbols and other things use to identify the source of a product in commerce. Some little know trademarks are Kodak Yellow and the sound of a Harley. Both are protected. But usually trademarks are names and logos. This description of a trademark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark office may help:

“A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms “trademark” and “mark” are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks.

“Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks which are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the Patent and Trademark Office.”

I personally do not think that lobbying the IGDA to intervene or even take sides in a legal dispute is the right approach. If Tim’s position is correct (and I do not have enough information to determine that issue one way of the other) you are recommending that the IGDA potentially support a party who has infringed a legal and enforceable Trademark..and that’s just nutty!

So, I just do not see that as a viable position for the organization under any circumstances. In any case, I do not see any Board member vigorously enforcing his legal rights as contrary to the code of ethics in any way. I regret that Bob’s thoughtful response did not satisfy you…but I agree with his position on this matter.

Tom B

]]>