Hacker News Reader

Comment by WastingMyTime89 | Hacker News Reader

Hardly reasonable. It’s a parody it should be fine. They probably would never have won the trial but they have the money.

The way modern corporation protects their branding is a huge infringement on artistic liberty and freedom of expression. It’s disturbing.

View on HN

Not to mention that they have or used to have fake video game boxes in their stores clearly using the likeness of video games. "Call of Mutti", "Grand Ma's Auto" - https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2xhloo/fake_games_a....

I suppose hipocricy doesn't apply if you're a rich enough corp.

> The way modern corporation protects their branding is a huge infringement on artistic liberty and freedom of expression. It’s disturbing.

Except they HAVE to defend their branding, or they could lose the right to it. If you don't enforce it you lose the right to enforce it.

Did the game use their branding?

It seems they stylized it in a way similar to IKEA, but it doesn't appear to use anything trademarked or copyrighted.

It's not like IKEA owns Noto or Verdana.

IKEA probably thinks they own that particular color scheme(big yellow letters on a blue building). Similar to how Deutsche Telekom(T-Mobile parent) thinks they own a particular shade of pink and sends a c&d to any webmaster who so much as uses that HTML color code as a background tag for an unrelated blog. The only way to have a semblance of free expression on the modern internet is using Tor,cryptocurrency,and offshore hosting to protect your identity from these overzealous legal firms.

What is this forbidden color hex code, so I can, umm... not use it on anything?

They even responded to Kotaku and said it was simply to protect the trademark, and they'd come to an agreement with the game maker. Blame trademark law, not Ikea

Reply on news.ycombinator.com