hearted
I suspect that the canon ending re: main character is that he--and I definitely bet that the canon Warden is a "he"--performed the ritual with Morrigan and survived.
In this circumstance, Origin doesn't have any other "meaning" either, because it is a word that is disassociated with the two goods/services at hand. It's like "Sprite." Sprite is a real word (like Origin), but it has no distinct connection to soft drinks (Unlike, say, Coca-cola which originally was a very poor, nearly generic trademark, since it's literally describing what the product is.) As such, 'Sprite,' as a trademark, is strong, and if someone wanted to put out a drink, food, or probably even open a restaurant using Sprite in the name, they could get into trouble.
In the same way, Origin is a 'strong' mark because nothing in the word itself relates to computers or software services. There absolutely wouldn't be a problem with EA if you wanted to start selling Origin brand lemon tea (though I bet there are food products using that mark already.) But computers and games? Really closely related. Another analogy: Starbuck's signature coffee blend is "Pike's Place." How do you think they would react if someone started selling mugs, cups, plates, bowls, and utensils under a "Pike's Place" brand? It's not like Starbuck's sells 'Pike's Place' mugs now (just "Starbuck's" mugs), but I bet they'd want to protect that trademark.
I'm not saying the situation is identical, and I'm not saying that EA (or Origin PC) should be more litigious. I'm only trying to make sure that we're all on the same page if it does come to that: words can and are registered as trademarks, and yes, that even includes words like Origin which walk the line between "made-up" words and super descriptive marks (like "Bubble Yum" brand bubble gum). I think you and I have basically the same general understanding, it's just that we differ on this particular incident.
In the same way, Origin is a 'strong' mark because nothing in the word itself relates to computers or software services. There absolutely wouldn't be a problem with EA if you wanted to start selling Origin brand lemon tea (though I bet there are food products using that mark already.) But computers and games? Really closely related. Another analogy: Starbuck's signature coffee blend is "Pike's Place." How do you think they would react if someone started selling mugs, cups, plates, bowls, and utensils under a "Pike's Place" brand? It's not like Starbuck's sells 'Pike's Place' mugs now (just "Starbuck's" mugs), but I bet they'd want to protect that trademark.
I'm not saying the situation is identical, and I'm not saying that EA (or Origin PC) should be more litigious. I'm only trying to make sure that we're all on the same page if it does come to that: words can and are registered as trademarks, and yes, that even includes words like Origin which walk the line between "made-up" words and super descriptive marks (like "Bubble Yum" brand bubble gum). I think you and I have basically the same general understanding, it's just that we differ on this particular incident.
Cham,
Things like this are actually super complicated and there is no hard and fast rule, only historical precedents which work as guides. In general, the closer the goods/services are, the more risk there is of trouble. Honestly, these G/S aren't that far apart. I used to work as an IP researcher, and if I was assigned to do a search for Origin for an online game distribution service, a mark like Origin PCs would be a very strong match that we would put at the top of our report to EA.
You're dead on when you say that a camel farm named Origin wouldn't be an issue (and that a camel farm named Pepsi, or Kodak, or Xerox, or any of the other 'coined' terms we now know would be), but in this particular case it's definitely close enough. (Consider this example: could a gasoline or tire company call itself Toyota without running into trouble?)
Things like this are actually super complicated and there is no hard and fast rule, only historical precedents which work as guides. In general, the closer the goods/services are, the more risk there is of trouble. Honestly, these G/S aren't that far apart. I used to work as an IP researcher, and if I was assigned to do a search for Origin for an online game distribution service, a mark like Origin PCs would be a very strong match that we would put at the top of our report to EA.
You're dead on when you say that a camel farm named Origin wouldn't be an issue (and that a camel farm named Pepsi, or Kodak, or Xerox, or any of the other 'coined' terms we now know would be), but in this particular case it's definitely close enough. (Consider this example: could a gasoline or tire company call itself Toyota without running into trouble?)
Actually guys... yes, there is a trademark registration on the word. The most recent registrations by EA were filed last december ([tess2.uspto.gov] and http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:d0b41r.5.2), though they actually registered ORIGIN for the first time nearly ten years ago ([tess2.uspto.gov]) but for slightly different goods and services ("entertainment services, namely providing on-line interactive computer games").
Hideo Kojima does have to make new Z.O.E. games. (That's what we say, right?)
"It's people choosing to ruin their own experience," he says, "which I completely don't get."
You can't universalize aesthetics. That's all there is to get.
You can't universalize aesthetics. That's all there is to get.
Just wanted to say again Stephen, your Brink coverage has been really rad. This piece in particular is my favorite of yours in some time. Keep it up.
Echoes of Clancy Brown's Brother Justin on HBO's too-soon-canceled Carnivàle.
Hey Mike,
What do you (and the other editors) think about including not only the outlet name, but also the reviewer's name to each of these snippets? I know I can click through and get the info I want, but it would save me a step. Certain reviewers carry weight with me, and even at my most reductive I don't like the lump together all reviews from one outlet under the same editorial position.
What do you (and the other editors) think about including not only the outlet name, but also the reviewer's name to each of these snippets? I know I can click through and get the info I want, but it would save me a step. Certain reviewers carry weight with me, and even at my most reductive I don't like the lump together all reviews from one outlet under the same editorial position.
Hey Owen,
EA's FIFA 10 for iOS had a Be A Pro mode, like their console release.
EA's FIFA 10 for iOS had a Be A Pro mode, like their console release.
Long articles? Dude, this is like 220 words. The end of the first paragraph notes that he's going to jail on "unrelated charges." I'm not trying to stone you, but man, if you're gut reaction to something is that it's unbelievable, it's probably worth a quick scan of the article to address that suspicion. It's just pragmatic.
"Also, why is he going to jail for theft of a gameboy?"
He isn't.
From the article:
For that [the theft of the Game Boy], Bennett got two years' probation, but don't worry, he's still headed to the slammer. Bennett got 30 days to six months in jail on separate drunken driving and drug possession charges.
He isn't.
From the article:
For that [the theft of the Game Boy], Bennett got two years' probation, but don't worry, he's still headed to the slammer. Bennett got 30 days to six months in jail on separate drunken driving and drug possession charges.
It's an average?
Truth. I so desperately wish this was real.
Oh thank christ. That was driving me up the wall. Like the lead, he was also a prominent Mad Men character (Season 2.)
Who was that at 1:49? He looked suuuuper familiar to me.
That pic isn't official.
CAN'T WAIT
@QualityJeverage: Likewise.
