Row blows up over ownership of 'space marine' term

[Mulreay]

UK toymaker Games Workshop has been criticised for asserting a trademark claim to the phrase 'space marines'.

The claim emerged when it was used to get an American ebook about the futuristic soldiers taken off Amazon.

Science fiction writers have called the firm "absurd" for saying it has a trademark to the use of the term in fiction.

A UK media lawyer said more and more firms were using trademark law to protect their creations.
Generic term

The row started in December 2011 when US writer Maggie Hogarth found out that her novel called "Spots the Space Marine" had been removed from the Amazon ebook store following a complaint from Games Workshop.

In emails sent to Ms Hogarth this week, Games Workshop claims that its entry into digital publishing gives it a "common law trademark claim" over the phrase.

Ms Hogarth wrote a blogpost about the row and expressed her fear that if Games Workshop started actively pursuing its claim, science fiction could lose one of its "fundamental" ideas. Ms Hogarth said a lack of funds meant she was unable to defend herself against the claim. However, she is now in touch with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which campaigns on digital rights, about the case.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003


My take on this:
I'm sorry but I'm on the side of 'Games workshop' and not because I've been frequenting there shops for over 25yrs. It's because for once it's not the (and no offense to my American friends) the Americans flexing there copyright/trademark muscles but another country.

Just as an example check out apples trademarks   http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.html

I hate companies that stifle new and forward thinking but for so long America told us 'NO, NO we own that' and I'm thinking well you reap what you sow.
Good luck 'Games workshop'.

[patio]

I hate companies that stifle new and forward thinking

An interesting claim since you seem to be rallying for silly copyright legal entanglements...

BTW GW was nowhere near being close to being the 1st to coin the term or use it...that's what makes this ridiculous.

[Mulreay]

An interesting claim since you seem to be rallying for silly copyright legal entanglements...

I did make the point clear that it was because Americans seem to think they own everything they think of and can shoulder charge everyone out of the way.

BTW GW was nowhere near being close to being the 1st to coin the term or use it...that's what makes this ridiculous.

There is a BIG difference between coining a term and actually trademarking it, as our American friends so fondly push on the rest of the world.

At the end of the day i have stated that I hate petty trademark arguments and copyright but as in my closing statement I said 'you reap what you sow'. It just seems that Americans are so quick to throw there arms up at the injustice done to American creativity when it's another country. Just try it from our side for a while and see how it feels.

Oh and hi Pottsi how's it going.. long time no chat.

[patio]

It's going well...however i dont think i ever let someone call me that ...

[patio]

I can sense this Topic is based more on emotion than logic so i'll just move aside...

[BC_Programmer]

The term has been prevalent in fiction since 1932.

Also, even if we want to assign some sort of nationalistic pride to this issue, the term was used by Michael E. Briant long before, in the late 70's for Doctor Who.

Additionally, Games Workshop didn't file any trademark. They simply claimed they had it by right of using the term in a published work by Common Law; of course, Common Law doesn't really work in this case, since it doesn't generally give you a worldwide claim and at best is usually only valid within the same country.

This isn't even about patent disputes. It's about somebody with no legal basis abusing the Amazon Trademark claim system. Saying "oh, but the person being filed against is American, and the person filing the frivolous claim is in the UK, so clearly they are in the right" is pretty silly.

[evilfantasy]

I hate companies that stifle new and forward thinking but for so long America told us 'NO, NO we own that' and I'm thinking well you reap what you sow.

Those laws were adopted by the US. Your Argument is Invalid.

- First trademark issued in the United Kingdom to Bass & Co Brewery - 1876
- First trademark issued in the United States to Samson (a rope-making company) - 1884

- First known patent issued to Englishman John of Utynam for a glass-making process previously unknown in England - 1449

- First copyright issued in the United Kingdom - 1710 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law

The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.

I hate companies that stifle new and forward thinking.

I disagree. Copyright/trademark/patent laws force forward thinking, not stifle it.

[Mulreay]

And yet:

Facebook sued over 'like' button

Facebook is facing legal action over its use of the "like" button and other features of the social network.

It is being sued by a patent-holding company acting on behalf of a dead Dutch programmer called Joannes Jozef Everardus van Der Meer.

Rembrandt Social Media said Facebook's success was based, in part, on using two of Mr Van Der Meer's patents without permission.

Facebook said it had no comment to make on the lawsuit or its claims.

A lawsuit has been filed in a federal court in Virginia by Rembrandt Social Media.

"We believe Rembrandt's patents represent an important foundation of social media as we know it, and we expect a judge and jury to reach the same conclusion based on the evidence," said lawyer Tom Melsheimer from legal firm Fish and Richardson, which represents the patent holder.

Rembrandt now owns patents for technologies Mr Van Der Meer used to build a fledgling social network, called Surfbook, before his death in 2004.

Mr Van Der Meer was granted the patents in 1998, five years before Facebook first appeared.

Surfbook was a social diary that let people share information with friends and family and approve some data using a "like" button, according to legal papers filed by Fish and Richardson.

The papers also say Facebook is aware of the patents as it has cited them in its own applications to patent some social networking technologies.

Also cited in the same legal claim was another social media company called Add This.

Pretty sure 'Like' and 'Add this' have been around in the English language for quite a while.

[patio]

You do realise there are entire Law Firms that are devoted to copyright suit "mining" don't you ? ?
Their sole purpose is to get rich doing so...even if they only hit 2 out of a hundred they still carry on...

P.S. There are probably just as many of these outfits per Capita in the U.K. as the states...
Do some research...

[evilfantasy]

If a large or successful company has not been sued then they are doing something wrong. It's part of being large and successful.

Mo money, mo problems... - Puff Daddy ~ 1997

[Mulreay]

Tis a weird world in which we dwell...

[evilfantasy]

Tis a weird world in which we dwell...

Would be pretty boring if we all thought and acted the same way.