Square Enix hits Final Fantasy replica dealers for $600,000 in damage
by Jason Dobson 
{ Feb 25th 2009 at 6:00AM }
Traffickers, which included Edgework Imports, Top Swords, Wholesale Gallery and Pacific Solutions Marketing, are barred from dealing in Final Fantasy fakery, either through their own stores or other online sites such as eBay or Amazon.
Obviously shaken, the defendants issued a joint statement that they "regret" selling copies to customers, and "would not have begun importing and selling these swords if we knew that Square Enix would respond so aggressively to stop us. We will never make this mistake again." Translation: We knew what we were doing was wrong, we just didn't, you know, think Square Enix would do anything about it.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Insight @ Feb 25th 2009 6:17AM
Crossdressing Boutiques and Spiky Wig Emporiums worldwide, take notice; you're no longer safe
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 7:11AM
Wow, can you say douchebag move? Why would you ban someone from selling repilcas of video game items? Do they actually have "licensed" plastic swords? That's even more pathetic.
Temidien @ Feb 25th 2009 7:24AM
Agreed. I see these at cons all the time and though their quality isn't stellar, many man cosplayers rely on them to complete their ensemble (tin foil swords are unbelievably terrible looking). Replica swords (as cosplay outfits) do more good for SqEn as free advertisements for the products they actually sell than any amount they could ever recover in damages.
Way to alienate your fanbase once again, Square.
Pzychotix @ Feb 25th 2009 7:25AM
Copyright/Intellectual Property Rights/whatever is the correct term that applies here.
What's pathetic is that people don't even ask permission to copy things. What SE did is perfectly natural.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 7:41AM
@Pzychotix: So you're the guy that sues children on Halloween for the home-made superman costume their mommy made? This notion of "ask before you copy" is so ridiculous I can't even begin to explain. There is a huge difference between "I take your ideas and sell them as mine for profit" and "I love something so much that I sell something that isn't available".
Next you'll tell me that I can't sign postcards with my favorite quote from a book because I infringe on the authors copyright. This is getting more and more silly by the minute. I understand people want to make money off their works, no problem, but to be as bitchy and ludicrously anal about it like we are right now is not only unproductive but also a battle against human nature.
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 7:46AM
Well, Pzychotix, when companies do this, it's usually "SOMEONE IS MAKING MONEY BY MAKING A GOOD PRODUCT WE WILL NOT MAKE AND IT ISN'T US! SON OF A BITCH! THEY MUST PAY!"
In these scenarios, when the companies make a decent product, be it a rom hack, a fan-made remake, a fan-made product, or whatever, when the quality is good, and it's just shut down, and the company never does anything at all with the original idea that was there, it's a shame.
Now, I'll admit, this is a bit different, because money IS made, but whatever. Unless Square offers an alternative, or offers licensing (Which I Imagine they would not ever fathom doing), they should be held at some sort of fault.
Pzychotix @ Feb 25th 2009 7:48AM
The moment you distributed the work, you went over the line.
You have no right to do such an action. The copyright owner has every right to react against such an infringement of his rights.
Get over it.
Pzychotix @ Feb 25th 2009 7:49AM
@Otis:
Sure, it's a shame that some companies will shut down fan-made productions, but that doesn't make it wrong or douchebaggery.
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 7:57AM
"Sure, it's a shame that some companies will shut down fan-made productions, but that doesn't make it wrong or douchebaggery."
Sure, if you believe that all facets of capitalism are 100% morally okay.
"These poor rich people! Gotta give em a pat on the back! AFK, gold hoarding"
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 7:58AM
@Pzychotix: You're all caught up in that corporate law bullshit, one can tell. They've really won you over.
"The copyright owner has every right to react against such an infringement of his rights."
Sure that might be true but common sense would imply that he MUSN'T always do it. There are lots of things you have a right to but don't do because it makes you look like an ass. In this case Square doesn't produce these items, but they sue people that provide their fans with a means of living out their fandom. I call that asshole behavior. If you write a book, that is out of print and you realize that people are still trading the book in some place you've never heard of ... it's your right to stop them from publishing your work, question is if you would be such a dick and stupid enough to actually try preventing people from giving you free fanbase. How many people went and bought Final Fantasy because they saw that sword replica at a convention and went "I wanna play that".
Wake up and realize that beyond the law there is actual people and that paper is very patient. Laws are flawed and don't necessarily apply to all situations. This is one of them. The copyright is with Square Enix but the asshole arrogance of not letting other people enjoy your work in creative ways is also on their side.
