Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary. Anyway it doesnt matter whether its an actual word in the dictionary or not. You cant just take someones trademark and pluralize it.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
The case goes before a jury on February 28, 2011 with a estimated length of 5-10 days. That said, mediation between the parties was on the table, so the court date is really meaningless if mediation produces a settlement
Actually, fanboi, sembieda's initial case filed in Michigan was thrown out:
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
Actually the word coke did exist before coca cola and I tihnk that is what svann is referring to...coke is a type of fuel derived froml derived from f low-ash, low-sulfur bitumous coal and had bene used to fuel industiral furnaces since the industrial revolution.
However the majority of your point is valid as the usage of Coke in context of the conversation is as an abbrevaition of the name Coca Cola and not being used as a word in itself.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
Ok here, its closer to, if I made a book named Apples, because RIFT is a video game where as RIFTS are fantasy pen and paper books.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
Apple represents, again, a different kind of trademark. It is called an arbitrary mark. We're talking about using a real word that is descriptive of the company/product. Rifts defines the gameworld of Rifts, as does Rift: Planes of Telara.
Trademarks are broken up into categories for just this reason. Obviously computers named apple would result in a much stronger suit than Rift/Rifts.
(Edited to change a word...because I like words, so there )
Edit: For the record, I never said it wasn't a "real" word. I said it wasn't a word before the product/company existed or coined it. The word is as real as any other.
The case goes before a jury on February 28, 2011 with a estimated length of 5-10 days. That said, mediation between the parties was on the table, so the court date is really meaningless if mediation produces a settlement
Actually, fanboi, sembieda's initial case filed in Michigan was thrown out:
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Trion’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addition, the Court denies Palladium’s request
for expedited discovery. Finally, Palladium’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied for
lack of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This is true, however it was more of a technicality based on the fact that at that time RPOT was not marketed within the court's jurisdiction. Presumably that will change as soon as the game is released, unless Trion chooses not to sell the game in that state.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
Ok here, its closer to, if I made a book named Apples, because RIFT is a video game where as RIFTS are fantasy pen and paper books.
They arent basing the case on their pen and paper books. They are basing it on the trademark they were issued for the production of computer games.
Expand on your accusation of them 'ripping off content' from the Rift tabletop RPG? I see nothing here to support that.
My stance on this is that Kevin Siembieda has a history of being over litigious and uses these kinds of actions as publicity drives that invaribly bring more traffic and business to his site then the use of the of the common use word 'rift' by another company will ever cost him.
Sembieda should be thanking Trion for this, not attacking them. Any confusion that might result from the use of the word (something I find surpising in a hobby market full of games using VERY similar words in their titles, such as 'dungeon', 'dragon', 'quest', and others) can only benefit Palladium.
If Palladium can sue Trion for this successfully then WotC can justifiably sue every RPG using the word 'Dragon' in it's title since it's trade marking of the word as a key part of their own product's title. It's that ridiculous as a claim.
Dragon Age: Origin is, for example, more of a direct rip off of Dungeons & Dragons, in title, content, and spirit, then R:PoT will ever be of Rift, yet no one says jack about that. Mainly because WotC don't base their entire self promotion strategy on these kinds of pathetic assertions I would guess.
As a last note, Palladium games are just frikin awful. Badly written and badly designed and aimed at 13 year old boys who know no better. It seems the only time the company makes news these days is when they are attempting to sue someone for some use of a common word they seem to think they own. 'Has beens'? For sure. As for 'actively' attempting to develop a Rift MMO.. Yeah, right... They can only just raise the capitol to keep publishing their poor poor books as far as I can see, let alone something like that. It's just another desperate fantasist pipe dream from Palladium.
R.I.F.T.S is not what it classed as a tabletop (Warhammer 40K is a tabletop), it is a pen and paper roleplaying game.
And the general idea of the game is straight of and one of Rifts (telaras) classes are extremely like a ley line walker. There are a lot of likenesses.
Dragon age however uses D20 which is a open source verion of D&D, they have the full legal right to do that.
And Palladium games have some bad stuff but they also have some good. We have had some great times in R.I.F.T.S and Palladium fantasy.
The question is very interesting because there is a lot of rip offs in the MMO genre.How much can you actually steal before it is illegal?
