Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Honestly I feel that PP posted the letter just to incite the fanbase.
It was unnecessary and a hostile act.

They are well aware of the reaction the GW notices caused and knew the likely reaction to posting it.
They chose to use it to enhance their "good guy" image vs GW. In my opinion of course.

Two companies made bad choices today.
One with a large fanbase of support.
Another with a product that has a limited user-base due to cost and competition.

The loss of Army Builder as a TM is a concern. They needed to address it.
The letter was not meant for public consumption. It was a communication between businesses.
Think about the business emails you may get at work. They are not always public friendly in tone because that is not their audience.

The internet brushfire it caused shows how ill-advised publishing it to the forums was.
A significant portion of forum posters love when something like this comes along and pounce on them.

skrulnik wrote:The loss of Army Builder as a TM is a concern. They needed to address it.
The letter was not meant for public consumption. It was a communication between businesses.
Think about the business emails you may get at work. They are not always public friendly in tone because that is not their audience.

The Army Builder Trademark is now safe, all websites contacted (at least four to my knowledge) have accepted the demands made.

That's never been my experience of business emails, certainly given the relationship between LWD and PP. Perhaps you do it differently in the US.

George Spiggott wrote: That's a C&D to Forward Kommander. Feel free to link to it if I'm in error here.

I would imagine they sent the same letter to both companies, but that's just me assuming. It's late here, but I can't recall there being anything special in the C&D letter that would make it unique to one company.

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

Gornall wrote:Yeah, AB could have chosen a less generic name for their product, but they do have a legal trademark for it and have to defend it or lose it (I think). Unless I'm mistaken, it's pretty cut and dry.

That's completely accurate. If you don't police a trademark, you risk losing. Simple as that. So we have no choice in the matter. Unlike most matters, ownership does *not* provide the option to selectively choose who gets told not to use the mark. We have to contact everyone that we become aware of. That really sucks when you know the folks are just fans trying to have fun playing their games.

Gornall wrote:EDIT: I was refering to the letter sent to ForwardKommander, not PP. Oops. The one to PP is significantly different, and is slightly more heavy-handed, as it's a bit much to expect that kind of control on a forum board. TBH, I think PP went overboard too, as something along the lines of a sticky and doing some copy-paste might have been enough. Dunno.

The way things work with IP is that, as far as I understand it, we have to go through the site owner. Most of this was set forth within the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The site owners have a safe harbor, provided they actively assist anyone who comes to them with an IP issue regarding users of the site. If the site owners refuse to cooperate, then they can become legally culpable.

Also, in this particular instance, things had become really bad in a span of months, and we truly needed PP to assist in the process to rein things in quickly. How they chose to react was extreme and unnecessary, but it was their option to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:You can use "Army Builder" when referring to the product itself, but you can't use "army builder" in a generic sense.

Exactly.

UltraPrime wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

x2

He quoted me so much that people will think I'm a LWD plant!

Gornall wrote:They specifically asked that all the references be removed/edited.

In any C&D situation that I'm aware of, the party issuing the C&D asks for the maximum. Then discussions ensue, and a compromise is reached, unless the recipient is doing something seriously egregious (like using your trademark in the name of their own product). Based on communications with PP on Friday, I thought we'd be doing that today (Monday). PP opted otherwise before any discussions were held.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Over the past six months various gaming fora have been discussing and critizing GW's cease and desist push. OBVIOUSLY this context would determine the reaction to your own C&D. When you issue a formal C&D why would you be surprised at any reaction from PP? Might it be possible that PP was just as surprised when it received the C&D? Perhaps you should have approached them informally first.

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Exactly. They contacted us within 24 hours (on Friday). They asked if everything needed to fixed within 72 hours and there were told explicitly "no". They were also told explicitly that the timetable was not important, provided we begin working something out that would serve well for the long-term. Based on that, I expected discussions on the next business day (Monday) - not the actions they chose.

