Look at Dbrand’s history before condemning Valve. Thanks to @woelkchen@lemmy.world for pointing it out.
Comment on dBrand Companion Cube cancelled:
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
While Valve didn’t do anything wrong from a legal standpoint here, I still think that’s not very sporting of them.
WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I said “not very sporting”. That’s hardly a condemnation.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, the sport you are talking about is seeing how much you can steal and get away with. So…
Tippy@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
They caught a company stealing their intellectual property and lying to consumers that they had permission to create a product and fulfill orders as a result of that theft, and promptly shut their bullshit down. While I’m not a big fan of some IP laws and how they can be abused, I’m struggling to see how you think Valve deserves any reproach for this. This isn’t even the first time this company has tried this shit and been slapped for it. At this point its a pattern of behavior that implies they are intentionally trying to steal and scam.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The biggest mistake Valve made was not shutting it down when it was announced.
Rubanski@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
Maybe it was on purpose to stick it to dbrand and their questionable history of licensing
djdarren@piefed.social 1 month ago
Fair play though, it is pretty funny that they let DBrand spend all that money first.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 month ago
i won’t fault valve’s IP infringement team for missing one infringing product in a sea of i’m not bothering to estimate infringing products
it’s the fact that it’s a companion cube [valve™] for a valve [valve™] video game [valve™] console [valve™] being made by notvalve™. if it was just a t-shirt on redbubble they could probably fly under the radar, but this is too close to confusing the consumer. like, how many people here automatically assumed they had valve’s permission? which would imply some sort of partnership with valve, just by making the faceplates?
ideally that’s the kind of confusion IP law is supposed to prevent. how it’s used vs how it was intended is another can of worms (and idealism versus pragmatism is a fun argument don’t get me wrong) but we can pretend for a little bit.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I definitely assumed some kind of partnership, especially after watching the launch video where they claimed Aperture Science had been bought by dBrand.
Why yes, yes it has already been re-uploaded to YouTube:
MrQuallzin@pie.eyeofthestorm.place 1 month ago
Good graces only go so far. Dbrand has unfortunately done this before and didn’t learn their lesson, no reason to play ball with them.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
On the other hand, it was a cool product that many people would have enjoyed. And now it’s gone.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 month ago
And I bet it could have gone quite smoothly if Dbrand had bothered to contact Valve before making it.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m not in any way saying that they shouldn’t have done that.