And I have nothing against Rift and plan to at least try it but that doesn't mean that they didn't steal a lot of stuff. Another interesting aspect in this is that there are rumors about a R.I.F.T.S MMO in the making, if that is true I can really understand why Kevin sued Trion.
If only Trion had put in their game a 3 meter tall glittering mech, had differential terms such as M.D.C and S.D.C and whatnot, Kevin Siembieda would have a case. Do some research on Kevin and his company. Stiffing printers, screwing over authors left and right and taking some great I.P's and driving them into the ground with unbalanced systems (try being a dogboy and go against a Juicer, let alone a Glitterboy, hell, anything against a Glitterboy).
And a thread asking why Kevin is vilified; http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=280891 There used to be a ton of information about the underhanded nature on the old rpgsite.com but that site is gone.
Trion should mail the little dweeb a soiled sanitary napkin and tell him that is what his civil complaint is worth. Maybe if Kevin had worked on making his game system fun to play and not requiring entire addendum (no, seriously, there are entire published books of addendum for the Megaverse). Or maybe it was suing the early Palladium Megaverse fansites. Or not paying authors. Or just being a negative creep. His game would be more profitable.
But then again, his ego would still drive him to do something retarded. What will be interesting is after this case gets tossed Kevin will then be open for actionable case if he so much as looka in Trions direction for harassment.
Its called cause and effect. Its quite simple really. If PB loses this lawsuit, they may have little choice than to close there doors as there wouldnt be any way from that point on to maintain any creative control over there IP. And little guarentee that they would be able to continue to profit enough to maintain the company.
I do not agree at all. Nothing would change for them, except that they would pick up some extra footfall and, maybe if they like what is on offer enough, some extra business.
Your making the assumption here that Rift will be successful without considering the alternative possibility that it may fail. Which also leads to the possibility that it may reflect negatively on PB for the same reason you think it may help there sales. The fact that whether it helps or hurts them is entirely outside of PB's control is all the more reason for them to be concerned, not less.
There movie option would be closed as well, since Jerry Brockheimer would no longer have to keep them in the loop and paying for the option of making a Rifts movie when he could just make it anyway and change anything he wanted reguardless of whether it was anything similar to original Rifts or not. With more mainstream exposure of his Rifts movie, he would then be free to create an entirely new Rifts line of products ripping off Rifts at every turn and with PB shut out from there own IP and recieving no benefit from its creation from that point foward, it would be unable to sustain itself as a company.
Again, this is just untrue.
If, and thats a BIG 'if', Disney ever choose to pursue this movie and call it 'Rift' and use the distinctive assets of the IP (Juicers or other character types, the megaverse, the explicit portrayel of Rifts Earth and specific characters and races in published works, or whatever else) Palladium would be amply protected.
The fact is though that R:PoT uses none of the distinctive content of that IP, just the notion of dimensional tears, which as I have pointed out already Palladium did not invent the concept of or own the sole rights to.
Stating its untrue and then pointing out how its unlikely instead of false seems pretty weak. Untrue=/=Unlikely. The point is, these are destinct possibilities among many i dont have the time to get into. Others have been able to point out here on this thread blatant similarities so fortunately i dont have to.
Other small companies will see this for the threat it is and may choose to pack it in as well since they have no legal protections on any innovation of concept they produce, and only large corporations with money will put anything into the mainstream from that point onward which will lead to homogenization of IP's lead entirely by marketing research, rather than imagination and vision.
No, not true, and simply a false extension that is again somewhat overly dramatic.
As said before, any IP with a distinctive and original name (one that isnt a common word or been used in games/ comics/ books repeatedly before) that has distinctive elements of it's own is always going to be protected.
Maybe Palladium, if they really had wanted to have a unique name for it's 'unsophisticated' (their word) audience to remain unconfused about they should have actually invented one?
Your right, btw, anyone know where i can buy some cd's that isnt online? Not some commercial mainstream crap.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
People have so little understanding of trademark law. You can very easily make a company called Apple, as long as the products are not similar. Yes, you would get hosed if you started a computer/tech company and it contained Apple in the name.
But, you could easily start a restaurant, or a clothing line, vehicle manufactuer, etc.
This case from palladium is actually very much on the edge, i'm fairly confident that Trion is going to be victorious, primarily due to the fact that the only similarity between the two IP's is the idea of Rifts. The rest of the differences are astounding.