Did they get the notice on Friday? If they did, they could have felt pressured by the 72 hour deadline over the weekend (potentially unable to contact you during that time) if they thought Monday was a hard and fast deadline.

EDIT: NINJAED!!

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

The issue here is referred to as the "genericization" of a trademark. If a trademark becomes a generic term, then it can be lost. There is useful explanation of this on wikipedia. I've provided the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

In our case, there are numerous alternative terms that can be used in place of our trademark. And we need to ensure that everyone uses such terms in reference to other tools and the category of tools in genera. For example, "army creator", "roster construction tool", "points calculator", etc.

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

Yes, the name becomes a synecdoche like kleenex or hoover.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

The issue here is referred to as the "genericization" of a trademark. If a trademark becomes a generic term, then it can be lost. There is useful explanation of this on wikipedia. I've provided the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

In our case, there are numerous alternative terms that can be used in place of our trademark. And we need to ensure that everyone uses such terms in reference to other tools and the category of tools in genera. For example, "army creator", "roster construction tool", "points calculator", etc.

I appreciate the response but the link you posted refers to a manufacturer and particular product that has become synonymous in the public eye with all forms of that type. A good example of that would be Hoover - many people use Hoover as a generic name to refer to a vacuum cleaner purely because Hoover the company have become synonymous with vacuum cleaners. In this case, I believe you are trademarking a generic term - how can you argue that Army Builder can be otherwise? It's the same as me designing a piece of software to edit movies and calling it Movie Editor.

Fateweaver wrote:Woot, wonder how many people will stop using LW's software because they sent a C&D to PP.

GW does it to sites illegally using their name and imagery and people scream about it. LW does it to PP and I don't see pitchforks and torches being brought out.

The fickleness of nerddom.

I haven't experienced any of that fickleness. There has been quite a lot of vitriol over this issue. And yes, we've had a few folks email us that they will be abandoning our products because of it.

We're in a lose-lose situation. We either risk angering users who don't like us doing this or we risk losing the trademark upon which our most well-known product is based. We can potentially survive and/or recover from the former. Not the latter. Since there are a number of us who's mortgaged and rent payments depend on sales of our products, and since we like what we do, our only real option is to protect the trademark and keep our fingers crossed that the majority of folks out there understand what we're striving to do and support us.

filbert wrote:I appreciate the response but the link you posted refers to a manufacturer and particular product that has become synonymous in the public eye with all forms of that type. A good example of that would be Hoover - many people use Hoover as a generic name to refer to a vacuum cleaner purely because Hoover the company have become synonymous with vacuum cleaners. In this case, I believe you are trademarking a generic term - how can you argue that Army Builder can be otherwise? It's the same as me designing a piece of software to edit movies and calling it Movie Editor.

Take that up with the Trademark Office. Whether or not you think it's correct, the Trademark Office already gave LWD the trademark on "Army Builder", so it is now theirs, regardless of whether we feel it is too generic or not.

Gornall wrote:
Take that up with the Trademark Office. Whether or not you think it's correct, the Trademark Office already gave LWD the trademark on "Army Builder", so it is now theirs, regardless of whether we feel it is too generic or not.

I suppose the LWD guy will comment on it. Strange though - if you open up Army Builder and go to Help > About Army Builder and look at the splash screen, the small print says Army Builder is a registered trademark. The symbol next to the Army Builder is 'TM' however, which is an unregistered trademark.

EDIT: I don't mean to be pedantic, just trying to establish the grounds upon which LWD are defending this. Obviously, if it is a registered trademark then they are afforded all the protection under the sun assuming the trademark isn't lapsed. However, it's a bit different with unregistered trademarks, although there is a certain amount of protection under common law.

CT GAMER wrote:Bottom line: Lone Wolf had a programmer send out a badly proof-read document (it had typos and used Wikipedia as a legal reference) posing as a C&D letter.

I sent them a message on their forums. It was not a C&D letter. Had it been a C&D letter, it would have looked very much like the one received by the Freek Punt. That letter *was* sent by our attorneys and it left no option for discussion. In the message to PP, the goal was to work out something with them to educate the users, but I was told by our attorney to be firm, so I was.

