Slashdot Mirror


Bethesda's 'Scrolls' Lawsuit Going Ahead

New submitter person46 writes "Bethesda's lawsuit against Mojang, developers of Minecraft, is going to court. As you may recall, Bethesda is claiming copyright infringement over the title of Mojang's upcoming CCG/board game Scrolls. Bethesda claims that the name and game concept are too similar to their well-known RPG franchise The Elder Scrolls. '[C]ourt documents show that Bethesda lawyers plan to use comments on Scrolls articles and videos from around the web to show how people will confuse Scrolls with The Elder Scrolls. He also added that they've captured screenshots of Scrolls' trailer as a way of showing how Mojang has copied Bethesda because both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains.' Mojang founder Notch had offered to settle the dispute with a friendly game of Quake 3, but apparently Bethesda wasn't up for that."

332 comments

  1. what!? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    '... as a way of showing how Mojang has copied Bethesda because both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains.'

    I think I might have a case against... just about every shooter out there!

    After all, I can demonstratively prove they all feature the ground, which I believe I knew of way back in the 80s! (when I was like, 2)

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe IBM patented ground already.

    2. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was clearly Apple.

    3. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Ground was invented by General Electric.

    4. Re:what!? by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      '... as a way of showing how Mojang has copied Bethesda because both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains.'

      I think I might have a case against... just about every shooter out there!

      The whole summary is a complete troll. Firstly, this is not about copyright but trademark infringement (as has been stated here already). Why do people get these concepts so confused. I am sure that some idiot here will mention patents too. (Oh look, it was me!)

      And who was it that made this claim that it was about copying mountains? Why the business developer of the company who want to belittle the entire lawsuit! The quip about settling this with a Quake 3 game is another attempt to trivialise the dispute.

      The thing is, this is a textbook trademark dispute. It doesn't matter that one side is a big company and the other a smaller one. If It had been Bethesda who made Elder Scrolls VI: Minecraft then everyone would be cheering Mojang when they defended their trademarks against the big bully company.

    5. Re:what!? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's a bit different. Scrolls is just a generic word that's been around for centuries. Minecraft is a word that I wasn't aware of at all until Notch created it. If it was in use at all prior to the game being conceived of, it wasn't in common use at the time.

    6. Re:what!? by ProfM · · Score: 1

      Actually the Ground was invented by General Electric.

      I thought God sued General Electric and won, by showing prior art.

    7. Re:what!? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 2

      In the spirit of Slashdot pedantry, I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres, who is not part of Mojang.

      Your point hits near the mark though. The more descriptive the trademark, the more difficult it is to enforce. Minecraft is pretty descriptive but as a compound word made of words that normally wouldn't be sequenced as such a phrase, it's got a slight edge over Elder Scrolls. Scrolls by itself seems pretty weak when compared to either of the other brands.

      --
      +0 Meh
    8. Re:what!? by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      No, that was Gallileo suing God about the earth.

      You got your copyrights on the wrong way.

      --
      -- no sig today
    9. Re:what!? by justforgetme · · Score: 0

      You are almost right.
      The words are wrong but that is hardly the essence of the story. /.ers care about this story (and that idiotic apple rectangle patentmarksuit) because it is corporate faggotry turning into a legit lawsuit. No one could care less if the correct word is patent, copyright or trademark. The fact of the matter is that franchises cannot (according to my, apparently, undisputable logic) call legal claims on generic properties.
      In this case it is B calling M an infringer because he named his game after a stationery item.
      In the other mentioned case it is A calling S a copier because they, shamelessly, decided to make a mobile computer that is rectangular and has rounded corners (in other news: apple sued my picture frame)

      EOT

      --
      -- no sig today
    10. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And who was it that made this claim that it was about copying mountains?

      Nobody did.
      If you bother to read the Gamasutra interview, you'll see that Bethesda is referring to the Trailer for each game. Bethesda is simply saying that the trailers were made to look similar, partly because of the way they showed mountains IN the trailer, and that it is part of why the name will confuse players.

      The thing is, this is a textbook trademark dispute

      Exactly. So they go through and find as many similarities in how the games are marketed and displayed to the public to show the (alleged) confusion the names cause to players.

      Mojang is claiming Bethesda is just going after them for the name. Bethesda is saying it's more than just the name.

    11. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead Sea Scrolls, Scroll of Resurrection, Isn't one of the bigger parts of medieval/fantasy is the use of scrolls rather than books or electronic gadgets?

    12. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hedwards and the rest of us were talking about "Minecraft" not "Mincecraft".
      Minecraft is a game about blocks where you're this guy who mines a lot.
      I have no idea what Mincecraft is, but it sounds like you may be a chef who minces every ingredient.. not very fun.

      I'm so sorry. But with it being about the words, I had to make the joke.

    13. Re:what!? by Nostromo21 · · Score: 1

      And we all know which other BIG BULLY game company starting with the letter 'B' would have a field day just with the word 'craft'...if they could trademark it, now don't we boyz n girlz? :)

    14. Re:what!? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      Argh! Hoisted by my own retard!

      --
      +0 Meh
    15. Re:what!? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It's blatant trademark infringement.. why do you think Notch is adding all the RPG adventure elements to the game before calling it "Scrolls". The only people who can't see this are the same idiots who think he's a good programmer.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    16. Re:what!? by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

      I am sure that some idiot here will mention patents too. (Oh look, it was me!)

      hahahaha ROFLMAO, many times.

      --
      sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
    17. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BActivision?

    18. Re:what!? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Right. As if 'scrolls' wasn't already used heavily in the fantasy fiction all RPG games are derived from, long before Bethesda came up with their own derivative fantasy world.

    19. Re:what!? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      It's blatant trademark infringement

      Where's "Elder", you know, the other 50% of the trademarked name? Using only part of the name makes it significantly less "blatant" and is why people can still use "windows" and "window" (eg Window Maker) even though Microsoft owns the trademark "Microsoft Windows".

      Besides, nobody will ever confuse this game with one of Bethseda's productions unless Mojang comes up with a way to make pieces fall through the table.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    20. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Skyrealms of Jorune"
      is a trademark of Skyrealms, Inc.
      Sounds a bit to much like Skyrim to me. AND the have mountains too!

        I think Skyrealms should Notch and Bethesda should both be made to sit down for some old school RRG and the loser can shove a lawyer up their arse?

    21. Re:what!? by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      I can't understand what programming skills have to do with trademarks or copyrights.

      Neither do I think the phrase

      why do you think Notch is adding all the RPG adventure elements to the game before calling it "Scrolls"

      qualifies as an argument on it's own, nor do I see any coding excellence in Notch.

      Please restate your argument in a way it can be positively comprehended by an intelligent being. If you do it right and are argumentative enough we might actually debate something.

      cheers

      --
      -- no sig today
    22. Re:what!? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there are surprisingly few contemporary games whose name contains the world "scroll".

      To be equally fair, there is still no reasonable basis for prohibiting anyone else from using it without also having the word "Elder" somewhere in the title, which could confuse a very stupid person. As our legal test seems to be "for the very stupid" rather than "for a reasonable person" I assume this would fly in court.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:what!? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2

      Scrolls != Elder Scrolls V : Skyrim,

      Scrolls != Elder Scrolls VI : Oblivion,

      Scrolls != Elder Scrolls III : Morrowind,

      Scrolls != Elder Scrolls II : Daggerfall,

      Scrolls != Elder Scrolls I : Arena.

      There, solved the problem. The reason people trivialize this is because its a ridiculous argument coming from Bethesda. The name Scrolls vs. Elder Scrolls doesn't confuse anyone that doesn't have a severe mental deficiency.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    24. Re:what!? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Uhh, I don't know, maybe because fantasy RPG's typically have you know, scrolls in them. If this is blatant trademark infringement than a rectangle is blatant infringement of Apples patent on the iPad.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    25. Re:what!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres

      Sweet, is that the one where you cut up ingredients instead of dig holes?

    26. Re:what!? by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      Except NOBODY ever calls any of the elder scrolls games "scrolls". You call them by their subtitle, "morrowind", "oblivion", and "skyrim". In fact, testing it out, most gamers on the street have no idea WHAT "the elder scrolls" is. They've NEVER HEARD OF IT. But you mention "oblivion" and they go "ooooh, THAT game".

      The idea that Bethesda owns the trademark to the word "Scroll" because they have trademarked "The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim" is crazy. Thats like saying if my game is called "space marine adventure battle in star space with warfare and guns", then now you're not allowed to use ANY of those words in a game title. "starcraft" is infringing, they stole my stars! "Modern warfare" is infringing, they stole my warfare! Hell, there's a game just called "gun"!

      When will the endless trademark infringement end?!?!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    27. Re:what!? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Galileo lost a suit by Apple claiming ownership of earth with rounded corners.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    28. Re:what!? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      Textbook case of trademark trolling. I'm not sure most people associate the name "Elder Scrolls" with Bethesda's games, let alone the word "Scrolls" by itself. This is almost as absurd as the guy who goes around suing anyone who uses the word "Edge" in any relationship to video games.

    29. Re:what!? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Or float inches above the surface after you move anything nearby?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    30. Re:what!? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, there are surprisingly few contemporary games whose name contains the world "scroll".

      To be equally fair, there is still no reasonable basis for prohibiting anyone else from using it without also having the word "Elder" somewhere in the title, which could confuse a very stupid person. As our legal test seems to be "for the very stupid" rather than "for a reasonable person" I assume this would fly in court.

      I think the reason is that "reasonable person" tends to translate to "average person", usually. Unfortunately, the average person these days could be accurately described as stupid.

      Either that or lawyers are evil bastards out to screw over anyone they come into contact with in order to make a cheap buck. Most likely, it's both.

    31. Re:what!? by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      Now I want to know if Bethesda went after iD for the blatent copying of Quake III: Arena, from Elder Scrolls I: Arena.

      Also, I don't know which came out first... But if Pratchett can be accused of copying Rowling, who is also accused of copying Twilight, anything is possible.

    32. Re:what!? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      "Welcome to the World of Scrollcraft."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    33. Re:what!? by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      Stephanie Meyer (author of Twilight) is a pile of shit compared to either of the other authors. She is literally one of the worst authors out there.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    34. Re:what!? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The proper analogy would be: Would Mojang sue if Bethesda created "Elder Scrolls VI: Mines". He wouldn't, because he doesn't have all uses of 'mines' trademarked.

    35. Re:what!? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      what "RPG adventure elements" were being added to Scrolls before it was being called Scrolls. So far there's been almost no mention of what the game "Scrolls" was going to be about. Just that it was the next game after Minecraft that Mojang was going to produce.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    36. Re:what!? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      It's blatantly not. The trademarked term (in the field of video games) is 'Elder Scrolls'. That term is not being used. Therefore, it's not a trademark violation. This is particularly important to me, because in real life my last name is "Elder".

    37. Re:what!? by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      I'll point out that the name Mincecraft was created by Paul Eres

      Sweet, is that the one where you cut up ingredients instead of dig holes?

      Yes.

      --
      +0 Meh
    38. Re:what!? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      So what good will that do for the American market?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    39. Re:what!? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      There goes all that Geometry I learned in school.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    40. Re:what!? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The quip about settling this with a Quake 3 game is another attempt to trivialise the dispute.

      This is actually a rather common thing in the industry, it is considered a graceful way for the plaintiff to back out of a silly lawsuit. It has happened many times in the past in the gaming industry to allow everyone to save face. I can't find the story where they mention how common this is, but I believe they linked to a story where two aircraft manufacturers settled out of court with a game.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    41. Re:what!? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      No we have this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and of course the very much abbreviated list wouldn't be complete without this

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    42. Re:what!? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Most fans are actually quire aware that the series as a whole is called "The Elder Scrolls", and it's not uncommon to talk or hear about "TES games". But definitely not "scrolls" alone.