Dingermann @ Feb 25th 2009 8:23AM
By your peoples logic, i could make a "fan-made" copy of a Honda Civic and that would be ok?
They're protecting their investment.... Nothing more.
You people are being overly cynical.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 8:30AM
@Dingermann: Correct, you can.
http://www.extreme-sportscars.com/360/home_360.htm
(Ferrari 360 Modena Body Kit for a Peugot 406)
Honda retains the rights to sell "Honda Civic" which includes everything from the intake valves to the service manual. Some can't just go about building everything from Honda parts then slap a "Hondo" batch on it and sell it as their car. Sure. But you can take a Toyota and make all the necessary bodywork adjustments and make it "look like" a Honda Civic. You're not selling a Honda Civic but a "Toyota made to look like a Honda". If that's illegal shoot me right now because we're all fucked then. You put all that money and work into factoring the parts to fit onto the Toyota and that's the "added value" that you are selling. The people that made the replicas put money, materials and effort into extracting and adapting a virtual item into the real world. That is what they are payed for. If Square is dumb enough to sue them because they believe they want to get payed for the texture artist and modelers work then they can kiss my butt.
Yes this stuff is silly but so is insisting on your right when they aren't even being infringed.
Dingermann @ Feb 25th 2009 8:38AM
Loopholes != legal precedent
The fact of the matter is still that Square Enix has a Copyright on these products, and these companies made illegal replicas of their copyright.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 8:42AM
@Dingermann: How can you have a copyright on a material adaption of a virtual item? I bet if you compared the items in question the virtual variant (given it's pixelated state and being made from polygons and low-res textures) is far inferior to the added value that the builders have generated.
Since the "copy" in question is a "videogame" a sword made to look like the one from the video game doesn't even fall into the competitive category that is in question here. And even if it does this is a douchebag move. Why didn't Square simply negotiate about license fees with the retailers? Why? Why did they have to sue them out of business? Why? Because they are corporate douchebags. A reasonable person would have asked them to take down the replicas or pay a license for each one sold. An asshole would have ruined their business and taken away all their means of making money and providing fanservice.
Which one did Square choose to do? Right!
LaughingTarget @ Feb 25th 2009 8:52AM
It's that evil capitalism that allowed you to play Final Fantasy in the first place, have a Playststion, the television you hook it up to and the electrical generation that powers it all. It's high time you folks realize that your high standard of living is because of that horrible capitalistic thought. Maybe it isn't capitalism that is evil. Maybe trying to convince people to not be capitalists is. When places like Mynamar, North Korea and Cuba have tried to collectivize their way to prosperity and drove their total population right into mass scale poverty on a level no person in any of our nations will ever know, we can defenitely blame the evils of someone producing a product someone else wants and is willing to trade for something else.
Our historically and unprecidentally safe socieites, our abundance of food, our advanced medicine and every other means of safety and comfort you enjoy is a product of evil capitalism. Just ask former Soviet satellite states or Soviet citizens how great not protecting capitalism worked out for them.
If you want to live in a society where your choice in games are cheap copies of 10 year old titles that require a 5 year advanced pre-order, be my guest. Just do it away from me. I know my rights and I'm not a coward that allows others to roll over on me, no company can ever abuse me because of that. I know damned well that I can take my business and labor elsewhere if I don't like the treatment. I have, after all, relocated 1,000 miles just to switch jobs. Capitalism in it's raw, uncontrolled form has done more for us than your alternative and I'd prefer a legal system that stamps out those who would make the capitalists of our society feel that their product is not truly theirs.
Dingermann @ Feb 25th 2009 9:25AM
@meist3r
The problem is that these companies should have asked for permission to begin with (for a slight portion of course) not the other way around.
You are making them out to be the good guys, but they still released a product called a "Buster Sword" based on the Final Fantasy (r) Buster Sword with the entire intent of making money off of someone else's idea.
The true Criminals here are these people that think they can go around and make money off of someone's intellectual property.
Anam @ Feb 25th 2009 9:34AM
I'd like to chime in and point out that making a fan-made replica of something is not illegal. You can make as many Cloud swords as you want and never see a lawsuit. It's when you try to sell it that you cross the line.
