NCsoft files trademark application for superhero MMORPG it abandoned

[Sailboat]

I'm interesting in superorganism theory.  The first use of the term was to describe insect colonies (ants and bees), but it can be applied to human organizations like corporations, nation-states, churches, clubs, etc.

 

A nation-state going to war against another nation-state cares no more for its individual soldiers than you or I do for the individual blood cells and platelets that form a clot when our skin is cut.  There's a looming worry that losing TOO MUCH would lead to a problem, but neither weeps over individuals.  Superorganisms such as limited liability corporations are absolutely indifferent to individual suffering.

[ZacKing]

3 hours ago, The Philotic Knight said:

That's the thing, all indicators suggest that CoH WAS still profitable. It just wasn't AS profitable as their other ventures, so they decided to move assets around to INCREASE profitability. Not, to cut a loss, because CoH wasn't a loss.

 

Just one reference: https://www.mmorpg.com/city-of-heroes/general-articles/profitable-or-not-1000007015

 

Yeah, we know.  everyone knows the story.  Bottom line is it's NCSoft's responsibility to do what they have to in order to maximize profits for their shareholders who they are accountable to. We as customers are doing the best thing we can do boycott them and never buy their products again.  But put yourself in their shoes.  were it your business and your decisions affect not only you but all your employees, would you continue to hold onto an old game just because some people really like it or would you use that money to increase your profits and grow your business?  It's just part of business.

[quixoteprog]

3 hours ago, The Philotic Knight said:

That's exactly the problem - it's callous, it's "not personal"... it's inhuman. This is one of the reasons why I preach against the concept of "limited liability", because it lets corporations get away with doing nasty things because the people making the decisions are divorced from the effects of those decisions. Whereas if it's a sole proprietorship or partnership, those that make the decisions are PERSONALLY responsible for the results of those actions. It forces the companies to "remain human", for the lack of a better term. The further we get away from that, the easier it is for companies to make bad choices that hurt people. I personally think that the very concept of limited liability should be stricken from the books. NOBODY should be able to make a decision and then not have to be personally responsible for the results of that decision. If we did that, then better decisions would be made, for the betterment of all.

While it may sound good to say, "limited liability should be stricken from the books", and was probably just a bit of over heated rhetoric, it would be HORRIBLE idea in practice. If everyone working at a company were personally liable for every action of his coworkers or any damage done by the product they were working on then no company bigger than a few people would ever be created. While that may sound good if it were true City of Heroes would never have existed AT ALL. It no doubt took the combined effort of hundreds of people, developers, IT, testers and middle managers.

 

Now, I am NOT saying the law is perfect, and doesn't allow people with money to stomp on the little guy. It should be tightened, and people should be held responsible. I'm just saying that there is a very good reason why some amount of protection from liability exists.

Edited January 3, 2020 by quixoteprog

[Lazarillo]

20 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

were it your business and your decisions affect not only you but all your employees

Oh, by any chance, do you mean all the Paragon employees that got the boot?

[nightroarer]

2 hours ago, The Philotic Knight said:

That's exactly the problem - it's callous, it's "not personal"... it's inhuman. This is one of the reasons why I preach against the concept of "limited liability", because it lets corporations get away with doing nasty things because the people making the decisions are divorced from the effects of those decisions. Whereas if it's a sole proprietorship or partnership, those that make the decisions are PERSONALLY responsible for the results of those actions. It forces the companies to "remain human", for the lack of a better term. The further we get away from that, the easier it is for companies to make bad choices that hurt people. I personally think that the very concept of limited liability should be stricken from the books. NOBODY should be able to make a decision and then not have to be personally responsible for the results of that decision. If we did that, then better decisions would be made, for the betterment of all.

I understand what you are saying, and even agree in part. Unfortunately, what you describe is only half the story. LLC is also in place to protect businesses (especially small businesses) from the maliciousness of others. All it takes is one frivolous lawsuit from someone with money to drive a small business with limited funds out of business. It doesn't matter whether the lawsuit is successful or has any merit or not; the legal costs can be enough to destroy not only the business, but the business owner's home and family if there are no personal protections in place. This has happened many times and is a big part of why the LLC model came into being.