    43. Re:what!? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I suspect that he meant Blizzard.

  2. Geez by aitikin · · Score: 2

    Come now, we all know one game is not enough. You need at least a best of 3, minimum. 3 out of 5 is reasonable, but 5 out of 9 is where we get reasonable. If Notch were serious, he wouldn't have lowballed it!

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    1. Re:Geez by jdpars · · Score: 1

      I believe his original statement was a best out of 3. Check his blog.

  3. For a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Maryland is suing Israel and Google to take down the dead sea scrolls for copyright infringement.

    1. Re:For a moment by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Yeah good point. The state of Maryland and the state of Israel should sue Bethesda for stealing that name. It can be confusing - do they mean Bethesda the town (CDP) or Bethesda the pool or Bethesda the purveyor of mediocre games that sell only because there's nothing better on the market at the time?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:For a moment by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Well why not? Hollywood, CA has sued Hollywood, FL and Hollywood, MD more than once...

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:For a moment by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I guess the reason that Paris, France hasn't sued Paris, Texas is that nobody can figure out who's harming whom.

    4. Re:For a moment by tubs · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised New Jersey hasn't sued Jersey, all they did was drop the "new" off, clear infringement of something! :-)

      --

      try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    5. Re:For a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh look! Someone is taking a personal opinion on a product and making it sound like a generic consensus of that products merits, or lack thereof.

      Posts like this always makes Slashdot feel so fresh and open minded. Keep it up good sir!

    6. Re:For a moment by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yes, much better to hide behind the mask of anonymity and criticize everyone else. That certainly contributes to the advancement of our species as a whole. I am fully aware that no one gives a shit about what I think. But you seem to think that people give a shit about you.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The very topic of this pending lawsuit is a forbidden one on the bethesda game studios forums.

    From my own expierences on that forum several years ago, I can pretty much assure you that it is enforced with gestapo like ferocity, at the behest of the legal and corporate drones, and the moderator staff is all too willing to enforce such censorship.

    Long ago I swore off ever buying another bethesda softworks title as direct retail (I will only purchase second hand, to ensure that they never receive any of my money) and things like this only reinforce that opinion.

    1. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you don't believe me, just try going there and asking innocently about it in the forum, and see how politely it gets treated. Seriously, go try it. :)

      And no, I am not being hipocritical here. I really do not regret my decision to stop giving them my money.

    2. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he might like that very much actually. Some guys are weird.

      Remember, it's not gay unless they touch, and if it's a woman between then even that's allowed.

    3. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're making it up, then yeah, I'll mind. But if you're telling the truth, I'll thank you.

    4. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Seeing as I am not married, nor interested in being married, I fail to see how that would impact me in the least. Knock yourself out.

    5. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a forum dedicated to a specific developer allow discussion of an unrelated third-party game?

      Also: Lots of official forums are moderated by unpaid volunteers. The volunteers do not represent the company. Example: social.bioware.com.

    6. Re:amusing side note... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      If you're making it up, then yeah, I'll mind. But if you're telling the truth, I'll thank you.

      Well, she didn't charge me, so how does that figure in?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Derp? How is purchasing second hand stealing?

    8. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Actually, I value their "wonderful content" so much that I wait for the actual retail price to drop below 20$, THEN buy it second hand, and then only on a whim to see if it was even worth the effort.

      Also, second hand sales are not stealing. Stop drinking the industry koolaid.

    9. Re:amusing side note... by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Hold on. Buying second hand is now stealing? That's AWESOME news, since selling second hand games would then be dealing in stolen property, and we can put gamestop out of our misery!

    10. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Long ago I swore off ever buying another bethesda softworks title as direct retail (I will only purchase second hand, to ensure that they never receive any of my money) and things like this only reinforce that opinion.

      I don't like the clothes you wear (i.e., you look like a whore) so I'm going to rape you and steal your virginity.

    11. Re:amusing side note... by RobinEggs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      well then you surely would not mind me walking into your living room and calling your wife a whore would you?

      The living room analogy again? I see this every time there's a mention of forum censorship. And it's a completely foolish response.

      If we insist on some analogy to meatspace, a developer's user-forum is more like an open house. They've specifically invited anyone and everyone with an interest in their product, their brand, and their company to a central space for discussion and information dispersal. Tiptoeing around and only say positive things about the host may be polite in some ways, but it completely and utterly defeats the purpose of showing up at a place intended to directly connect the fans. Harsh opinions exist; don't pretend to make a cozy central gathering place for your customers to converse amongst themselves, and with you, then proceed to ruthlessly censor all critical or controversial comments.

      If you don't plan on allowing negative viewpoints or serious discussions you can't call it a forum with a straight face.

    12. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Firstly, what is your gender? Inquiring minds want to know!

    13. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to Bethesda, they are not unrelated. They are easily confused with each other. This means users would make innocent mistakes confusing them all the time. Innocent mistakes should be treated politely, not with the vengeful wrath of god.

    14. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      ok so if you invite me in to your living room and call your wife a whore ...

    15. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      It was an example, if you can extrapolate from there than you are as stupid as you seem to be presenting yourself

    16. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait - now he's inviting you in and calling his own wife a whore? Please state your bad analogies clearly.

    17. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      1) the bethsoft game forums allow all kinds of discussions about other games from other vendors. There was even a thriving dwarf fortress discussion going on there several years ago. How is asking about "scrolls" any different, given this information?

      2) as a hypothetical fan of bethesda or of their games, where else would you go to ask about their decision to sue this man?

      3) as a respectful host, why would you treat any guest, even one that asks an uncomfortable question (even if the question is asked politely) like they had just raped your wife, and not simply calmly and politely answer the question? Does this not show a lack of genuine respect for ones guests? I did not suggest going there and trolling, I suggested there and politely asking. Big difference.

    18. Re:amusing side note... by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      Not at all actually. Inviting you into his home (regardless of the status of his whore wife) was not a request or solicitation for feedback on your part. These forums ARE a solicitation for feedback so your entire premise has been invalid from the start.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    19. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      ok lets try another route, why the hell do you feel that you are in any way shape or form in a position to demand information about a lawsuit from one of the involved parties when you are not one of the involved parties?

      If they do not want to talk about it, its their right, you however have no rights in it other than an interested spectator

    20. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      as I just got done stating to another person who thinks this lawsuit involves them at all, it does not involve you, they do not owe you a single word about a lawsuit that you are not involved in no matter how much you want to bitch and whine

      if your interested in it, go look it up, and go spectate it in court, but dont be suprised when you start running your mouth if the judge doesnt remove you just the same.

      and no if someone called my wife a whore, they would be lucky if all they were shown was the door

    21. Re:amusing side note... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      As a customer (former at least) of thiers, it does concern me if the money I spend is used to finance the harrassment of other developers, much like it IS the business of customers who buy clothing made in sweatshops to ask if the clothing they are buying finances the use of said sweatshops. Asking the question is not a crime, regardless of your opinion of the matter.

      As for your admission about resorting instantly to violence, that simply exposes your own personality failings as a host. That is NOT proper ettiquette for hosting a social function, such as a party or a public forum.

    22. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that secondhand purchases are stealing, that wierd_w should steal the game to get the message across, or something else? :)

    23. Re:amusing side note... by strack · · Score: 2

      id like to think you just missed where he said he was buying it 2nd hand. but you went and put that quote in your comment, so i have to conclude that your are so fucking stupid as to think buying things 2nd hand is stealing.

    24. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: Lots of official forums are moderated by unpaid volunteers. The volunteers do not represent the company.

      As one such moderator, I have not illusions that my actions performed at the behest of the forum owners (especially when it runs counter to my normal desires) make me a de facto representative of the company whether any of us likes it or not. There is no other way it can be viewed, although some of my fellow moderators seem to manage it.

    25. Re:amusing side note... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Their forums are a place to discuss the games, not the legal issues surrounding their parent company. If I go to a meeting, we're free to discuss anything related to the project. If someone then tries to spark an argument over the Iraq War, that is not an appropriate topic for discussion.

      Forums allow both positive and negative comments about the topic of discussion (the game). They do not allow offtopic discussions. That seems perfectly reasonable.

    26. Re:amusing side note... by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Why bother buying them if it's "on a whim to see if it's worth the effort of buying them"? At any rate, Oblivion sold nearly two million copies in its first month (long before the bargain bin), so it seems you're in a tiny little minority when it comes to not liking Beth's product.

    27. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Derp? What is this, 4chan? Act like you have an education.

    28. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Long ago I swore off ever buying another bethesda softworks title as direct retail (I will only purchase second hand, to ensure that they never receive any of my money) and things like this only reinforce that opinion.

      Because god forbid your morality should deprive you of playing their fantastic games. That's just inconvenient. Stealing really gets the message across.
      So pathetic.

      Good grief, have you been so brainwashed by the establishment that "buying second hand" is now synonymous to you with "stealing"? It would be debatable even if gp was pirating but... really? Have we come to this?

    29. Re:amusing side note... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      the moderator staff is all too willing to enforce such censorship.
      Of course they are. And do you know why? They enforce the censorship because that's part of what they're getting paid to do. If they don't enforce it they lose their jobs, so they do what they're told to do, just like you'd probably do. And before you insist you'd rather be fired than do something like that I suggest you take a moment and think about how bad the job market is right now and how hard it would be to find a new job.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    30. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great! I generally pay for the games I play because I respect the developers' work and want them to get paid for good games.

      However censorship and oppressive lawsuits, combined with fuck-normal-people-in-the-ass-laws (read: ACTA) utterly obliterate said respect and desire for fairness. Screw Bethesda! No matter how good Skyrim may turn out to be, it's morally unacceptable to pay them due to their actions.

    31. Re:amusing side note... by Majkow · · Score: 2

      except in the off topic section

    32. Re:amusing side note... by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

      Hitler ensured full employment, and all people had to do was to obey orders.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    33. Re:amusing side note... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      They censor all discussion of the lawsuit because their lawyers tell them too. Wouldn't want some forumite giving the opposition ideas to use in defence, maybe comparing some screenshots of their own or something...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:amusing side note... by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 2

      And Bethesda lawyers are *actually* killing people in the millions.

      Oh wait.

    35. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they do not want to talk about it, its their right, you however have no rights in it other than an interested spectator

      Yup, it's their right. I'm a big fan of the TES series since the very beginning, and I like to play Minecraft occasionaly. It's sad since I would like to buy Skyrim and play it, but I decided that I would never support bullies. If I invite you to my house, and keep talking against your friends, would you accept my invitation again?

    36. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      failed quote, the first sentence was supposed to be a quote. sorry

    37. Re:amusing side note... by gilleain · · Score: 1

      And Bethesda lawyers are *actually* killing people in the millions. Oh wait.

      Heh. "In shock news today, the lawyers of a prominent games company invaded Poland at the head of a large army of tanks..."

    38. Re:amusing side note... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Calling my wife a whore? Firstly, I'm not married. If I were, though, I wouldn't mind at all. I feel very secure in my relationship with my girlfriend, therefore I know you to be wrong. As for the insult, I simply don't care what a random person on the street thinks of me. Your opinion is worth ever so slightly more than nothing.

      Regarding entering my house, I'd probably detain you until I could hand you over to the police. It is a reasonable assumption that a person entering another person's house uninvited is there to commit an offence of some kind, typically one which would cause personal injury or loss or destruction of property.

