Rumble Between the Junglers: How the DotA fight began
by Mathew McCurley 
Feb 17th 2012 at 3:00PM
Defense of the Ancients is a genre all unique to itself. Sure, the concepts are not brand new and the bulk of the original game was created using the Warcraft III World Editor, but the lasting appeal and standing reverence of the DotA genre continues today and shows no sign of slowing down. Part tower defense, part real-time strategy unit movement, this game type has experienced astounding growth all over the world over the last decade. As the genre grows, Defense of the Ancients-style games, or MOBAs (multiplayer online battle arenas), or ARTS (action real-time strategy), or... wait... what are we calling this genre?
My initial reaction to the entire naming fiasco was wonderfully summed up by Joystiq's own JC Fletcher: "Which giant company has the rights to the fan-created, community-promoted word 'Dota?'" He's right to be cynical -- justice will be meted out over a word that was born in the Blizzard maps community because of the actions of two super-huge gaming companies. That's not all there is to the story, however.
Therein lies the crux of the hot topic of the day -- Blizzard has finally thrown in its opposition of Valve's attempt to trademark the name Dota for its upcoming release of DOTA 2, a literal successor to the original DotA throne. The problem is that there are a whole bunch more facts, people, and anecdotes in this story than most people know.
I wrote a short post on the Dota trademark issue a few days ago that served as the basic of basics, what the news was about. Here's the short version: Valve is attempting to trademark a name that many gamers (and companies) consider to be a general term for the genre rather than the proper name for the game that spawned the genre. Hell, it could be both.
Defense of the Ancients is a game where two teams of five players fight to break down the defenses and structures of the opposing team in three lanes of action, top, middle, and bottom. There is a neutral area in between these lanes called the jungle where one player mixes a bit of PvE into his PvP, fighting computer-controlled creatures and using tactics to flank other lanes and help drive the enemy back. Through the match, you will be assisted by NPC creeps who just suicide into oncoming traffic, so to speak, but can be instrumental in dealing damage to the other team. One team wins when it successfully destroys the opposing team's main building.
Before we get to the actual fight over the Dota trademark, we need to explore the past relationships, the exact moments in 2003 when the DotA genre was first birthed in the world.
The DotA story
Defense of the Ancients began as an astonishing number of games do, sort of an accident as a user-created mod. Interestingly, the first piece of the puzzle isn't DotA itself but rather Warcraft III, the game that allowed all of this to happen. Blizzard's development of StarCraft and Warcraft III featured the use of map editors and utilities that allowed players the same flexibility and creation (or near to it) that Blizzard itself had when designing new missions for its games. These world editor tools gave creative people outside of Blizzard the freedom to tinker with their games and create brand new experiences, all while still living inside the original game.
In 2003, a popular mod for StarCraft called Aeon of Strife (AoS) was recreated in Warcraft. After various offshoots were abandoned, the leader of the pack, DotA-Allstars, was the clear champion, fighting its way out of the pile to become one of the most popular games ever. This Defense of the Ancients was created by Steve Feak (the original being created by an elusive map maker named Eul), a modder using the handle Guinsoo, while the distribution site for the game was created by Steve Mescon, now director of communications for Riot Games.
Over time, the game's development drew in many new faces and the fandom grew to a massive scale. Blizzard hosted a DotA tournament at BlizzCon in 2005. Basshunter wrote a song about it; not only does it has over 30 million views on YouTube, but it made him a star. Dota was so huge that the mod even fueled sales of Warcraft III, much how Counter-Strike pushed many copies of Half Life for Valve. Oh, irony. The game was huge, and nothing could stop it.
Where are they now?
After version 6.01 of DotA, Feak passed development to IceFrog. IceFrog is currently employed by Valve developing DOTA 2, a near-recreation of the original DotA with better graphics, updated character models, a new stand-alone matchmaking system, and new features. Steve Feak, Steve Mescon, and other Dota developers went on to work for Riot Games and build League of Legends, which currently boasts over 30 million subscriptions and meteoric success in China. This genre is huge, and the numbers prove it.
The fight begins
Valve began development of DOTA 2 and hired IceFrog to make it in 2009. Then, Valve filed for the Dota trademark a year later in 2010. At first, Steve Mescon from Riot Games filed his own objection and counter application to the trademark on behalf of his company DotA-Allstars, LLC. As founder of the defacto DotA community website, Mescon believed that a Valve-owned Dota trademark meant a lot of people who worked on and built DotA would be denied what was theirs. The community had also latched on to the acronym, using the phrase to refer to the genre of game that had cropped up in imitated form all over Battle.net. DotA-type, DotA-esque, DOTA-clone -- these were the majority of game types you would find in the custom game broswer because of that one map.
Blizzard threw its hat into the ring at the end of 2011 by filing a Notice of Opposition against the Valve trademark.
Wait, you can oppose a trademark filing in the United States?
You sure can. Under certain circumstances, if a party believes that he or she will be damaged in some way by another party filing for a certain trademark, you can file a notice of opposition and potentially state your case. Blizzard feels that Valve's having control over the word and acronym Dota is damaging to not only its business but the Dota genre that has its namesake pulled from the game that popularized it. Blizzard is not trying to trademark Dota itself. In fact, it has a key concern in this entire process because it is preparing to release (hopefully in the near future) Blizzard DOTA, a version of DotA developed in house using StarCraft II and featuring Blizzard characters.
If Valve is able to trademark Dota, Blizzard would be forced to change the name of Blizzard DOTA and potentially a huge amount of marketing materials for the upcoming game. This article wasn't about who is right and who is wrong -- I just wanted to set the stage. But we'll get into heated opinions about the subject next week. I kind of want to see where things go in the next few days first ...
