OOTP 15 update #3 (version 15.3.11) now available!

[injury log]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I see something like this occuring. First, they say no to team nicknames, which they have. Then, they say no to player names. At that point the game is fictional-only unless someone outside of OOTP steps up and creates mods to work around this. After that they start going after anything that they can prove "sheds negative light on the sport". When THAT is completed they then make it so that the game ships uncustomizable, and they shut down anyone out there is who make mods for the game.

On what point of law do you think MLB could do any of this. They have trademark protection when it comes to team names. But explain the rest please.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I completely agree. You have received a lot of backlash for your "conspiracy theorist" approach to this witch hunting by MLB, but I know where you're coming from.

I don't think I've received much personal backlash at all, certainly not compared to that I received as a result my opinions about graphics or allowing women's leagues lol.

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I see something like this occuring. First, they say no to team nicknames, which they have. Then, they say no to player names. At that point the game is fictional-only unless someone outside of OOTP steps up and creates mods to work around this. After that they start going after anything that they can prove "sheds negative light on the sport". When THAT is completed they then make it so that the game ships uncustomizable, and they shut down anyone out there is who make mods for the game.

I'm slightly more optimistic than that, but not all that much. What I can see happening is them insisting - either now or later - on an entirely separate, non-editable (and probably "watered down"), game mode for MLB play. I could live with that personally, but whether Markus would agree to it I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

Markus does this for a living, so if it's going to affect his bottom line by not agreeing to licensing, then he will agree to licensing. Anyone out there urging Markus "to go get'em!" or saying "we're behind you all the way!" needs to just shut up.

I'll support OOTP whatever they choose to do, and I don't think anyone should shut up, however daft their advice might be lol.

Originally Posted by injury log

On what point of law do you think MLB could do any of this. They have trademark protection when it comes to team names. But explain the rest please.

Nothing legally, but they could make those things terms of a licensing agreement.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by injury log

You said this: "If MLB allows one game to use its trademarked identities for free, it has no leg to stand on to stop anyone else from using those trademarked identities. " That's what I was replying to. MLB very certainly would have a "leg to stand on" protecting their trademarks even if they fail to enforce them in isolated cases.

Failing to enforce is different than simply choosing to not enforce the trademark in one situation and not another. That is what I meant.

A trademark is not abandoned by failure to police, except in specific cases - if you look over judgments of loss of trademark on those grounds, it's usually in instances where one company used another's trademark for decades. Abandonment is usually established because of a trademark owner's failure to actually use their trademark, and there's clearly no danger of a court finding MLB has abandoned their trademarks on those grounds.

Usually is not the same as always. The bolded parts of your statement leave a gaping hole for this specific case.

Yes, seriously(?). The purpose of a trademark is to identify the originator of a product or service. A trademark still serves a purpose if it is not universally enforced. If OOTP uses the word 'Yankees' as a team nickname, that doesn't create any confusion among fans buying Yankees tickets about whether they are buying tickets to see an MLB game. But if another baseball team in New York also called themselves the Yankees, that would potentially create confusion. Enforcing a trademark in the latter case is far more important than in the former.

It would be unduly burdensome for trademark holders if they were obligated to police even inconsequential violations just so they could maintain their rights in cases of consequential infringement.

MLB clearly has come to the conclusion that OOTP's use of MLB trademarks is not inconsequential. Considering the popularity of OOTP, the cost of purchasing the game on a yearly basis, and the significance of MLB's presence in the game, I'd say they're probably correct.

We can argue about the semantics of trademark law until the mods tell us to shut up. The ultimate point is that Markus and OOTP are making money at least partly due to MLB's presence in the game. It's ultimately Markus's responsibility to gain the rights to use MLB's trademarks. As others have mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, it's really a surprise that we've gotten this far without MLB saying something. Everything I've posted until I quoted you was in response to a different poster saying that MLB was wrong to ask for the names to be taken out. MLB is not wrong to ask for that, and I was trying to explain why. Just because I don't have the legal knowledge to prove it to a judge doesn't mean I'm wrong.

EDIT TO ADD: As for inconsequential trademark violations, have you seen this? http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/mlb-...-podcasts.html

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I see something like this occuring. First, they say no to team nicknames, which they have. Then, they say no to player names. At that point the game is fictional-only unless someone outside of OOTP steps up and creates mods to work around this. After that they start going after anything that they can prove "sheds negative light on the sport". When THAT is completed they then make it so that the game ships uncustomizable, and they shut down anyone out there is who make mods for the game.

MLB cannot say anything about player names. The Major League Baseball Players Association can, but has not, at least as far as we know. It's not crazy to think MLB could alert the MLBPA to how OOTP uses its players' names, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MLBPA will do anything.