So you guys can go ahead and stop acting like this is the end of all costume design.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 9:39AM
@Dingermann: See I disagree with you there. The way our system and intellectual exchange works is that we think about ideas and use them and if that hurts anyone we stop it. I study American History and other things, you're saying I should ask and wait for permission by every author whose work I refer to BEFORE I make the connection and write my paper? That is intellectual property as well. This can't ever work. If you look at laws it's always a "do whatever you like and if it is bad for other people we'll reglement it" that is how it has always worked and that's good. Now the corporations being afraid for whatever reason or simply fantasizing about the money they "could" make, try to revert that process. "If you want to do something you ask everyone that could be harmed beforehand" don't you see how ridiculous this is? No one ever knows who'll be offended by this. Next up is Sony because they sell less Playstations because people run around in embarrassing costumes and consumers don't want to be associated with that?! Square's business didn't get hurt by the replicas, all that happened was that someone looked at it and thought "we OUGHTA be getting money from this" and so they sued. I wish I could just force my way to things like that. I oughta have a girlfriend but I can't just go out and force one to come with me. I have to come up with a way to coerce one to cooperate ;) SE could have offered license deals once they acknowledged that there was this business going on. I don't like, rather can't accept, the idea that we need preemptive permission for everything we do (even in a business) and in any other case just shoot down whatever the other person has been working on. That's like kicking down a sandcastle someone build in the spot you've used to lie every year on the beach because he didn't ask you for permission to build it.
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 10:06AM
Frankly, LaughingTarget, you strike me as a person who accepts everything as it is, and is unable to view anything in any alternative light.
This system is awful. But so are other systems. No proper system has ever tried it the "Right way". But you wouldn't think about that, because you got to defend precious, precious mother-god-given-life-blood-ultra-powerful-always-right-no-thinking-capitalism.
It's useless to argue with people like you. You can't be argued with. It's like arguing with politicians, religious people, and such. You have beliefs that are impossible to shake, because you can't think any other way, and when alternative ways DO rear their heads, you get angry, you attack, and, for example, you label someone opposing you as a dumbass.
Dingermann @ Feb 25th 2009 11:38AM
@meist3r
We're going to have to disagree i'm afraid. We see this in different light, because in your situation i would have considered it more like you taking another's author paper and trying to sell it as your own. And you see it as more of a reference thing.
I can see your side of it, but i can't agree with it.
Jeepers Creepers 712 @ Feb 25th 2009 12:54PM
Dingermann = awesome.
Thought I would be the only one to think that it's dumb to see these companies as victims.
When you base your creations off of something you hold no right to create, you should get sued.
Some say free advertising? The same way piracy is free advertising? S-E may not want advertising of weapons based on their games when it's used in a crime. Or what if it's shot quality and given as a gift to someone? That person not knowing it's some 3rd party company without permission will think that S-E's products suck and reflect negatively upon the brand and product. S-E is simply protecting their brand that they've worked hard to establish. As they should.
Could you imagine a world where Lord of the Rings was open? Not in the weapons sense, but anyone could write a story that takes places on Middle-Earth and publish it and pull in money for it? I bet you can't even fathom how fast the "quality" of the name Middle-Earth would be torn to shit. All integrity would be lost. Then we have Star Wars all over again.
If you want to use someone else's IP, seek permission. If they say no, tough luck. If they say yes but want a piece of the pie, eh, well, don't be greedy. Looking to capitalize on the fan base something you had nothing to do with is BS though in my opinion.
Ryoga Vee @ Feb 25th 2009 7:43AM
Edgework Imports does nearly ever video game / anime sword.
GOD of War twin blades
http://edgeimport.com/store.cfm?event=itemdetail&itemid=761731&returnto=http%3A%2F%2Fedgeimport.com%2Fstore.cfm%3Fevent%3Dshowcatalog%26catid%3D73326
This is kinda sad because im not sure what this means for cosplay prop makers.
"Sure, you can play the game, but don't go making items that are displayed in it, that we have no intention of making."
I could understand if they were competing with Square and selling product that they were also manufacturing, but that's not the case here.
~ Ryoga Vee
LaughingTarget @ Feb 25th 2009 9:02AM
I'm going to post this for every dumbass that tries to defend these guys. Why didn't Edgework bother lisencing out the replicas from Sony, SE or others? Who is the greedy one now? The one protecting their property or the one that doesn't feel like forking over 10% of sales to sell a legitimate product?
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 10:06AM
You certainly shined forth with your brilliant retort of just labeling anyone that says anything otherwise to what you think as a dumbass.