      Regarding the analogy itself; False analogy. The forum is open to any and all, like a community centre. My home is invitation only. If you are invited to my house and you are abusive, I will moderate your activities by kicking you the fuck out. If you are at an open house, you would be free to act inappropriately until your actions were deemed anti-social and against the law, at which point you have a whole new problem.

      Hope this helps :)

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    39. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the guards in concentration camps and the East German border patrols, then.

    40. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would try to work hard within the system, or quit if it didn't work out. My work depends on my reputation. ;-)

    41. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy buying second hand, you still help them make money.
      The guy who sells the game to you might now have bought in the first place had he thought he wouldn't be able to sell it as second hand.

    42. Re:amusing side note... by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Minecraft forums discussed Skyrim quite a bit, as does notch himself on his twitter feed, being himself a fan of The Elder Scrolls series.

    43. Re:amusing side note... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At any rate, Oblivion sold nearly two million copies in its first month (long before the bargain bin), so it seems you're in a tiny little minority when it comes to not liking Beth's product.

      Who cares who's in the minority? How many gold records do the Jonas Brothers have, again?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:amusing side note... by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

      Let me just be the latest to pile on and ask you where the hell you got the idea that buying a used item constitutes stealing.

      Are you really that god-damn stupid, or is it just an act?

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    45. Re:amusing side note... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      It's well established in the gaming community. Publishers and developers have been screaming it non-stop at the top of their lungs for years now, and most fans agree completely. In fact they say that used games are worse than piracy. Even Penny Arcade has said that buying second hand is closer to literally stealing than it is to piracy. Their position on why used record stores aren't stealing is that "games are budgeted on the assumption of no used game sales, and books and albums aren't." As video rental chains go out of business, there are fewer and fewer deep pockets to fight against the total removal of the doctrine of first sale.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    46. Re:amusing side note... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Why bother buying them if it's "on a whim to see if it's worth the effort of buying them"? At any rate, Oblivion sold nearly two million copies in its first month (long before the bargain bin), so it seems you're in a tiny little minority when it comes to not liking Beth's product.

      2 million out of all active 360 and gaming PC owners is a tiny minority. The GP is in the vast majority.

      Bethesda should care about this. They're unlikely to lose a single sale due to Mojang's use of the word sales, but they've likely lost thousands of sales already due to their lawsuit. I went from "buy Skyrim and all its non-DLC sequels on launch day" to "never buy another product from any studio inside of Bethesda unless it's used."

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    47. Re:amusing side note... by x6060 · · Score: 1

      So because they didnt budget for used games sales that means they get to accuse me of stealing? That sounds pretty stupid.

    48. Re:amusing side note... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Stealing? You equate reselling with stealing?

      Here's some advice. The above post sounds like somebody giving their opinion about nutrition, and ending with 'be sure to swipe a crystal over your vegetable to harmonize the green vibrations'. In other words, ending a post with an absolutely crazy statement undercuts everything else of possible value that you said. If you actually believe that used markets are theft, keep it to yourself while in reasonable company, so as not to have those reasonable people shun you.

    49. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler also ate food. What kind of a Nazi are YOU?

      There's reasons Godwin's Law exists, asshat.

    50. Re:amusing side note... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      It's well established in the gaming community.

      No it's not.

    51. Re:amusing side note... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like: I don't like the company making those clothes, but the clothes are decent, so I buy them from a thrift shop. In other words, a perfectly acceptable preference.

      The people who think second hand purchases are stealing are not just easily swayed by company PR, they're a true danger to our rights.

    52. Re:amusing side note... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Buy buying second hand, you still help them make money.

      True, and that's often overlooked by the 'reselling is stealing' crowd. However, it's an incremental profit. It's less money than they would have made by selling a new game to a new customer, and so would still be viewed by that type as theft.

    53. Re:amusing side note... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      My work depends on my reputation. ;-)
      What kind of reputation does an Anonymous Coward have to protect?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    54. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... So you won't give them your money: but you will give the money to people who will give them their money. This has the side effect of ensuring that there is demand for the game in the "secondary" market. This means there is *more* incentive for the direct purchasers of Bethesda games: as they retain some value after purchase.

      I do not think you are making the point you think your making.

      I suggest a change in policy

    55. Re:amusing side note... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That makes her a slut, not a whore.

      Whores charge, sluts don't, this is the distinction between the words. :)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    56. Re:amusing side note... by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Honestly...if you're buying it used and the makers aren't getting the money, what is the point of even buying it at all? Serious question. You have literally the same effect by just pirating it. I haven't bought a used game in quite some time because of this realization...if I'm not paying the game makers then quite frankly...who even gives a shit if I "buy" the game? I'll buy used if it's grossly less to get it for a console only game, but otherwise they're relatively cheap when I go to buy games new since I've got myself a nice big backlog keeping me busy. :)

      As a side note, I pretty much haven't pirated ANY games since I joined Steam and bought the Orange Box.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    57. Re:amusing side note... by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

      > Their position on why used record stores aren't stealing is that "games are budgeted on the assumption of no used game sales, and books and albums aren't.

      Their position on why used record stores aren't stealing is that "we aren't making records".

      If games are budgeted on the premise that there are no used sales, it sounds like a piss-poor business model to me, akin to budgeting socks on the assumption that people have three feet. Used video game sales are nothing new; it shouldn't be anything new to Penny Arcade or its fanboys, either.

    58. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      you are not a customer though

      shut the fuck up, you just want to nose yourself into someone else's business, and I am so sorry I do not align myself to a whiney bitch crybaby's morals

    59. Re:amusing side note... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      The holocaust didn't involve anyone but Germany and the people she killed too. The allied forces had no right to free them from the camps.

      There, thread over. Go be a retarded shill somewhere else please.

    60. Re:amusing side note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Derp" is more property of reddit really....

    61. Re:amusing side note... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Wonderful! Now I shall simply download game instead of buying them used, if they are equivalent. This saves me money that I can now spend on a faster internet connection, AND deprives them of money! Now people will be less likely to by that 60$ game if they can't resell it to me for $30. This is me voting with my wallet, they shall go out of business and a better company will arise from the wreckage. The invisible hand at it's best. Though honestly, I don't really give a shit if it's stealing or if they go out of business or not, perhaps I am just a psychopathic communist pirate or something, idunno.

    62. Re:amusing side note... by residieu · · Score: 1

      But, if you show up at an open house and choose not to be polite, and insult your host. Your host has every right to ask you to leave.

    63. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      ok so your comparing minecraft vs big game to the fucking holocaust, as a jew I find that highly offensive as Bethesda has not yet killed hundreds of thousands of people based on faith / race

      and you call me a retard? here is a little hint jhonny fuctard, video games are not real, Nazi's are

    64. Re:amusing side note... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Actually, I value their "wonderful content" so much that I wait for the actual retail price to drop below 20$, THEN buy it second hand, and then only on a whim to see if it was even worth the effort.

      Also, second hand sales are not stealing. Stop drinking the industry koolaid.

      Why don't you stop ignoring reality? The last time I checked, America is one of the few places on the planet where second hand sales *aren't* illegal. It may come as a surprise to you, but the doctrine of first sale is as antiquated as gutenberg's press, ironically and precisely because it does not address the fact that digital copies are trivial to produce and distribute. Limitations on copyright based on this doctrine (as codified in the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 109) need to be stricken from the US books. A more reasonable and artist-friendly doctrine, like the one used in the EU and the rest of the civilized world, should be used instead.

    65. Re:amusing side note... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      id like to think you just missed where he said he was buying it 2nd hand. but you went and put that quote in your comment, so i have to conclude that your are so fucking stupid as to think buying things 2nd hand is stealing.

      dude, you are the one being stupid. do you think everybody on the planet has to live by American laws? You might not believe it, but almost anywhere on the planet except in america, selling a work of art second hand *is* illegal. There are other places on the planet besides the US, you know. And they have a lot of rules that are different than the ones that Americans have to live by. try to get a little perspective, eh?

    66. Re:amusing side note... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Let me just be the latest to pile on and ask you where the hell you got the idea that buying a used item constitutes stealing.

      Are you really that god-damn stupid, or is it just an act?

      Neither an act, nor is it stupid. Americans believe they have the right to sell a music or game disc when they are done with it. This is because of a doctrine called "first sale," which explicitly grants the legal owner of a copyrighted work the right to resell it without compensating the creator. The copyright laws in the European Union do not recognize the doctrine of first sale. That is why it is okay in the US to sell a legally purchased CD or game DVD to somebody, but it is not legal to do that in the EU. Try to get some perspective; you are the one looking stupid right now.

    67. Re:amusing side note... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Stealing? You equate reselling with stealing?

      Certainly. Ever been outside the US? The doctrine of first sale exists only in American copyright laws. It certainly doesn't exist in European Union copyright laws.

    68. Re:amusing side note... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Hold on. Buying second hand is now stealing? That's AWESOME news, since selling second hand games would then be dealing in stolen property, and we can put gamestop out of our misery!

      you jest, but in the EU, it would not get a laugh. EU copyright laws, unlike their American counterparts, do not recognize the doctrine of first sale. it is fine for you to sell your legally acquired CD or DVD to a second-hand store in the US, but it is absolutely illegal to do that in the EU, or just about anywhere else on the planet.

    69. Re:amusing side note... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is the comparison that I made. I do wish you good luck in extinguishing your feeling of offense, but that isn't really my issue to get involved in.

    70. Re:amusing side note... by Osgeld · · Score: 0

      oh but you get all kinds of butthurt cause some poor developer is getting sued

      have a good life in your moms basement watching porn you fucktard looser

    71. Re:amusing side note... by thedarknite · · Score: 1

      There seems to be an awful lot of second hand record stores in Europe for something that is illegal. You seem to have missed the Exhaustion Principle/Rule which operates in a similar fashion to the first sale doctrine

      Second hand software seems to more to be a grey area, where reselling a license for download is illegal but reselling a piece of boxed software (game disks, manuals, etc) seems to be fine.

      --
      A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
  5. its not as catchy but maybe they could call it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Rolled up parchment

  6. good thing... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

    That Notch didn't use "the" in his new games title, or he would be screwed for sure.

    1. Re:good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. If he had called the game "The Scroll" it could be confused with Daughter of Serpents (a.k.a. The Scroll)
      The Scroll was released 2 years before The Elder Scrolls.

    2. Re:good thing... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter who came first in trademark law. You might not remember but the whole open source client GAIM (now called Pidgin) was out for years before AOL created AIM. AOL sued, GAIM lost it's name after 5 or 6 years of lawsuits.

      This case however is slightly different because both parties have respected trademarks. What I don't understand is why government issue trademarks and let people fight it out in court. Buy trademarks aren't worth the paper they're printed on if you have to go to court all the time to defend them from other companies with similar trademarks.

    3. Re:good thing... by arose · · Score: 2

      AOL Instant Messenger (aka AIM): 1997. GAIM (aka GTK+ AOL Instant Messenger): 1999. But a nice try.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  7. Copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Bethesda is claiming copyright infringement," no they're claiming trademark infringement. Big difference.

    1. Re:Copyright infringement by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, what's the penalty for copyright infringement these days? Is it up to hanging yet?

      I think that Notch is lucky that it's just trademark infringement and not copyright infringement that Bethesda is taking them to court over.

    2. Re:Copyright infringement by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Everyone seems to be missing the point that in this instance Bethesda are the good guys. Mojang wanted to trademark the WORD "Scrolls" when related to video games, and if they succeed they, Mojang, will be obliged to vigorously defend that trademark against any game that infringes their trademark by using that word in a video game title. And while Mojang could be as lax as they want to be about that while Notch is running the studio, if he sells out, like many other successful devs have eg Molyneux or Garriott, then whatever corporation buys Mojang may not be so hippy-dippy. There are CLEAR parallels to the Tim Landell, "edge", case.