The other issue is exactly what Trion has stated, these two games compete in totally different markets. The chances of confusion are so slim its not even funny. Its literally like the MLB trying to sue the NBA because they're both games, played by teams of players, using balls.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
And since everyone is looking at this as being an issue of a pnp rpg game vs. a video game, i thought i would clarify the precedence that Rifts has set in terms of video games of its own with http://ngage.ign.com/objects/682/682885.html on top of the various proposals for a Rifts MMO.
And since everyone is looking at this as being an issue of a pnp rpg game vs. a video game, i thought i would clarify the precedence that Rifts has set in terms of video games of its own with http://ngage.ign.com/objects/682/682885.html on top of the various proposals for a Rifts MMO.
Trion has already stated they intend to seek cancellation of this registration, and based on comments by Siembieda himself, they have a very strong chance of being succesful at that:
This was posted april of 2006, and nothing video game wise, console/pc or otherwise, has come since.
"The truly wonderful Rifts® videogame – Rifts® Promise of Power – was stillborn. The N-Gage platform never took off in North America. That meant the N-Gage and Rifts® Promise of Power would NOT be available on the mass market in the USA and Canada. Finding it anywhere in North America required an act of God."
"Nor would there be a Nokia videogame sequel and the money that might come from it. "
"There were discussions with a company interested in doing a Rifts® MMOG but it didn’t pan out."
Notice how Siembieda HIMSELF in that quote, differentiates his product from an MMOG. That alone is going to give significant creedance to Trion's argument that they are different products.
The reality is Siembieda's company has been failing for a multitude of reasons, one of which is a lack of popularity of his products, especially recently. These lawsuits are simply attempts at gaining a settlement so he can continue trying to keep his company afloat. Trion may settle with him just to save time and headaches, but, given that i have actually read the court documents, in their entirety, by both parties, i can say that i feel Trion has a strong case.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
People have so little understanding of trademark law. You can very easily make a company called Apple, as long as the products are not similar. Yes, you would get hosed if you started a computer/tech company and it contained Apple in the name.
But, you could easily start a restaurant, or a clothing line, vehicle manufactuer, etc.
I understand that, but we arent talking about different products. I even said so in the post you just responded to. If your point is that its a computer game but its not exactly the same design I think you are way past a reasonable argument.
The other guy who said that the name has essentially been abandoned might have a point. But all PB would have to do is show that they have continued to make efforts to develop and/or sell the idea. Maybe they can show, maybe they cant. I doubt anyone here really has inside knowledge of that.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
People have so little understanding of trademark law. You can very easily make a company called Apple, as long as the products are not similar. Yes, you would get hosed if you started a computer/tech company and it contained Apple in the name.
But, you could easily start a restaurant, or a clothing line, vehicle manufactuer, etc.
I understand that, but we arent talking about different products. I even said so in the post you just responded to. If your point is that its a computer game but its not exactly the same design I think you are way past a reasonable argument.
The other guy who said that the name has essentially been abandoned might have a point. But all PB would have to do is show that they have continued to make efforts to develop and/or sell the idea. Maybe they can show, maybe they cant. I doubt anyone here really has inside knowledge of that.
This is an internet forum, not a conversation. My responses are to the directly quoted statements above mine. I never suggested nor implied that my argument was in regards to comparing R:PoT to the N-gage game.
I did make a second reply, which is what i think you mean when you say "the other guy", stating that the computer game part of it is a weak case because the game never really made it off the ground, and is the only example palladium has of a computer game. Trademark law requires you to actually do and continue to do something with the trademark otherwise it can be revoked or expire.
Your last statement there leads me to believe you're a pretty reasonable fellow, as thats basically the point i was making in my last post. I agree that only palladium knows whether they can truly demonstrate continued efforts after the attempt at getting an MMO made. Personally, given Palladium's poor continued financial situation, i doubt they'll be able to show anything outside of discussion, which legally amount to squat.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
The comments below that link I mentioned are interesting, some very insightful.
One in particularl I liked,
“A devastating magical eruption has tattered the veil between Telara and other planar dimensions. Perilous rifts occur when two planes intersect, allowing passage between different dimensions.
Rift: Planes of Telara™ is a fantasy MMO role-playing game set in a dynamic world being torn apart by powerful rifts from other planes. No part of Telara is truly safe, as rifts between the planes unleash sudden invasions without notice.”
So they havent ripped it off?