 

I would never start a business without limited liability protection, not because I want to do dirt to someone else, but because I want to protect my family from someone else doing dirt to me. If you eliminate limited liability, you pretty much put a stop to small startups and independents. In other words, it would put all of the financial power in the hands of the bigger money corporations that you worry about doing nasty things to people in the first place.

 

I'm not sure what a good middle ground would be, but removing protections from the little guy with limited resources is not a reasonable idea at all.

[Chris24601]

3 hours ago, quixoteprog said:

If they do sign a deal with Homecoming to run the game as a non-profit it will still only be done because by their own calculations the good will generated will make them money in some way.

To be fair, one advantage in terms of the negotiations now is that, because an unused IP and code is worth $0, then ANY license that brings in even a dollar would technically count as “increasing profits” relative to its value a year ago.

 

The short version is that ultimately there’s virtually no upside to any endgame that isn’t a licensed server.

 

First, CoH is not in competition with NCSoft’s other properties (the audiences are practically mutually exclusive) so allowing it to continue does not impact their profits, but shutting it back down brings negative PR and doesn’t actually shut it down; it just drives it to smaller, better hidden or even personal use only servers where any potential customers will be even less likely to listen.

 

Second, because all the work NCSoft was ever going to do has already been done years ago and another business entity is offering to bear all the costs of operation/future development, there is zero cost from NCSoft’s end and free positive PR gained from a license deal.

 

Third, a valid licensed server maintains their trademarks at no cost.

 

The situation now with the game shut down for years and the code now in the wild is vastly different than the situation at shutdown. In the cold calculations of maximizing profit, a third party offering to do your work for you and increase the value if your IP at no cost to yourself is something you can’t pass up.

[nightroarer]

4 hours ago, The Philotic Knight said:

And knowing that, my personal morality is based all around how you treat other people. Do you make things better for other people, or do you make things worse for them? And in the MBA courses I took - that was NOT a part of the equation. It was a cold, hard, calculation of what's best to create and maintain maximal profitability. People were tools, pawns, or in their words "assets" to be utilized, just as a building or piece of machinery is utilized. When I realized that THAT is what they were teaching, that's when I decided to leave the program, because I CANNOT do that. I can't dehumanize others and see them as assets, and make decisions based on their perceived worth.

Agreed. Employees are not assets, they are people. I understand that investors invest to make money, but employees work to make a living as well. There needs to be a balance of interests to keep the company profitable and yet still support the people doing the work that help make it so.

[jubakumbi]

5 minutes ago, nightroarer said:

Agreed. Employees are not assets, they are people. I understand that investors invest to make money, but employees work to make a living as well. There needs to be a balance of interests to keep the company profitable and yet still support the people doing the work that help make it so.

And part of striking that balance is the idea of limited liability.

Human interaction is complicated and no one thing, like LLCs, is the culprit - it's greedy and amoral humans that are the culprits.

You cannot fix human nature with some words on a piece of paper.

There will alsways be those who use the laws in bad ways, just like people use comupters and TNT in ways that are not healthy for society at large.

You cannot remove things that protect tons of people just to go after the bad apples.

[ZacKing]

39 minutes ago, Lazarillo said:

Oh, by any chance, do you mean all the Paragon employees that got the boot?

It's great to armchair quarterback when it isn't your money on the line.  Not saying it doesn't suck when people lose their jobs because it does and we can all feel for them.  we call can sit here and "what if" and "but but but" this to death.  bottom line is like it or not or right or wrong NCSoft made a business decision they felt was best for them and their shareholders. 

[_NOPE_]

1 hour ago, quixoteprog said:

While it may sound good to say, "limited liability should be stricken from the books", and was probably just a bit of over heated rhetoric, it would be HORRIBLE idea in practice. If everyone working at a company were personally liable for every action of his coworkers or any damage done by the product they were working on then no company bigger than a few people would ever be created. While that may sound good if it were true City of Heroes would never have existed AT ALL. It no doubt took the combined effort of hundreds of people, developers, IT, testers and middle managers.