    3. Re:Copyright infringement by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If it's hanging these days, imagine what it will be in 500 years when todays' copyrights will still be valid!

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Copyright infringement by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Uh what? So just because Bethesda happens to have a trademark on "the elder scrolls" they should be able to own every single word in their trade mark? Should they sue other companies for using the word "the" too? That sounds even worse!

    5. Re:Copyright infringement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. However the trademark works like this - If it is similar and seems to want to use consumer confusion to it's advantage it is bad. Facts: Mojang was gonna release Scrolls game on 11/11/11 same date Elder Scrolls: Skyrim was supposed to be released.

      It depends a lot on language (iirc the most important word in a trademark is the one with most emphasis).
      E.G. Atom Mouse sounds nothing like Mickey Mouse so it's cool. Michael Mouse is quite like Mickey Mouse so it gets sued.
      It depends on the context of operation (e.g. if Scrolls wasn't trying to trademark it as a video game http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4002:pko3v0.2.8 Bethedsa probably wouldn't have minded so much).

    6. Re:Copyright infringement by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      Um... I don't recall that. MINECRAFT was supposed to be released on 11/11/11, but I don't think Scrolls is even in alpha stages yet. Minecraft has been in development for quite a bit more time then Scrolls to boot.

      The Minecraft release date has been moved back, but not too far if I recall correctly. The ALPHA release of Scrolls was rumored to have happened in June, but I can't even find confirmation that it did.

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
    7. Re:Copyright infringement by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      The did, scrolls was registered to Mojang in both the US and the EU when they also registered Minecraft a few years ago. Now a trademark only applies if you are trying to trade a similar service/product under the same name. This case is on the boundary of trademark law at best, I also believe it's the Swedish courts they are doing it in.

  8. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I made a movie named "Star" who would sue me first: the Star Trek people or the Star Wars people?

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might also have to deal with the people behind Stargate, or Dancing with the Stars. : P

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn actresses. There are lots of them named Star. Or so I've heard, anyway.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends, are going to have them fight crinkly-forehead guys with laser swords?

    4. Re:Hmm... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      You can only infringe on trademarks if you are in the same industry (or close enough).
      I'd love to see Hollywood try to demonstrate in court that their movies are basically the same as porn.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen Sucker Punch? Better. Than. Porn.

  9. Trademark vs copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The summary says copyright infringement... I think the submitter has confused copyright with trademark...
    The post should be tagged trademark instead of copyright as well.

  10. Just Plane Stupid by hedgemage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bethesda's legal trolls are missing a major marketing opportunity here that would benefit both their organization and Mojang.
    If they had accepted Notch's offer for a Quake match, then their marketing dept. could have spun it into a major event. See the example of Southwest Airlines vs. Stephens Aviation over the phrase "Just Plane Smart". The CEOs agreed to arm wrestle for it with the loser giving up their claim and donating $5000 to charity. The arm-wrestling event was publicized and tickets were sold, $15,000 was raised for charity, and both organizations benefited from positive media exposure.
    Now Bethesda, regardless of outcome, is going to be viewed as a big douchebag beating up on a little guy.

    1. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal and marketing are different dept, often with its own budgets to protect if the organization is big enough; and they have to make themselves relevant about once every quarter. Otherwise, the dept. is disbanded and the company will just rely on contractor on as-need basis.

      I agree, it's a great idea to settle over Quake, but the legal team needs to make themselves relevant for the organization. I'm sure their marketing dept is also screaming at them.

      In short, lawyers are greedy always looking out for their own self-interest...?

    2. Re:Just Plane Stupid by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They just made themselves very relevant: they're going to drum up so much hatred that even the lazy gamers will be inclined to boycott them.

      You have to be pretty fucking moronic, lawyer or not, to go after an indie developer with as much fan support as Mojang. I frankly don't get the whole fad with Minecraft, but obviously a million people absolutely love it and many have DONATED money for Minecraft. Good luck finding a million people to donate for yet another interchangeable Gamebryo "platform for short-lived DLC" shooter.

      People aren't hating on Bethesda because it's trendy, they're hating because this is a blatantly ridiculous bullying expedition. Nobody owns the word "scrolls", it's a fucking word. Nobody owns the concept of mountains, they're fucking mountains. You want prior art ? Open a dictionary, look out the window.

      And nobody owns the concept of a medieval backdrop involving knights and jesus freaks and tyrannical monarchs. It's called fucking HISTORY.

      If Bethesda wins anything in this court case, it will be yet another sign to the world that America is beyond saving from the hypercapitalist godmachine it has created.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    3. Re:Just Plane Stupid by fezick · · Score: 0

      Maybe the web comic User Friendly could get the rights to cover the event.

    4. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to realize where those Bethesda lawyers come from.
      They have studied and lived their entire adult lives in the twisted reality that the media Mafia* created. Like North Koreans actually believe their hands would fall off when they touch an American flag (watch the Daily Show interview), they actually believe you could own an idea, information or even just a word.
      We all live in such "different views". Simply based on the input we got.
      This is why I always say that Wikipedia, Democracy (or Socialism or "transition to" Communism for that matter)... or any system relying on an "absolute objective truth" cannot ever work, and will end in dictatorship (because to them, their *own* personal subjective reality == "absolute objective truth") if a group manages to be in control.
      Because nobody knows what the actual reality is. And if you know a bit of philosophy and quantum physics, you know that we also never will. (But that that is not a problem in practice, as long as our theories are useful to make predictions because nothing contradicts them [yet].)

      So the thing is, to not let those crazy criminals be in power!
      Which, looking at their ridiculously tiny global sales volume compared to other industries, in about as hard as crushing a bug. It's only their overblown confidence (caused by regular cocaine abuse [I've seen it with my own eyes]) and acting big that makes us think they would have any power.

      And unfortunately, it politicians fall for it to.
      Which is where the above point of managing to be in control comes into play.

      ___
      * And I'm not using this word as a childish hyperbole. By suing other people for imaginary entitlement over works created by others, they are playing a racketeering scheme and destroying lives, while using creative people like prostitutes, sucking dry all creativity and keeping nearly all of the money.

    5. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Little guy? how is 50 million euros+ from a java-tard one-hit wonder a "little guy"?
       
      Even Garry's Mod has more capabilities, better graphics, etc, etc and hasn't made as much as minecraft which is vastly inferior.

    6. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GARRYS MOD? hahahhahahahahahahahahahaha holy shit you valve fanboys slay me, truly.

    7. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal and marketing are different dept, often with its own budgets to protect if the organization is big enough; and they have to make themselves relevant about once every quarter. Otherwise, the dept. is disbanded and the company will just rely on contractor on as-need basis.

      I agree, it's a great idea to settle over Quake, but the legal team needs to make themselves relevant for the organization. I'm sure their marketing dept is also screaming at them.

      As this case shows, if you run a company the way you described, then you get what you deserve.

      Company lawyers feeling the need to prove themselves relevant by starting a ridiculous legal battle, without any gain in sight, but with a good chance to turn into a PR nightmare? Sounds like a case of wrong incentives to me.

    8. Re:Just Plane Stupid by gknoy · · Score: 2

      You might bash it for being Java-based, but the deployment of it is one of the slickest I've ever seen short of Steam. Automatic updates, etc, and no restrictions on downloading it. Knowing it was Java under the hood actually made me more impressed.

    9. Re:Just Plane Stupid by LingNoi · · Score: 2

      I think the court case is happening in Sweden rather then America just a FYI.

    10. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the outcome? I've been viewing Bethesda as big douchebag ever since they announced they were suing mojang over this crap.

    11. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now Bethesda, regardless of outcome, is going to be viewed as a big douchebag beating up on a little guy.

      beating up a pretentious, fat guy.*

    12. Re:Just Plane Stupid by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

      I can tell you why my money goes to Minecraft, it runs on Windows, MAC, and Linux. I don't see Skyrim going that route. Bethesda's only saving grace right now is all the stuff Carmak has given to the community with his older game engines and even that wasn't directly related to them since he did that before iD was a part of Bethesda.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    13. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the court case is happening in Sweden rather then America just a FYI.

      Shhhhh... don't correct the guy when he's ranting about the evils of hypercapitalism. We're lucky he didn't start quoting fight club (super fight-tastic edition, now available on blue ray)...

    14. Re:Just Plane Stupid by SilkBD · · Score: 1

      Minecraft is about creation... we love to create things... in minecraft we're creating a home ultimately a world to our whim... this is very addicting.

      --
      00101010
    15. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      The only way Bethesda can get positive PR now is to fire their legal department.

    16. Re:Just Plane Stupid by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Yeah java is slow and Notch is kind of a shitty coder, but Minecraft is awesome. I am guessing that you are just a fucking jealous faggot or a hipster who is upset because of its success. Go eat shit and die you god damn moron.

    17. Re:Just Plane Stupid by billcopc · · Score: 1

      SHH! Don't tell me to RTFA, this is fucking Slashdot. We never read.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  11. Publicity stunt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notch doesn't have much credibility here. He:

    • - announces his new game, Scrolls, months before the upcoming release of the Skyrim
    • - hurriedly plans for Minecraft to exit beta status (ETA: Skyrim release day)

    Lawsuit is simply BS. I won't shed a tear for Notch though.

  12. Copyright? by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 2

    The story claims that this is about copyright, and then links another slashdot story that doesn't mention copyright once.

    Every story I can find about this says that it is a trademark dispute, not copyright.

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
    1. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://slashdot.org/poll/2244/Inaccurate-physics-in-movies-

      that poll should be renamed to "Inaccurate use of basic legal terms on slashdot..."

    2. Re:Copyright? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be because, you know, names aren't copyrighted. It's a trademark dispute.

    3. Re:Copyright? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Slashdot should patent summary trolling.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  13. What. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the turf you choose to defend, BethSoft? The word 'scrolls'?

    You do realize that the whole 'elder scrolls' part of your fiction is ancillary at BEST, right? Virtually all of the written works are contained in proper books, and the idea of history scrolls as important is left to the occasional sidequest - it's mostly a holdover title.

    You do realize that this whole fight is literally a big developer gunning down on a small independent developer making a freaking collectable card battle game variant?

    Even if you win, you're just going to look like a complete jackass, in a field that depends on you looking like somewhat decent people when you're trying to sell fantasy worlds to gamers.

    This is not the fight to have, not the opponent to defeat, and not a good way to spend your money or life.

    Wake up, you're making a horrible mistake, and you can't win this kind of fight, a fight only you seem to want to have.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:What. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lawyers are probably bored. They probably also go golfing with the CEO, so they have an automatic stamp of approval on whatever they do, no matter how stupid.

    2. Re:What. by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      But you're happy for Mojang to own the word "scrolls"? Remember when Origin and Bullfrog were cool game studios?

    3. Re:What. by Psycizo · · Score: 1

      Mojang shouldn't be able to trademark Scrolls, however they should definitely be able to use Scrolls without risk of exactly this lawsuit.

    4. Re:What. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not read the article? This is Bethesda suing Mojang for the use of the name 'Scrolls', not Mojang trying to gain exclusive rights on the name. They could do this if they applied for a trademark on it, but they will either not get it (because it is too generic), or won't be able to enforce it (because it is too generic). I would not be happy if they tried to do so, but that isn't the case here.

    5. Re:What. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. If this stupidity goes through, future FPS' better not have unique, trademarked words like "battle", "modern" or "war" in their name.