Secondly, it did *not* use wikipedia as a "legal reference". Since it was directed at the PP forum administrators, who I assumed weren't lawyers, it pointed out the same article I referenced earlier as a layman's explanation of what trademark genericization is. I'm guessing most folks here on this forum weren't familiar with that concept, and since it was central to understanding the problem on the PP site, I figured it would be helpful.

CT GAMER wrote:They have made profits for years off of other people's IP. They make a program that they 100% know is used by the vast majority of users to swap and share the IP of other companies.

That's not true for the folks I've ever met that use our product. I've definitely heard claims of this from people on various forums, but never from anyone who I've considered credible. Over the years, I've asked numerous *retailers* about this issue. These are folks whose livelihood depends on selling the books and the figures, and I talk to hundreds of them every year at tradeshows. Every single one of them that I've talked to has emphatically stated that Army Builder helps them sell more army books and more figures. Why? Because it let's gamers play around with army lists they don't yet own, then get hooked on an idea and ultimately buy a new army. When they buy the new army, they get the book and hundreds of dollars of figures. When I have retailers unanimously tell me that Army Builder is a sales tool that helps them sell more books and minis, I have no trouble sleeping at night. I know that the companies whose products we support make *more* money due to our product.

I assume that your assertions are based on the local group you play with. So it appears that the crowd you game with is atypical from everyone I talk to around the nation.

UltraPrime wrote:

lonewolfdevel wrote:

filbert wrote:*snip*.

Thanks for that. Some of us here do actually understand, and are supportive of your actions.

Count me as one of them. You really don't have a choice.

Now, a mean person might suggest that Matt Wilson, given his artistic background, and his illustration style, and his work at Marvel, is well aware of the character of War Machine. Both are robotic in appearance, and the layman might be confused by Warmachine being some alternate time-line toys. Replace super science with super magic...

Given some of the Hordes sculpts, I'd even say that Rob "90% muscle" Leifield might have a few words to say as well...

CT GAMER wrote:The letter( complete with typos and wikipedia references despite being presented as an offical buisness document discussing legal matters) was written by LWD president "Rob" who stated on the PP forums himself (he joined this afternoon) that he "ran it by" his crack legal team before shooting it off in email form to the PP foum administrator...

I'm really getting tired of the repetition and the regular misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance of facts. It reminds of my nephew when he would throw a tantrum back when we was 7 years old....

In any case, I never said I ran it by the attorneys, because they never saw the email. I was given a C&D letter from the attorneys that would basically give PP no options but to take severe action. I didn't like that, so I wrote something that I thought would get their attention as "this is really important" without forcing them into a no-option situation. When I communicated with them on Friday, I thought everything would work out fine. On Monday, it was completely different than I expected.

Maybe I completely failed in writing that message to their forum admins. But please stop going on and on like a broken record and making up claims that are completely false to try and convince people. You've pleaded your point. It seems some people don't agree with you. That's their choice, just as you have every right to your own opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Likewise LWD owns "Army Builder" (capitalized name of a specific product) but that doesn t mean that you can't have apps/programs that are "army builders" (not capitalized)...

Rob was arguing on the PP forums that people saying thinsg like " What army builder program do you prefer" is an IP violation,etc. and was threatening to take action against PP if they allowed people to use such phrases not in reference to LWD 's product...

It seems the problem here is that you refuse to accept the reality of the situation. What I was claiming on the PP site is 100% accurate *and* legally enforceable. Since it apparently didn't sink in on the PP forums and that thread has now been deleted, I'll restate it here.

The term Army Builder is a *registered* trademark belonging to Lone Wolf Development and as such we have exclusive rights to use that mark in connection with any game-related computer software. That means we have complete authority to say what can/can't be done with that term in any official setting, which includes online forums, at least as it pertains to game-related computer software. The presence of capitalization is *irrelevant* here.