Anywho, I'd like to say that, really, they're BOTH greedy. But Square-Enix is the one more at fault here, in my opinion. Gold hoarding cappies at their finest! Whereas, the sword makers were filling a wanted niche, and were hoarding their gold, at the least, in a more admirable way.
RiccochetJ @ Feb 25th 2009 12:14PM
"This is kinda sad because im not sure what this means for cosplay prop makers."
Err how about this? Don't put the stamp GOD OF WAR right on the thing unless you get a licensing deal in place first.
These guys were piggybacking (see: making a profit) off of established franchises with well known fan bases and were dumb enough to think that they don't have to share a piece of their profits with the people who came up with the property in the first place.
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 7:55AM
"Sure, it's a shame that some companies will shut down fan-made productions, but that doesn't make it wrong or douchebaggery."
Sure, if you believe that all facets of capitalism are 100% morally okay.
"These poor rich people! Gotta give em a pat on the back! AFK, gold hoarding"
IceKXG @ Feb 25th 2009 8:06AM
Ok, I don't care about the whole copyright bull crap that would be involved in this. The bottom line is that Square would never make these themselves, so why sue the people who are making them and force them to take these cool replicas off the market? I'm sure they could've worked out a deal where they get so much of a percentage for each one sold...this is just ridiculous.
reebo @ Feb 25th 2009 8:22AM
SE Corporate Fat Cat: "People are having fun and I'm not making money? LAWSUIT"
FluxWaveZ @ Feb 25th 2009 8:52AM
That`s total bullcrap! I love The World Ends With You, I even bought replica pins that are in the game! But if Square were to somehow stop those sellers and not make some of their own that`s really stupid.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 25th 2009 8:57AM
I take it that it never occurred to these companies to pick up the phone, call SEand hash out a lisencing deal? What we have above is a group of companies trying to take advantage of a built-in brand, a brand paid fir by someone else, to make profits. These same companies also refused to share in the gains with the owners of the brand. The stupid ones are the ones that lost the lawsuit. Instead of coming to a lucrative lisencing deal with SE, they lost all of it.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 25th 2009 9:43AM
The ultimate proof for all of you guys to just shut the fuck up about this. Edgework Import is quite clearly violating law, and here you go:
http://www.edgeimport.com/store.cfm?Event=ItemDetail&ItemID=375492&ReturnTo=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edgeimport.com%2Fstore.cfm
http://www.noblecollection.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=NN9921&catid=17
They aren't even trying. The Noble Collection has paid a lot of good money to license out Lord of the Rings movie memorabilia and replicas. Edgework hasn't. This is a clear cut case of a product that is available, available through a legitimate source, a legitimate source that went through the proper channels and put up its own money to sell the product, yet Edgework is STILL selling the same replica (lower quality), unauthorized, and illegally. Hell, they're even using a movie capture of Frodo on the site. I haven't even done a search on Harry Potter, 300, Braveheart, The Highlander or any of the other legitimate replicas already available for sale, but I can bet you that they're on Edgework illegally as well.
Seriously guys, do some fucking research before jumping down the ass of every big company that sues a small company into oblivion. Most of them actually deserve it.
Also, am I a hard line capitalist? Hell yes, I am. I'm not some moron that thinks I have the right to work at a specific company in a specific city for whatever salary I demand. I'm not some moron willing to hand away the responsibility to make sure the products I purchase are safe to an unqualified individual that has nothing but a law degree. If a company treats me poorly, I go elsewhere. In this day and age where it only takes 6 hours to travel across the entire United States, there isn't much of an excuse anymore. Competition kills destructive practices because we don't patron the destructive companies or work for them. Easy, done.
Otis Whitaker @ Feb 25th 2009 10:09AM
Oh, laughingtarget, I see you went even further down here with your "HE DONT LIKE CAPITALISM LIKE I DO WTF!!!!!!!! I MUST INSULT AND SMASH YOU!! ACTING LIKE A CIVIL PERSON!!! WTF!!! I MUST SMASH EM!!! GOT DANG COMMIES!! DUMBASSES! DISAGREEIN' WITH ME!! LET ME PROVE EVERY STEREOTYPE OF THE INTERNET RIGHT!!" Rhetoric.
Seriously, dude. What the hell?
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 12:30PM
@LaughingTarget: I find it very amusing that you link to a site called "Campaign for Liberty" in your profile and yet to write apologetic crap in favor of ignorant IP trolling capitalism here.