I disagree, and I think you are misunderstanding how liability works. If you take away limited liability, then the OWNERS of the businesses are responsible for those decisions, not the workers. If limited liability was taken away, and a Domino's delivery driver, for example, hit someone and broke their leg, then the owners of the business would be financially liable, not the driver or their co-workers. Though, as per the law of the land, the driver could be held personally responsible for related criminal offenses, as the criminal offenses are related to the actual perpetrators.

 

What I'm saying, in short, is that if Wal-mart lost limited liability, then if someone slips and trips and falls on their personal sidewalk, the Walton family would have to pay personally, rather than it coming out of the "corporate wallet". I think it would keep them more honest.

 

Though, to your point, we should also be writing laws to prevent frivolous lawsuits, so that if a case is determined in the favor of the defendant, all court costs should go immediately to the plaintiff. That would deter those types of frivolous lawsuits. I think for one to happen, the other also has to happen at the same time. You have to make people responsible for their own lawsuits at the same time you make people responsible and sue-able for the actions of their companies.

[DougGraves]

8 minutes ago, The Philotic Knight said:

What I'm saying, in short, is that if Wal-mart lost limited liability, then if someone slips and trips and falls on their personal sidewalk, the Walton family would have to pay personally, rather than it coming out of the "corporate wallet". I think it would keep them more honest.

 

No, it means that every person who owns stock in Walmart would be liable for it.  Not just the Walton family.  People would never buy stock in a company if they were liable for everything the company did even though they had effectively no say in the company's decisions.

[_NOPE_]

I can guarantee you that if they were liable, they'd make sure they had a say. Otherwise they'd dump the stock.

[quixoteprog]

22 minutes ago, The Philotic Knight said:

I disagree, and I think you are misunderstanding how liability works. If you take away limited liability, then the OWNERS of the businesses are responsible for those decisions, not the workers. If limited liability was taken away, and a Domino's delivery driver, for example, hit someone and broke their leg, then the owners of the business would be financially liable, not the driver or their co-workers. Though, as per the law of the land, the driver could be held personally responsible for related criminal offenses, as the criminal offenses are related to the actual perpetrators.

 

What I'm saying, in short, is that if Wal-mart lost limited liability, then if someone slips and trips and falls on their personal sidewalk, the Walton family would have to pay personally, rather than it coming out of the "corporate wallet". I think it would keep them more honest.

 

Though, to your point, we should also be writing laws to prevent frivolous lawsuits, so that if a case is determined in the favor of the defendant, all court costs should go immediately to the plaintiff. That would deter those types of frivolous lawsuits. I think for one to happen, the other also has to happen at the same time. You have to make people responsible for their own lawsuits at the same time you make people responsible and sue-able for the actions of their companies.

I think you are missing my point. The idea is we NEED limited liability BECAUSE of your example of the pizza driver. If I owned a pizza shop and I knew I would be liable for anything any of my employees did? I would not hire employees. I would either do everything myself, or at the VERY least, I would hire only grade A number one certified super drivers. That may sound like it is a good thing until you realize how few people fit that bill. No one would get hired. Every business would need to be a sole proprietorships, or large partnerships.

 

And none of them would be THAT large. Because how many people can you think of in your personal life that you would trust with everything you own? Those would be the only people you would start a business with or hire. Because you would be held liable for everything done by everybody who worked at the company. It would VASTLY limit the size of companies. Meaning that any country that kept limited liability would be able to grow large companies.

 

And it would not even stop the unethical. If the owners of Wal-mart were liable for everything done by anyone who shopped at of worked at their stores? They would not own Wal-mart. They would have it incorporated under the name of some sucker to "own" it that they had some kind of leverage over and then throw them to the wolves if something happened. I bet under such a system you would have LESS accountability rather than more. Similar to the way that prohibition resulted in MORE crime.

 

 

[Panthonca7034]

Guys,

 

Word of caution , from what I am seeing this thread is beginning to derail from its intended purpose: Trademark Application, and now would be the time to simply just say "Ok, got it", and continue on before a GM steps in and puts a padlock.