As for mods, this is a computer game. We'll always be able to modify the files associated with it.

[thevaliantx]

Cryomaniac, have you ever been diagnosed with a split personality disorder? Because I clearly remember you going all-apocalyptic over Markus breaking the news of MLB as it pertains to licensing. You DID receive a lot of flak for your views on the matter, and you were persistent in your stance. I can pull up your posts and quote them if you like.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by rpriske

This is stupid. It is also the law.

Sometimes the law is stupid.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,“the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” - Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

Cryomaniac, have you ever been diagnosed with a split personality disorder? Because I clearly remember you going all-apocalyptic over Markus breaking the news of MLB as it pertains to licensing. You DID receive a lot of flak for your views on the matter, and you were persistent in your stance. I can pull up your posts and quote them if you like.

I was in that discussion, and I don't think that any of that happened except for him being persistent. Which he should have been, because he was in the right.

[thevaliantx]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

MLB cannot say anything about player names. The Major League Baseball Players Association can, but has not, at least as far as we know. It's not crazy to think MLB could alert the MLBPA to how OOTP uses its players' names, but that doesn't necessarily mean the MLBPA will do anything.

As for mods, this is a computer game. We'll always be able to modify the files associated with it.

Rest assured that if MLB has its way, the MLBPA will want a piece of the pie. MLB has more say than just about team nicknames. Obviously the MLBPA is not the MLB as you stated, and as you stated they would have a say in 'different' nuances of this game, but ..... MLB The Show is a "computer game", too, and if SONY really wanted (and could do so without being sued) its users to be able to configure more things in the game, the game would allow for that (console or pc, doesn't matter a whole lot).

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Poweshow

Hopefully this change will push at least a couple of people to shift away from MLB leagues and come on over to the FAR superior fictional leagues.

I have both MLB leagues and fictional leagues. IMO the MLB leagues are far superior leagues.

[Harmon Killebrew]

Is there a place where the "other bug fixes" included in this patch are listed?
I'd like to see the list before I download the patch.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

Rest assured that if MLB has its way, the MLBPA will want a piece of the pie. MLB has more say than just about team nicknames. Obviously the MLBPA is not the MLB as you stated, and as you stated they would have a say in 'different' nuances of this game, but ..... MLB The Show is a "computer game", too, and if SONY really wanted (and could do so without being sued) its users to be able to configure more things in the game, the game would allow for that (console or pc, doesn't matter a whole lot).

The Show is a console game based on button mashing and fancy graphics. They've never cared about allowing the type of customization with logos, jerseys and hats that is a big part of OOTP, nor can we get into the game on the "back end" to edit those things the way we can with OOTP. No matter what MLB says, there's always going to be a folder created on our desktop, laptop, notebook, whatever, for graphics, which we can go in and change AFTER the game is out of OOTP's hands and into ours. MLB has no jurisdiction over what jerseys I want to create and put in the game.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Usually is not the same as always. The bolded parts of your statement leave a gaping hole for this specific case.

Perhaps you can read about some of the instances where failure to police a trademark led to a judicial finding that the trademark was not enforceable, and then tell me how they relate to 'this specific case'. I've done that, and I can't see any relationship whatsoever.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

MLB clearly has come to the conclusion that OOTP's use of MLB trademarks is not inconsequential.

I don't really agree with that, at least on a financial level. OOTP is absolutely minuscule business compared to MLB, and there's no agreement MLB could reach with OOTP that would be profitable enough for them to be worth the trouble. I think their main concern is probably the appearance of official endorsement, same with the podcasts. And I think they send out a letter to have a paper trail just in case OOTP or a podcast or whatever turns into a big deal further down the road, so that no one could claim a laches defence against them.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

Nothing legally, but they could make those things terms of a licensing agreement.

But there is no chance Markus would ever accept such a licensing agreement.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by injury log

Perhaps you can read about some of the instances where failure to police a trademark led to a judicial finding that the trademark was not enforceable, and then tell me how they relate to 'this specific case'. I've done that, and I can't see any relationship whatsoever.

Unless there's a case specifically like what this one would be, it's pointless for me to try to find any. Nor do I care enough to go to that length to try to prove my point.

I don't really agree with that, at least on a financial level. OOTP is absolutely minuscule business compared to MLB, and there's no agreement MLB could reach with OOTP that would be profitable enough for them to be worth the trouble. I think their main concern is probably the appearance of official endorsement, same with the podcasts. And I think they send out a letter to have a paper trail just in case OOTP or a podcast or whatever turns into a big deal further down the road, so that no one could claim a laches defence against them.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth (or, more accurately, my fingers). I didn't say anything about it being financially beneficial to MLB to want OOTP to purchase a license. I pointed out financials because OOTP is making money off a product with MLB's products represented within it without the consent of MLB.