Just these two sentences show what an ignorant person you must be:
"If a company treats me poorly, I go elsewhere. In this day and age where it only takes 6 hours to travel across the entire United States, there isn't much of an excuse anymore."
Yeah no excuses like,flights are still expensive and it's ridiculous to move your entire social environment because you need to have a job. Good grief.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 9:00AM
@LaughingTarget: And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything? Writing some incoherent shit about what capitalism does for societies (not even mentioning the terrible side-effects and negative results) doesn't disprove my point that corporations don't have to behave like total assholes. If that's your great capitalism I'd gladly get rid of it. Don't you realize that the solution is somewhere in between? Capitalism in it's raw unfiltered form is incompatible with human nature and a working healthy society (since it's not natural or desirable in any way to be merely a consumer and a working drone). This discussion is about how big companies that make millions of dollars behave like total douchebags towards their customers and fans because they have some completely far out ideas about who can do what with ideas that they have published. If you don't want people to get inspired and adapt your ideas (like say from a video game texture into a real life costume) then don't fucking publish them. You get paid for working on these ideas and the compensation for what you're giving away (in terms of ideas) is what you get over the counter. Everything beyond that is greed.
There are situations when other people outright try to use your work in their name (but that isn't the case here). If say another dev studio took Final Fantasy 2 slapped their logo on it and sold the very same game under their brand. That is illegal, wrong and should be persecuted. But if someone takes your idea of a videogame, invests all the effort to make it into something new and totally different and then gets paid for the work THEY have done why the hell should this be illegal?
@Dingermann: Protecting their investment from what? From someone investing money in their investment? For people spending money on prolonging the lifespan and penetration of that investment? From the investment to reach an unintended level of creativity? Awesome protection that is.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 25th 2009 9:11AM
You're one of the dumbasses in this thread then. Edgeworks and the other companies had plenty of options to legitimately sell their products. Their greed made them chose the illigitimate. Why bother trying to establish a product when you can piggy back off of someone else for free? How many of those $600,000 would have been made if the companies did not use the Final Fantasy name or design? Probably none of it. No one buys goofy swords for the hell of it, only SCA or media replicas have any value.
As for the rant, a part of protecting capitalism, the very capitalism that your cushy life was built from, is protecting the rights of individuals or organizations to NOT sell something if they so chose. Maybe SE doesn't want cheap sword fakes out on the market. That is just as legit as any other business move.
In any case, Edgework et al are not in the right here. They chose to disregard legitimate options and chose to forego and hard work or effort by selling a product that someone else went through the effort of building the market for. They are the greedy douchebags, not SE.
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 9:25AM
@LaughingTarget: Whaa??
"chose to forego and hard work or effort by selling a product that someone else went through the effort of building the market for"
What market? Show me the licensed Square Enix sword builders please. So you're telling me SE owns the replica market because they made the product that inspired the replicas? You're basically telling me when you invent something that then inspires a spin-off market that has nothing to do with your business you own that market? So basically Apple owns the market for iBoy fanwear because their products inspired that specific style? That won't make any sense.
Where exactly did they have "plenty of options to legitimately sell" their products? What's with all the cosplay costume retailers? They don't need licenses to make costumes on the basis of animes and stuff. It's the companies own fault if they don't establish that market and make sure they have their own facilities and producers selling that kind of product. How much of the 600K wouldn't have been earned if the swords weren't branded "Final Fantasy" but "looks like the thing from that one game"? In essence the people that cosplay don't care about what name is on the freaking sword, they want it to look like what they want to represent or am I mistaken? How many people that build their own Star Wars lightsabers care if it says "LucasArts" or "Hasbro" on it? All these people want is a prop that looks like the real (virtual) deal.
And wait a fucking minute, piggy backed? THEY did all the work, they made the real adaptions, they produced the swords, they bought the materials, they got the artists to paint them, they handled the shipping and sales etc. That's like saying Microsoft is liable to Apple for marketing the Zune with a similar campaign as the Ipod just because one took the idea of the other and made their own product out of it. That's just ridiculous.
Apparently you're trying to be a "I love capitalism" hard-ass. I could do without "protecting the rights of individuals or organizations to NOT sell something if they so chose". That's basically saying "we arbitrarily pick out those that we want to sell to, fuck all of you others" ... great ... exactly why I want to defend these people right? I can agree that maybe they shouldn't have put the "Final Fantasy" brand on the replicas without licensing the name but that's all. No need to kick them out of business. I bet most of them would have agreed to licensing terms as soon as you approached them. But in this awesome corporate capitalist world of yours it's "shoot first, ask questsions later" isn't it?
