Doh-ta: Blizzard Lawyers Up Vs Valve

By Alec Meer on February 10th, 2012 at 11:20 am.

I'm too tired to make a photoshop of a headcrab vs a zergling, but please imagine it yourself

I was thinking the Blizzard/Valve cold war over DOTA had gone tellingly quiet of late. Here’s why – because it’s gone to the courts. Valve are, of course, gearing up to release Dota 2 as a standalone game of their own, but DOTA – or Defense of the Ancients as it was originally known – sprang to life as a Warcraft III mod. Valve were already facing a trademark-off with some of DOTA’s original team, but now, after some passive aggression in the media, Blizzard have stepped fully into the fray. They have lawyers. And they are contesting Valve’s registration of the Dota 2 trademark.

Whether they ultimately want it for themselves is less clear, though they’re certainly making a big song and dance about it being associated with their products. The obvious, logical and sensible reaction to this news is that Blizzard don’t own the name DOTA. Neither do Valve, at least not yet. The question is, who should? And it looks as though ‘no-one’ isn’t a valid answer any more. Blizzard’s claim, as part of an attempt to block Valve’s trademark for Dota 2, is that “the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of consumers with Blizzard”. I just made a noise like I’d been punched in the stomach by Hellboy. Er, no. My feeling is that neither company should be owning the name of something created by the gaming community for the gaming community. Alas, IP is about the most valuable commodity in the free world these days, so someone was always going to try and slip a saddle onto wild, free DOTA before too long.

The thrust of Blizzard’s counterclaim is, however, that they believe they have more of a right to the name than Valve do. “Valve has never used the mark DOTA in connection with any product or service that currently is available to the public. By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and inits Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III…

“If such registration is issued, it not only will damage Blizzard, but also the legions of Blizzard fans that have worked for years with Blizzard and its products, including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve’s products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.”

Also, they note that the main Dota mods “cannot be played independently of Warcraft III” and that The title “Defense of the Ancients,” or “DotA,” is a reference to the Warcraft III characters known as the “Ancients,” since the primary objective of the game is to either defend or destroy (depending upon which team the player is on) the Ancient known as the Tree of Life.”

Ouch. And, really, it’s just quite sad to see the two most gigantic titans of PC gaming at war like this. It’s not even as clear-cut in terms of gut sympathies as Bethesda vs Mojang (much as that isn’t anything like clear-cut in terms of legalities). I suppose despite bristling at their trying to lay claim to something created by modders and with which they’ve never played any active developmental part, I lean ever-so-slightly but with massive, massive reservations towards Blizzard in this instance, in as much as this miserable drama wouldn’t even be happening if Valve had just called their DOTAlike something other than Dota.

They really didn’t need to: whatever name it was given people would have bought it, and it probably would have been highly successful, because they are Valve and people always buy Valve games in their droves. Was it naivety? Was it an uncharacteristically aggressive attempt to try and ensure their game could steal League of Legends’ thunder? Valve’s Erik Johnson claimed to me last year that making Dota 2 was a pure fan thing, but I remain unsure.

With the conflict now in court, I’d imagine we’re rather unlikely to hear further justification from Valve outside of how they feel the trademark was up for grabs and that they’ve got Dota sometime main-brain IceFrog working for them. But we shall see: they surely didn’t go into this lightly.

We won’t know the outcome of this case – and thus who ends up with the DOTA name, and indeed whether Dota 2 can be called Dota 2 – until July, though we may get to read Blizzard and Valve’s arguments and rebuttals over the coming months.

You can read Blizzard’s full statement to the USPTO here – it leans very heavily on the Warcraft angle, which I would imagine will also be the main point of contention for Valve’s response. As may be the distinction between ‘DOTA’, ‘Dota 2′ and ‘Defense of the Ancients.’ Hooray for confusing fragmentation!

Ideal resolution, to my mind: Valve go “screw it, we’ll just call our game something else” and Blizzard go “screw it, let the community stay free to make DOTA games.” Of course, Blizzard are working on their own StarCraft DoTA, so the question is whether that’ll end up being free, paid for, or an integral part of one of the two forthcoming StarCraft II expandalones. Messy, messy, messy business.

What, meanwhile, of Dota 2? Will we see it escape closed beta status anytime soon, or is this too much of an epic spanner +48 vs cold amphibians in the works?

Thanks, Diogo.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , .

195 Comments »

  1. fionny says:

    I’m hoping this will just get thrown out, I don’t think either of them should own the name and Blizzard are just being cry babies here throwing all the toys out of the pram.

    QQ Blizzard

    • Eclipse says:

      well Valve sucks too, making a sequel of a game they don’t own.

    • fionny says:

      With the support of one of its main dev’s and they dont claim to own the DOTA name (i think).

    • Metonymy says:

      Whatever Blizzard once was is either gone forever, or they’ve transferred all their real talent to the unreleased projects. (or Arenanet, thank goodness) The notion that their B or C team could improve on what has already been thorough a decade of steady innovation and development is just silly. By its very nature, this game requires a lot of hand-tailored design and balance, and unfortunately all the good ideas have been used.

      They’re both kidding themselves if they think they’re going to dethrone LoL. LoL has made nothing but dash/shield/steroid champions for months now, and they’re still doing extremely well.

    • Captchist says:

      I don’t agree.
      At the end of the day Valve could call the game anything they wanted. They decided to appropriate an existing franchise instead however. Is it Blizzards? Don’t know. But it’s certainly isn’t Valves.

      If I come up with a brand new idea I can either patent it, or just publish it. If I publish it I don’t own the patent, but nobody else can patent it either because the idea is common knowledge. If nobody owns the rights to DOTA it isn’t clear to me that Valve are free to just step in and claim it given they have zero connection to the original product.

    • oddshrub says:

      Well Blizzard has a strong suit in this case considering DOTA 2 is basically DOTA and every champion in DOTA was a Warcraft 3 unit.

      On top of that the guy VALVE has from DOTA is icefrog who wasn’t an original developer of DOTA, but just a guy who took over once the original developers went on to make LOL.

      Personally I kind of hope VALVE loses after reading how the development of DOTA 2 has spun up so much inhouse drama, where their own staff has been pretty unhappy.

      Then again, VAVLE has probably been prepared for this suit from the very beginning. I mean, it’s not exactly a surprise.

