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

CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

candyswipe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#51

Post by ensignavenger »

stevenj wrote: post #10

Somewhat related and something I've thought about over the years: "Here's a model that we've had trouble with. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well. Over the years, we've tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sor…

Hmm, that is interesting insight. I wonder if he isn't drawing the wrong conclusions about the cause of these market inconsistencies? It may not be the airlines or soft drink distributors that make markets more profitable or less profitable for suppliers- it may be the consumers. Perhaps consumers in some soft drink markets are more price sensitive than others? Perhaps airline customers are more price sensitive than cereal customers? For example- Cereal customers want to eat what they like, it it doesn't matter if it costs them $0.50 more for the brand they know well. Whereas an airline customer may or may not fly very often, and they really don't know who is better, or they don't care, they just want to get to their destination while spending as little as possible- makes it hard to differentiate your product.

Soft drink distributors are an interesting case- they sell the same thing, with the same brand, in different markets- apparently some are profitable and others aren't. I would guess it has to do with price sensitivity of the customers in a given market- some markets may not prefer one beverage over another as strongly as other markets, whereas they may be much more price sensitive.

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#52

Post by jason_slack »

jasonlotito wrote: post #41
jason_slack wrote: post #16

so, is that all these big game companies do, just copy? Seems that King and Zynga have been called out a few times recently. So are they hoping that they can clone a game just enough and hope people buy it because of their name versus some indie dev you may not have heard of?

> so, is that all these big game companies do, just copy? Well, don't just limit it to big companies. Small companies, even startups just copy away. And it's not just games, but apps in general.

I dont think I see it as often in other apps. Look at the hype around Flappy Bird clones right now.

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#53

Post by fuzzythinker »

stevenj wrote: post #10

Somewhat related and something I've thought about over the years: "Here's a model that we've had trouble with. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well. Over the years, we've tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sor…

There's a pretty good coursera course talking about this topic at the moment: https://class.coursera.org/strategy101-003

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#54

Post by shdon »

JangoSteve wrote: post #48
shdon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, Candy Crush and CandySwipe, while both using the candy theme, are rather different in terms of gameplay. Unlike the Scamperghost case, it is certainly not the case that Candy Crush is a copy of CandySwipe or even derivative. Candy Crush is the better game at least in terms of polish and long-term playability. I won't deny King's douchiness in the trademark case, which will no doubt hurt Mr. Ransom and Runso…

True, but gameplay was never really the issue in terms of trademarking "Candy" (and "Saga" or whatever else). The interesting thing is that, in order to defend a trademark, you have to prove that there is potential for confusion. Here we have someone who supposedly had a confusingly-similar trademark before Candy Crush showing actual user confusion (i.e. no need to argue potential if you can show it's already happeni…

The douchiness of King's move is not in question. I'm just pointing out that, apart from generally being similarly evil, it's not at all related to the Scamperghost thing. We should be angry at King for two different ways in which they are evil, not two counts of the same thing. If anything, this makes them worse.

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#55

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

wpietri wrote: post #32
ebbv wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to capitalism. If you were a web app, or a brick and mortar store, there would be no Apple or Google for you to appeal to. Only the courts, which you have anyway, but which have no sway over developers in China, etc. Honestly I can't believe you (and other) developers are surprised when this happens. My company's web site was copy and pasted wholesale by a competitor, and we had to threaten legal action again…

The claim for the Apple marketplace was that it would be a better place, a well-tended garden. Better for consumers, better for vendors, and worth Apple taking a large slice of profits. So I think it's reasonable that developers are surprised.

Exactly. What is the point of the walled garden if it protects neither producers nor consumers?

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#56

Post by fargolime »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #4

Ouch. I had no idea CandySwipe even existed. This doesn't look good for King.com at all, especially after they were accused of copying Scamperghost[0]. [0]: http://junkyardsam.com/kingcopied/

King apparently bought an earlier (than CandySwipe) trademark they are now using against CandySwipe. They may well get away with it, especially since CandySwipe can't defend itself.

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#57

Post by derekp7 »

stevenj wrote: post #10

Somewhat related and something I've thought about over the years: "Here's a model that we've had trouble with. Maybe you'll be able to figure it out better. Many markets get down to two or three big competitors—or five or six. And in some of those markets, nobody makes any money to speak of. But in others, everybody does very well. Over the years, we've tried to figure out why the competition in some markets gets sor…

If an airline seat could be sold profitably for 3 bucks, most consumers bought one or two seats a week, then the airlines could get away with probably charging 4 bucks for the same seat -- no one would blink an eye.

But when a seat costs $300, and people only purchase maybe once a year (or several years), then the airlines are less likely able to get away with charging $400.

In other words, two of the factors in this equation are how often the item is purchased, and how expensive it is (compared to the benefits).

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#59

Post by 10feet »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #55
wpietri wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim for the Apple marketplace was that it would be a better place, a well-tended garden. Better for consumers, better for vendors, and worth Apple taking a large slice of profits. So I think it's reasonable that developers are surprised.

Exactly. What is the point of the walled garden if it protects neither producers nor consumers?

How are the consumers in any way affected by this?

Re: CandySwipe Open Letter to King regarding trademark

#60

Post by mongol »

incision wrote: post #14

>"You are able to do this because only within the last month you purchased the rights to a game named Candy Crusher (which is nothing like CandySwipe or even Candy Crush Saga)." How does this work? Can one buy a trademark in order to pre-empt someone else's trademark which pre-empts another of your own?

I guess that buying the intellectual property rights to the game, they can say to the trademark office - look here, proof or presence in the gaming market under this name since 200X, therefore we should have the the trademark and the exclusive right to name things candy.
Post reply on HN