Comment by haberman | Hacker News Reader

Comment by haberman | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think you're going a little overboard. Can no one make a video game called "Rings" because of "Lord of the Rings?" Is "Legend" off-limits because of "The Legend of Zelda?" Or "Auto" -- does it belong to "Grand Theft Auto?"

And to say that this displays a "generational sense of entitlement" -- I think you're missing the actual point of trademarks, which is to protect consumers. Companies don't own phrases in the English language, they just have the right to ensure that their products cannot be easily mistaken for products from other companies. Considering that scrolls have been an element of RPG video games basically forever, I hardly think that the word "Scrolls" when applied to a video game is something so uniquely Bethesda that consumers would confuse "Scrolls" with "The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

Further -- if a game called "Scrolls" is published, it is in the best interest of consumers that another company can't put out an inferior game with the same name, and cash in on the confusion.

The system of trademarks is the way that's accomplished!

No, trademarks began and continue as a way to protect creators and commercial operators. It's a way to put your stamp on something and say "This is mine, I created it, I own it." It began, and remains, very closely tied to branding.

It's not about individual words. This is a red herring on Notch's part. Bethesda never claimed they owned "scrolls." They don't.

It's about Notch releasing a product in the same commercial space with a very similar sounding name to a product that Bethesda already owns.

As I said elsewhere, Bethesda must take action. They have no choice.

You're way off base here. The artificial construction of intellectual property exists solely because the state has created it as a monopoly, and a democratic state has no interest in doing such unless it benefits the public, not private operators. Private operators are protected in so far as the overall public interest is served (not being confused, sufficient reward for invention, etc.). If people aren't going to be confused, then there should not and ought not be a conflict.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com