    • Jenks says:

      @oddshrub

      According to Gabe, Eul works at Valve. And yeah, Eul would trump Guinsoo.

      http://www.1up.com/previews/dota-2-valve-fanboys-developers

    • werix says:

      Neither of them have a strong case. I stand by the position I’ve had for a while and wrote a paper for in my Cyberlaw class: modders at the very least should have a moral right to have their name associated with their own mods they make. Whether it be Blizzard or Valve that get the copyright, its the modders that loose.

    • zaphod42 says:

      The real BS here is, Blizzard went on the record saying that “DOTA is a product of the community and we don’t own it and we’ve just got Blizzard DOTA and I think there’s room for more than one DOTA” or something along those lines.

      Valve hired IceFrog, one of the major developers on DOTA. If anybody can make a DOTA2, its the people who made DOTA. Blizzard made their own Blizzard DOTA internally, which they never had IP over. It was a mod that people made using warcraft 3. That does not mean the developrs of warcraft 3 have ownership to all IP created with their tools. If that is in the EULA, thats bullshit, But I am 95% positive it isn’t.

      Valve probably should have gone with a different name, but I don’t think anybody has any right to say they CAN’T call it DOTA2.

      Course a bunch of lawyers are going to muck it all up.

    • Ruffian says:

      Screw Blizzard. Really it’s a load of horsesh**. They never did jack to support Dota when it was a warcraft 3 mod. They didn’t create it or even try to support it then, why should they get rights to it now? Valve saw the potential and brought the creators on with them. If you ask me blizz had plenty of time to act, and now that they see the game they should’ve been supporting forever ago finally pulling in customers they want it. Stupid. They seem like the ones stealing ideas if you ask me, making blizzard dota after all this time without the real creators. Besides Dota technically has different lore than warcraft so I don’t understand how they’re gonna say that in customer’s minds it’s tied to the blizzard universe or whatever.

    • ahac says:

      If Valve trademarks “Dota” and Blizzard releases “Blizzard Dota” for SC2, then Valve can sue them (and very likely win). By trying to block Valves trademark now, Blizzard is protecting themselves from that.

      The only other option would be for Blizzard to leave the Dota name to Valve and rename Blizzard Dota to something else…. which would be very stupid….

    • oddshrub says:

      Of course there is a pretty big difference between belonging to the community and belonging to VALVE.

    • dontnormally says:

      A horrible precedent would be set if Blizzard won.
      It would pave the way for them sucking up any and all mod efforts, free of charge.

    • Froibo says:

      I’m not going to say that it wasn’t bad form on Valve, but jumping on board and hiring developers straight from thriving communities is Valve’s thing. Blizzard should have seen this coming with how DOTA-likes have blown up these last two years. If it wasn’t Valve it would have been another. Blizzard dropped the ball because they put so much focus, to the point of tunnel vision, on their few franchises.

      Blizzard creates great results with this ideology but they only have themselves to blame for the lack of initiative. The excuse that they didn’t want to make the community angry by making DOTA an official Blizzard project is total bullshit; they were perfectly happy with the developers promoting and providing content to their game without using their own resources.

      Blizzard actually taking this to court is way more of a dick move. I mean the game has been around for 7 years, how long did they think the name would remain sacred? Maybe id will jump on the bandwagon and sue Valve for taking the name and concept of Team Fortress.

    • FoxCharge says:

      There are also mods for WC3 called “(insert word here) Tower Defense.” Does that give Blizzard ownership of the phrase “Tower Defense?” It would be one thing if they were suing over game content–they could probably make a pretty good case for that. Instead, they’re suing over the word “DotA,” which was simply the title of a community mod for their game.

      “By attempting to register the mark DOTA, Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA…” This is outright comical. Blizzard fully rejected DotA over the fast 9 years, claiming it was totally unmarketable. Even when it became popular at competitive gaming events, Blizzard refused to give it any kind of support whatsoever.

      Blizzard is making themselves look like complete idiots.

    • K says:

      Aren’t Blizzard the good guys in this case?

      Valve are the ones trying to trademark the name DOTA, when really they have no right to it. Blizzard are only contesting this. Not taking the name for themselves.

      This is similar to everyone getting mad at Bethesda for taking Mojang to court, when really it was Mojang doing something unreasonable (trademarking the name ‘Scrolls’ and any derivation of that), which would impact on Bethesda’s use of Elder Scrolls.

    • Phantoon says:

      Whoa, kids. History lesson time. Vivendi and Activision merged years ago. Activision owns Blizzard. Vivendi, at one point, through Sierra, tried to claim they had exclusive rights to distribute Half-Life 2. Nevermind the game wasn’t theirs, and they were trying to claim damages.

      So when you say “Blizzard is the good guys!”, keep in mind a few things: Bobby Kotick’s shit eating grin, the fact that Blizzard doesn’t choose what Activision/Vivendi’s legal department does, and the bottom line. Because as it is, if they win this, they’ll almost certainly push to trademark DotA for themselves.

      They can’t sit on Valve, and expect Gabe to run out of money, though. So there WILL be a winner at some point, and it won’t be the modding community.

      What’s in a name?

    • ahac says:

      Blizzard didn’t do anything before because Valve didn’t try to trademark the name, which means Blizzard didn’t care if Valve calls their game “Dota 2″ as long as they can use the name as well.

      But now Valve are saying “Only we can make Dota!!” and Blizzard are the bad guys because they disagree?

    • Froibo says:

      @K & @ahac

      Remember when Blizzard sent a cease and desist to Starcraft Universe (aka World of Starcraft). For modding their own game into their other franchise, distributed only in said game, and not marketed in any way. Silly.

      They allowed them to continue if they switched the name and might not even gotten that if there wasn’t such a public backlash.

    • liltripz says:

      well. i have one thing to say to ANYONE who has any reason not to like blizzard F*** YOU. blizzard to me is the number one in gaming development and should be treated as such and no other game company or person should have the right to throw out and expansion to game created by blizzard without their say so

    • illincrux says:

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but Isn’t the original creator (or the other ‘guy’ who made dota allstars) working with Valve to create dota 2?

      Honestly, it’s Blizzard’s own damn fault for not hiring the creator on the spot to support him via giving him a dedicated crew of developers to make the game into a AAA title.

      For FK’s sake, it’s about time somebody did something and it just so happens to be Valve.

      I have a lot of faith in Valve and I do believe DOTA 2 will fit in perfectly with the system that they have sweated blood and tears over in creating.

      So yeah, QQ some more Blizzard and keep milking your WOW cash cow so that you can buy more farriers while ignoring your fan base….In all honesty, STFU and GETFO Blizzard. You lost.

    • The Yeti says:

      @Eclipse

      Valve has a track record of taking modifications of games and turning them into commercial products.