    6. Re:What. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Mojang shouldn't be able to trademark Scrolls, however they should definitely be able to use Scrolls without risk of exactly this lawsuit.

      They should be able to, but only in a particular artistic font or in conjunction with something else that makes it very clear that it is talking about Mojang's game. The whole point of trademarks is that they are non-functional decoration to allow customers to know unambiguously whose product they are purchasing (and using, but that's actually secondary in legal terms). Making trademarks be "strictly enforced but very specific" is how it's supposed to be. Trademarking an undecorated dictionary word, even if just within the scope of a particular industry (e.g., computer software), is an attempted abuse.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:What. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're happy for Mojang to own the word "scrolls"? Remember when Origin and Bullfrog were cool game studios?

      I don't know what kind of world you would like to live in but I would prefer one where common words couldn't be trademarked.
      If Bethesda want to build a strong trademark around a game title they should not use common words in their game titles, if you call your game for Champions of Krynn you can't complain about someone else using the name Champions of War or something similiar. (Well, if someone created a game named Champions of Flynn you might have a valid case.)
      I wouldn't mind if Bethesda tried to protect the name Morrowind since it is pretty unique.
      To complain about someone calling a game Scroll when your game is called The Elder Scrolls is just silly.

      Here is a link to a game known as The Scroll released two years before the first The Elder Scrolls game but at that time Bethesda thought that it was enough difference to not be a problem. Daughter of Serpents (a.k.a. The Scroll)

    8. Re:What. by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      But you're happy for Mojang to own the word "scrolls"? Remember when Origin and Bullfrog were cool game studios?

      Own the word "scrolls"? No. Own trademark to the the name of their game? Of course. Trademarks don't give anything near the level of control over a word that you suggest.

    9. Re:What. by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but games companies like SOE, Square-Enix, Activision, and EA have made colossal asses of themselves in public like this, and people still buy or buy into their games hand over fist.

    10. Re:What. by KermodeBear · · Score: 2

      You would do well to send your opinions to the parent company of Bethesda, ZeniMax.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    11. Re:What. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yea, it's not like you can sue people for using it, or even part of it at any time for the most frivolous of reasons.

      Why do I have a C&D from Mojang about my new game Rolls?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    12. Re:What. by Toonol · · Score: 1

      He should be able to Trademark "Scrolls" as a title for a videogame. This wouldn't interfere with "Elder Scrolls" or a hypothetical future "Scrolls of Fiery Death" RPG. In other words, the point of trademark is to prevent somebody else from selling a similar product with the same name. It does not grant control all uses of a particular word, or other combination of words, or that word in other contexts.

    13. Re:What. by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand the ES fanboy position. I played and enjoyed Morrowind, until I got bored of it because of poor plot pacing.

      Oblivion lost me in the first six hours due to poor quest mechanics - I got to a point where I was supposed to be somewhere (poorly specified) at a certain time (poorly specified) and kill a certain guy (poorly specified). When it didn't work, I waited for the same time of night, and broke into the house, after about 30 tries, and of course there was nobody inside it. Instead, I just wandered around freestyle, kept bumping into stuff that wasn't relevant to any quest or side-quests I had, got bored, and never played the game again.

      Frankly, the best thing that ever happened to the Oblivion engine was Fallout 3; I knew there was potential for a good game in there.

      Skyrim is going to be more of the same: fantastic engine, huge world, and poor plot pacing and quest mechanics. Having just finished Dead Island, I'm not much in the mood for another profoundly broken game with regards to quest mechanics.

    14. Re:What. by ewanm89 · · Score: 1

      They have applied for it back in march, along with Minecraft, it's been opposed by Zenimax media and they are now in the appeals process. Zenimax can't even wait for that decision.

  14. "Dead Sea" - Oops, Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scrolls - as in moving screen image with depressed mouse (poor mouse)....

  15. And the legal teams vote for...? by Commontwist · · Score: 1

    Who is more likely to win this, to me, legal battle being fought for the sake of there being a legal battle?

    Quite frankly, I can't see 'Scrolls' as being that unique a game name in the first place. Confusing it with 'The Elder Scrolls' seems like a fairly long stretch given I always thought of it as 'Elder Scrolls' and never 'Scrolls' even before this lawsuit. It's like comparing cats to catapults. *Keyboard cat!*

    1. Re:And the legal teams vote for...? by Commontwist · · Score: 1

      ...thought of it as 'Elder Scrolls' and never 'Scrolls' even before this lawsuit...

      Sorry, 'it' refers to the game 'Elder Scrolls' not 'Scrolls'. Oops.

  16. Scrolls? Really? by Roogna · · Score: 1

    Sadly, while I've played and liked the previous games, and was looking forward to Skyrim. The very idea that they would actually sue over the word "scroll" in relation to RPGs completely destroys any respect I might have for the company. I hope they realize that whatever they could possibly hope to win in this lawsuit will cost them in good will from customers. As I for one have no intention of buying any more of their products... Add another entertainment company to the list of companies just not to purchase from.

  17. Bethesda Blew It by virb67 · · Score: 1

    Bethesda blew it. They could have had the biggest PR coup ever by taking Notch up on his Quake 3 offer. Now they just look like douchebags.

    1. Re:Bethesda Blew It by virb67 · · Score: 2

      Let me elaborate on what a Bethesda PR coup could have looked like. They could have had Notch agree to a Quake 3 battle, but admit the word 'scrolls' is part of their trademark. If his team won, the Notch has licensee rights for his game. If he wanted to use this name for other games/ sequels, then another tournament would be necessary, under the same terms. Then they could have turned this Quake 3 tournament into an internet PR extravaganza for both parties. The tournament itself could be webcast live on the net with all kinds of juicy marketing tie-ins for both parties. If Notch won, Bethesda looks humble and magnanimous, earning internet sweetheart status. And even if Bethesda won, they could have gave Notch permission to use the name anyways, with their conditions, in a gesture of good will -- same result. Now they'll be loathed as big corporate bullies. And they've gained nothing.

    2. Re:Bethesda Blew It by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what does the legal department get out of it?

    3. Re:Bethesda Blew It by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      You're a assuming that Bethesda doesn't have a problem with Notch using Scrolls. This all only came up when they filed the paperwork for the trademark, not when using the name. They don't want others to own a trademark in video games similar to theirs and they're willing to fight it in court to get Notches trademark marked invalid.

    4. Re:Bethesda Blew It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half the pay of the marketing department...

    5. Re:Bethesda Blew It by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what does the legal department get out of it?

      Nothing either way, as far as I can tell. That's what makes the whole thing so bizarre. The only obvious rationale is that they're aiming to prevent another Langdell situation, but there are much simpler ways of doing that.

    6. Re:Bethesda Blew It by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Big Fish in a Little Pond: What's an ocean?

  18. Obligitory Quasi-Legal Bit by bv728 · · Score: 2

    Bethesda are required to provide the court with a comprehensive list of points of similarity, including minor ones. If they do not provide a point of similarity, it can be used against them as evidence that their claim is incomplete, that they concede certain elements of similarity do not infringe, or that their understanding of the property is incomplete. The Judge is expected to filter through this list and determine which elements are co-incidental and which contribute to possible infringement, as well as evaluating them for any potential damages, if it comes to that.

    1. Re:Obligitory Quasi-Legal Bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the Judge decides that Bethesda's list is purely frivolous (both have mountains is an actual point they're submitting to the court?), the Judge can decide to just throw the book at Bethesda and have them pay Mojang's legal fees for wasting everyone's time.

    2. Re:Obligitory Quasi-Legal Bit by Miseph · · Score: 1

      They are also required to take all reasonable legal action to protect their trademark, and failure to do so can be used against them in the future. They may not care if Notch names his game "Scrolls", and may not even believe that it would meaningfully weaken their brand, but if they fail to take any action a future game could do something with far more potential to cause harm and use this example to defend themselves.

      Trademarks work quite differently from copyrights, that is one of the many ways.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    3. Re:Obligitory Quasi-Legal Bit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or that their understanding of the property is incomplete.

      I'd say that the fact they're suing over SCROLLS in a ROLE PLAYING GAME indicates that their understanding of the property is GREATLY incomplete.

  19. Re:He's a moron. by jdpars · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He offered them a settlement just as ridiculous as the lawsuit they proposed.

  20. Stupid is as stupid does by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 1

    Bethesda is being stupid. Bad PR for them -- although the addicts will buy Skyrim anyway. Most people I know don't call Bethesda's games "Elder Scrolls"; they play "Morrowind" or "Oblivion" or "Skyrim". No one goes looking for "Elder Scrolls IV mods", they look for "Oblivion mods".

    And only an idiot would confuse a collectible card game from and indie publisher with a single-player RPG from a major software house. By all the gods, am I going to be sued by Bethesda because my novels have mountains and scrolls in them? Sheesh.

    While I'm sure Bethesda doesn't care about my opinion or my money, I will not be buying Skyrim, nor will I purchase any other Bethesda products, or products that they are involved in. I will, however, buy Scrolls from Mojang.

    1. Re:Stupid is as stupid does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. I'll just wait until it comes out second hand, that way they don't get a cent and I get to play the game.

  21. Thanks Bethesda by RandomAdam · · Score: 1

    Well thanks to this debacle I have herd of an interesting new game and signed up for the Alpha..... I also own Oblivion, but I doubt that I will be giving any more money to Bethesda.....seriously mountains???? WTF

    --
    @Random_Adam

    Sometimes a sig doesn't have to be funny!!
    1. Re:Thanks Bethesda by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If you signed up because of the lawsuit, there's no way you could have signed up for the alpha. It was in beta long before the lawsuit was announced.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Thanks Bethesda by kevinkite · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Minecraft. Scrolls is not Minecraft and Scrolls alpha isn't available for testing yet.

    3. Re:Thanks Bethesda by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Oh, dur. Sorry, my mistake.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  22. Re:He's a moron. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mojang founder Notch had offered to settle the dispute with a friendly game of Quake 3, but apparently Bethesda wasn't up for that."

    Yes, because he is an idiot.

    Not at all. This is equal parts a legal battle and a PR battle.

    Minecraft has a significant amount of credibility. It is a beloved name, and has a lot of goodwill.

    And so do the Eldar Scrolls and Bethesda.

    By making his claim, he was giving them an out to retain some face, and reinforced his persona of the gamer everydude gone successful.

    By refusing it, Bethesda comes across as a soulless corporate entity.

    But lets not forget the major problem with this whole mess. Bethesda is claiming the ownership of the concept of Scrolls in video games. This is something that has a laughable amount of prior history, and should be laughed out of court. SHOULD being the key words here.

  23. Amicus curiae by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

    Any game developers on /. care to file a friend of the court brief regarding this case? It could be your studio that gets dragged into litigation next.

  24. on the trademark claim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Go ahead and search on http://tess2.uspto.gov/ for "scrolls"

    With a filing date of May of this year, Mojang applied for a word mark on the word "Scrolls". Check the link, but this is just some of the claims they're making:

    "Computer games; video games; computer software; computer and video games software; computer software downloaded or downloadable; computer software publications downloaded; interactive entertainment software; data recorded electronically from the Internet; data recorded in machine readable form from the Internet; discs, tapes, cartridges, CD-ROMs and other magnetic, electronic or optical media, all bearing computer games software or video games; electronic amusement apparatus for use with television receivers; electronic games apparatus; home video game machines"

    Maybe a lawyer can come along and clarify if this is Bethesda being paranoid or if they're justified in feeling threatened.

    1. Re:on the trademark claim... by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      Interesting, Looks like the legal drones in both companies need a boot in the ass.
      No mod points though, unfortunately.

