It is quite a sticky situation.
@CAFG and TS example - TS, in my eyes, was brought into the competitive scene by you and moose, but a lot of the ideas that remain to this day is thought up by me. Either way, if one of us were asked to make TS2 and make money out of it, it is more acceptable (but still classless) for the rest of us to sue, because we've actually put energy and effort into the map.
The Blizzard vs. Valve thing is with people who have NOT put any effort on the map vs. people who have hired, and is therefore giving monetary support to the person who
has put energy and effort into the game.
EDIT:
2) The EULA may state that Blizzard owns the maps Icefrog created for Warcraft, and the intellectual property associated with it, but EULAs may not stand up in court.
Aha! Here's where Blizzard can come in and might actually win this case. Although morally (as in "in our hearts"), Blizzard has lost on all fronts, I do believe that this EULA makes this case a sticky situation where Blizzard might come out top.
EDIT EDIT: If Blizzard owns DOTA 1, does it make them own or be able to trademark the phrase "DOTA" or Defense of the Ancients?
All biases and opinions aside...
my main point was to discuss the system in which games/intellectual properties are copyrighted and are owned.
The system pretty much makes it so that it doesn't matter who is the brainchild of the game, or even who actually understands the game. A person who was under a company and made a good game can be kicked out of the studio, and then years later be refused to make a sequel of the same game. The company who kicked this person out might never use this intellectual property to its fullest, or have even thought about doing it.
To me, this blizzard vs. valve thing is the product of a much bigger underlying problem.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 11 2012, 9:20 pm by UnholyUrine.
None.