      For instance, Counter Strike: Source is a commercial release of a half-life 1 mod, Counter Strike made by Minh “Gooseman” Le and Jess “Cliffe” Cliffe (Wikipedia.)

      Additionally, Day of Defeat: Source is a commercial release of a half-life 1 modification, Day of Defeat made by a community-driven mod team.

      Now one may argue, that both of these games derived from mods created using the Half-Life 1, Goldsrc engine, and that this fact not only entitles, but also encourages Valve to develop these games further and release them as commercial products. However, Valve has also published Team Fortress 2. As the name implies, it is obviously a sequel. The original however was made by a mod team using the Quake engine.

      My point is, that there was not a big uproar when Valve made Team Fortress 2 which is a commercial release, named as a sequel of a modification created by a community-driven team, through the use of a game engine other than Valve’s. So why now? This whole dispute is an ego bash between the two greatest PC gaming titans. I think blizzard needs to stick to pleasing the hordes of WoW, Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft players, and let this one go.

  2. Captain Hijinx says:

    Oh boy, here we go.

    I don’t really care what they end of calling Dota 2, the game itself is brilliant so far for me in the Beta, that’s all i really care about, how it plays.

    • thetruegentleman says:

      Technically it DOES matter: First, Blizzard will probably ask for an injunction, delaying the game if they succeed. If Blizzard actually wins the lawsuit, they’ll almost certainly turn around and claim that, since Valve has been advertising using a name associated with Blizzard, that Blizzard should get a royalty, and they’ll almost certainly ask for an injunction until the matter is resolved (which they’ll probably get).

      Or, to put more succinctly, if Blizzard wins, DOTA will be delayed, perhaps indefinitely. It could also affect the price of the final product, although that’s far less likely.

    • Froibo says:

      Probably going to be Free to Play, given the current success of the model as well as encourage more steam users. That might make things even more interesting and complicated because customers are only purchasing content within the game not the game itself. So they might argue that they should not have to pay royalty for the game.

  3. Eclipse says:

    Am I the only one that thinks that in this case, both Valve and Blizzard are wrong and they both suck big time?
    Neither of them ever did a DOTA game, the original one was a fan-made mod, and the rights should be given to the original creator of Defend of the Ancients mod for W3

    • kurtcocaine says:

      I dont play Dota much but AFAIK, guinsoo the guy who made the original fan-mod and I think even ice-frog(the guy who maintained it) now work at valve.. So arent they in their right to use the Dota name?

      Edit: sorry I was mistaken, Guinsoo works at riot games.. and apparently they had also submitted an application to copyright Dota.. Dunno what became of that
      http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/08/17/riot-games-dev-counter-files-dota-trademark

      Thanks *MrMud* for pointing out my error.. as I said, dont really play much Dota..

    • Jumwa says:

      Considering that was the message of the base post itself, I think it’s safe to say: No, you are not alone.

    • MrMud says:

      Since when did Guinsoo work at valve?
      Afaik he still works at Riot.

      Also I dont think either of them should have the name but if anything Blizzard has more right to it than Valve does.

    • sneetch says:

      @MrMud
      Also I dont think either of them should have the name but if anything Blizzard has more right to it than Valve does.

      Why? Because they say they have? Because the mod was on Warcraft III? This is like EPIC claiming they have the right to a mods name because it was on Unreal 3 or Valve claiming they have the right to a mods name because it appeared on Source, that’s really no basis for a claim in practical terms and shouldn’t be in law either.

      I don’t know if anyone should have it but at least one of the original devs now works on Dota 2 in Valve (whether or not he has the right to it as opposed to the other devs is another discussion).

      Hell, Valve aren’t even trademarking Defence of the Ancients, they’re trademarking Dota.

    • Juan Carlo says:

      Valve will win this. If they had trademarked “Defense of the Ancients,” Blizzard might have more of a case. But there’s a reason Valve has insisted on calling this just DOTA all along.

      Still, I don’t think it matters in the long run. Everyone for whom the name “DOTA” actually means something already know that Valve’s version of DOTA2 is a redone DOTA. So I don’t think the game will be any less successful among those rabid fans if Valve ends up having to change the name. And customers who have never heard of DOTA obviously won’t care at all what its name is.

      So this just seems like a big waste of money and effort to me.

    • aspabd says:

      I could be wrong here, but I am pretty sure the original creator of Dota is Eul – who works at valve. Guinsoo then took over after Eul. Once Guinsoo left for make LoL, icefrog took over maintaining dota and still does to this day.

    • Captain Hijinx says:

      Guinsoo did not create Dota either. The original creator and the guy currently maintaining it both work at Valve, they’re making the most serious version of Dota, investing a lot into it, there’s no reason why they both can’t have the name Dota

    • Warskull says:

      Eul was the original creator of DotA. He wanted to make an AoS map that didn’t suck and wasn’t balanced by idiots. It was a great mod. Guinsoo got his hands on an unprotected copy when the TFT expansion came out and essentially stole the map and started modifying it. His version won in a war of “unofficial” copies where people were adding stuff to the game as fast as possible. He left things in a real mess though. Icefrog went in and cleaned things up, made the mod take less than 5 minutes to load, fixed a huge amount of balance problems, ect.

      Blizzard’s claim is a clause in the EULA that they own the rights to anything created with their map maker. They are essentially trying to steal the communities work for themselves at this point.

      If this was years ago, Blizzard probably would have won. However, since Blizzard didn’t trademark or defend DOTA for years they don’t have an easy case.

    • Urthman says:

      If Valve had been smart, they’d have called the game “Icefrog’s DOTA” or “Valve DOTA” and argued that “DOTA” has by common use become a generic name for DOTA-type games

    • FoxCharge says:

      DotA was made by Eul, who now works at Valve.

      Guinsoo picked up on the project. He went on to found Riot Studios and created League of Legends.

      Icefrog, the developer credited with putting in most of the work and making DotA what it is today, is the main developer of Dota 2 at Valve.

      That gives Valve all the ownership they need.

    • ahac says:

      > That gives Valve all the ownership they need.

      No, it doesn’t. Just because you work for a company doesn’t mean that that company owns everything you ever made before.

  4. UnravThreads says:

    Why am I not surprised?

    In all honesty, Valve did bring this upon themselves so I have absolutely shit all sympathy for them, but the results will be *very* interesting.

