Cyberpunk 2077 - Brian Bethke responds to Cyberpunk Trademark

Lucky Day spotted a statement from Brian Bethke about CD Projekt's Cyberpunk trademark on World Trademark Review:

Cyberpunk legend expresses concern over controversial trademark: "I wish someone from CD Projekt Red would contact me"

There has been an outcry over trademark applications for the term CYBERPUNK filed by video game developer CD Projekt Red. While much of the negative sentiment has been put to rest after the company released an open letter expanding on the marks, some concern remains – including from Bruce Bethke, who originally coined the term ‘cyberpunk’ in 1980.

The furore began last week following the discovery of an EU trademark application for the term CYBERPUNK, the term used for a popular subgenre of science fiction (exemplified by classic works of fiction including Blade Runner, Ghost In The Shell and Neuromancer). The trademark registrant was CD Projekt Red, developer of the popular Witcher series of video games and an upcoming title in development called Cyberpunk 2077 (based on 1980s role-playing game Cyberpunk 2020, created by R. Talsorian Games).
[…]
A comment emerged that was attributed to Bruce Bethke, the author who originally coined the term ‘cyberpunk’ in in a popular short story written in 1980. He claimed that entities often try and trademark the term but they “never hold up” due to “the enormous amount of well-documented prior art”. Other commentators directed their disappointment at CD Projekt Red, with one asking: “Would it be better if they went with ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ specifically? This seems like overreach.” Another compared the mark to previous trademark applications that received public backlashes: “This is exactly the same as oppressive trademarks such as [King.com filing for] Saga or what the Fine Bros tried to do with React, however I can guarantee that despite how [bad] this is, there will be people … who will defend this. In their eyes CD Projekt Red can do no wrong. This trademark will probably get rejected but it's still a scumbag thing to attempt to get.”
[…]

More information.

This is exactly the same as oppressive trademarks such as [King.com filing for] Saga or what the Fine Bros tried to do with React, however I can guarantee that despite how [bad] this is, there will be people … who will defend this. In their eyes CD Projekt Red can do no wrong. This trademark will probably get rejected but it's still a scumbag thing to attempt to get.”

I couldn't agree with this quote more. Its like trying to trademark Basmati rice or other disgusting trademarks from companies trying to make money off of things that have been part of popular tradition for a long time. This edges on theft.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
I couldn't agree with this quote more. Its like trying to trademark Basmati rice or other disgusting trademarks from companies trying to make money off of things that have been part of popular tradition for a long time. This edges on theft.

Try reading the full article next time.

What forgottenlor said..that's how I read the article. Or are you bringing up our previous rant on this?

Last time we saw this a week ago the trademark was open for challenge. It looks like now the us patent office has issued them a registration number so they've granted it.

*Issued on April 18, 2017
*Its for a standard character trademark and not a logo
*By the maintenance page its good until 2022 or 2023

Its hard to tell but it seems to cover

Computer and video game software for use on mobile wireless devices, namely, mobile and cellular phones, smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), portable media players, tablet computers and calculators; Pre-recorded audio discs and audio tapes featuring music

Novels; role-playing game book; magazines in the fields of science fiction, fantasy, technology, horror, action and adventure, music and games; trading cards; book covers

T-shirts

Collectible card games; playing pieces in the nature of miniature action figures for use with table top board and card role-playing games, paper party hats

And not just video games CDPR as they are implying.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
This edges on theft.

In the same way, as "cyberpunk" was "property" of it's "author"…surely, the words cyber and punk have never existed before?

It seems some people have issues with reading comprehension or need a lesson in history or business laws.

CDPR is not prohibiting creation of cyberpunk games ( nor is Talsorian games, who previously held on to it) or claims the whole genre "belongs" to them.
This practice has existed for more than a century and it does for a reason.

Now how much they're willing to hold over it, that is an actual ethical issue.

If someone named their title "Cyberpunk 2100", they have the right to protect their trademark.

Something called , "Under the Cyberpunk sky"…that is unlikely to be associated with their IP and it would be a dick move if they tried to fight against it.

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty

It seems some people have issues with reading comprehension or need a lesson in history or business laws.