No more then Palladium's Rifts has 100 or whatever other science fiction or fantasy works that have used the very same basic concept. The idea of rifts as dimensional tears that allow travel or invasion has been in use for decades in books, games and comics. The lore of R:PoT is really generic tbh and was used heavily before Palladium used it, in Feist's Riftwar works as an example;
It's as feasible to sue someone for using the word 'dragon', 'dungeon', 'hero', or 'quest' as it is 'rift', but I have said all that already.
Look, the confusion I really had is that you suggested the article and legal documents themselves suggested Trion had 'ripped off content', not that a few posters in the comments below had that opinion.
It was pretty misleading as an OP.
Replying to comments in red, how was what I said misleading? Did I link to porn and tell you it was hello kitty?
I am really having a WTF moment right now. Are you arguing semantics? What do you think the lawsuit is about?
The lawsuit is about the name. You stated that it was about content being 'ripped off'. It isnt.
You linked to an article and set of legal documents, it was presented that you was talking about the article and not some comments by random users underneath. I am also not arguing semantics, though it's amusing that your use of the word is wrong in this case, so I guess I maybe now am.
Your assertions have been more then answered anyhow, calmly and rationally, so I think your somewhat hostile response is an over reaction.
Why don't you talk about the actual point I made in the same post about the notion of rifts as dimensional tears that allow invasion or travel being common and derivative, and not being owned by Palladium or anyone else as a concept, rather then being buthurt about me saying that your OP was misleading. In other words, why don't we get back on topic?
Expand on your accusation of them 'ripping off content' from the Rift tabletop RPG? I see nothing here to support that.
My stance on this is that Kevin Siembieda has a history of being over litigious and uses these kinds of actions as publicity drives that invaribly bring more traffic and business to his site then the use of the of the common use word 'rift' by another company will ever cost him.
Sembieda should be thanking Trion for this, not attacking them. Any confusion that might result from the use of the word (something I find surpising in a hobby market full of games using VERY similar words in their titles, such as 'dungeon', 'dragon', 'quest', and others) can only benefit Palladium.
If Palladium can sue Trion for this successfully then WotC can justifiably sue every RPG using the word 'Dragon' in it's title since it's trade marking of the word as a key part of their own product's title. It's that ridiculous as a claim.
Dragon Age: Origin is, for example, more of a direct rip off of Dungeons & Dragons, in title, content, and spirit, then R:PoT will ever be of Rift, yet no one says jack about that. Mainly because WotC don't base their entire self promotion strategy on these kinds of pathetic assertions I would guess.
As a last note, Palladium games are just frikin awful. Badly written and badly designed and aimed at 13 year old boys who know no better. It seems the only time the company makes news these days is when they are attempting to sue someone for some use of a common word they seem to think they own. 'Has beens'? For sure. As for 'actively' attempting to develop a Rift MMO.. Yeah, right... They can only just raise the capitol to keep publishing their poor poor books as far as I can see, let alone something like that. It's just another desperate fantasist pipe dream from Palladium.
R.I.F.T.S is not what it classed as a tabletop (Warhammer 40K is a tabletop), it is a pen and paper roleplaying game.
Thats your personal definition, I and others think differently...
And the general idea of the game is straight of and one of Rifts (telaras) classes are extremely like a ley line walker. There are a lot of likenesses.
I have already addressed the fact that dimensional tears used for invasion or travel is not an idea invented by Palladium, nor owned by them. I also do not accept a vague similarity of one class out of so many in R'PoT to one in Rifts as evidence, unless we are now reduced to scrabbling around for the flimsiest of connections to prove a point.
Please list your points detailing your claim of 'lots'.
Dragon age however uses D20 which is a open source verion of D&D, they have the full legal right to do that.
Link to this please?
Because the actual table top RPG of Dragon Age by Green Ronin dosent use the D20 system at all, and I have never seen any notation that the computer game does either.
I see no connection to the 3.5 ruleset in any of computer game's systems, which the OGL covers (if it even covers video games at all that is, I am not sure).
Anyhow, I said that dragon Age was more of a rip off to D&D in NAME, CONTENT, and SPIRIT, not the ruleset.
I mean, this is the game that declared itself as the 'spiritual succesor' to Balder's Gate (which WAS a licensed product based on D&D)... It is blatantly stealing it's very concept and identity from it's tabletop 'inspiration' (which, as a side note, does have a solid and living presence in the video game market, unlike Palladium), far more obviously then Trion are accused of by some, and yet people say nothing and accept it.