  5. hosndosn says:

    I’m a Valve fanboy and not really that fond of ActivisionBlizzard and their money-milking adventures as of late… but they’re kinda… in the right, no? I mean, imagine Blizzard did this to Counter-Strike or Team Fortress back in the days. I never understood why Valve was so obsessed with using the DOTA name rather than come up with something new. HoN or LoL aren’t exactly suffering from not using the exact brand name while doing the same thing.

    Not only that, this would mean copyright hell for any future modding endeavors. If Valve gets through with this future games would use pages TOS/EULA to strip mod creators of any ownership rights whatsoever just out of paranoia something popular would come out of it.

    • Ninja Foodstuff says:

      I’m also siding with Blizzard on this, although I have no love for them. I imagine if Activision did the same thing with a Half-Life mod people would be up in arms.

    • tenseiga says:

      Ninja Foodstuffs has a nice point. When valve picked up the narb drop guys they renamed it portal, but did they trademark the name portal? Similarly with alien swarm and teamfortress did anyone complain? Did they attempt to trademark?
      Apparently they didnt file for trademark prolly because not a lot of people were playing tf 1 (TFC was their own so no one could complain). Whereas valve clearly is after the dota 1 base. Even HoN didnt dare use the dota name even though they have similar heroes.
      Valve needs to back down, if no one owns the trademark both sides are free to call their games whatever they want. Dota 2 and starcraft dota. All works for me.

  6. bitkari says:

    Well, they’ve removed all other Blizzard references in DOTA2, so I guess the only other thing Valve need to do is to lose the “Ancients” bit of the name.

    How about:

    “Defenestration Of The Attorneys”?

    • tenseiga says:

      valve stated that it no longer stands for ‘defence of the ancients’ it is just ‘Dota’ a name in itself and has no abbreviation. Ancients is still used to refer to the fortress at the end but its not a lichking throne or world tree.

  7. Icarus says:

    I’m pretty sure that in their conference call Blizzard said that their DOTA would be free to play.

  8. Carra says:

    Valve & Blizzard are my two favorite developers. Don’t make me choose, it’s like having a child pick if he’ll go live with his dad and mom!

  9. mrwonko says:

    Why did Valve call it Dota? Because it is! It’s the exact same thing, with added polish. It pretty much deserves the name.

    I wonder how far the World Editor’s EULA goes though – it could very well grant Blizzard the ownership of all content created with it.

    • evilbobthebob says:

      It will be very interesting to see how the courts handle the EULA in this case, as I suspect it will be the crux of Blizzard’s campaign. If it isn’t, that says a lot about how defensible EULAs are in court. Either way, this could create some interesting precedent for dealing with the EULA.

    • Rao Dao Zao says:

      The WE does say you own everything created with the editor, but I suspect like any EULA it wouldn’t stand up in court.

      Besides, the name of the map… Technically, that wasn’t made in the editor.

  10. Choca says:

    The first DotA came out 9 years ago, if Blizzard wanted the name so bad, they should have acted earlier.

    • RedViv says:

      Pretty much this. I dare say, had Valve not announced DOTA2 as such, Blizzard would have tried to get that trademark for themselves, once they decided to get in on all this nice MOBA action.

    • Gozuu says:

      What you fail to understand is that Blizzard is NOT trying to trademark DotA, DOTA or Defense of the Ancients. They are simply protecting it as a community entity.

      They are well aware that DotA is a community created success and don’t feel that trademarking it is a fair thing to do.

    • TidiusFF says:

      Gozuu > You’re way too much naive… the day Activision-Blizzard will really care more of the community than shareholders, Microsoft releases Windows as open-source…

    • Choca says:

      @Gozuu : While it’s sweet that you believe that, Blizzard probably wants the name to stay out there so they can name their iteration of the mod as “StarCraft DotA” and monetize the crap out of it by selling heroes, skins and other stuff on an official shop.

      It’s no coincidence that Blizzard never cared for making and “official” DotA before League of Legends started making a bucket load of money with that very same model.

      Of course, Valve’s goal is also to make a buttload of money but they got the name when they wanted it, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t keep it.

    • Froibo says:

      @Gozuu

      From my other comment:

      “The excuse that they didn’t want to make the community angry by making DOTA an official Blizzard project is total bullshit; they were perfectly happy with the developers promoting and providing content to their game without using their own resources.”

  11. Asuron says:

    Umm Blizzard never , ever approached Icefrog or any of the other creators to obtain DOTA. At any point during its long history and are now claiming to own its name?

    What . The. Bloody.Hell
    They are not even calling it Defense of the Ancients, they are calling it DOTA. So how can it reference anything from Warcraft?
    They changed all the characters to avoid this issue
    They did everything to avoid confrontation, other than keep the name because the creator Icefrog, the guy who worked longest on the game and undoubtedly contributed the most to it being what it is today, wanted it to be called that. probably because after all the years he worked on it I suppose he thought he would have the privilege to to call it that, especially considering the fact he did it for free the entire time and Blizzard NEVER ONCE CONTACTED HIM ABOUT IT.

    Yet people are taking Blizzards side? I do not get how. It was a mod they had no part in from day one other than the mod tools they supplied being used.

    • Gozuu says:

      They provided mod tools, they did patches seven years after the release of Warcraft III: TFT to increase the size of the custom maps specifically aimed to let DotA grow. Stop being an idiot and read up on the things before you comment shit.

    • Asuron says:

      Yeah because all those things are the equivalent of five plus years of work dedicated to balancing, hero/ item additions, many of which balanced the game and made it into the competitive monster it is now, for free.

      Increasing the size of custom maps is the equivalent of that alright and they deserve a shot at it completely….
      You also seem to be under the delusion that Blizzard as it is now only wants to take the IP away from Valve for protection.
      You are naive beyond belief if you actually believe this. I don’t know if you notice, but Blizzard doesn’t support communities anymore, they milk consumers for all their worth and throw them in the trash.
      You only need to look as far as Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 to see this

    • Lagavulin says:

      I completely agree with Asuron. no need to be aggressive and insulting.
      Blizzard never worked on DOTA and now they want to prevent Icefrog to develop a sequel called “dota2″?
      seriously, Blizzard just want to mess with valve and to push forward with their own moba (which has nothing to do with the original dota devs… contrary to dota2…)

      Both should be able to call their MOBA “dota” if thy want to, but honestly, valve’s dota2 has a legitimacy you can’t deny. Anyway, Blizzard is late with their MOBA. LOL is already installed, and dota2 is convincing almost every dota1 player to switch game.

