Microsoft Mocks Sony With "Destiny Fragrance"

[Norris2k]

starcraft said:

binary solo said:

You're displaying an uncharacteristic ignorance. Destiny is a trademarked (or copyrighted) name for the FPS game that is Destiny. That means the only people who can use Destiny to promote the Destiny game are those to whom Acti gives permission. MS was not given permission, hence MS infringed on Acti/Bungie's trademark/copyright. You don't need to see an exclusive advertising contract to know this, you simply need to know what a dev/publisher typically copyrights and trademarks about the games they publish/make. Pretty basic stuff really. So MS didn't find an innovative way around the advertising arrangment because they actually broke the law in what they did. You should stop trying to claim they did, because that's perpetuation false information and as a mod you should not be doing that, especially by, at the same time, claiming people are being salty about something that MS actually did wrong. Mods have warned people in other threads about calling people salty, so I think it's pretty off for a mod to be using the term even if it's addressed to a general "@ others" rather than a specific person.

Only going to respond to one of you!

Of those who have responded to me, including yourself, I am the only one that appears not to have drawn a conclusion from zero information. I would think very little about that is ignorant. Multiple people in this thread have speculated ridiculously, including the absurd notion that Activision might attempt to sue Microsoft for this brief advertisement.

People always seem to assume rank stupidity in the actions of major games companies, as though they don't spend millions of dollars retaining highly intelligent people to orchestrate their campaigns. Let me be clear. I am fully aware that this advertisement could, conceivably, be considered a violation of an agreement between Sony and Activision - I am saying that in this instance, it would be irrelevant. There is zero certainty that a specific *written* agreement exists between Activision and Microsoft forbidding advertising of Destiny. But lets say, for a moment, that it does. What exactly do you think are the ramifications of this violation (which Microsoft would have known the ins and outs of far better than we do)? Activision has almost *no* incentive to enforce their rights, as Microsoft is advertising their game. Sony will know better than to take public action and appear petty. And Microsoft has, for the cost of perhaps 1 hour's graphic design work, and an hour's legal consultation, generated huge discussion online about the fact Destiny is on their platform. The argument one *might* make is that Microsoft risks damaging their relationship with Activision if Sony has a go at Activision over this privately. But thats something we have even less information on than the legal ramifcations of this action.

Technical written civil law is only as effective as it is enforceable, and only enforceable where there is an economic incentive to do so. As you said, pretty basic stuff really.

As for salty. The reason I used inflection marks is precisely because people have inanely used the word previously in this thread. We're in agreement on its uselessness - but reading back I didn't make that sufficiently clear, sorry.

What he's saying it that you can break the law without breaking any agreement. Activision owns the game, its copyright and commercial rights.

I also can't see a reason for Sony not to put a pressure on Activision to sue MS, so that's not a "if". They paid for the ad exclusivity, they didn't get it.