Why the double standards?
And Palladium games have some bad stuff but they also have some good. We have had some great times in R.I.F.T.S and Palladium fantasy.
Thats your opinion, and it's valid, but mine is that it's a horrible clumsy badly designed system that demands so many rewritten house rules to make it work to the level of a modern RPG that it's a joke.
The question is very interesting because there is a lot of rip offs in the MMO genre.How much can you actually steal before it is illegal?
Thats a good question, I agree.
Should GW have sued Blizzard for WoW for instance? I am sure that they intended to get into the MMO field 'one day' (as does Palladium, apparently maybe), and WoW is FAR more derivative of Warhammer then R:PoT is of Rifts (which apart from ONE word in it's name being the same and the common use of the old established notion of dinmensional tears it isnt).
And I have nothing against Rift and plan to at least try it but that doesn't mean that they didn't steal a lot of stuff. Another interesting aspect in this is that there are rumors about a R.I.F.T.S MMO in the making, if that is true I can really understand why Kevin sued Trion.
Again, please detail this 'a lot'. In fact, give me any real evidence that Trion even looked at the Rfit RPG before building their MMO in order to 'steal' off it, because you havent yet. It is easy to make a vague accusation without quantifying it.
If anything, content wise and lore wise, R: PoT has more in common with Oblivion then Rift... Are you also accusing Bethesda of 'stealing' from Palladium?
Lets even look at your beloved GW2 and it's plot...
"The game takes place in the fantasy world of Tyria, 250 years after the players defeat the Great Destroyer. Elder dragons sleeping beneath the continent have awoken, causing widespread destruction to Tyria and corrupting its inhabitants. The player is tasked with uniting the different playable races, whose combined strength is needed to effectively combat the elder dragons.
I mean... dragons and their hordes waking beneath the ground in order to spread corruption and wreak havok on the surface? And the players are asked to unite the races to fight them? Sound familiar? Swap out 'Tyria' for 'Ferelden' and 'Great Destroyer' for 'blight' and that could as easily be used to describe the plot of Dragon Age right? Are you going to accuse them of stealing it? Or would that be ridiculous?
See where I am going here?
As for the Rifts mmo 'in the making'... no. Kevin Siembedia has talked about wanting to make one, especially after his puffed up return from talking at a Blizzard seminar, but he talks about a lot. 9 out of 10 times about things that never happen.
If only Trion had put in their game a 3 meter tall glittering mech, had differential terms such as M.D.C and S.D.C and whatnot, Kevin Siembieda would have a case.
Do some research on Kevin and his company. Stiffing printers, screwing over authors left and right and taking some great I.P's and driving them into the ground with unbalanced systems (try being a dogboy and go against a Juicer, let alone a Glitterboy, hell, anything against a Glitterboy).
There used to be a ton of information about the underhanded nature on the old rpgsite.com but that site is gone.
Trion should mail the little dweeb a soiled sanitary napkin and tell him that is what his civil complaint is worth. Maybe if Kevin had worked on making his game system fun to play and not requiring entire addendum (no, seriously, there are entire published books of addendum for the Megaverse™). Or maybe it was suing the early Palladium Megaverse™ fansites. Or not paying authors. Or just being a negative creep. His game would be more profitable.
But then again, his ego would still drive him to do something retarded.
What will be interesting is after this case gets tossed Kevin will then be open for actionable case if he so much as looka in Trions direction for harassment.
Once a name has been trademarked for a specific use it is protected. It doent matter if it is a word in common usage. If the trademark was granted and recorded thats pretty much the end of the story.
Good thing the game is named RIFT and not Rifts.
Doesnt make any difference. Think you could market a soft drink called Cokes?
Coke is not a common word like Rift is.
Sure it is. See dictionary.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
People have so little understanding of trademark law. You can very easily make a company called Apple, as long as the products are not similar. Yes, you would get hosed if you started a computer/tech company and it contained Apple in the name.
But, you could easily start a restaurant, or a clothing line, vehicle manufactuer, etc.
I understand that, but we arent talking about different products. I even said so in the post you just responded to. If your point is that its a computer game but its not exactly the same design I think you are way past a reasonable argument.