    • Gozuu says:

      Only one Naive here is you Asuron. You are probably the same kind of man that thinks you are being robbed of freedom in your games if it doesn’t feature a certain video aspect that you prefer.

      They aren’t going to trademark this themselves. They had seven years now to do so, they knew about Riot Games & S2Games developing standalone versions, one more different than the other and have seen their popularity before the announcement of DOTA2. They could at this very point themselves file for the trademark, but they aren’t doing so.

      Keep being a retarded monkey.

    • Asuron says:

      Because they didn’t think it would make money? I don’t know how long you’ve been part of the DOTA community but Blizzard never took an interest in it once because they believed it would make no money at all.

      LoL comes along and obliterates this notion and now you see a Blizzard Dota actively being integrated into their game, in order to lure in more consumers.
      They could have at any point enlisted the creators of Dota with their considerable resources and trademarked the IP, taking it for themselves and expanded the game significantly. They did not.

      They do not suddenly get to come in and demand its their IP, especially when the creators of the current game have gone out of their considerable way to avoid any Warcraft 3 references. Especially when the creators of the current game worked on DOTA the longest and contributed the most to its success today.

      Your points have no merit and to top that off you go to crude, twelve year old insults to boot as if by calling someone retarded your points suddenly have more merit.
      If you believe this is anything less than an attempt to block competition, then I don’t honestly know what to say to you.

    • Gozuu says:

      Throughout the seven years where there were no mention of DOTA2, none of the Blizzard-software created Custom Maps(mods) were trademarked nor tried to be turned into a profitable thing due to the fact that it’s community mods?

      I would agree with you if Blizzard tried to claim the trademark as theirs. They are however not doing so. They are preventing Valve from getting the trademark on it. They had absolutely no problem with Valve naming it DOTA2, as long as they would not trademark it. Now, they have tried to trademark it and Blizzard are strongly against trademarking community “entities” as they call it.

      You think that Blizzard does this to reduce competition (to their free to play version Blizzard DOTA) while in-fact they probably would still allow Valve to go with DOTA2 as long as they don’t trademark it.

    • Lemming says:

      @Gozuu…dude…Blizzard is not going to spend a fortune going to court for ‘the community’ you poor naive son of a bitch. :(

    • TidiusFF says:

      Gozuu > See what happened to Counter-Strike, beginning as a HL1 mod. Valve have seen the potential, contact the developpers and trademark it.

      If Blizzard don’t negociate in order to trademark mods, it’s because they don’t see that profitable.

      Anyway, just answer that : Valve trademark DotA2 almost two years for now ; why Blizzard don’t came up at the beginning ?

    • alundra says:

      @Asuron
      Yet people are taking Blizzards side? I do not get how.

      It’s easy, Blizzard fanboys are a delusional bunch of UFVs (Unmanned Fanboy Vehicles), just take a look at how far they twist things around always trying to make Blizzard appear as La Petite Pantoufle of the story.

      To protect the community?? LOL!

    • Soon says:

      I thought it was a standard clause in a license agreement that the original devs/publisher own whatever is released with the editor. Haven’t read Blizzard’s one specifically, though. They may very well own DOTA as a Warcraft mod, but I guess we’ll see if that’s enough to give them claim to something external to that.

    • Froibo says:

      @Asuron Spot on.

      @Gozuu Dude.. Blizzard is releasing their own official mod called DOTA meanwhile taking Valve to court for using the name DOTA. How in any way is this not about Blizzard wanting the copyright?

      Face it, Blizzard was ay-okay with the community providing content for their games and there is nothing wrong with that. However, they can’t act surprised all of the sudden that another company expresses interest and swoops away their unclaimed content and free talent. This was nothing but bad business, the kind of shit you learn in a business 101 class. Now Blizzard realized they let a cash cow slip through their fingers which is the only thing driving their reaction.

      Blizzard would not be spending all of this effort and money in making this a legal case just to protect the integrity of the community… They are making a bet that it will payout.

  12. Jon says:

    I wouldn’t have thought that either can lay claim to the name, DOTA has entered into the public domain to describe these sorts of games. It would be like trying to copyright FPS or RTS etc.

    Edit: Also, wouldn’t this be a dangerous precedent? Does this mean Blizzard also own Median XL and Eastern Sun? Does Bestheda own Midas Magic? Does Valve own Dust2?

    • TidiusFF says:

      In fact, if you’re talking about CS map dust2, they own it. But they have bought/hired (don’t remember exaclty) CS creators and don’t spoil anyone…

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      VALVe owns de_dust2 because they created it. It didn’t exist in Counter-Strike until VALVe hired Cliffe & Gooseman & released the standalone retail version of the mod with de_dust2 amongst other new maps.

    • TidiusFF says:

      Thanks for the details.

  13. BigJonno says:

    It’s all a ridiculous waste of time, money and effort, as far as I’m concerned. It kind of annoys me that either company are making DOTA games in the first place. They’re two developers that could quite literally make any game they wanted to and they’ve chosen to do something that was quite happy in the hands of modders and small developers. It’s like Steven Spielberg deciding to make a stop-motion Lego animation.

    • Stupoider says:

      Emphasis on “could quite literally make any game they wanted to”, folks at Valve love DotA so I’m sure they’re keen on making its sequel, as would all the other DotA players in their fanbase

    • Lemming says:

      I agree 100%

  14. Serenegoose says:

    News just in: Big Corporations try and suck the fun out of videogames to feed their collective soulless vampirism. More at 11.

    Honestly, this is boring and absolutely stupid. Two big fish fighting over who gets to own something they didn’t make. If only they could -both- lose. It’s embarrassing that in the 21st century when we were meant to be driving hovercars to work on the moon people with millions of dollars at their disposal are bickering like 6 year olds. And frankly I know a few six year olds who would be insulted by that. Both of them should have to sit in the corner until they feel silly.

    • hroafelme says:

      Well Guinsoo was the one that made DotA as it is today (Eul making the first but), Then handed it over to IceFrog in 2005. Pretty sure Guinsoo gave IceFrog permission to create a new DotA with Valve, So Valve has the developer working for them and DotA would not be as a huge success without IceFrog.

      Really do belive that Blizzard missed the chance here, They had 9 years to recruit DotA to them.

    • Stupoider says:

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

    • pakoito says:

      Guinsoo gave Icefrog permision to make a Dota for S2, that became Heroes of Newerth. Then Icefrog quit for Valve.

      Everyone forgets that step.

  15. kikito says:

    Blizzard: Is the opportunity of using a name in a game really worth the bad PR?

