They’re the ones who chose to name themselves with a common word. Nobody else. It was plainly obvious to anyone fluent in English that others would continue use that word, and as such it is utterly unreasonable to expect others not to use it.
Yes, there was and is a risk that others use the word “sky”. They knew that, and they chose to make a brand with it anyway. And, regardless of how they’re doing it, they’re trying to restrict the rights of other people to use that same common word.
Once again, this is over use of a common word. Not a new word. Not a specific combination of words. Not a stylised rendering or reading of the word. They just decided they’d start dictating limits on how other people use the word “sky”.
If I decide to use a common word as a brand then isn’t any confusion that arises entirely my own fault? Would it be in any way reasonable for me to expect others to change how they use the word as a result?
Actually it is the other way around. Apple Corps was constantly filing suit against Apple computers over the years. They eventually lost, but they get many millions out of Apple computers over the years. In that case Apple corps was the ‘harasser’.
Let’s hope that Delta Airlines won’t sue Unity Technologies, I did read somewhere that folks from that company are using something they call deltaTime. SILLY… But perhaps this is save as long Delta Airlines aren’t expanding their business and offer time traveling.
g2g now, The legal department of The Times called me… I wonder why
Why is this prompting so much discussion? Is it really that difficult to understand?
The word Sky is not trademarked, the product/service Sky TV is trademarked.
Trademark law dictates that you have to be shown to be defending your trademark in order to keep it.
That is what Sky are doing, they are legally obligated to protect their trademark. There is no malice here, they aren’t attacking Hello Games, it’s an obligation.
There are no good or bad sides here. Yes it’s bad that it took 3 years but so what?
And besides, the outcome shows exactly why trademark law is a good thing. Hello Games keep their name and Sky are shown to have actively defended their trademark.
There are plenty of other cases that are not so civil that would warrant much more discussion. Not sure why everyone’s got a bee in their bonnet about this one.
The outcome was that Hello Games, a very small developer, had to pay expensive attorney’s fees for three years, which would bankrupt most of us. Worse, it also means that literally most of us could face a similar process if all it takes is using a game title that contains a commonplace English word that happens to be used in at least one corporate name, which is true of literally all commonplace English words. The idea that a telecommunications company like Sky TV was obligated to defend its trademark against a completely unrelated entity (a game) with a name that doesn’t remotely resemble the name “Sky TV”, seems like a big stretch to me; but if that’s true then it only underscores the fact that almost any title could result in litigation that most of us cannot afford. Which title would be safe from litigation, aside from a completely invented name (e.g., “Ziglympuffzuch”) that isn’t found in any of the world’s languages? I’m not sure that “Ziglympuffzuch” would fit that criteria frankly, since it sounds vaguely German.
How long have they been getting assistance from Sony now? We don’t actually know that much about the supposed legal battle except it was taking place and was finally resolved. Sony could very well have supplied the attorney for them.
I’ve been in a ‘legal battle’ that went on for years. It felt a lot like lawyers deferring progress as much as possible on both sides. Our side won in this case (narrowly), but there wasn’t much feeling of victory, just a big ‘well thank god that’s over with’ sentiment.
I’d not be surprised if they delayed the game’s release due to this coming to a climax.
All of the reaction and discussion certainly seems warranted to me. The issue is with the common word “sky”. It means that numerous games such as The Adventures of Tree and countless others may find themselves in the same situation. If “sky” is a problem term then it seems “tree” would likely be one too. I am certain there are corporations with trademarked names that include “tree”. And then think of that in relation to any name any of us may choose.
Ultimately it is just a very stupid thing that never should have happened to begin with because it is not reasonable in any way.
There are so many assumptions being made here that have no way of being verified either way.
Regardless, this case had no bad outcome for anyone and like I said before, if we’re going to get the pitchforks out for trademark law, at least do it for a case study that says something one way or another. There aren’t exactly shortages of them.
