Devs: We'll bury Candy Crush King under HEAPS of candy apps Independent game-makers are hoping to inundate Apple's App Store with "candy" games in a demonstration against Candy Crush Saga-maker King for its trademark of the word CANDY. In a rather pointed protest, the developers have launched a game jam to try to get as many app-makers as possible to come up with games using candy, …
I really am starting to find this trademark business to be total BS and believe it should be abolished. The only ones getting anything out of this are the lawyers, seeing as the trademarks are being enforced on an "who can we screw" basis.
Think about it, Apple rounded corners, King with Candy and Saga and I could go on but pretty much everyone who reads this knows what I mean.
Its absolutely mad that they trademarked Saga and are going after the devs of Banner Saga which in no way is related to Candy Crap Saga.
Bah I need a beer.
I disagree - they can be equated on the grounds of the absolute stupidity of what they both represent.
I understand that patents are meant to protect novel solutions to problems and ingenuity etc but exactly what problem did round corners solve? Were people cutting themselves on objects like cell phones and tablets prior to this sheer bit of inventiveness on Apples part? Hell. No.
And to the original posters point, this is spot on. He might have mixed up patent law and trademark law and copyright might be a whole 'nother beast, but let's be clear; the only people benefiting from the perverse way these laws are now being manipulated, enforced, and trumpeted is the lawyers.
Do you think the King CEO decided to file the objection to Banner Saga? A cold beer says it was some lawyer / general counsel sort, who's sole existence on this planet is to make asinine recommendations like this made a recommendation further fueling crappy stories like this.
The system got broken somewhere, and I think incidents like this highlight how it's time it was repaired.
" they are in fact handled by completely different laws, namely patent law and trademark law, they can't be equated."
I have no idea why some people down-voted a statement of simple fact.
I believe that's half the problem with the issue: Some people just don't understand it and believe all IP to be 'bad'. Short odds that they've never created anything in their life.
Rounded corners were around in Roman times when they built forts that the corners couldn't be knocked off.
In the brightly coloured 70s we even had tables with rounded corners so anyone putting their Matteus Rose too close to the edge had to face the wrath of the kaftan wearing hostess as the white fluffy carpet turned pink.
In the 80s my playing cards (yes, those marked ones) had rounded edges too.
So, in short, I don't understand any of the patent and trademark business because I am sure that I have seen it all before.
Trademarks have their place. If someone makes a superior product there should be some way for them to protect the product identifier so it can be easily distinguished in the market place. I've been on the end when someone when someone was obviously infringing on a trademark and service I helped create and which deserved protection.
The problem is that the politicians on both sides of the pond have rewritten the rules and destroyed the system in the process. King should not have been able to trademark or service mark "candy". I could perhaps see "candy crush", although I think it should be something more along the lines of "candy krush" to be eligible. He does have something of a point about the buzzword bingo on the infringing name - I don't think he missed any of the top selling game names in the mash up. The thing is, the search word biz is setup to encourage exactly that sort of gaming. So while I think it's kind of slimy, I don't think it rises to the level of lawsuit worthy. So more demerits for King than the guy he bitch slapped.
I agree to a point, trademarks did have a use. But does anybody seriously believe that in the current times that Coke/Nike/Apple/etc really need that little mark to 'protect' themselves? From who exactly?
From what I can see they do need legal protection from any potential damage caused by a 'competitors' product that might be misattributed to themselves. But that doesn't need the whole mess and farce of trademarks.
I think a similar argument could be said for patents and copyrights, some of the basic ideas are needed, but not as they currently are written and enforced.
Unless it's a made up word, then it's reasonable you can have the word. Like Motorola, picked because they making car radios and lots of music products ended in ola (victorola etc).
Or initials like RCA, HMV, JVC (who are/were Victor in Japan, but not allowed that especially in USA because of RCA Victor).
RCA and EMI both owned Trademark rights to "His Master's Voice though as it belonged to Victor Talking Machine who founded HMV (became EMI when it took over Columbia graphophone, who was founded by the same people as Columbia in US that became CBS).
So even when Trademarks start off sensibly unique it can get complicated as companies spin off foreign subsidiaries or merge. Or both.
The Beatles arguably then should not have been allowed Apple Corp. but only Apple-Core or Apple-Corp. However it gave them opportunity to sue Apple Computer TWICE (successfully) who deliberately choose Apple with bite out and Apple name to copy / fanbois Beatles. Apple now dropped Computer as the they don't rely on computer sales (C.f. Kentucky Fried Chicken now officially KFC).
Well, it should be. It's also generally not allowed to trademark a dictionary word, which makes this one rather odd.
Especially as the word "Candy" has been used in many thousands of other computer games, so they don't even have the Apple Computer/Apple Music distinction (which got very lawsuit-happy later on...)
Trademark law is an odd one though, because you lose it if you don't defend it - unlike copyright or patents.
Isn't a trademark more than just a name?"
A trademark can be any identifying symbol or wording. That's its purpose - to identify a particular brand or product and in practice almost anything that serves that purpose can be trademarked.
For example, "Coca Cola" would involve multiple trademarks - the name itself, the logo, the bottle shape, the design on the bottle/can and any phrases they use, such as "Enjoy Coke" and so on.
Of course, none of that is defending the words 'Candy' and 'Saga' as trademarks.
As I understand it, if it can be used to identify a business it can be used as a trademark. (Three piles of cow dung anyone?) Words themselves qualify with certain provisos - no generic terms, proper names etc. If the bare word doesn't qualify you can always make a trademark by writing it a certain way for example the, in itself fairly generic word, 'ford' written in a fancy typeface placed in an oval.
Angry Clash of Candy.... should about cover this. Wonder why there isn't a Court/Lawyer game? Like Sims but start as a young fresh-out-of-college intern to judgeship? Intrigue, the stepping on bodies_as_rungs_in_a_ladder.... ambulance chasing, all that fun stuff..
Edit: I'm boring myself. Going to see how my TH fared while I was asleep.
Carry on.
On the one hand, I appreciate that trademarking the work Candy does seem ridiculous, but on the other hand, if you search for candy in the Google Play store, you get:
Candy Star
Candy Blitz
Candy Boom
Smash Candy
Candy Blast
Candy Star (again)
Candy Line
Candy Blitz (again)
Candy Rescue
Candy Deluxe Pro
Pop Candy
Candy Jewels
Candy Crunch
Candy Carnage
Candy Link
etc.etc. etc.
The icons of which all look cynically derivative, aiming to capitalise on the popularity of Candy Crush Saga, so I do have some sympathy with King wishing to try and protect its IP.
Actually it does in a round about way. As an earlier poster noted, you lose your trademark is you don't defend it. The intent is that King can't defend all the infringements, so when he next slaps a suite against someone, they can easily defend against it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