    Valve: You are giving it to lawyers instead of giving it to Half Life 3 developers. Why?

    Blizzard + Valve: You can BOTH release the game. No one owns the IP. Just call it “Blizzard’s DOTA” and “Valve’s DOTA”.

    You can send me 10% of what your lawyers are asking now.

  16. Kdansky says:

    I feel Blizzard has a strong claim to the name, just because the original mod was released nearly a decade ago as a Warcraft 3 map. And remember that most editor EULAs are ridiculously one-sided to begin with.

    That said: It’s a really stupid name. It’s not even a proper word!! It’s an abbreviation of something everyone has forgotten already, and which was never a really good title to begin with.

    • Asuron says:

      During that time the EULA made no claim to mods I believe and still don’t for WC3. All their current games do. So unless they’ve made updated claims to WC3, which I don’t believe would still apply anyway, this is a non issue

      They don’t have a right to it at all.

    • FriendlyFire says:

      Plus, I’d be very, very interested to see how EULAs hold up in court. Corps love floating the threat of what EULAs say, but they’ve never been challenged in court. I doubt they’d hold up as very often they violate a bunch of consumer protection laws.

  17. Pharos says:

    I’m rooting for Valve in this case simply because I don’t want Blizzard to have control over the DOTA IP. Activision has repeatedly demonstrated that they can’t be trusted to release a game without giving a gigantic middle finger to their customers. That’s why you need to buy more than one (overpriced) copy of Starcraft 2 to play people in more than one region and why Diablo 3 needs to be online.

    It’s just one continuous game of silly buggers with these people. While Valve’s behaviour is certainly questionable, at least it’s not the almost cartoonish supervillainy ActiBlizzard seems to be indulging in as of late.

    • Gozuu says:

      Another retard(excuse my language) who can’t read.

      Blizzard isn’t filing for a trademark on DotA, DOTA or Defense of the Ancients. They are filing an opposition to avoid Valve having it and in general: to avoid anyone from having it, not even themselves.

    • Stupoider says:

      @Gozuu

      “the DOTA mark has become firmly associated in the mind of consumers with Blizzard”

    • Koozer says:

      @Gozuu: no, I shall not excuse you.
      Of course Blizzard will file for trademark if this goes their way, they would be pretty dim not to. You honestly think they’re doing this out of the good of their hearts?

    • TheApologist says:

      @Gozuu – the personal insults you’ve splashed throughout this comments thread are not ok, whatever the strength of your views on the topic. Please stop.

    • Shooop says:

      The only “retard” here is you Gozuu.

      Do you really think Blizzard wouldn’t file for trademark if they win? How stupid would it be for them financially not to do that?

      They are a company. Their goal is to make money. DOTA obviously is popular enough to earn them money so of course they’re going to be perusing ownership of it if they think they can.

  18. hroafelme says:

    Either way I think this will only hurt blizzard. What is they draw to BDotA? The names of all the characters? we don’t care about that or the lore, We want to play our DotA with a better engine and functions.

    Do someone know if Blizzard ever have been in contact with IceFrog to give him any income or work with him. Feel like they are little kids just wanting a piece of the cake now.

  19. Elmokki says:

    This is just plain bullshit. Valve has IceFrog (who isn’t the sole contributor to DotA, I know, but plays the most major role on it’s development) on board giving it at least some legitimacy to be called “Dota 2″ – also as a pointer, as far as I know it’s not “Defence of the Ancients 2″, it’s “Dota 2″. Dota 2 is in many senses a sequal to DotA really – it’s mostly a port for a new engine with the long time developer of the current DotA on board.

    I have absolutely no sympathy for Blizzard here. Valve is clearly avoiding the use of Warcraft universe things in names and even character models. Kel’thuzad the Lich isn’t named Kel’thuzard in Dota2 for example. The only way I could associate Dota 2 with Blizzard is if I knew what the original DotA was, and if someone does know that, they most probably can figure out they’re different things from different companies.

    Blizzard would have in my opinion had the right to develop a DotA sequal over Valve possibly, but when they haven’t done anything and then attack Valve (rather long time after Dota 2 announcement too), I see absolutely no reason to support them.

    I mean, seriously, from my viewpoint Blizzard is just fighting to mess with Valve. Neither company should really have the rights to Dota name, but Valve is in the position where they definitely should be allowed to develop the game named “Dota 2″

  20. Velvetmeds says:

    Hope Blizzard wins

    Valve should just stop making bad games and focus solely on Steam

    “What is they draw to BDotA? The names of all the characters? we don’t care about that or the lore”? Who’s we?.. I do. And it’s why i want to play BDotA and why i’m not gonna touch DOTA2 even if it’s free

  21. Milky1985 says:

    My feeling is that all lawyers need to be shot into the sun (for starters) so couldn’t give a crap about the law side of it, gonna put a few thoughts down tho. Before i post this i will prefice it by saying i think valve are ok to make the game, maybe they can change the name but maybe not (don’t see why they shoudl change the name tbh, but the slightly burnt lawyers will decide that), and that blizzard are basically throwing the toys out of hte pram because the baby that they completely ignored has grown up and left the nest, and is now making money for someone else.

    So firstly – “Valve seeks to appropriate the more than seven years of goodwill that Blizzard has developed in the mark DOTA and inits Warcraft III computer game and take for itself a name that has come to signify the product of years of time and energy expended by Blizzard and by fans of Warcraft III”

    Just because it was made on there product doesn’t mean they expended any effort or had anything to do with it, I can’t remmeber anything that blizz added to the map, anything they did to specifically promote the map or whatever within warcraft. Sure they provided the game but that wasn’t for dota, it was for the game.

    It was a popular map for the game nothing more, it could have been anything.Can they really claim energy expanded by blizzard when they did sod all with relating to the dota map?

    “including by causing consumers to falsely believe that Valve’s products are affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Blizzard and are related or connected to Warcraft III.””

    Sorry but most people see it as dota, not warcraft 3. You may get a few idiots but I believe (not a lawyer so don’t quote) trademark confusion laws work on the common individual. Will the average person get confused.

    Also doesn;t the fact that they are themselves making starcraft dota put a hole in the whole “its linked to warcraft 3″ argument :P

    “The title “Defense of the Ancients,” or “DotA,” is a reference to the Warcraft III characters known as the “Ancients,” since the primary objective of the game is to either defend or destroy (depending upon which team the player is on) the Ancient known as the Tree of Life.”