    2. Re:on the trademark claim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Mojang thinks that the trademark infringment on "Scrolls" is crazy or silly, then why are they trying to trademark it?

      Seems like Mojang are being idiots.

    3. Re:on the trademark claim... by guises · · Score: 1

      Both companies? Have Mojang's lawyers done something untoward as well?

    4. Re:on the trademark claim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Computer games; video games; computer software; computer and video games software; computer software downloaded or downloadable; computer software publications downloaded; interactive entertainment software"

      In layman terms : "Computer software". This is just Mojang covering their legal ass so people don't try to pull a legalese move (Its not a "computer game" its an interactive movie! (read: interactive entertainment software))

      "data recorded electronically from the Internet; data recorded in machine readable form from the Internet"

      This covers the Javascript version.

      "discs, tapes, cartridges, CD-ROMs and other magnetic, electronic or optical media, all bearing computer games software or video games;"

      Self-explanatory.

      "electronic amusement apparatus for use with television receivers; electronic games apparatus; home video game machines""

      This covers them from those "50 games in a controller" toys and "console game" thefts.

      This is all just paranoia on Bethesda's part. Mojang isn't even trademarking Scrolls when it comes to books/novels (We'll never see Minecraft the Novel)

    5. Re:on the trademark claim... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Their trademark would be very specific to that exact name

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:on the trademark claim... by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      They didn't craft that language. That's just the bucket created by the USPTO that the examiner looks at when trying to research for a US Trademark.

      Look up any game trademarks and you'll see the same thing.

  25. I'm confused... by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    ...so which of the two is a remake of the 1984 Atari 8-bit game The Scrolls of Abadon? Darn confusing titles! Star Trek vs. Star Wars, Miami Vice vs. CSI Miami... there should be a law against that!

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  26. Does anyone care that the games are Elder Scrolls? by DinZy · · Score: 1

    From Morrowind on, the game's subtitle became far more important than the fact that it was in the Elder Scrolls series. There really is no brand recognition. Every gamer knows Skyrim is coming out and they identify it as that not as TESV.

  27. Mojang filed for a trademark on "Scrolls" by deep9x · · Score: 1

    Seriously. This isn't them getting a cease and desist for using a word, this is them being forced to defend their "Elder Scrolls" trademark because Mojang was seeking the trademark for "Scrolls." This isn't evil lawyers, this isn't evil companies, it's dumb systems. RPS has a good article on it here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/08/bethesda-and-notchs-scrolls-off-explained/

    1. Re:Mojang filed for a trademark on "Scrolls" by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      If they were defending their trademark they'd have negotiated which Mojang have tried to do many times. I think its more then just that.

    2. Re:Mojang filed for a trademark on "Scrolls" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mojang also decided to release their "Scrolls" game on 11/11/11. Rings any bells? I think bethesda's laweyer are assuming scrolls was an intentional attempt to ride on Skyrim coattails. And I can't blame them. Mojang's actions are dubious as much as Bethesda's.

  28. Minecraft, Warcraft, Starcraft... by Pesticidal · · Score: 1

    So what are the chances that Blizzard will go after them next if Bethesda succeeds?

    1. Re:Minecraft, Warcraft, Starcraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90%

    2. Re:Minecraft, Warcraft, Starcraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm surprised this hasn't come up earlier. With the litigation that Facebook was doing with any and all sites named —book and Face—, it's a tad surprising Blizzard hasn't already tried to chime in on Minecraft.

    3. Re:Minecraft, Warcraft, Starcraft... by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 2

      There's also crimecraft, gemcraft, corpsecraft, aliencraft, bridgecraft, worldcraft....
      And lets not forget "aircraft" which is in use pretty much all over the english language.
      Here's a list! http://www.uvlist.net/search?fname=craft

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  29. Bethesday you are a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3:::::D

  30. Re:Does anyone care that the games are Elder Scrol by artor3 · · Score: 2

    There absolutely is brand recognition. Everyone who's excited about Skyrim knows it's the sequel to Oblivion, and most of them know that Oblivion was the sequel to Morrowind. I could have told you I was excited to play TESV long before the actual title was announced.

    If Notch was calling his game "Elder Scrolls" or something like that, the Bethesda would have a valid complaint. Of course, that's not what's going on, and they don't.

  31. Congradulations Dumbthesda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just lost many customers. Most were probably fans.

  32. Re:Can I try? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Lol

    Thanks, I needed that. Good ol ac we know and love.

    I amsurprised you didn't insinuate that I am gay though. Afterall, if I am not interested in pussy I must be interested in dick, right?

    You are losing your touch ac. I expected so much more from you.

    Better luck next time.

  33. Shhh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Common sense won't stop the butthurt.

    Nor do I expect will the butthurt stop the holders of hurt butts from slamming money down on Skyrim later this year.

  34. The Law Should Say by Squiffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The law should say that the trademark holder must either defend the trademark *or* proactively grant license to use it when it looks like someone might be in violation. IANAL but it seems like the law binds your hands if you hold a trademark. Either you act like a douchebag or lose it.

    1. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So if I'd were to make a game called Fantasy square enix would be forced to sue me? Scrolls is as much trademark for Bethseda due to The Elder Scrolls as Fantasy is trademark of Enix due to Final Fantasy series.

      What about these words, are they trademarked too: Tournament. Conquer, Floor, Dead, Edge, Cause, Alliance, Agenda, Fighter, Stars, Warrior, War, Hunter, Rangers, Wars, Commander, Quest, Fortress?

      Let it be clear. Scrolls in The Elder Scrolls is not like Warcraft in World of Warcraft but exactly like Tournament in Unreal Tournament. Word which by itself has nothing to do with the brand, the brand is the whole sentence.

    2. Re:The Law Should Say by ssyladin · · Score: 1

      From what I know of trademark law (just a few IP classes in my MBA), you're spot on. You need to continuously use and defend your trademark or lose it. Of course, whether the word "scrolls" in a fantasy game setting would dilute you trademark brand is another question.

    3. Re:The Law Should Say by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

      The point is that they shouldn't claim a trademark on the word "scrolls". Scrolls are a staple of the fantasy genre.

      "Elder scrolls", yes, "scrolls", no.

    4. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is true if your trademark is challenged in some way.

      My problem with BethSoft vs. Mojang is that "Elder Scrolls: Another New Chapter" has nothing whatsoever to do with "Scrolls". On the same note, we Lucas Arts had to sue vs. Gears of War (you know, WAR is part of some LucasArts franchise). Apparently Bethsoft is the only company which thinks a common word in the title was a challenge to the trademark. And isn't "Rage" part of hum... "Road Rage"? And why didn't they sue against "Runes of Magic: The Elder Kingdom"? Maybe because the entire claim is simply ridiculous?

      They are unnecessarily jerkasses and create a PR-catastrophe in the process. I hope Anne Rice sues them for using Vampires in their stupid games (Bram Stocker is a bit too long dead but Anne Rice will do just fine).

    5. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that is the law - have a look at what Linden labs did:
      https://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi?NoticeID=6400&print=yes

    6. Re:The Law Should Say by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's right, but the only people who decided that having "Scroll" in the name of any other game was a violation of trademark are Bethesda's lawyers, who are playing them for fools in order to continue to extract money from them. Probably they hadn't done anything in a while and had to justify their existence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The Law Should Say by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      The law should say that the trademark holder must either defend the trademark *or* proactively grant license to use it when it looks like someone might be in violation. IANAL but it seems like the law binds your hands if you hold a trademark. Either you act like a douchebag or lose it.

      The law does say that - you can certainly grant a license, at which point you don't have to defend it. But there are two problems with this:
      first, the other party has to be willing to pay for that license... unless you're suggesting that they should give the license for free. In which case, is that now the value of their trademark? Zero? What about other licensees who have paid to use it... can they now claim they're being unfairly charged for something that you admit have no value? Etc.
      Second, trademarks aren't about ownership of a word, they're about ownership of a mental association between a word and between you as a manufacturer. Consumers (allegedly) hear "Scrolls", they think "Bethesda", and therefore associate the manufacturing quality of games labeled "Scrolls" with what they've come to expect from Bethesda. In order for that mental association to exist, you need to have consistent quality. If a "Big Mac" referred both to a fast food burger, a middle-tier steak dinner, and a gourmet macaroni-based dish at a five star restaurant, consumers would quickly lose any association between the term and the quality for which McDonald's is known. When McDonald's licenses their trademark to a franchise operator, that franchise operator has to keep serving food obtained from McDonald's HQ, using the same napkins, straws, coffee stirrers, posters, seating, etc. Same thing here: even if you license your trademark, you have to police the licensee to ensure that they're putting out goods of a quality consistent with yours. So, Bethesda would have to constantly watch to make sure Mojang's quality wasn't declining, that they weren't shipping product with any bugs, etc. Possibly have to have a quality-assurance employee on Bethesda's payroll placed at Mojang's offices to check code... All this for a free license, under your suggestion.

    8. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Elder Scrolls" is pretty different than "Scrolls". One is an obvious trademark. The other is a generic term that no one owns.

    9. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law in no way forces a trademark holder to perpetually bully, harass, and file frivolous lawsuits against people to keep a trademark.

      I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this apologetic disinformation being disseminated any time a trademark story comes up. Companies become bullies because they can get away with it.

    10. Re:The Law Should Say by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Mojang is claiming a trademark on the word 'scrolls' for use in computer games. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4006:qchtni.6.8

      So, Bethesda is totally right to protect their trademark in this case.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    11. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The word 'scrolls' is too general to fantasy genre for a trademark.

      It's clear Bethesda won't win this one. I imagine they are looking for the right exit to safe face.

    12. Re:The Law Should Say by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Actively defending the trademark does not mean you have to engage in lawsuits against people that clearly aren't infringing on their trademark. Allowing use of 'Scrolls' does not invalidate the trademark 'Elder Scrolls', because they are not the same mark.

      If somebody else began using 'Elder Scrolls' and they didn't challenge it, then they might lose their trademark. Even 'Eldir Scrolls' or 'Elder Scrols', because there's a reasonable chance of confusion.

    13. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually I have actually read about one case about someone proactively granting the right and stating "we believe you are probably infrinfging but you are a nice person, don't be a jerk and we won't revoke it."

    14. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard this too. For example, Disney would have to take legal action against every guy who sold a Donald Duck T-shirt out of his truck or it could be shown that they were not proactively protecting their trademark.

    15. Re:The Law Should Say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the law permits granting licenses. It's probably just the lawyers who recommend otherwise, probably to both cover their ass and to secure their job/income. Even a license isn't needed, just send them a certified letter that you believe that their mark is not confusing, possibly outlining how they could avoid making their mark confusable with yours in the future (i.e. avoid anything like 'elder', 'old' and anything sounding like that or with similar meaning anywhere near 'scrolls' and you're good).

  35. Ohhh, Slashdot. by billsayswow · · Score: 1

    Honestly, all opinions on the case aside, the summary seems a bit biased.

    1. Re:Ohhh, Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's biased because the case is absolutely groundless and Bethesda are being complete douchebags.

    2. Re:Ohhh, Slashdot. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Speaking of non-biased...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  36. Re:He's a moron. by johnmorganjr · · Score: 0

    Quake 3!!!! I'm ready for a quake off....

  37. Re:Does anyone care that the games are Elder Scrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd go so far as to say that it didn't even matter with Daggerfall either. I never heard anyone even casually refer to it as The Elder Scrolls II, even back when it first came out. Hell, I didn't even know The Elder Scrolls was part of the title until years later, after Morrowind came out as the successor to Daggerfall. I've heard similar to those who first played Morrowind, then years later hearing about Oblivion coming out.