This means that the use of the "Army Builder" to refer to a specific product other than ours is not allowed. This means that the use of the term "army builder" as a description of a category of tools is not allowed. Period.

What you say to your friends is completely up to you. What gets posted in forums such as this one and the PP forums is subject to IP law. Since we have a *registered* US copyright, we *can* legally require a website to conform to those requirements.

Do I *want* to be doing this with my time. Heck, no. Do I have a choice in the matter? No again. Due to the trademark laws, we are required to police the mark and make these demands. If you don't like it, petition your congressman to change the laws.

Please note that we have *no* objection to the use of generic terms with similar meaning, such as "points calculator", "list creator", or "roster construction tool". However, we cannot allow the improper use of our mark, as doing so could result in us losing the trademark.

I hope this is now painfully clear. If not, I strongly urge you to consult someone with a legal background to confirm this. I would have done in response to some of the posts on the PP forums if the thread had not been closed while I was in the middle of responding to everyone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:Over the past six months various gaming fora have been discussing and critizing GW's cease and desist push. OBVIOUSLY this context would determine the reaction to your own C&D. When you issue a formal C&D why would you be surprised at any reaction from PP? Might it be possible that PP was just as surprised when it received the C&D? Perhaps you should have approached them informally first.

In hindsight, you're 100% correct. I've been working 100-hour weeks for a *long* time now and the brain gets foggy. When you're going through and contacting multiple sites about these sorts of problems, you get into a flow. In the case of PP, I should have stopped and realized that I needed to handle things differently. Sadly, I didn't think of that until the next day, long after sending the message to them. Shortly after that realization, I got an email from PP's head of licensing and the nature of that discussion had me believe that we'd be working something out the next business day. Instead of a discussion, PP went ballistic on this before any discussion could be held.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

olympia wrote:synecdoche

Now there's a word you don't see everyday. Well done, sir! :-)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:I suppose the LWD guy will comment on it. Strange though - if you open up Army Builder and go to Help > About Army Builder and look at the splash screen, the small print says Army Builder is a registered trademark. The symbol next to the Army Builder is 'TM' however, which is an unregistered trademark.

EDIT: I don't mean to be pedantic, just trying to establish the grounds upon which LWD are defending this. Obviously, if it is a registered trademark then they are afforded all the protection under the sun assuming the trademark isn't lapsed. However, it's a bit different with unregistered trademarks, although there is a certain amount of protection under common law.

With respect to trademarks, the name and the logo are distinct. The name is considered as "typed" mark, as in typed out on the typewriter. A logo is considered a "drawn" mark. In our case, the name Army Builder is registered as a typed mark. The logo is merely simply a trademark that we've claimed, without the additional protection a registered trademark would confer.

malfred wrote:

I hate to spoil a good joke, but a reference to MEAD would only work if Le Grognard
had said that he uses a five star, or whatever MEAD is calling their heavy duty notebooks
these days.

That's the only note book company I could think of off the top of my head.

I love your software and while I have yet to buy/install the latest version I will as soon as the Tyranid datafile is ready for it. I've played with the trial one a bit and it is such a nice program.

Thank you for it. Not many people appreciate what you have to do to protect your skin. It's a shame some of the measure you have to take but people have to understand the legality and reasons behind those measures.

Ah, I see the president of Lone Wolf has began watching this thread. I'm not sure if you're aware, but this forum largely consists of IP lawyers who also happen to enjoy wargaming. As such, expect to get schooled in the finer points of IP law... hey, Chapterhouse guy, stop snickering and eat your popcorn quietly!

LWD's letter wrote:There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. "roster construction tool", "list createor", or "points calculator") in place of the "Army Builder" name.

lonewolfdevel wrote:
The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

PP did exactly what you demanded to do, they wordfiltered all references to your trademark. You're just trying to backpedal because you've realized that this hurts you more than in helps you.

skrulnik wrote:Honestly I feel that PP posted the letter just to incite the fanbase.
It was unnecessary and a hostile act.