 

The passion, frustration, tears and the fire would be better served by using either of the Hamidons (Primal or Praetorian), an Arachnos Patron of your choice (or a Phalanx Hero for you villains), as a punching bag or test subject for your newly acquired Incarnate, Epic, and or Patron Pool powers 😀  

 

With this said, I echo that famous rallying cry made famous from the get-go "GO, HUNT, KILL SKULLZ", or just simply go punch Veles or Chernobog for fun 😛

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Panthonca7034
Grammar correction

[quixoteprog]

1 hour ago, The Philotic Knight said:

I disagree, and I think you are misunderstanding how liability works. If you take away limited liability, then the OWNERS of the businesses are responsible for those decisions, not the workers. If limited liability was taken away, and a Domino's delivery driver, for example, hit someone and broke their leg, then the owners of the business would be financially liable, not the driver or their co-workers. Though, as per the law of the land, the driver could be held personally responsible for related criminal offenses, as the criminal offenses are related to the actual perpetrators.

 

What I'm saying, in short, is that if Wal-mart lost limited liability, then if someone slips and trips and falls on their personal sidewalk, the Walton family would have to pay personally, rather than it coming out of the "corporate wallet". I think it would keep them more honest.

 

Though, to your point, we should also be writing laws to prevent frivolous lawsuits, so that if a case is determined in the favor of the defendant, all court costs should go immediately to the plaintiff. That would deter those types of frivolous lawsuits. I think for one to happen, the other also has to happen at the same time. You have to make people responsible for their own lawsuits at the same time you make people responsible and sue-able for the actions of their companies.

Oh, I understand it. You seem to be missing my point, probably because I am not making it clearly enough.

 

I will try to be more clear. If you take away limited liability then the only people working at any business would BE THE OWNERS. No one will hire other people to work for them. Who would hire people who were not liable and take on all the liability for anything that other person did? Knowing that their entire personal fortune depended on the actions of the weakest link in the company? Not anyone smart or competent enough to run a business I assure you.

 

I am not saying that companies should not be held more to account than they are. I am saying there is a reason why we have limited liability. It HAS value. That is why it is a thing in almost every country on the face of the Earth and has been for hundreds of years.

[jubakumbi]

39 minutes ago, Panthonca7034 said:

Word of caution , from what I am seeing this thread is beginning to derail from its intended purpose: Trademark Application, and now would be the time to simply just say "Ok, got it", and continue on before a GM steps in and puts a padlock.

I know you are probably just trying to add humor and levity, but what the GMs do or do not do is none of my concern.

I have never and will never look at forum topics as sacrosact, one-trick ponies, like some ruler from on high is going to pee in my cornflakes if I don't stay on topic.

🙂

 

1 hour ago, quixoteprog said:

I think you are missing my point. The idea is we NEED limited liability BECAUSE of your example of the pizza driver. If I owned a pizza shop and I knew I would be liable for anything any of my employees did? I would not hire employees. I would either do everything myself, or at the VERY least, I would hire only grade A number one certified super drivers. That may sound like it is a good thing until you realize how few people fit that bill. No one would get hired. Every business would need to be a sole

 

And it would not even stop the unethical. If the owners of Wal-mart were liable for everything done by anyone who shopped at of worked at their stores? They would not own Wal-mart. They would have it incorporated under the name of some sucker to "own" it that they had some kind of leverage over and then throw them to the wolves if something happened. I bet under such a system you would have LESS accountability rather than more. Similar to the way that prohibition resulted in MORE crime.

 

IMO, this is the real point.

Bad actors are bad actors.

While it's nice to think we can live in a world where they do not exist, that is a fantasy.

No matter the channel, there are people that will find a away around the rules.

I work in Fraud. When we see it decrease in one area from an evolution of technology or regulation, the same dollar amount just pops up elsewhere, it never stops.

No matter the system, someone will game it.

All we can do as moral humans is to treat each other respectfully.

It won't change the bad guys to good guys.

[boggo2300]

6 hours ago, quixoteprog said:

The leadership of the company is legally bound to try and make the most money they can to return as much value to their share holders as they possibly can.