    Before I made the connection that the Elder Scrolls was part of the title and even a series, I just was more enthused with Bethesda making another first-person RPG than anything.

  38. Understanding Trademark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish people learn how trademark works. Every time there is a silly trademark lawsuit we get the knee jerking reaction in the news that the plaintiff is evil. Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, it requires trademark holder to sue no matter what.

    1. Re:Understanding Trademark by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Only if they don't license the name. On Notches blog he has mentioned many times about trying to negotiate with Bethesda. I don't think they were forced to go to court.

    2. Re:Understanding Trademark by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the way our system is set up, it requires trademark holder to sue no matter what.

      No. Only if their trademarked term is being used. It's not, so they are in no danger of losing it.

  39. Re:I truly do not think you are gay. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Much better!

    I am glad to see that the quality of ac trolling has not totally slipped by the wayside here!

    But I am a little disappointed that you didn't slip at least one reference to my mother's basement, or to my neckbeard being of such a horrific nature that it even gives RMS pause.

    But I will applaud a good troll when I see one. Good job sir!

  40. At first I thought this would just go away... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    At first I thougth this whole thing was ridiculous and that Bethesda would likely withdraw before actually making it to court, but if Apple can win a patent case against Samsung over rounded corners on a touchscreen device, I'm betting Bethesda could win a copyright case against Mojang for both games having mountains in them.

  41. Re:He's a moron. by justforgetme · · Score: 2

    ... the Eldar Scrolls and Bethesda ...

    wow Bethesda infringes on Tolkien now?!?!?!?!?!??!

    And those shameless pricks talk about an indie company stealing from them?

    --
    -- no sig today
  42. Does Bethesda have to do this? by liquidweaver · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I think I head somewhere if you don't assert your rights over trademark/copyright, you lose them... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiescence or maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity). Maybe it's par for the course to assert your rights upfront, however small, for fear the other party might take advantage of their "free license" to stomp all over your tm's and c's later? I know our IP system is really complicated and mostly fucked, but it's a thought.

    --
    mov ah, 4ch
    int 21h
    1. Re:Does Bethesda have to do this? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right about either protecting your trademark or losing it. I remember a case, back in the '90s, where some dentists wanted to put together a convention for dentists around the world. They decided to call it "WorldCon" and were happily promoting it until they received a Cease and Desist letter. They hadn't known that the Wold Science Fiction Society owns a trademark on that name so they hadn't gotten permission to use it in advance. It's a shame, too, as they probably would have gotten permission if they'd asked, but by the time they found out, it was too late.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Does Bethesda have to do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bethesda could have just publicly went to Mojang and said "Hey Scrolls is our trademark". Then they could settle this behind closed doors with a bogus settlement. I'm quite sure they can ask for whatever they want as license fees, even a Quake match.
      The fact that they're still going to court means they're either greedy or stupid regarding trademarks.

      Either way, I won't be buying Skyrim. That's another lost $60, Bethesda! Not to mention future DLC and expansions...
      I'm a writer on my spare time and I hate the idea that some companies can own words and phrases. Vocabulary should belong to everyone. The only situation I could understand would be another game being called 'The Elder Scrolls' and blatantly leeching off the reputation of Bethesda's games; in such a case, I'd understand Bethesda protecting their product. However, I would have an issue with Bethesda suing someone for making T-shirts with "Elder Scrolls" on it (provided the T-shirts don't feature Bethesda-owned logos) or something like this.
      I also have a huge problem with Bethesda thinking 'Elder Scrolls' gives them any control over the word 'Scrolls'. Since Bethesda are doing their part to build a world where vocabulary isn't public, I won't be buying their game.

      I also won't be buying 'Scrolls' because I heard Mojang are trademarking it for things other than games (including T-shirts). They're no better than Bethesda apparently.

  43. They were polite and informative by artor3 · · Score: 1

    The moderator's response (along with the thread being locked):

    "The lawsuit is not a topic for this forum. This is a gaming forum run by Bethesda Softworks. The lawsuit was presented by Zenimax, BethSoft's parent company. If the only reason you joined this forum is to discuss this subject, I'm afraid you will be disappointed."

    Seems pretty polite to me. Plus it points out that Bethesda has no say in the suit -- the responsibility and control lies with Zenimax, which I hadn't known. Given that fact, they are totally right to keep such discussions off their pages, as there's nothing they can do about it anyway. I guess all these people stating that they'll boycott Bethesda should really be angry at Zenimax.

    Here's Zenimax's contact page, if you're interested in actually registering a complaint, instead of just blaming the victim (and given the bad press, Bethesda really does seem to be a victim here).

    1. Re:They were polite and informative by LingNoi · · Score: 2

      I guess all these people stating that they'll boycott Bethesda should really be angry at Zenimax.

      ZeniMax was founded by the founders of Bethesda for this very reason. Wikipedia has a nice write up on it..

      ZeniMax Media was founded in 1999 by Bethesda Softworks founder Christopher Weaver and Robert A. Altman.

      ....

      Weaver brought Altman on board as CEO, contributing his stock in Bethesda Softworks so that the new shell company, named ZeniMax Media, would be able to obtain funding.

    2. Re:They were polite and informative by arose · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, neither Bethesda Game Studios nor Bethesda Softworks (there is no such thing as Bethesda anymore, this distinction is as important, or not, as the Zenimax one) have anything to do with the Elder Scrolls, nor are the forums ever to be used to discuss any news related to Elder Scrolls. An legal, paper thin wall separating entities that do their best to appear as a coherent whole in public as far as Elder Scrolls go, and indeed, wouldn't be able to utile the Elder Scrolls mark without each other, is no reason to point fingers at the entity technically holding the mark, especially when that entity makes no other use of it than bullying someone using a generic part of it.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:They were polite and informative by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Here's Zenimax's contact page, if you're interested in actually registering a complaint, instead of just blaming the victim (and given the bad press, Bethesda really does seem to be a victim here).

      It's amazing how easily people are duped. If you want to hurt the clowns taking this action, don't buy the game, as it directly profits the people involved in this lawsuit.

  44. Might take a look at this by mgiuca · · Score: 1

    Instead of buying Skyrim, I might instead take a look at Scrolls. Not because I'm confused, but because a) my interest in this product is now raised, and b) I don't like giving money to douchebags.

    1. Re:Might take a look at this by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Then don't give your money to the douchebags trying to trademark a common word, ie Mojang. Scrolls is also a pay to play, card trading game, so good luck with your choice!

    2. Re:Might take a look at this by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      Pay to play as in, subscription? Or one time? Anyway ... I don't have a moral issue with someone trademarking a common word. It happens all the time: "Apple", "Windows", "Wired", "Chrome" are a couple of examples in the tech sector. Trademarks are only enforceable specific to the industry and can't be descriptive of the product, so Microsoft couldn't sue a window-cleaning company called "Windows", and nor could said window-cleaning company get their own trademark on "Windows" because it is descriptive for that industry.

      "Scrolls" is not descriptive in the games industry, so it is up for grabs. As far as I know, nobody has a trademark on "scrolls". There is a trademark on "Elder Scrolls", but that's different. You shouldn't be able to sue someone for trademark infringement over part of the name. This is like Facebook suing someone over the use of the word "face" or "book" (both of which they have tried).

    3. Re:Might take a look at this by kikito · · Score: 1

      What is, exactly, wrong about them trademarking the word scrolls? How is it different from "Apple", "Windows" or "Google"?

    4. Re:Might take a look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already exists a massively popular game that sounds similar. Remember these laws were meant to prevent consumer confusion. And Mojang has behaved *badly* in this case.

      Mojang's scrolls game was about to be released on 11th of Novemeber 2011. Like a another famous game.called The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim... I'm willing to believe there was no dubious motive in releasing a similarly named game on the *EXACT* same day but that requires massive amounts of incompetence. And that sort of incompetence deserves to be called out...

    5. Re:Might take a look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know this elder scrolls game. I know skyrim, oblivion, and morrowind, by their own branding and packaging.

      11/11/11 oh no....

      Look, I already think notch stole my money with the wording on the "purchase" screen, where you actually are just paying to be in the beta and he can charge you again.

    6. Re:Might take a look at this by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I only knew of Elder Scrolls as the name of the entire series, sort of like how you can have a book series with a different name than the actual individual books. However the game boxes, advertisements, and how the games are referred to by everyone including media always use the specific name, i.e. : Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim. Mojang is not behaving badly at all. Scrolls is too simple and universal a word to let anyone have a copyright on it. Elder Scrolls? Yes, that's a bit more specific. An analogy to this lawsuit would be like the Tolkien estate suing someone over using the word "Rings" as their book title.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  45. But they have to, actually by maweki · · Score: 1

    From what I remember from class, if they don't enforce their "Scrolls"-Trademark, they are in danger of losing it. If they don't enforce "Scrolls", even if they lose the lawsuit, someone could use "elder scrolls" and say "they didn't enforce scrolls and elder is just another word".
    So they have to enforce everything because if they start to allow something, they are in danger of losing their trademark for good.
    And now, since they said "scrolls" is ours and the court says "no, Notch can keep scrolls, but you made your claim known", no one can come and refer to this lawsuit as "scrolls was ok to be used, because Bethesda didn't enforce".

    1. Re:But they have to, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is that they don't *have* a trademark on "Scrolls". They have a trademark on "The Elder Scrolls".

    2. Re:But they have to, actually by Pesticidal · · Score: 1

      I'm going to see what happens if I trademark "The Younger Scrolls".

  46. Arrrrrr by justforgetme · · Score: 1

    meant Galileo
    not Gallileo

    --
    -- no sig today
    1. Re:Arrrrrr by lxs · · Score: 1

      Gallileo Figarooooo!

  47. So now we need an Indy game dev to create Elder! by Cito · · Score: 1

    one of you smart flash or java programmers whip up a nice web RPG and call it Elder

    Let's see if Bethesda bites the hook on that one too :)

    Elder Where you play as 1 of 5 elders of [insert nerdy fantasy name here] that are sworn to protect the [insert nerdy noun here] from the hordes of [insert whatever here]

    hehe

  48. Dead Sea Scrolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens after being an Elder? That’s right, Death! The Elder Scrolls are just a prequel to the Dead Sea Scrolls. To top it off, The Elder Scrolls contain a sea. And if that’s not enough they Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a mountain which Bethesda freely admits also exists in their game.

  49. Oh brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All other major studios releasing RPGs recently have been complete douches and put me off buying their games (Activision/Blizzards litigous DRM-infested online only behaviour included). The one, single game I've been looking forward to as a result of all this douchebaggery - and they go and join the club.

    Looks like I'll be sticking with small indie games for a long time to come.

    1. Re:Oh brilliant by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Their games have become more and more mainstream.

      If they were remaining true to their roots then Oblivion would have been in a jungle setting like it is in their past games and lore. What we got was some watered down mainstream console port which and that's not even going into the whole horse armor and door which went nowhere until you bought the DLC fiasco which really let down the fans.

  50. There would have been a way by maweki · · Score: 1

    Not acting like a Douche would have been granting a licence for, say, twentyfive bucks.

  51. both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    What the holy FUCK?

    Next up: Bethesda sues Tibet.

    1. Re:both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next up: Arancaytar detained by Chinese officials after insinuating that Tibet exists as a separate entity.

  52. Re:Scrolls? Really? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    They kind of lost their way in my opinion. They used to make huge games but as shown with Oblivion they took game content out to simply sell it as DLC.

    I'll probably play it but not for a couple of years later when all the DLC that should have been in the game in the first place is included in their GOTY edition for a cheaper price (smart gamer I guess).

