Mythic 1, MS 0

News just in - Mythic won.

Well officially Mythic Entertainment and Microsoft have reached a 'mutually acceptable settlement' over the Mythica Trademark Debacle.

See the Mythic press release or Google News for plenty of other coverage.

Comments

[Doug]

1.

Wouldn't the victory have meant more if MS hadn't already cancelled Mythica? You don't suppose the death of that game was the price to get the lawsuit dropped do you?

[Alan Stern]

2.

My guess is that Mythica's demise pretty much took the wind out of Mythic's lawsuit, not the other way around. I imagine Mythica's death was not part of the settlement but rather an inducement to settle amicably and quickly. (Besides, MS could have easily renamed the game rather than scrap the whole thing. I bet MS already has prepared a whole list of alternate names it could have used.)

[Tek]

3.

This surprises me. When the suit was first raised, I was thinking Microsoft had it in the bag. Not to mention the reputation of Microsoft's legal team, I didn't think Mythic Entertainment was a widely recognized company (I wonder how many DAoC players knew who made their game, before the suit came up). The fact that mythic is a common English word shouldn't have helped either. I had looked at a few of Greg's links, and it seemed that it would be tough to defend, as a trademark, a single word in common usage, versus either a phrase or a something made-up (their example was Oreo). Is there something I am missing here?

It still bugs me that, one day, a good chunk of the dictionary could be trademarked. But, maybe this suit had other factors influence it, such as Microsoft being involved. I mean, Lindows ">http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/27/HNlindows_1.html"> gets to keep it's company name, even though there's no doubt what people will think when they see Lindows in association with an OS.

[Alan Stern]

4.

Take a look at the previous article for discussion on the trademark-worthiness of "Mythic."

Tek: ...it seemed that it would be tough to defend, as a trademark, a single word in common usage, versus either a phrase or a something made-up (their example was Oreo).

It is tougher. But if Mythic could create secondary meaning (i.e. a mental association by the relevant consumer group connecting "Mythic" with Mythic the company) then it doesn't matter. Interesting thing in TM law is that after 5 years of registration, a mark is subsequently automatically given a presumption of secondary meaning. Hence my comment in the previous article about this.

Very briefly, TMs can be 'separated' into 4 categories: generic, descriptive, suggestive and arbitrary/fanciful. Generic would be something like "Pencil" for pencils and gets no protection. Descriptive might be something like "Writing Sticks" for pencils and only gets protection with secondary meaning. Suggestive might be "Mark-It-Up" and is protectable. Arbitrary/fanciful would be "Skizzles" and is protectable.

Oreo is probably arbitrary/fanciful and easy to get protection for. Nowadays, Oreo is clearly protectable as it has significant secondary meaning and is probably even a famous mark. Although "mythic" is a common, English word, its use in or with computer software is not.

Also, that MS/Lindows article you point to is for a Netherlands court in Amsterdam. Last I heard of the U.S. case, MS had lost an appeal of a pre-trial ruling. The ruling said that "Windows" would be considered a generic term (i.e. not protectable) if it were generic in November 1985 when MS introduced Windows 1.0. See this and this and maybe some of these.

[Alan Stern]

5.

The latest Slashdot post on this.

[Staarkhand]

6.

Tek>I wonder how many DAoC players knew who made their game, before the suit came up

Probably about 99.9%, Mythic is the They, the overlords, the gatekeepers, blamed for all that is bad (anything good is common sense), etc. But outside DAoC I think you have a point.

Personally I DO think of DAoC when I read Mythica, but the fact that I played in Midgard for more than a year doesn't make me a good example. Overall I disagree with the decision, another example of way too much litigation nowadays. Does anyone have a link to the very funny (albeit old) "news clip" about Microsoft patenting the numbers 1 and 0?

[Alan Stern]

7.

Staarkhand, a Google search yields this and this among others.

[Staarkhand]

8.

Thanks Alan - although with Google, asking for a link has become a retorical, or perhaps socratic inquiry, yes?

[Alan Stern]

9.

To be honest, I'm just psyched to being playing with some small-time html tags in the links. (I never did get around to making and/or learning how to make my own website.)

The search engine is dead. Long live the Google!