Not necessarily the case with non US publicly traded companies, not sure on South Korea's laws in this regard, but not all countries have laws like that at all

[boggo2300]

1 hour ago, Panthonca7034 said:

Guys,

 

Word of caution , from what I am seeing this thread is beginning to derail from its intended purpose: Trademark Application, and now would be the time to simply just say "Ok, got it", and continue on before a GM steps in and puts a padlock.

 

The passion, frustration, tears and the fire would be better served by using either of the Hamidons (Primal or Praetorian), an Arachnos Patron of your choice (or a Phalanx Hero for you villains), as a punching bag or test subject for your newly acquired Incarnate, Epic, and or Patron Pool powers 😀  

 

With this said, I echo that famous rallying cry made famous from the get-go "GO, HUNT, KILL SKULLZ", or just simply go punch Veles or Chernobog for fun 😛

 

The current discussion is 1) not heated and 2) directly related.

I see nothing going on here that would raise the ire of a GM, they are pretty level headed this is no flame war it's a productive discussion directly related to the motives of the trademark renewal

Edited January 3, 2020 by boggo2300
Punctuation

[QuiJon]

According to what I can find, a trade mark can be considered void if it is no longer in use. As such every 5 years you have to apply for a renewal and every 10 years you have to provide proof the trademark is actually in use in commerce and not just being preserved. 

 

I don't know the dates of all the original filings, however being the original game came out in 2004, and we are heading into 2020, it could be very possible this filing was simply the 5 year mark of needing to file for the renewal of the trademark and really means nothing more. I mean yes I am sure with negoiations going on that they would not want to see the trademark drop, and being it is the odd 5 year and not the 10 year mark all they have to do is file the mark is still in use not provide proof so why not file it and keep it in play for the next 5 years. 

[boggo2300]

1 hour ago, QuiJon said:

According to what I can find, a trade mark can be considered void if it is no longer in use. As such every 5 years you have to apply for a renewal and every 10 years you have to provide proof the trademark is actually in use in commerce and not just being preserved. 

 

I don't know the dates of all the original filings, however being the original game came out in 2004, and we are heading into 2020, it could be very possible this filing was simply the 5 year mark of needing to file for the renewal of the trademark and really means nothing more. I mean yes I am sure with negoiations going on that they would not want to see the trademark drop, and being it is the odd 5 year and not the 10 year mark all they have to do is file the mark is still in use not provide proof so why not file it and keep it in play for the next 5 years. 

exactly

[WanderingAries]

3 hours ago, QuiJon said:

According to what I can find, a trade mark can be considered void if it is no longer in use. As such every 5 years you have to apply for a renewal and every 10 years you have to provide proof the trademark is actually in use in commerce and not just being preserved. 

 

I don't know the dates of all the original filings, however being the original game came out in 2004, and we are heading into 2020, it could be very possible this filing was simply the 5 year mark of needing to file for the renewal of the trademark and really means nothing more. I mean yes I am sure with negoiations going on that they would not want to see the trademark drop, and being it is the odd 5 year and not the 10 year mark all they have to do is file the mark is still in use not provide proof so why not file it and keep it in play for the next 5 years. 

This and nothing more / nothing less unless somebody decides to go making money off an IP they don't own.

 

Anything further (discussion wise) than this is simply going to fuel the minds of those with anxiety issues into an unnecessary tangent.

Edited January 4, 2020 by WanderingAries

[boggo2300]

20 minutes ago, WanderingAries said:

Anything further (discussion wise) than this is simply going to fuel the minds of those with anxiety issues into an unnecessary tangent.

ignoring completely will allow those same people to work themselves into another frenzy

[jubakumbi]

3 hours ago, boggo2300 said:

ignoring completely will allow those same people to work themselves into another frenzy

Frenzied hair pulling and hand wringing for everyone!

We don't play favorites when it comes to creating reasons to worry!

😏 

[boggo2300]

2 minutes ago, jubakumbi said:

Frenzied hair pulling and hand wringing for everyone!

We don't play favorites when it comes to creating reasons to worry!

😏

er have you read this thread? noone here is worrying, generally we're all saying there is no cause to worry

[jubakumbi]

2 minutes ago, boggo2300 said:

er have you read this thread? noone here is worrying, generally we're all saying there is no cause to worry

er, can you not see this is a joke?

🤗