    Right because the idea of a big ancient is specific to warcraft 3, theres never been any other examples in any other lores of this sort of thing!

    tl:dr version

    Blizz were slow on the uptake (probably due to rolling around in wow millions), didn’t talk to creator about making it a full game, hes making it somewhere else , they are complaining because they feel entitled.

    Oh and lawyers need to burn in hellfire (for starters)

    (any comments made here are the opinion of the poster and in no way reflective of the opinions of anyone else and not related to rps in any fashion)

    • UncleLou says:

      I am a trademark lawyer, and typed several replies. Deleted them all. I’ll let you guys just carry on and keep out of it, it’s too painful ;p

    • Shooop says:

      So you’re more upset at the lawyers instead of the shitbirds who called them in the first place? Way to see the real problem there bub!

  22. faelnor says:

    “Dota” is a stupid name anyway. With a strong connotation of smelly internet cafes and shitty swedish eurodance. Screw both parties.

    • Hoaxfish says:

      I’d say dota is more in the line of “doting mothers”

  23. Diogo Ribeiro says:

    You’re welcome :)

    They should solve this over a SC2 or TF2 deatmatch, really.

  24. A7K says:

    AFAIK the WC3 World editor EULA stipulates that any content created within it is the exclusive property of blizzard entertainment. Considering how much was changed the only outstanding thing would be the title and i think they could just change what the acronym means and be in the clear.

    Ex:
    Defense Of The Aether
    Defense Of The Academy
    Defense Of The Acropolis

    or whatever

  25. Bluerps says:

    Hm. Couldn’t Valve simply state that they only want to call their game “DOTA” without trademarking the term? I have no idea if that is legally possible, though…

  26. DeanLearner says:

    With the weather being so bad at the moment you could say that this blizzard has opened the valve on this can of worms and I for one dota know how it will be sorted!

    back to you in the studio.

  27. Avenger says:

    The only reasonable question is “Which company is willing and able and finds it feasible to contribute to the DOTA name and advance it in terms of development and support?”

    For the last decade, Blizzard has done absolutely NOTHING for the mod and it just baffles me how they can just reach in and claim it JUST WHEN SOMEONE ELSE DECIDES TO DO SO!

  28. Mavvvy says:

    Riot must be laughing all the way to the bank and back again in their hover cars

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Having played LoL & now VALVe’s Dota 2, if I were at Riot I’d probably be pissing in my pants as the golden goose is more than likely announcing it’s departure imminently.

    • Koozer says:

      Is Valve’s effort as accessible as Lol? HoN is way too fiddly with many obfuscated mechanics for me. LoL hits the right balance between transparency of mechanics and depth for me.

  29. djim says:

    This should have zero chance to succeed as DOTA was not made by Blizzard so they do not own the name. Neither Valve does so they are in the wrong too. The name belongs to the original creators of DOTA.

    Now, if those original creators are now working with Valve then it is safe to assume that they have given Valve the right to use the name.

    On the other hand, laws are so morronic that they may decree that Blizzard own the name because it was created for a mod for one of their games, which imo would set a very bad precedent.

  30. 4026 says:

    “The DoTA name is irrevocably tied to the lore of our game Warcraft 3, and can never be separated from it. Also, it’s terribly important that we get the trademark so that we can make Starcraft DoTA.”

    Wait, what?

  31. Xocrates says:

    Wait, is Blizzard trying to own the name? Or just trying to prevent Valve from owning it?

    Because that’s a very important difference, and one that’s really not very clear in the article or Blizzard’s claim.

    • zergrush says:

      Exactly. If Blizzard’s only trying to keep Valve from owning the name I agree with them, but if they’re trying to get the name for themselves their claims are pretty stupid.

  32. Kaira- says:

    For me it seems that Blizzard has the higher ground.

    Whatever happens, it’ll be interesting to see how this develops.

  33. mbr says:

    Oh for fuck sake Blizzard! This is the whole KeSPA situation all over again. You can’t come out after years and years and say you have any claim to what the community have built up.

    • Gozuu says:

      I won’t disagree or agree with your comment, just ask:

      Even if the community used the software developed by Blizzard Entertainment?

    • JackShandy says:

      Yes. Because Adobe doesn’t own everything ever made in Photoshop, and paint manufacturers don’t own every painting, and table-makers don’t own every meal you eat.

    • zergrush says:

      DotA uses blizzards models, textures, code and even IPs. It’s far from being simply “paint”.

    • JackShandy says:

      Ok then, sure. If Blizzard’s EULA says “We own everything you make in a mod”, they own Dota. If it says “You own whatever you make with our stuff”, they do not.

    • Gnarf says:

      “DotA uses blizzards models, textures, code and even IPs. It’s far from being simply “paint”.”

      Yeah, uh, this.

      Buying a game is not generally considered licensing technology and buying art to use for whatever you’d like. Prices reflect that.

    • Shooop says:

      That’s how it used to be, but not anymore Gnarf. Remember? We’re now living in the age of “games are services.”

  34. zergrush says:

    And for people who don’t know DotA, it features characters, lore and names from multiple Blizzard IPs.

    Those are ( obviously ) being removed in Valve’s remake, but the original map featured plenty of Warcraft and Diablo characters / references, so they DO have some ground for not wanting Valve to own the trademark.

  35. Kollega says:

    This story reminds me of that old tagline, supposedly from the first Alien versus Predator movie.

    “Whoever wins, we lose.”

  36. asim says:

    Some people really make difference. Blog carries great informative material. One should read this one and appreciate. Thanks.
    apartments in Dubai for rent

  37. zeroskill says:

    Blizzard never cared for Dota, now they suddenly do, why? Money. Screw’em.

    Also: Getting into a fight with Valve over a PC game Valve is making for a 10 million strong community that has been asking for exactly this for years is just plain stupid. Blizzard proofs they not only don’t care for the Dota community, but also, now is looking to ruin their chance at finally getting what they have been asking for for so long. Blizzard can only lose here, even if they win in court.
    Blizzard had the chance to make this 10 million strong community THEIR community, but they didn’t care. Now those people are part of Valve. Good luck fighting them.

    • Xocrates says:

      They never cared?

      They worked with the mod makers to make sure the mod worked with the various iterations of WCIII and the map editor, they even hosted tournaments of the thing at their own convention.

      Also, why would they make a sequel to a mod they didn’t create? Even Blizzard DOTA seems set to be their own take on it, not a sequel.

    • zeroskill says:

      Big freaking deal.

      Oh and Blizzard DOTA is a joke. Its nothing like Dota. Dota players will never touch it. Its being made for Starcraft players, not the Dota community. Dota players want to play Dota.