The other guy who said that the name has essentially been abandoned might have a point. But all PB would have to do is show that they have continued to make efforts to develop and/or sell the idea. Maybe they can show, maybe they cant. I doubt anyone here really has inside knowledge of that.
This is an internet forum, not a conversation. My responses are to the directly quoted statements above mine. I never suggested nor implied that my argument was in regards to comparing R:PoT to the N-gage game.
I did make a second reply, which is what i think you mean when you say "the other guy", stating that the computer game part of it is a weak case because the game never really made it off the ground, and is the only example palladium has of a computer game. Trademark law requires you to actually do and continue to do something with the trademark otherwise it can be revoked or expire.
Your last statement there leads me to believe you're a pretty reasonable fellow, as thats basically the point i was making in my last post. I agree that only palladium knows whether they can truly demonstrate continued efforts after the attempt at getting an MMO made. Personally, given Palladium's poor continued financial situation, i doubt they'll be able to show anything outside of discussion, which legally amount to squat.
We will have to agree to disagree on that last point. Discussions and negotiations I think do amount to efforts at development (if they are documented).
The comments below that link I mentioned are interesting, some very insightful.
One in particularl I liked,
“A devastating magical eruption has tattered the veil between Telara and other planar dimensions. Perilous rifts occur when two planes intersect, allowing passage between different dimensions.
Rift: Planes of Telara™ is a fantasy MMO role-playing game set in a dynamic world being torn apart by powerful rifts from other planes. No part of Telara is truly safe, as rifts between the planes unleash sudden invasions without notice.”
So they havent ripped it off?
No more then Palladium's Rifts has 100 or whatever other science fiction or fantasy works that have used the very same basic concept. The idea of rifts as dimensional tears that allow travel or invasion has been in use for decades in books, games and comics. The lore of R:PoT is really generic tbh and was used heavily before Palladium used it, in Feist's Riftwar works as an example;
It's as feasible to sue someone for using the word 'dragon', 'dungeon', 'hero', or 'quest' as it is 'rift', but I have said all that already.
Look, the confusion I really had is that you suggested the article and legal documents themselves suggested Trion had 'ripped off content', not that a few posters in the comments below had that opinion.
It was pretty misleading as an OP.
Replying to comments in red, how was what I said misleading? Did I link to porn and tell you it was hello kitty?
I am really having a WTF moment right now. Are you arguing semantics? What do you think the lawsuit is about?
The lawsuit is about the name. You stated that it was about content being 'ripped off'. It isnt.
You linked to an article and set of legal documents, it was presented that you was talking about the article and not some comments by random users underneath. I am also not arguing semantics, though it's amusing that your use of the word is wrong in this case, so I guess I maybe now am.
Your assertions have been more then answered anyhow, calmly and rationally, so I think your somewhat hostile response is an over reaction.
Why don't you talk about the actual point I made in the same post about the notion of rifts as dimensional tears that allow invasion or travel being common and derivative, and not being owned by Palladium or anyone else as a concept, rather then being buthurt about me saying that your OP was misleading. In other words, why don't we get back on topic?
I thought the lawsuit was not about the name and was about content. Any "misleading" was unintentional.
In light of that, the lawsuit makes even less sense imo than it did before.
Comments
Sure it is. See dictionary. Anyway it doesnt matter whether its an actual word in the dictionary or not. You cant just take someones trademark and pluralize it.
That example is not even in the same universe as Rifts. Coke and Coca-Cola are fanciful trademarks. They were words that did not exist before the company/product. Same as Kodak and a slew of other novel-word trademarks.
Rift: Planes of Telara is a descriptive trademark that identifies qualities of the company's product. It can be very difficult for a company with a single word, non-fanciful trademark to defend it, because the word is exactly that: a word.
Rift is a common word, and is used in many, many places to describe holes between planes/dimesnions, etc.
Now, I'm not talking about copyright infringement, just the trademarks (copyright is a whole other ball of wax). And from the trademark perspective, I think the case would end up being more about dillution (taking customers away from Rifts/tarnishing the Rifts trademark, etc) than any actual name-stealing.
If I trademarked a product and called it "Chair," I couldn't hope to win a case against another product called, say, "Chair: This Sitting" unless I could prove that their product took my customers from me or made me look less awesome by sharing in the good name that I worked so hard to make "Chair" into.
So, it's a little less cut-and-dry than you're trying to make it. This is why we have courts. The details can be pretty complex and require arbitration and judgement.