Something called , "Under the Cyberpunk sky"…that is unlikely to be associated with their IP and it would be a … move if they tried to fight against it.

but that's just it. I believe it would be. This gives too much power to CDPR over the word.

The strawman argument that two known objects aren't protected when used in a different way has long since proven incorrect. The internal combustion engine and a four wheel vehicle is a new object when placed together to make an automonous moving vehicle. Ironically, Ford tried to use a similar argument against the guy who invented intermittent wipers.

I think what's really going on is people are just fans of the company, the way Led Zeppelin fans think the authors of Dazed and Confused and 16 other songs they claimed to write that are in dispute don't deserve the actual credit.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
but that's just it. I believe it would be. This gives too much power to CDPR over the word.

You mean in the same way as R.Talsorian games have owned the trademark decades prior and yet games titled <…cyberpunk…>were still being released, without issues?

No…"I believe it will happen", does not cover it.

Like I said, it comes down to whether they're willing to abuse the trademark or not and their statement was pretty open about how they want to handle it.
If anything, hammering down on similar named titles would bring them far too much negative press and turn public opinion against them.

In a perfect world this kind of situation would not exist, but business is not run this way and trademark laws are simply necessary, even if they claim on words their "owners" did not invent.

Originally Posted by Lucky Day
but that's just it. I believe it would be. This gives too much power to CDPR over the word.

The strawman argument that two known objects aren't protected when used in a different way has long since proven incorrect. The internal combustion engine and a four wheel vehicle is a new object when placed together to make an automonous moving vehicle. Ironically, Ford tried to use a similar argument against the guy who invented intermittent wipers.

I think what's really going on is people are just fans of the company, the way Led Zeppelin fans think the authors of Dazed and Confused and 16 other songs they claimed to write that are in dispute don't deserve the actual credit.

Actually Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights are each different and distinct forms of Intellectual Property, even though you've managed to confuse all of them as the same thing.

It is complicated, as Bobo did try to point out (for all the good that did). But you may want to read the entire cited article nevertheless along wiith CDPR's open letter publication explaining why and how they aren't the devils that some like to claim.

BTW where's the outrage against profits from clickbait attraction of visitors via overblown claims made to attract those visitors? Just askin'.

At any rate…

__

Yeah, we covered this topic in a previous thread and Brian's statement doesn't change anything.

It's like trademarking "horror" or "post-apocalypse"


The world we live in is just incredibly stupid.

Argue about intents to not use the trademark aggressively is non sense. It's not an arguing. If they pay for it it's they planned the possibility to use it.

The core problem is that it's possible, So you can pay for the trademark Fantasy, or Science Fiction, or Cyberpunk.

It's still a problem a company does the step and buy such trademark. In my opinion the dev have a low knowledge of this, and don't realize it's like they bought Fantasy.

Originally Posted by forgottenlor
This edges on theft.

Hardly theft… Just because an author coins a new word does not make it his.
In fact, Bruce Bethke has expressed regret that he didn't think to trademark cyberpunk.

CYBERPUNK was first trademarked in the US by R. Talsorian Games, creators of the Cyberpunk 2020 games from the 1980s. I would assume CD Projekt RED paid them for the trademark. However, it sounds like it might be newly trademarked in the EU; It was probably trademarked before, but they do expire if not used.

Yes, the first one was Cyberpunk 2013, published in 1988 by R. Talsorian Games.

More work for lawyers. Meh.

What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

Good?

Originally Posted by Damian
Good?

Pretty much.

A good start.

Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face
What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

If there is blood in the water sharks will swarm en masse to engage in a feeding frenzy. Truly a terrifying sight…

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
Something called , "Under the Cyberpunk sky"…that is unlikely to be associated with their IP and it would be a dick move if they tried to fight against it.

This kind of moves are part of the defense of an IP. GW is big on IP trademark and copyright and has a record of trademark bullying people. It is part of the package or companies are seen as abandoning their IP.

The difference is there will be no "under the cyberpunk sky" title. This company will be given much less opportunities to bully as the cyberpunk word has less appeal.
Space marine has appeal. RPG much more. Trademarking RPG would give material to bully. CYberpunk does not.

As if typing isn't allowed so you can communicate only by copy-pasting random phrases from the Internet and stringing them together into sentences. Gotta love the Chien