Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#21

Post by bdevine »

3825 wrote: post #15
josh2600 wrote: post #6

Protecting trademarks is serious business. Remember when Monster Cable sued Monster Mini-golf? Personally, I think Zynga has more important things to worry about, and I get this is a big deal for the startup, but it's just a corporate lawyer doing his job. I'm not saying it's right, but if someone made another, more accurately targeted, ____ With Friends game, they could cite Zynga's inaction with respect to Bang Wit…

Is it OK, if BWF pays a cent in a perpetual royalty? Will Zynga have any obligation to license others the name at the same price?

Why, I'm sure that would be more than OK, seeing as how that will probably be the sole revenue stream Zynga has in a year or so.

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#22

Post by benjamincburns »

josh2600 wrote: post #17
3825 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it OK, if BWF pays a cent in a perpetual royalty? Will Zynga have any obligation to license others the name at the same price?

I don't believe Zynga has any obligation to provide standardized royalty licensing to any particular person or entity. Whether it's ok or not is entirely up to Zynga and their counsel.

Not that there's any coherent logic to IP law, but logically what's the difference between zero royalty paid (aka not protecting the trademark) and settling on a fixed-price perpetual royalty of negligible cost?

It's so weird to me how in some areas of the law (criminal law, for instance) the "gray area" is embraced and fully considered, where in other areas (IP/business law) decisions seem to be so black-and-white. As a total layman, I'd guess this "tone" is completely set by case law?

If so, is there any precedent that says a fixed cost perpetual royalty priced at $0.01 or similar constitutes "protecting" a trademark?

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#24

Post by benjamincburns »

Honestly, when you first heard of "Bang With Friends," would you have been surprised if it was yet another quality Zynga production?

Even if you wouldn't have - "Bang With Friends" instantly connects with "Words With Friends" in my mind. This is a really unpopular and unexpected thing to say, but for once I don't think Zynga is in the wrong.

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#25

Post by teawrecks »

benjamincburns wrote: post #24

Honestly, when you first heard of "Bang With Friends," would you have been surprised if it was yet another quality Zynga production? Even if you wouldn't have - "Bang With Friends" instantly connects with "Words With Friends" in my mind. This is a really unpopular and unexpected thing to say, but for once I don't think Zynga is in the wrong.

I didn't make the connection right away. I just think that if Zynga is in the right, then whoever owns Scrabble is too.

Coming up with products that borrow from existing IP is their thing. Naturally, they are going to try to keep other mobile developers from doing the same.

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#26

Post by gizmo686 »

benjamincburns wrote: post #22
josh2600 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe Zynga has any obligation to provide standardized royalty licensing to any particular person or entity. Whether it's ok or not is entirely up to Zynga and their counsel.

Not that there's any coherent logic to IP law, but logically what's the difference between zero royalty paid (aka not protecting the trademark) and settling on a fixed-price perpetual royalty of negligible cost? It's so weird to me how in some areas of the law (criminal law, for instance) the "gray area" is embraced and fully considered, where in other areas (IP/business law) decisions seem to be so black-and-white.…

I'm not a laywer, but I think the concern with protecting trademarks is to demonstrate that you actually have an interest in said trademark, and are not simply trolling your competitor. By having a token royalty, they demonstrate that they do care about the trademark even when it is being used by someone they would otherwise like to hurt.

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#27

Post by ISL »

First they laugh at you, then they sue you, then you win.

BWF is a funny name, leverages the WWF name more than a little, and is going to get great press from the legal fight.

Congratulations to BWF for getting sued; you're getting traction. If the BWF network gets large enough, it could be renamed almost anything and it will still work.

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#29

Post by VladRussian2 »

jgalt212 wrote: post #12

I prefer it in French version: Sexe Entre Amis 1. It just sounds more sexy. 2. It avoids US Trademark issues. 3. Carlos Danger is an investor.

i wonder how it would be in Canadian version.

(sorry, our Northern friends, just watched bit too much "How i met your mother" :)

Re: Zynga sues sex app maker over Bang With Friends name

#30

Post by sharkweek »

jgalt212 wrote: post #12

I prefer it in French version: Sexe Entre Amis 1. It just sounds more sexy. 2. It avoids US Trademark issues. 3. Carlos Danger is an investor.

Random note: My friend is married to a woman from France -- the first Christmas they were together after a few months of dating, she was like "have you seen 'Mother, I missed the Plane' it's a family tradition to watch it each Christmas," to which my friend said no. When she put the movie in, it was Home Alone

Gotta love random translations

Post reply on HN