next »

[Alistair Aitcheson]

Thanks for clearing some of that up, guys. I didn't know that you had to actively enforce a copyright for it to continue to be valid, and that explains a lot.

What exactly was it that Lima Sky wanted to put a copyright on? As far as I had read, they had wanted to trademark the "Doodle" character name (as well as his design, which had already been trademarked), and were also enforcing their "Doodle Jump" copyright on games with similar titles which could be mistaken for a Lima Sky product. I thought those were two separate things.

[LemonScented]

Thanks for clearing some of that up, guys. I didn't know that you had to actively enforce a copyright for it to continue to be valid, and that explains a lot.

What exactly was it that Lima Sky wanted to put a copyright on? As far as I had read, they had wanted to trademark the "Doodle" character name (as well as his design, which had already been trademarked), and were also enforcing their "Doodle Jump" copyright on games with similar titles which could be mistaken for a Lima Sky product. I thought those were two separate things.

You're confusing copyright with trademarks, I think. You're not required to actively defend copyrights, although if you can afford the lawyers it's a good idea. With trademarks, it's a case of "use it or lose it", and using it includes defending it.

As I understand it, Lima Sky's trademarks would be defined roughly as "characters called Doodle who could be confused with Doodle from Doodle Jump" and "games with names including the word Doodle in such a way that customers could believe they were made by Lima Sky". Their copyright includes all of the code and art for Doodle Jump, but probably not the name itself and definitely not the gameplay (as demonstrated by the 'Splosion Man/MaXplosion debacle).

EDIT:

There have been many shovelware with the "doodle" name (or style) in the recent times, not counting all the variation based upon "crayon",and stuff like that. He's definitely not the first one to have had this "very original idea"

I could be completely wrong here, but as I understand it, the trademark belongs to whoever first registers it, not the first person to use a particular art style or name. The "prior art" thing applies to patents rather than trademarks or copyrights. The patent system is another discussion entirely, though.

This makes me think that everyone creating "Super XXX" back in the days of the SNES was violating Nintendo's copyright.   

This is obviously trademark trolling.  I get that Lima Sky needs to enforce their trademark, but the claim that because Apple has a trademark on Apple then it is entirely reasonable for him to trademark Doodle is ridiculous.

ARGH, copyright is not the same thing as Trademark! Calling stuff "Super" doesn't infringe on copyright, and would only infringe on a Nintendo trademark if (a) Nintendo trademarked it in the first place and (b) the "Super" was used in a way that implied it was a Nintendo game (probably only if it implied it was a Mario game).

Lima Sky aren't claiming they "own" the word Doodle via a trademark. The trademark they own covers any game which use clones of their character or games which could make people think it's a Lima Sky game.

copyright != trademark != patent

[Alistair Aitcheson]

Thanks for the explanation, LemonScented

[Fallsburg]

ARGH, copyright is not the same thing as Trademark! Calling stuff "Super" doesn't infringe on copyright, and would only infringe on a Nintendo trademark if (a) Nintendo trademarked it in the first place and (b) the "Super" was used in a way that implied it was a Nintendo game (probably only if it implied it was a Mario game).

Lima Sky aren't claiming they "own" the word Doodle via a trademark. The trademark they own covers any game which use clones of their character or games which could make people think it's a Lima Sky game.

copyright != trademark != patent

Sorry, I had a brainfart and typed copyright instead of trademark.  I know they aren't the same.  Thanks for believing me to be an idiot. 
From the Doodle's mouth:
"There was absolutely no rush to call a game 'Doodle Something' until Doodle Jump became famous. Then many developers began jumping on the bandwagon whether their game had any doodled elements in it or not. They were simply trading on the fame of Doodle Jump, for which Lima Sky has a trademark.

Under the law, like it or not (and we don't like it), we are required to ask those developers to stop using a name similar to our trademarks, whether the infringer is a little guy or a big guy."

I understand that a name such as "Doodle Leap", "Doodle Hop", etc. would be too close and they would be forced to defend the trademark, but that isn't the case.  He specifically calls out ALL 'Doodle Something' games.  This is directly similar to my 'Super Something' case.  I was just kidding when I said that because I don't believe that Nintendo ever tried to trademark 'Super Something' (I'm sure they trademarked Super Mario, Super Metroid, etc.), but what I was saying is that if they had it would have been the exact same situation.

On to my second point, which you conveniently ignored since it showed that I DO understand what trademark is, we will go back to the Doodle's mouth:
"Accelerato's Bryan Duke, and many of you, are ridiculing me for attempting to trademark the word 'Doodle.' But such is trademark law. Apple has a trademark on a name of a fruit (Apple)"

As I stated Apple is in the clear because the fruit obviously has nothing to do with computers.  If they were a produce company and tried to trademark "Apple brand fruits" it would be ridiculous, as clearly it is no longer a distinctive mark.  Doodle, and this is debatable certainly, is not in the clear, because it is easy to imagine lots of ways games could involve doodling (art-style, gameplay, etc).  I understand where he is coming from, and I'm sure that the prevalence of 'Doodle Something' games exploded after 'Doodle Jump' came out.  I just maintain that 'Doodle' in the context of a game is not distinctive.  If you disagree with that, then that's a reasonable discussion to have.

[LemonScented]

Sorry, I had a brainfart and typed copyright instead of trademark.  I know they aren't the same.  Thanks for believing me to be an idiot.

I don't. And I don't understand why you'd think I do.

[obscure]

It's not different from Langdell at all

Yes it is. A trademark exists if you use a mark for trade (regardless of if it is registered or not). The flip side is that a mark which isn't used to trade ceases to be a trademark (even if previously registered).

The Doodle Jump guy has a product that is actively being sold and thus a trademark exists. He is attempting to defend that Trademark.

Langdell on the other hand claimed ownership of a Trademark that had not been actively used for some years, solely for the purpose of getting small companies to settle and pay him a license fee. EA stood up to him and the court agreed that he had not been using the Edge name in any meaningful fashion in relation to games and his trademark claim was struck down.

[moi]

thanks, I was really waiting for that answer