  53. boycotting BS is not enough... by slydder · · Score: 0

    The way I see it is simple. ZeniMax Media is the one behind the lawsuit. And if it is about ZeniMax trying to bully an indie around then it's time to really send them a message.

    Boycotting Bethesda is one way. Another way is to boycott all the ZeniMax subsidiaries.

    id Software
    Bethesda Softworks
    Arkane Studios
    Tango Gameworks

    Does anyone know of any other holdings? If everyone were to hold to the list that would hurt them more than anything else. However, we all know that won't happen because some ppl are just plain addicted or don't care.

    To be honest I don't regret not buying from any of them (except maybe the upcoming release of Rage from id) even though I was a fan of id since before the "politically correct" quote was made.

  54. Pirate Skyrim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will.

    I'll seed it for years too. I have no intention of playing it, since RPGs are quite gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the whole effeminate elfs plus burly oiled men gives me the creeps.

    1. Re:Pirate Skyrim by mr_gorkajuice · · Score: 1

      How fortunate self-sacrifing zealots like you exists to teach the world what's right. Your bandwidth shall surely benefit all of humanity.

  55. Tim Langdell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does he work for Bethesda now then?

  56. Re:Scrolls? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I'm not going to pay for my copy of Skyrim :P

  57. Wow by creat3d · · Score: 1

    Respect for Bethesda: gone. NOT paying for Skyrim.

    --
    Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    1. Re:Wow by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 2

      Respect for Bethesda: gone. NOT paying for Skyrim.

      I somehow think that sooner than later you would have found another "ethical" reason to get to the same conclusion.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    2. Re:Wow by creat3d · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why I'm even bothering responding to some asshole who somehow knows what I would've done re: some video game but regardless... Bethesda was one of the only game developers whose games I actually enjoy. Daggerfall, Morrowing, Oblivion and Fallout 3 were fantastic games that really set them apart. This puts them right into the same club as EA and Ubisoft.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    3. Re:Wow by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why I'm even bothering responding to some asshole...

      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

      Some people's anal fixation has been long studied by psychiatric science; maybe you should ask for professional help to solve that question.

      Of course, IANAP and this is not medical counsel.

      I hope you get better.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
  58. Riiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And China is like Chile - easy to confuse, and, hey, both have those 'Mountain' thingies!

  59. Isn't this technically illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, them going after a game called Scrolls when they have a Trademark only on The Elder Scrolls?
    Trademarks don't work on components of the entire string, do they? It is either the entire string or nothing.

    Why is this even being allowed? Oh wait, corrupt courts who will happily accept any money to fight a pointless case. And probably still win.

  60. Have you got the Scrolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No - I always walk like this......

  61. Revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notch needs to change the endboss of Scrolls. And maybe change the title to Thespian TrollsPwnd...

  62. The first thing I'm ganna do by weirdcrashingnoises · · Score: 1

    after this lawsuit is over, is go over to the Bethesda forums and start a thread asking who is excited for "that new 'SCROLLS' game" coming out soon. ;-P

    --
    sigs... don't talk to me about sigs....
  63. Re:Scrolls? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Skyrim pre-owned. Don't deprive yourself of a decent game over corporation politics. You're voting with your wallet, you'll just have to wait a little longer before buying playing. No great less. Going by Bethesda's previous poor record, the game will be full of major bugs, some game breakers. Waiting a while may save you some headaches.

  64. Understanable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone seems to be raging about this but I understand where they are coming from. It probably wouldn't have happened had they not intentionally decided to release the game called Scrolls on exactly the same day as the new Elder Scrolls game. They only picked that date because they wanted it out the same day as Skyrim.

    There is some room for confusion here. If a child asks their non-gamer parent to buy them the new Elder Scrolls game that came out that day, it is entirely possible they could pick up the wrong one.

  65. Scrolls... by X3J11 · · Score: 1

    My Magic-User was using scrolls, sometimes stolen from an elderly person, back in the 80's. I should dust off his character record and have him sue Bethesda.

    I don't know the fine details, and the summary seems somewhat inflammatory, but it looks like Bethesda's making a mistake here. Not a big enough one (thus far) to dissuade me from still wanting Skyrim, but they've got another month to do so.

    I rather wish they had spent more time coming up with a better, and more sanely priced collector's edition, however.

  66. Leave feedback with Bethesda here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave feedback with Bethesda here: http://bethsoft.com/eng/contact_email.php

    1. Re:Leave feedback with Bethesda here by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Leave feedback with Bethesda

      I told them that I support them all the way. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  67. Re:Does anyone care that the games are Elder Scrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still waiting for a sequel to Daggerfall. and Arena
    These tiny little tech demos are nice and all but when is the real game going to come out.

  68. Because of... what??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mojang has copied Bethesda because both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains

    Have the mountains been copyrighted somehow???

  69. Excuse me... by Syberz · · Score: 1

    *ring*

    Zenimax: "Hullo?"

    Lawyer: "Excuse me Mr. Bethesda, I'm calling on behalf of my client the Dead Sea Scrolls. We need to talk."

    --
    ~Syberz
  70. Elder Scrolls V? by naff89 · · Score: 1

    I feel like they'd have more of a case if the upcoming Elder Scrolls game wasn't marketed as "SKYRIM" in giant caps, with a barely-noticeable "The Elder Scrolls V" above it.

  71. Magnetic Scrolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was what I was thinking of. Old UK game company, text adventures. Scrolls were a big part of their stories.

  72. Re:He's a moron. by anomaly256 · · Score: 1

    So, when is Manga Entertainment suing Bethesda for violating their trademark on 'Ninja Scroll' ?

  73. Yo ho yo ho a pirate's life for me I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I *was* planning on buying Skyrim, but this just pisses me off and makes me not want Bethesda to have my money. I guess I'll have to pirate the game instead.

  74. He's fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has already shown that he's willing to give up the name with what basically amounts to a game of chance (a Quake match would be considered no different than a coin flip in a court of law). There's really nothing to see here.

  75. Re:He's a moron. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    ... the Eldar Scrolls and Bethesda ...

    wow Bethesda infringes on Tolkien now?!?!?!?!?!??!

    And those shameless pricks talk about an indie company stealing from them?

    God Darnit, I always do that. Too much time painting Warhammer 40k stuff.

  76. Scroll by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

    Was there even a SINGLE scroll in any of the Elder Scrolls games?! I certainly don't remember any. They weren't integral to the plot or anything.

    I guess that you did have scrolls for spells? That was a pretty minor item though.
    There was a game called "gun". I'm surprised they don't sue every FPS on the market for using their trademark. >_>

    This is obviously bullshit, legal trolling. This is going to be TERRIBLE PR for Bethesda, and they deserve it. Somebody needs to put a leash on their lawyers, they just lost to interplay trying to control the fallout franchise, and now they're picking on Mojang, indie devs who are on the other side of the planet. Real fair, guys. Notch is loved by the people. Bethesda is shooting themselves in the foot. And for nothing; nobody calls it "the elder scrolls" anyways, thats just silly. Its a stupid fight for a useless trademark. If somebody comes out with a game called "morrowind" or "oblivion", then I'd give them grounds for dispute. But this is clearly going too far. And they're going to suffer for it.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    1. Re:Scroll by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      I didn't even catch the irony, Notch challenged them to a game of "quake 3 arena". Another game in the Elder Scrolls setting before Morrowind was "Elder Scrolls: Arena".

      So, if they didn't sue ID for using "Arena" and ID didn't sue them for using "Arena", why can't both Bethesa and Mojang use "Scrolls"???!?

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  77. Re:Does anyone care that the games are Elder Scrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notch is calling his game 'Scrolls'. I'd imagine if he got a trademark there would be issues with Bethesda's name 'Elder Scrolls' because it contains the trademarked phrase 'Scrolls'; Similar to me making a search engine and calling it 'Super Google'.

    I think Bethesda is fully justified in this.

  78. Lawsuit pending for Bethesda Elder Care in MD by tillerman35 · · Score: 1
    In other news, software giant Bethesda Softworks LLC has go ahead with its pending lawsuit against Bethesda Elder Care in Bethesda, MD. The software corporation claims that the patients of the assisted care facility are at risk of confusing their residence for an open-ended role playing environment, citing such similarities as both having features in common like "air" and "ground."

    Bethesda Softworks, LLC President and CEO Vlatko Andonov said the following in a press release last Thursday:

    Look, we're not here to pick on the little guy, but this is a serious problem. We've already heard reports that seniors have been hospitalized due to confusion with the potion-making abilities. We're working on a way to make the poision/potion indicator more accessible to people who are color blind or have other vision issues such as cataracts. And last week, Mr. Gershowicz was found over five miles away from the facility on a stolen horse. I mean, the man was about to enter a troll cave with ceremonial armor. CEREMONIAL- can you believe that? And his save-on-hit skill was only like 120 with buffs. These are prefectly nice old men and ladies, but they do not belong in a world focused on "aesthetic presentation and open-ended adventuring."

    Andonov went on to explain that his corporation is the clear and undisputed trademark holder for the term "elder" and warns that other infringing parties such as the Box Elder School District in Utah will be facing similar litigation in the near future.

  79. To be fair... by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

    ...I don't know anyone who calls any Elder Scrolls games by that title. It's always "Daggerfall", "Morrowind", "Oblivion", or "Skyrim".

    1. Re:To be fair... by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

      I honestly thought "Elder scrolls" and "Oblivion" were two separate games until this lawsuit came up. I've always been terrible with names...

      --
      What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  80. Minecraft and skyrim very similar games by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    but Minecraft is soooo much better. Good thing the names are really really different so you know not to buy that skyrim piece of crap.

  81. YOU OWE US MONEY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bethesda law team, here. EVERY ONE OF YOU who just typed the word "scrolls" owes us exactly $29.95. We demand you remit this payment to:

    Bethesda Softworks LLC
    a ZeniMax Media company
    1370 Piccard
    Drive, Suite 120
    Rockville, MD 20850

  82. here is an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...what about the Dead Sea *Scrolls* ? It would be funny if some religious fanatics decided to sue Bethesda for some sort of infringement because of a 2150+ years old "prior art" invention ;-)

  83. Haha, what? by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    He also added that they've captured screenshots of Scrolls' trailer as a way of showing how Mojang has copied Bethesda because both Skyrim and Scrolls contain mountains.

    (Insert deity here) called, (s)he's going to sue both of you for using his/her mountains.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  84. What I don't understand is by richtaur · · Score: 1

    They initiated the lawsuit because they felt that Scrolls' existence *could* damage the Elder Scrolls brand. But the lawsuit clearly *is* damaging the brand, deeply. I know this because I'm a diehard fan (I reserved the huge Skyrim collection for $165 a while back) and now I'm finding myself embarrassed instead of proud.

    How is it possible that they're actually going through with this?

  85. Will they sue? by fcrick · · Score: 1

    I was about to release my new game Elder, which involves an old guy trying to climb up mountains...

    --
    Your signatures belong to me.
  86. Re:So now we need an Indy game dev to create Elder by Pesticidal · · Score: 1

    And don't forget to put mountains in it too!

  87. Re:Scrolls? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you still would like to play them with Bethesda getting no money, you could buy them from a local buy/sell/trade place. Gamestop is most common, but if you have a local less corporate shop nearby I would buy it from them. Sure you have to wait a bit longer, but you help support your local shop and you don't quite pay 60 dollars for the game.

  88. ha... by xkof · · Score: 1

    :)....My using scrolls, sometimes stolen from an elderly person, back in the 80's. I should dust off his character record and have him sue Bethesda.