PP did this so we all know why things are the way they are. We have all the facts and can decide for ourselves who is being the douche bag here. If they weren't so forthcoming and had just banned the term Army Builder without explanation, or even with an explanation in PP's own words, we would be left to speculate on what is true and what isn't, and I'm sure you know how crazy internet conspiracy theories can get. PP made a choice to protect themselves from such speculation by disclosing the full facts. If the facts make LWD look like a-holes, then too bad.

lonewolfdevel wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:The letter( complete with typos and wikipedia references despite being presented as an offical buisness document discussing legal matters) was written by LWD president "Rob" who stated on the PP forums himself (he joined this afternoon) that he "ran it by" his crack legal team before shooting it off in email form to the PP foum administrator...

I'm really getting tired of the repetition and the regular misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance of facts. It reminds of my nephew when he would throw a tantrum back when we was 7 years old....

I'm sorry, but what did you expect? That everyone instantly jumped on your bandwagon against Privateer Press and all these other criminals? When the very basis of Army Builder is the use and dissemination of copyrighted materials? Oh, sure, you the company have nothing to do with that, but without other people breaking copyright by creating data files for the software, you would be out of business faster than a pork butcher in Mecca.

You're experiencing backlash because of the inherent hypocrisy of your position. This has nothing to do with what's legal and what's not, but a far simpler notion of what's morally right in the minds of common gamer plebs. These aren't legal scholars. They're simple people with simple ideas. You know... morons. You want everyone to play nice and respect your trademarks? Tough noogies, life doesn't work that way, especially on the Internet.

(a copy of my statement to this effect was emailed to LWD earlier, but I just got a boomerang back from my ISP, looks like all email service is down for the time being)

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark.

So how do they do that? If I call my cheap mp3 player an iPod when talking to my friend on the bus, can Apple sue the bus company? Because that's exactly what is going on here.

They do it by taking reasonable and practical steps to suppress incorrect use.

It is reasonable and practical to ask someone on the bus to stop calling something an iPod? No.

Is it reasonable and practical to ask the operators of an internet forum devoted to wargaming to stop users misusing the trademark name Army Builder™? Yes, so that's what they have done.

Upon reading Aga's post, I must note that there is some most delicious irony in this situation. Essentially, someone who has developed a piece of software whose sole purpose is the contributory infringement of other people's IP (hey, sounds familiar?) has issued a statement demanding their IP rights be respected by one of the parties upon whom's rights they are infringing. Must have brass ones bigger than an Warhound Titan, amirite?

lord_blackfang wrote:
It's something else entirely to demand that PP censor their customer's online discussions because they're using the word wrong.

Except that this is what they're required to do by law. If they don't impose this type of censorship they will lose their legal protection and the trademark will be considered abandoned.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark.

So how do they do that? If I call my cheap mp3 player an iPod when talking to my friend on the bus, can Apple sue the bus company? Because that's exactly what is going on here.

Its not easy to enforce. Thats why so many trademarks have lost their protection. Car, thermos, cellophane, "e-mail", zipper and escalator are examples of trademarks where those companies failed to protect their trademark and allowed them to become generic.

Apple couldn't sue the bus company if you used the word on their bus, but if you spray painted it on the bus, Apple could sue them to remove it.

Elusive71 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

Kind of a harsh generalization innit?

No... don't you want to know what you've just obligated yourself to. Like knowing when you've given them permission to manipulate your computer, delete files off it at will, or what they'll ban you for.

Ouze wrote:Ah, I see the president of Lone Wolf has began watching this thread. I'm not sure if you're aware, but this forum largely consists of IP lawyers who also happen to enjoy wargaming. As such, expect to get schooled in the finer points of IP law... hey, Chapterhouse guy, stop snickering and eat your popcorn quietly!

I had no idea about that. Our IP lawyer is also an avid wargamer. Unfortunately, getting schooled by him is incredibly expensive. Getting schooled by you guys will be much easier on the pocketbook, albeit probably significantly more embarrassing as my comparative ignorance shines forth. :-<