Mike
Level 59
Report
|
First of all, I'll second myself, but if I do ever need a lawyer in the US, I don't call one, I call Knyte :d (but because he'll be rich as founder and CEO of a next GAFAM, I'll have to pay him a lot, on top of begging for his time :D)
Knyte, I'm worried you may have done all these researchs, not only for our curiosity and information sakes, but also for Activision lawyers (and maybe expecting something in return from them ? Not insulting you here, true question, and "not your business" would be a fair enough answer) ?
If so, please bear in mind that the game you may (still ? ...True question) love, or have loved once upon a time, giving you probably like the rest of us, at any point, hours of good time and enjoyment, and great people to "meet" and to talk to. All that may disappear eventually, shall Fizzer lose the case. I mean, in the worst case scenario, and possibly along with making Fizzer in debt possibly for the rest of his life (I'm not adding jail though, being only realistic), and breaking the toy of thousands of daily players. So, are you ready for all that ?
I understand you feel justice must rule, whatever it takes. Plus you feel betrayed. And probably as a gifted person, those feelings are stronger for you than for any common people. But still, let's be aware of all these possible consequences.
On the betrayal part btw, we could debate on the reasons you originally raised to feel betrayed, the legitimacy of these reasons, and the legitimacy to feel the way you feel, despite other things.
Other things such as despite Fizzer being on Activision's back for money, and hidding the truth to his community (that's your point right ? Well this has, so far, still to be proven), he probably makes way low money in relation to the quality of the product he made (as an indie, compare to what giants in the gaming industry would have made with the same great product, just with massive marketing budgets), or than the amount of time and quality (as in skills) of work he has put in his product, and so on.
Nobody should be happy in case of a lie from Fizzer to its community, but what if this was the only way for Fizzer to raise enough money to defend its platform against Activision attacking its brand ? Maybe telling the less dramatic truth would have raised less money, not enough, and prevented him from defending its work ? And keeping in mind that a failure to defend himself may cause the end of 15 years of work, his baby creation, his living material, and maybe his life (nobody knows how a human being may react when losing everything ; and double effect, after having tasted success thanks to it) ?
On another subect. How would you feel, as an indie app developer, or for indie app developers, who can't afford to trademark their brand name until they have reached some amount of benefits, but in the meantime, a big guy comes, sees the marketing opportunity of stealing some of the indie customer base, just by registering the name first ? Not every indie developers was born in a rich west coast family and can afford to avoid such situation.
Fortunately, this does not happen, as law was well written, and protects not the first user to have registered a name, but the first one to have been using it (or using it widely).
That being said. Coming back to the points you are raising today.
What Fizzer may have meant when saying "Warzone being an english word" to convince the disappointed users, may be that it is the composition of 2 words having a meaning when put together, of which common sense is enough to understand : "a zone where there is a war". You can not tell the same for "Warlight" (a light where there is war ?).
Also, can this line, that Activision's lawyers must be in possession by now, thanks to their own research or not, be accountable against Fizzer ? Fizzer did not seem to be talking about legal terms, but about strategic, and own perception terms. Now, if he used a legal term in the past, without knowledge of the law on this specific subject, and using it in a hypothetic wording, what value would this have in a court ? Or to a jury ? And how related to the subject would this be ? I would therefore object this argument.
Now, showing Fizzer saying exactly the opposite in your next screenshot, may not be necessarily by dishonesty, but this time simply starting using legal terms. Legal terms, or law, was born to protect businesses. Shall we blame Fizzer for starting using legal terms once a trial is under course and being here to defend himself ?
You're raising the question why Fizzer would ask for Warzone to be registered for him and not for Activision as being using it before, despite plenty former Warzone platforms exist ? And that as such, it makes no sense.
Well it does make sense, Fizzer (maybe with his lawyers help) explained : Activision may plan to prevent any former users, including Fizzer's platform, to keep using it. And without the possibility to find another domain name related to its product that he can afford, this may mean the end of Fizzer's world. Without mentionning all the accumulated marketing effort from Fizzer around the current name that would be lost and to start over.
Of course, you may wonder how, if the threat of destroying former platforms using the name was a good enough reason to grant Fizzer with the name, could this be granted since the same could then happen by Fizzer towards other former Warzone platforms ?
Well, apparently, they are all (or is it most ? Or all of those with a significant active user base ?) discontinued. So that's one difference with Fizzer's Warzone.
Second, Fizzer did mention he would not go against previous platforms. As far as we can tell, he only goes against big giants coming after his own platform. And if word was not enough, I have very little knowledge about laws, but this may well be added in written in a court decision, if needed.
Next you're asking -and you are right, but with your obviously high intellect, you already have the answer, so are you being totally neutral ?-, why, as an existing platform using a "Warzone" name before Activision did, would Fizzer gain cause from the court, when there are (were ?) plenty other platforms prior to Fizzer using the same name ?
Well, Fizzer has been the first ever, and before Activision's, to reach a valuable number of users, or MAUs, in a "Warzone" named platform. That's a difference with other former platforms.
For me, this last point may be the key (reading what follows of your message, I think that's exactly what you mean with "drawing the line", so we may agree at least on that principle) : from how many MAUs (monthly active users) does a plaform "acquire" the "right" to register a name that has been in use by others in the past ? Or how many MAUs (and maybe countries covered by its customer base) make a name "descriptive", as in giving it a "second meaning", or reminding the platform just by its name (if I finally understood this term correctly, this is what it is about at the end of the day) ?
- If it's 50 millions, then Fizzer can't beat Activision to it.
- If it's say 100 000, then Fizzer can, and former Warzone users can not.
- Maybe even 10 000 users is already enough, and maybe Fizzer's Warzone has been the first ever "Warzone" platform to reach such a number. These estimations, giving the win to Fizzer, do not seem too unrealistic to me.
- Maybe the popularity worldwide is part of the criterias too ? If so, Fizzer matches it, and I doubt former platforms do.
Maybe this is not even that. Maybe Warzone is the only currently still active platform using that name before Activision did ? And that may be an enough reason already.
Anyways. If things were so simple, how lawyers would not know (appeal from money, rather than winning a case ? True question about lawyers' integrity), and how a court case would take so long to be decided ?
(sorry for my english, not mother (nor father :p) tongue)
Edited 10/16/2021 23:31:48
|
