PDA

View Full Version : Latest news on trademark problems



Targ
12-18-2004, 10:49 PM
Well, LilJugs posted this at SIMHQ tonight and a big thank you for finding this.
SimHQ post (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=002323#000025 )
If you scroll down you will see he posted this link.
Trademark discussion (http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=cc452c0c09570448adbbad35d96c27c6&threadid=13370&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)Very interesting read, I cant wait for the official reply by UBI regarding this.

J_Weaver
12-18-2004, 11:18 PM
Wow...It seems like greed has reared its ugly head again. I just hope that someone can put and end to this and get life back to normal. I hope that everyone understands why so many of us were so upset with the news of the cancelation of the P-47N and F4U-4 projects. This isn't about a few plane models making it into the game but about the whole combat flight sim world. This is all very sad. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

willyvic
12-18-2004, 11:34 PM
Good find. Now we wait.

And please, the chicken littles of the forum need not reply.


WV

TheGozr
12-19-2004, 01:18 AM
Is that possible to find all the expilots from those planes to sue the compagny because of malfunctions or got hurt in those same plane.. that would be a great pay back...
Find them a last cause to fight for....

Just thinking ouload.

Diablo310th
12-19-2004, 08:57 AM
Yep...seems the cat is out of teh bag here now. Looks like UBI messed up and is making Oleg pay for their mistake. The question now is...did teh fee UBI paid cover future planes or jsut those already in existance? If it paid for future planes then there is no reason to not inclue P-47N, F4U-4, P-61 or any otehr new Grumman ac. If it does not cover these then maybe a paid addon for US market to cover teh cost of it. I for one would pay for the addons that Oleg is planning to distribute in Russia if it included those new ac or even upgrades to existing ones ie. new cockpit for the P-47.

VW-IceFire
12-19-2004, 09:20 AM
So it looks like this:

1) The packaging of PF is a serious problem. They used the corporate names without permission. Bad.

2) Northrop/Grumman does not have a legal leg to stand on (based on the "experts" in that forum) and are using corporate bully tactics.

3) The usage of P-51D or P-47N in a simulation is ok. The Usage of North American P-51D Mustang is not. I imagine FW190 or Bf 109 would be ok...but Messerschmidt Bf-109 or Me-109 would not be. Its the use of the corporations name that is the problem. Again, I'm extrapolating.

4) There should be no problems using P-47N or A-20C, TBF, or even Avenger Mark III because these are all military desginations.

5) According to those guys UbiSoft should have taken them to court or forced the issue.

Eagle_361st
12-19-2004, 09:38 AM
All we can at this point guys is wait for this to get worked out. I am sure there is more to it yet, and we may never have all of the facts. But we at least know what the basis of the problem is. Hopefully it can be worked out amicably for all parties with no detriment to the genre or Maddox games.

SkyChimp
12-19-2004, 09:41 AM
Sounds like an American defense company not wanting to cut a French or Russian firm much slack.

Aaron_GT
12-19-2004, 09:49 AM
IceFire: The A-20 is a Douglas plane, now owned by Boeing. Grumman-Northrop does assert rights to some military designations and also visual representations, not just company names it would appear.

FatBoyHK
12-19-2004, 10:07 AM
My guess is, Ubisoft was forced to pay the bill, but then they, in turn, transfer this loss to 1C directly, by cutting the payment due (not yet paid to 1C), or by cutting the budget for BoB. 1C refuse to surrender, and now there must be some serious (i.e. legal) talk between 1C and Ubisoft. This stage is quite senistive, therefore 1C is wise not to disclose the info to the public (i.e. we fellow committee members). And it is also wise stopping all the development and release which involve Northrop-Gruman stuff. Doing so would effectively declare your surrender (the lawyer will defend by saying so, and the court will probably believe so).

steve_v
12-19-2004, 10:21 AM
ty Targ

you're still the worse Mod...Ever! http://home.earthlink.net/~viner45/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1210.gif

tsisqua
12-19-2004, 10:41 AM
I saw this yesterday, and downloaded a movie that shows the work of Red Gypsy studios, the company that first contacted Grumman Northup. . . . there is some great talent there, and I would have enjoyed seeing a WWII flight simulation from another company. Darn shame. I also have to wonder if part of this didn't come from a loudmouth that was griping to the Fair Trade commission over the planes that were featured on the box, but not included. (If anyone remembers the posts)

Demo movie:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Bad Link Removed By Author</span>

Tsisqua

VW-IceFire
12-19-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
IceFire: The A-20 is a Douglas plane, now owned by Boeing. Grumman-Northrop does assert rights to some military designations and also visual representations, not just company names it would appear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was using it as a generalized example.