I'm not entirely sure what MLB's main concern is. All I know is they have a right to be concerned.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by thevaliantx

I see something like this occuring. First, they say no to team nicknames, which they have. Then, they say no to player names. At that point the game is fictional-only unless someone outside of OOTP steps up and creates mods to work around this. After that they start going after anything that they can prove "sheds negative light on the sport". When THAT is completed they then make it so that the game ships uncustomizable, and they shut down anyone out there is who make mods for the game.

Whoa, pump the brakes on the doomsday prophesizing. Markus is going to get OOTP16 licensed, which means team names will be included. Only THEN could the MLB push him to take features out of the game, and Markus has already said that if their demands are unreasonable, he won't license. Which would mean we would get full functionality without team names.

Under no scenario is OOTP going to lose BOTH the MLB trademarks and customization. Have a little faith in Markus, guys. He's not going to let the MLB ruin his game.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by injury log

Where do you get this stuff from? Someone infringing trademarks cannot defend himself by saying "someone else did it, therefore I'm allowed to infringe the trademark too". A trademark holder does not lose their trademark by failing to enforce it universally. It is only when that failure to police leads a court to conclude the trademark has become diluted, generic, or abandoned that the trademark protection is lost. None of that would apply to OOTP's usage as far as I can tell.

At least that's my understanding of trademark law. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems a lot of people on these forums are offering legal opinions about trademark law, and if they're lawyers, I'd like to know that, and if they're not, I wish they'd say so.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this stuff. Your bold above is illogical. If one owns trademarks and doesn't police everything made known then risk exists. Letting it get close to court would be gross incompetence. By policing everything that comes to your attention you protect yourself from instances that escape your notice, and some will. The consistency of effort matters. That's why trademark owners provide customers/partners who produce ads with specific copy, logos and color schemes and proof the ad copy before publication

When you work for a business, your internal and external use of trademarked names, capitalized and with correct symbols is important. If such words are allowed to be come generic (Kleenex, Xerox, Frisbee) or are misapplied and misused risk increases. Proper use in email and paper communication including footnotes matters a lot.

This back and forth is more about countering some of the emotional posts regarding MLB motives. I'm stunned that more people don't understand that this is business 101. I find it hard to believe that anybody here who owned a product/trademark that had real value to them wouldn't take steps to protect it.

From the asleep at the wheel file See what happens when you don't pay attention. Nissan Motor Co. only has itself to blame for diluting their trademark.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/Cou...anComputer.pdf

[injury log]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Unless there's a case specifically like what this one would be, it's pointless for me to try to find any. Nor do I care enough to go to that length to try to prove my point.

It's not pointless. The cases illustrate the legal principles courts use to judge on these matters. I find it interesting that you're so sure of your position that facts can't change it, which makes any discussion a bit futile.

[Tekneek]

Until and unless there is actually a legal order or judgment, it is a presumption that they have a right to be granted what they are asking for. Merely asking iTunes/OOTP/etc to do something does not mean they would win an order to require it in a legal proceeding, it just means they are asking for it with the assumption that most entities will grant them the request. It does not even mean that MLB would actually take legal action if their request was denied, although they would certainly reserve the right to take such action.

Having been involved in the sending of cease-and-desist and other take down notices, the vast majority are complied with without having to get court orders or even threaten legal action. When there is resistance, and legal action becomes the only venue available, they do not always choose to take that route. In those instances, the entities who refused to comply actually come out ahead of those who backed down easily. It can go lots of ways, but I would never presume that a request to do something carries the same weight as a an actual court order/judgment.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by injury log

It's not pointless. The cases illustrate the legal principles courts use to judge on these matters. I find it interesting that you're so sure of your position that facts can't change it, which makes any discussion a bit futile.

If every case was the same, this would be cut and dried. They aren't. If you're so sure of your point, feel free to post a case that matches EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of what we would see if there was ever to be an MLB v. OOTP case. Because that's what we need to prove either one of us right or wrong.

Originally Posted by RchW

I'm stunned that more people don't understand that this is business 101. I find it hard to believe that anybody here who owned a product/trademark that had real value to them wouldn't take steps to protect it.

Thank you, RchW. I wish I'd simply said what you said in the first place, rather than trying to explain why someone would want to protect their product/trademark.

[Eddie Paxil]

Originally Posted by endgame

I'll save my editorializing about how rampant these kinds of discussions get with no real merit.

Let me instead offer you a possibility that may prove useful. Seriously. Hit the randomize team names button a few times when creating a game and see what happens. Thanks. (Utilizing the latest patch, of course.)

Hello! I caught this one on my own. Came to see if anyone else did. And here you go.