  38. caddyB says:

    HoN is better anyway.

  39. faelnor says:

    Bethesda should sue Valve over Team Fortress.

  40. Lemming says:

    To me, Valve have done what they’ve always done: Embrace a mod made by the community and decided to take it under it’s wing to make it a full-fledged game, bringing original mod team members with it.

    Blizzard, on the other hand have done what they’ve always done: Give a very arm’s length pat on the back to the mod community and said ‘yeah ‘salright’ and stayed in their ivory tower.

    The fact that the original mod was made with WC3 is irrelevant, because Valve have made THIS game from the ground up in Source. Does Id have a claim to TF2 because TF was originally made in the Quake engine? Of course not.

    Blizzard should have struck while the iron was hot and done a DOTA game from the beginning, but they didn’t – because they think they are the best at everything they do, and now they are looking at DOTA 2 and getting a touch of the green-eyed monster.

    Well tough shit, Blizz.

  41. Mikkoeronen says:

    I wont give any comment on who should own this title and who shouldn’t.

    But after playing in Dota2 beta for a while now, I can’t but to smirk on how familiar most of the heroes’ themes are compared to the Warcraft characters. I mean original Dota based skills and elements and themes around Warcraft Universe and now Dota 2 is ripping those very same themes with slight changes, I can feel the cripe if totally honest. They could have come up with their own themes and stuff.

    Oh and I’m not talking only about that they are both “fantasy”. I’m talking about class to class comparison. Even their sound acting is similar to the original Warcraft 3 sound actings… (comments).

    • zergrush says:

      I think they’re doing a pretty good job at making stuff different enough as to not be a straight up copy while keeping everything pretty familiar.

      Except for the awful storm spirit model.

  42. newprince says:

    Comparing this to Blizzard swooping up Counter-Strike is bunk because Valve DID pick up CS when they saw it was a popular mod to their game. Blizzard sat on their hands and now they are paying for it. Neither company has the rights to the Dota name, and the mods’ creators seem to not have a say in it, so drop it and let both come out.

  43. tgoat says:

    Why not just rename it Defending Those Hella Old Dudes (DeTHOD)?

  44. holylight17 says:

    I had played dota for 5 years now(during guinsoo time before icefrog took over) and trust me Blizzard would be the last one on the list that deserve the name Dota. Did anyone here remember any Dota event at Blizzcon? No right? Blizzard support for dota is nonexistent every single dota player will agree with me. And to ppl saying Dota belong to the community and not valve, you guys have no idea how crazily loyal we are toward Icefrog. For the dota community Icefrog is GOD. He is the only one that deserve the right of Dota and now he is working full time at valve so it is a no brainer Valve should have the full right of Dota.

  45. jhng says:

    I came here to read about something other than complex trade mark disputes during my lunch break. Oh dear… Still, I’d love to be working on this one (on whatever side) it will be fascinating from a legal point of view!

  46. bear912 says:

    And a headcrab vs. zergling battle was imagined!

  47. ado says:

    This can only go the wrong way for Blizz, even if they win, because the dota fans are already in the boat with Valve and their game. You don’t want to piss off millions of hardcore dota nerds Blizz, it’s not good for the business.

    Furthermore, it’s not like they ever wanted to do anything with the DOTA trademark, even their BlizzDOTA is just a rushed response to Valve’s DOTA2.

    • Shooop says:

      Blizzard hasn’t cared what gamers think of them for years now.

  48. DeepQantas says:

    This is pretty despicable from a modder’s perspective. Blizzard is essentially saying “don’t mod our games, cos if your mod gets popular we’ll throw lawyers at you”.

    Remember that time Epic Games claimed Red Orchestra, Alien Swarm and Air Buccaneers trademarks cos people associated good mods with Unreal Tournament? Yeah, me neither.

    • zergrush says:

      Did any of those three use characters, names and lore from the Unreal franchise?

      Because there is a buttload of blizzard IP on the original DotA, and that’s probably what gives them any leverage on the issue. DotA has plenty of Warcraft and Diablo characters and items, you can play as Leoric the Skeleton King or an Abomination called “The Butcher” that says “Aaah! Fresh meat!”, a bunch of windrunners, proudmoores and assorted warcraft dudes, and all those things DO belong to Blizzard.

    • Asuron says:

      @zergrush

      Don’t know if you’ve seen DOTA 2 but this is a non issue as it stands currently.
      They’ve changed character designs and names the the point where most of them barely resemble their DotA counterparts.

      Perfect example of this is Storm Spirit, used to be a panda, now a fat blue man with a moustache.
      Another would be Kel Thuzad the Lich, just being called Lich and the design being drastically overhauled.
      Same with Juggernaut, PoTM, Pudge, Invoker etc. You’d really have to be stretching to say they resemble the originals honestly if you’d seen their new designs

    • zergrush says:

      I’m in the DOTA2 beta, and am well aware of the changes. That doesn’t change the fact that the original DotA is / can be associated with Blizzards IPs, and that’s what their claim is based on.

      As stated above, I don’t really agree with any of the companies owning this trademark, and am merely trying to explain to people who don’t know enough about the game what Blizzard can be / is basing their counter-claim on.

    • zeroskill says:

      Not mentioning that anything Blizzard has ever made is a exact copy from Warhammer /40k. Duh.

    • zergrush says:

      They’re not an “exact” copy, if that was the case they might even have some good lore. The first Starcraft/Warcraft iterations were a lot like warhammer and 40k design wise, but with much crappier lore/writing. The most recent are further from WH, but still crap anyways.

      Diablo is the only ( active ) Blizzard IP with decent story / lore / atmosphere, and it’s certainly not a warhammer copy ~.~

    • Joshua Northey says:

      And Warhammer is a copy of other things. That is how art works, everyone steals from everyone constantly and people only get mad if money starts getting made.

    • Lemming says:

      The Blizzard lore is irrelevant to the mod though. It was about a game mechanic. It wouldn’t have matted if its was magic fuck vs giant zombie fish, it’s how it played which is what makes it DOTA, surely? And the fact DOTA2 has no Blizzard lore in it, and is still getting a DOTA following would be proof of that, yes?

  49. mzlapq says:

    If Blizzard wins, I hope that the Tolkien estate sues it out of existence.

  50. Crainey says:

    This whole thing is really quite silly, Blizzard need to get over it and move on, this will only hurt their public image. Blizzard should have looked at the community a long time ago and embraced IceFrog, unfortunately they didn’t and Valve moved in (years later might I add).