Sir SpankalotUK @ Feb 25th 2009 9:01AM
they are obviously just raising capital to buy more eidos shares
Raytia @ Feb 25th 2009 9:16AM
What's kinda sad though - if you've even seen the Buster Sword, Squall's Gunblade or Tidus' Brotherhood that sword dealers make and sell... they aren't even that accurate or in proper proportion, so it's not even an exact copy.
As an artist myself, I can see both sides of the coin - to fill a void that was not there and make/sell these swords for the fans who love them and the creators protecting their work; it's always a tough subject to tread ground on and I see it all the time at cons in the artist alleys when certain cons restrict what kinds of things (and their content) you can sell for the sake of copyright issues coming up. Whether its company level or just a solo artist its always difficult when you want to market your talents but show your love for the series you enjoy.
CoolBleu @ Feb 25th 2009 10:06AM
I think there's blame on both sides. I looked at many of these swords, and I have to say that if I was SE, I would be furious that cheap knock-offs were being sold as if they were licensed replicas. However, they could have just sued to have these products removed, no need to put the company out of business. As far as the dealers go, they should have asked permission beforehand. They are selling, selling something, so they should ask permission. When you write a paper you aren't selling the ideas of someone else, you are using them, and you are suppossed to give credit where it is due, i.e. sources. In this case, SE came up with Final Fantasy, and another company took an idea from that game or movie and made money off of it without asking permission.
As far as the whole capitalism thing goes, capitalism is not the problem. The problem is the monopolistic companies that have grown over the years. I don't think SE cares as much now about money or sales of Final Fantasy, I think they care about control. They want to control every element of the idea, including what replicas are allowed to be made. This wouldn't be a problem if they would licence their work out to some company to make replicas, but because they don't, we end up with this mess.
Don't get me wrong, I love Final Fantasy. I intend to build my own replicas of Cloud's first Tsuringi (sword in Advent Children) and Fenrir. However, I won't sell them, they'll be for my own use. I still will contact SE and let them know what I'm doing though, as a courtesy. But whenever you sell something and make a profit, then you are infringing on someone else's idea, so the companies should have asked SE first.
RiccochetJ @ Feb 25th 2009 12:44PM
'They want to control every element of the idea, including what replicas are allowed to be made.'
That's exactly what you do with your intellectual property. You have that right. And your definition of a monopoly is a little off. You can't be accused of having a monopoly of the Final Fantasy IP.
Roto13 @ Feb 25th 2009 12:06PM
It boggles the mind that people will defend a store that's blatantly infringing on someone else's copyright. Buster swords aren't theirs to sell in the first place. They're making money off someone else's work and the original owner of the IP isn't seeing a dime of it.
Lee @ Feb 25th 2009 12:10PM
meist3r you've misunderstood almost everything... ah, never mind. If LaughingTarget wishes to continue wasting his time explaining what you're missing he can do so. I can only advise him to start by defining some keywords like "market".
meist3r @ Feb 25th 2009 12:31PM
@Lee: Thank god you showed up in time and cleared everything up for me... I already said they shouldn't have used the FF brand but it's still no reason to simply sue them into oblivion.
RiccochetJ @ Feb 25th 2009 12:53PM
@meist3r: We're only seeing the end result of this whole thing. Normal practice is to send these people a cease and desist letter first. I'm fairly certain that they had ample warning and when they ignored the warning Square lowered the boom.
N00b @ Feb 25th 2009 1:10PM
"I already said they shouldn't have used the FF brand but it's still no reason to simply sue them into oblivion."
So how would you get them to stop if they were making money off of one of YOUR ideas? Kindly ask them to? Would YOU give up your meal ticket just because you were asked to?
These companies aren't fans, they're just opportunist that makes money from fans.
If it comes down to someone making money from your idea, you would do the exact same thing as SE. So stop being a hypocrite. If you disagress... you're either BSing and covering your own ass or you're just a pushover. Either way, stop bashing SE for doing what had to be done.
replica watches @ Apr 10th 2009 3:15AM
I agree with the author's opinion!Though the watch is replica, the quality also cann't neglet.And the replica goods are benefit for most of us.
http://www.buyreplicawatches.net