I sounds like they are trying to assert rights but I don't know if they actually hold them. It sounds like they don't and simply cannot under law.

I think they are treading over new territory here and they don't have any precedents to stand on.

T_O_A_D
12-19-2004, 12:44 PM
Thanks Targ

Time will tell, I guess.

Still a PIA to have it affect a game, celebrating or reliving the glory of their 60 year old equipment.

Bearcat99
12-19-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
I saw this yesterday, and downloaded a movie that shows the work of Red Gypsy studios, the company that first contacted Grumman Northup. . . . there is some great talent there, and I would have enjoyed seeing a WWII flight simulation from another company. Darn shame. I also have to wonder if part of this didn't come from a loudmouth that was griping to the Fair Trade commission over the planes that were featured on the box, but not included. (If anyone remembers the posts)

Demo movie:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Bad Link Removed By Author</span>

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be Seafire....... I was thinking the same thing.. but apparently this started before that.

BaldieJr
12-19-2004, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
I saw this yesterday, and downloaded a movie that shows the work of Red Gypsy studios, the company that first contacted Grumman Northup. . . . there is some great talent there, and I would have enjoyed seeing a WWII flight simulation from another company. Darn shame. I also have to wonder if part of this didn't come from a loudmouth that was griping to the Fair Trade commission over the planes that were featured on the box, but not included. (If anyone remembers the posts)

Demo movie:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Bad Link Removed By Author</span>

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Red Gypsy studios.

Oh boy, speak of 'vocal community members'!

I'm not saying anything. Perhaps the individual in question would prefer to step forward and explain why his boss is getting involed in this. I somehow doubt it has anything to do with game development, and if it indeed does, there seems to be a major conflict of interest here.

WTE_Ibis
12-20-2004, 02:03 AM
Posted by TheGozr,

Is that possible to find all the ex pilots from those planes to sue the company because of malfunctions or got hurt in those same plane.. that would be a great pay back...
Find them a last cause to fight for....

Just thinking ouload.


Now THAT would be justice. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

TheGozr
12-20-2004, 03:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I hope someone could hear me...

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 09:25 AM
"
I sounds like they are trying to assert rights but I don't know if they actually hold them. It sounds like they don't and simply cannot under law.

I think they are treading over new territory here and they don't have any precedents to stand on. "

I'd tend to agree with you.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
12-20-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
I saw this yesterday, and downloaded a movie that shows the work of Red Gypsy studios, the company that first contacted Grumman Northup. . . . there is some great talent there, and I would have enjoyed seeing a WWII flight simulation from another company. Darn shame. I also have to wonder if part of this didn't come from a loudmouth that was griping to the Fair Trade commission over the planes that were featured on the box, but not included. (If anyone remembers the posts)

Demo movie:
<span class="ev_code_RED">Bad Link Removed By Author</span>

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be Seafire....... I was thinking the same thing.. but apparently this started before that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy there Tiger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If your gona start a witch hunt or naming names at least name the right one it WAS NOT Seafire its was the other Seafire or some other similar variant of the name http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Wouldn't want to start burning the wrong witch now would we http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Besides we already gave "SeaFireLIV" a quick run on the rack for saying CFS3 had some good points and he already repented his evil ways

Actually thinking about it we prolly have quite a few Seafire's running around in here......

Maybe we should round em all up


(see how complicated it can get)

It would be more useful to post a link to the thread than name the poster of the thread Hear and if the dang search engine worked I would have done so.

Oh sod it these sodding trademark threads bore the hell outta me anyway I almost preferd the 6dork's to this

horseback
12-20-2004, 10:15 AM
What bothers me most about all this is that these aircraft have been featured in various combat flight sims/games for computers and consoles for at least 20 years. Ubisoft (whatever we might think of those cheese-eating surrender monkeys) can't be the first to put the aircraft manufacturers' names on the outer package of their games. It seems to me that if they've ignored it this long, they've pretty much forfeited the right to complain about it now.

cheers

horseback

JV44Rall
12-20-2004, 11:55 PM
It's a shame Ubi rolled over on this. Companies outside of the US are often intimidated by the US legal system, and for good reason. But they've now
painted a big red bulls eye on their own back. I wonder when they'll get a letter from Daimler-Chrysler asking for payment for using Jeeps in Far Cry.

RedDeth
12-21-2004, 12:19 AM
somebody get a life pleez! ENOUGH TALK ABOUT TRADEMARK . its meaningless. itll all get resolved. its christmas. GET A LIFE. go shopping or something.

TheGozr
12-21-2004, 01:36 AM
(whatever we might think of those cheese-eating surrender monkeys)

Can you explain ....