That’s not true at all. Even if things were resolved in the end there was 3 years of distraction and potential worry, lawyers to be paid, increased project risk…
Its not just the destination. Sure, the final outcome may not have been negative, but would you like to have been the one tied up for three years to get there?
And that’s only because No Man’s Sky fought it. Sky TV likely knew they had no case. And in fact they didn’t have to litigate to protect IP… they could just send certified letters from their attorney warning NMS to not encroach on their brand.
The problem is, these mega corps have plenty of money on hand… so they litigate because the majority of the time the defendants don’t have the funds to fight it so they’d rather roll over than spend a bunch of money defending themselves, even if the likely outcome is victory.
If any tweaks do need made to the law, they should protect against malicious lawsuits more heavily and force the platiffs to pay the legal fees of the defendants when they lose trademark suits.
Which just skews things the other way, and makes it very risky for a small business to try and defend their trademark against a larger corporation. That’s important too. Its the reason why I eat Hungry Jacks instead of Burger King.
None of that stuff would really be an issue if trademarks couldn’t be used to “defend” against use of single, common words.
To be fair, maybe they were defending a logo, or a rendering, or a stylisation, or a similar contextualised use or something like that and we just haven’t been made aware of that aspect because of the “secret” nature of the discussions.
That could well have been all that it was, and it could have only taken so long because it’s unlikely to have been a priority for Sky (who’s legal representatives would probably have loads to go through - I somehow doubt they’re waiting around all day for opportunities to jump on little guys).
Also, this might have been between Sky and Sony rather than Sky and NMS, if Sony owns the IP or the trademarks or whatnot. Sony’s business does overlap with Sky’s.
It doesn’t matter what mark is trademarked. What matters is how they’re attempting to defend it, which in this case they appear to be doing by restricting how another group uses the common word “sky”. There could be details that would change that appearance, but this isn’t an isolated case which could be why it’s spurred discussion. I refer you to a case not that long ago where developers of “The Banner Saga” had to defend their already long term use of the common word “saga” because another game using it happened to get popular.
Again, it’s easy to say “no big deal, the Banner Saga guys got to keep using their title”, but they had to deal with the time, effort and cost of defending it. Once more, it’s one group trying to tell another how they can use a common word. And my points from before still stand - if you choose to use a common word in your branding and fail to appropriately contextualise it then it’s your problem if it causes confusion to your audience, not someone else’s.
On the subject of “delay” and how long things took, also keep in mind that the legal system in some countries can be slower than grinding your way through filler content in a F2P MMO.
I work in the legal field in the US. I am NOT a lawyer. I recently did a small piece of work on a case that was about a decade old. During that time, there was almost no regular activity on the case. Some of the delays would make sense to outsiders. Some would make you scratch your head and go, “Really?” It’s just the nature of the legal system.
In both civil and criminal law, a six month delay is nothing in many cases. As long as you’re not running into a statute of limitations on something, multiple delays can come up. The Hollywood ideal of a civil case which gets filed, tried, and resolved in the course of a single movie or TV episode is generally nothing but a fairy tale. In some jurisdictions, just getting to the first preliminary hearing might take longer than a TV season has to work with.
I spent over a year to get an insurance company to pay for damage after their insured got drunk and crashed his car through my fence, back yard, garden shed and trees and I still got shafted in the end and finally just settled with them.
Even if Sony paid the bills - and I doubt Sony is that generous with its money - what about the rest of us if something similar happens? It’s the use of a commonplace word that’s the main problem here, because almost anyone could face litigation over that.
I’ve been summoned for jury duty three times, so I know that 90% of the legal process is just sitting waiting for something to happen (and watching bad TV shows in the juror waiting room). But I also know that the expenses can be atrocious, and that’s the main concern. A three-year legal process is likely to be expensive.
Who said anything about money? Big corporations tend to have salaried lawyers. With the degree of backing that Sony seems to be giving No Man’s Sky it wouldn’t surprise me if they had them use their legal department. After all you wouldn’t want the product you’re promoting very heavily to go belly up on the last leg of development. That’d be embarrassing.