Lone Wolf sends Cease & Desist letters to anyone using the term 'Army Builder'

[Marius Delphus]

As I read it, nobody "went after" anybody. As they've asked other organizations in the past, to protect their trademark, Lone Wolf asked Privateer, in what turned out this time to be poorly-worded letter, to please police infringing uses of "Army Builder" as a trademark and to please educate, or allow Lone Wolf to educate, forum posters about the trademark's existence. The strident tone and confusion between the words "improper" and "infringing" have since been apologized for.

Intellectual property *is* property, in the following respect: the owner of a trademark, copyright, or patent has, in the words of Wikipedia, "the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange, or destroy [the] property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things" (in this case, that'd be "and").

 

[Maggan]

And just why should a forum owner comply with such unreasonable and insane demands?

To avoid needless stress obtained by receiving a C&D.

Sure, Lone Wolf might be in the wrong, but if I was running a forum just for fun and as a hobby, I'd just filter the word instead of risking the wrath of lawyers.

Let's say that all forums agreed to filter "Army Builder" and replace it with "Army Creator". The net effect would be to quickly transfer the common usage from the previous term to the latter.

Thereby granting Lone Wolf what they are asking for, albeit not what they are hoping for.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Lone Wolf asked Privateer

And a lot of small hobby forum owners. This was not only a thing between two companies, it was a company against fandom as well.

I respect that Lone Wolf needs to make sure that competing products do not challenge the "Army Builder" trademark, but I find it preposterous that they want/wanted to charge forum owners with the responsibility of stopping "improper" use among the posters of the forums.

Still if I got a C&D I'd comply. Not worth the hassle, and it's easy enough to just strike the term from a site using a word filter.

/M

 

[Marius Delphus]

This was not only a thing between two companies, it was a company against fandom as well.

If by "fandom" you mean "people who create and make available products named 'Army Builder'," then yes. But publishers and distributors of products must name their products, and so they start wandering into the trademark minefield (for better or worse).

I find it preposterous that they want/wanted to charge forum owners with the responsibility of stopping "improper" use among the posters of the forums.

As I understand the clarification, the intent of the letter was not to charge Privateer with this responsibility. The intent was to (1) stop "infringing" uses and (2) educate forum posters about the existence of the trademark (so that hopefully fewer of them will use it in an "improper" manner).

 

[Maggan]

The intent was to (1) stop "infringing" uses and (2) educate forum posters about the existence of the trademark (so that hopefully fewer of them will use it in an "improper" manner).

Well, the silver lining for Lone Wolf is that they in all probability reached their intended goals.

Whether the other results of this debacle will influence their bottom line will only be known to them in the end.

/M

 

[Quantum]

As for me I'm never going to buy it or use it ever and will have a personal boycott for their heavy handedness in this matter. It seems lawyers know nothing but bullying people into submission in to getting what they want, and the only thing they want is the money. That's all it's really about, really, is that it's all about the money. All your moneys are belonging to us! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE OWNER OF ALL THE MONEY!

It must be nice to have all that kind of power to bully and brow beat people into submission.

 

[Morrus]

As for me I'm never going to buy it or use it ever and will have a personal boycott for their heavy handedness in this matter. It seems lawyers know nothing but bullying people into submission in to getting what they want, and the only thing they want is the money. That's all it's really about, really, is that it's all about the money. All your moneys are belonging to us! THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE OWNER OF ALL THE MONEY!

It must be nice to have all that kind of power to bully and brow beat people into submission.

There are a lot of criticisms one can level at companies, but "making money" is not one of them. They exist to make money.

 

[Remus Lupin]

See, I'd say they exist to make good, useful, and beneficial products. "Making money" is the means to this end. It's necessary, but it's not why they exist.

 

[Marius Delphus]

See, I'd say they exist to make good, useful, and beneficial products. "Making money" is the means to this end. It's necessary, but it's not why they exist.

Other way round, surely. I would have to say making products is the means and money is the end. I would also argue that there are companies out there that make no products but still turn a profit.

 

[Remus Lupin]

Other way round, surely. I would have to say making products is the means and money is the end.

I know, a lot of people see it that way. But how would our approach to business change if we flipped it to the way I put it. Then we'd put a premium on making good products, first and foremost, with the money being the way we go about pursuing that goal.

Mind you, you need both good products (ideally) and profit either way, but by putting the product first, you shift the understanding of what you're doing in a fundamental way*

*I don't claim credit for this idea, which I think was originally published in an issue of the Harvard Business Review. I'm just embracing it!