(Edited for clarity)
Actually, fanboi, sembieda's initial case filed in Michigan was thrown out:
http://www.livingdice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/palladium-trion-worlds-decision1.pdf
I'll post the last bit from the court document:
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Trion’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In addition, the Court denies Palladium’s request
for expedited discovery. Finally, Palladium’s motion for a preliminary injunction is denied for
lack of personal jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Also, all the documents that were linked by the OP were in regards to the above linked case that was filed and dismissed in Michigan.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You arent even thinking about it. If your point is that Coke isnt a real word how about Apple? Think you would get away with marketing a computer line named Apples? Thats a direct analogy to Rift v Rifts. Theres no way you could do that.
HOLD THE PHONE, (always wanted to say that)
so, the big trial, is over? What happened to, they were in mediation till the court date?
Is the case your talking about "another" one by chance...just so I dont get confused?
Actually the word coke did exist before coca cola and I tihnk that is what svann is referring to...coke is a type of fuel derived froml derived from f low-ash, low-sulfur bitumous coal and had bene used to fuel industiral furnaces since the industrial revolution.
However the majority of your point is valid as the usage of Coke in context of the conversation is as an abbrevaition of the name Coca Cola and not being used as a word in itself.
Ok here, its closer to, if I made a book named Apples, because RIFT is a video game where as RIFTS are fantasy pen and paper books.
Apple represents, again, a different kind of trademark. It is called an arbitrary mark. We're talking about using a real word that is descriptive of the company/product. Rifts defines the gameworld of Rifts, as does Rift: Planes of Telara.
Trademarks are broken up into categories for just this reason. Obviously computers named apple would result in a much stronger suit than Rift/Rifts.
(Edited to change a word...because I like words, so there
)
Edit: For the record, I never said it wasn't a "real" word. I said it wasn't a word before the product/company existed or coined it. The word is as real as any other.
This is true, however it was more of a technicality based on the fact that at that time RPOT was not marketed within the court's jurisdiction. Presumably that will change as soon as the game is released, unless Trion chooses not to sell the game in that state.
They arent basing the case on their pen and paper books. They are basing it on the trademark they were issued for the production of computer games.
R.I.F.T.S is not what it classed as a tabletop (Warhammer 40K is a tabletop), it is a pen and paper roleplaying game.
And the general idea of the game is straight of and one of Rifts (telaras) classes are extremely like a ley line walker. There are a lot of likenesses.
Dragon age however uses D20 which is a open source verion of D&D, they have the full legal right to do that.
And Palladium games have some bad stuff but they also have some good. We have had some great times in R.I.F.T.S and Palladium fantasy.
The question is very interesting because there is a lot of rip offs in the MMO genre.How much can you actually steal before it is illegal?
And I have nothing against Rift and plan to at least try it but that doesn't mean that they didn't steal a lot of stuff. Another interesting aspect in this is that there are rumors about a R.I.F.T.S MMO in the making, if that is true I can really understand why Kevin sued Trion.
If only Trion had put in their game a 3 meter tall glittering mech, had differential terms such as M.D.C and S.D.C and whatnot, Kevin Siembieda would have a case.
Do some research on Kevin and his company. Stiffing printers, screwing over authors left and right and taking some great I.P's and driving them into the ground with unbalanced systems (try being a dogboy and go against a Juicer, let alone a Glitterboy, hell, anything against a Glitterboy).
here is a taste: http://shawnstruck.blogspot.com/2008/05/kevin-siembieda-calls-me-nasty.html
Maybe someone who worked with him can shed the light: http://spleen.mearcair.net/rifts/coffin.htm
And a thread asking why Kevin is vilified; http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=280891
There used to be a ton of information about the underhanded nature on the old rpgsite.com but that site is gone.
Trion should mail the little dweeb a soiled sanitary napkin and tell him that is what his civil complaint is worth. Maybe if Kevin had worked on making his game system fun to play and not requiring entire addendum (no, seriously, there are entire published books of addendum for the Megaverse). Or maybe it was suing the early Palladium Megaverse fansites. Or not paying authors. Or just being a negative creep. His game would be more profitable.
But then again, his ego would still drive him to do something retarded.
What will be interesting is after this case gets tossed Kevin will then be open for actionable case if he so much as looka in Trions direction for harassment.
TRUST THE COMPUTER! THE COMPUTER IS YOUR FRIEND!
Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!
Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues!
People have so little understanding of trademark law. You can very easily make a company called Apple, as long as the products are not similar. Yes, you would get hosed if you started a computer/tech company and it contained Apple in the name.
But, you could easily start a restaurant, or a clothing line, vehicle manufactuer, etc.
Need evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records
This case from palladium is actually very much on the edge, i'm fairly confident that Trion is going to be victorious, primarily due to the fact that the only similarity between the two IP's is the idea of Rifts. The rest of the differences are astounding.
The other issue is exactly what Trion has stated, these two games compete in totally different markets. The chances of confusion are so slim its not even funny. Its literally like the MLB trying to sue the NBA because they're both games, played by teams of players, using balls.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
And since everyone is looking at this as being an issue of a pnp rpg game vs. a video game, i thought i would clarify the precedence that Rifts has set in terms of video games of its own with http://ngage.ign.com/objects/682/682885.html on top of the various proposals for a Rifts MMO.
This thread started kinda shaky but you guys have brought out some great information.
Trion has already stated they intend to seek cancellation of this registration, and based on comments by Siembieda himself, they have a very strong chance of being succesful at that:
This was posted april of 2006, and nothing video game wise, console/pc or otherwise, has come since.
http://forums.palladium-megaverse.com/viewtopic.php?t=57048
"The truly wonderful Rifts® videogame – Rifts® Promise of Power – was stillborn. The N-Gage platform never took off in North America. That meant the N-Gage and Rifts® Promise of Power would NOT be available on the mass market in the USA and Canada. Finding it anywhere in North America required an act of God."
"Nor would there be a Nokia videogame sequel and the money that might come from it. "
"There were discussions with a company interested in doing a Rifts® MMOG but it didn’t pan out."
Notice how Siembieda HIMSELF in that quote, differentiates his product from an MMOG. That alone is going to give significant creedance to Trion's argument that they are different products.
The reality is Siembieda's company has been failing for a multitude of reasons, one of which is a lack of popularity of his products, especially recently. These lawsuits are simply attempts at gaining a settlement so he can continue trying to keep his company afloat. Trion may settle with him just to save time and headaches, but, given that i have actually read the court documents, in their entirety, by both parties, i can say that i feel Trion has a strong case.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I understand that, but we arent talking about different products. I even said so in the post you just responded to. If your point is that its a computer game but its not exactly the same design I think you are way past a reasonable argument.
The other guy who said that the name has essentially been abandoned might have a point. But all PB would have to do is show that they have continued to make efforts to develop and/or sell the idea. Maybe they can show, maybe they cant. I doubt anyone here really has inside knowledge of that.
This is an internet forum, not a conversation. My responses are to the directly quoted statements above mine. I never suggested nor implied that my argument was in regards to comparing R:PoT to the N-gage game.
I did make a second reply, which is what i think you mean when you say "the other guy", stating that the computer game part of it is a weak case because the game never really made it off the ground, and is the only example palladium has of a computer game. Trademark law requires you to actually do and continue to do something with the trademark otherwise it can be revoked or expire.
Your last statement there leads me to believe you're a pretty reasonable fellow, as thats basically the point i was making in my last post. I agree that only palladium knows whether they can truly demonstrate continued efforts after the attempt at getting an MMO made. Personally, given Palladium's poor continued financial situation, i doubt they'll be able to show anything outside of discussion, which legally amount to squat.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
The lawsuit is about the name. You stated that it was about content being 'ripped off'. It isnt.
You linked to an article and set of legal documents, it was presented that you was talking about the article and not some comments by random users underneath. I am also not arguing semantics, though it's amusing that your use of the word is wrong in this case, so I guess I maybe now am.
Your assertions have been more then answered anyhow, calmly and rationally, so I think your somewhat hostile response is an over reaction.
Why don't you talk about the actual point I made in the same post about the notion of rifts as dimensional tears that allow invasion or travel being common and derivative, and not being owned by Palladium or anyone else as a concept, rather then being buthurt about me saying that your OP was misleading. In other words, why don't we get back on topic?
double post.
Great post, and loving your Paranoia quote
We will have to agree to disagree on that last point. Discussions and negotiations I think do amount to efforts at development (if they are documented).
I thought the lawsuit was not about the name and was about content. Any "misleading" was unintentional.
In light of that, the lawsuit makes even less sense imo than it did before.