Until next week
That's the conflict in a nutshell. Both Blizzard and Riot have expressed opposition to Valve's attempted trademark of Dota. This trademark application matters because two very big contenders are finally at a head over an issue that everyone saw coming. Nobody wanted to deal with the Dota problem, which is why it kept getting swept under the rug until 2012 came along and someone just had to go and try to release a game.
Next week, I'll dish out my opinions on the subject, talk about why even Gabe Newell doesn't like the acronym DotA, and why there is so much money in this genre in the future.
This column is for entertainment only; if you need legal advice, contact a lawyer. For comments or general questions about law or for The Lawbringer, contact Mat at mat@wowinsider.com.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
xxxtrish1 Feb 17th 2012 3:09PM
i agree totally
spectres Feb 17th 2012 3:10PM
"...why even Gabe Newell doesn't like the acronym DotA..."
Is it because it refers specifically to the War of the Ancients from Warcrafts lore?
smartazjb0y Feb 17th 2012 3:10PM
So many people just see this, without knowing all the facts, as an attempt by Blizzard to prevent DOTA2 from coming out, or forcing Valve to change its name, because it didn't capitalize on it and is now jealous that Valve is moving forward with DOTA. They're trying to portray Blizzard in a greedy light, when in fact, that's not what they're doing. They're not trying to trademark DOTA at all and I hope this article clears that up for people.
antkibo Feb 17th 2012 3:20PM
Eul was the original creator of Dota before Guinsoo
Cephas Feb 17th 2012 4:08PM
"After various offshoots were abandoned"
The original DotA by Eul was one of those abandoned offshoots. People only remember it because Guinsoo based his version off of it. Eul's version might be kind of interesting from a historical perspective, but the DotA genre and community grew up around Guinsoo's version.
calaf Feb 17th 2012 3:21PM
Is it safe to say that if Riot games had named League of Legends "Dota" all of this could have been avoided?
antkibo Feb 17th 2012 3:25PM
Dota "1" still exists. IceFrog develop both it and Dota 2
Coco Feb 17th 2012 3:54PM
Original DOTA concept by Eul
morncreek Feb 17th 2012 3:43PM
I'm a little surprised that Valve believes it can trademark "DotA" (or other capitalization variations - I never know which one to use -_- ). I have never played the mod/game and, even with my cursory knowledge, would have said that there is too much dilution of the term for a successful trademark filing. /puzzled
Scunosi Feb 17th 2012 5:17PM
Yeah, as far as titles go it seems fairly generic. I'm sure Valve thinks they can go with it just because they hired Icefrog (as someone mentioned in the comments) but it'd be like having a foods brand and just naming your stuff "Cheese Products" and "Chips in a bag." As much as I love Valve, it seems rather un-creative and lazy on their part to go to all this trouble over something that should have had a unique name to begin with.
Al Feb 17th 2012 5:23PM
"It's a true sequel" says Gabe.. only with 'different' characters (Oh hai 'Jana') and no Ancients to defend.
DarkWalker Feb 17th 2012 3:51PM
IMHO:
- DOTA merits trademark protection, to the same extent that any other genre setting game (the ones often used in describing other games; how many times have you seen a game referred as a "Diablo clone", or as a "WoW clone"? This does not make Diablo or WoW any less deserving of trademark protection). More so because most DOTA clones try to avoid the "DOTA" name.
- I don't think Blizzard has any standing in trying to prevent DOTA from being trademarked. The DOTA trademark was applied for long before Blizzard revealed they are doing Blizzard DOTA. The same with the announcement of DOTA 2.
- I see the fact DOTA was developed as a Warcraft 3 mod as irrelevant. I see Blizzard objecting to the DOTA trademark based on it's mod origins as if Microsoft tried to prevent an Android app from trademarking it's name just because the developers used windows-based development tools.
- What I see as the sole remaining question: should the DOTA trademark be owned by the original creator or the current maintainer (i.e., IceFrog, currently employed by Valve)?
Jebediah54 Feb 17th 2012 4:06PM
The genre is MMORPG, and if someone were to try and trademark, say "MMORPG 2", there would be some problems. People use "WoW clone" not to describe a genre of a game, but to describe a game itself (eg "SW:TOR is a WoW clone"). You can have an MMORPG without it being a WoW clone.
JattTheRogue Feb 17th 2012 4:19PM
"- DOTA merits trademark protection, to the same extent that any other genre setting game (the ones often used in describing other games; how many times have you seen a game referred as a "Diablo clone", or as a "WoW clone"? This does not make Diablo or WoW any less deserving of trademark protection). More so because most DOTA clones try to avoid the "DOTA" name."
The difference being DOTA wasn't a game like Diablo and WoW, i.e. - created by a company for sale. It was fan-made and free. Diablo and WoW are of course going to be trademarked because companies will protect their intellectual properties. DOTA, however, wasn't someone's fresh creation; rather, it was a shuffling around of already owned resources (Blizzard heroes, Blizzard enemies, Blizzard map resources, etc.). It was also, as I said, free, and not for sale. I'm not saying DOTA should never be trademarked, but comparing it to Diablo or WoW is laughable.
DarkWalker Feb 17th 2012 6:55PM
@Jebediah54:
DOTA is not a genre. It stands for the name of a game. It's not some generic term, it does not attempt to explain what the game is about, etc. If you say "Defense of the Ancients" to a person that does not already know the game, he won't have an inkling on what the game is about.
MMORPG is a genre. It is actually a brief description of what the genre is about (massively multiplayer online role playing game), and thus generic and not deserving trademark protection.
You can't really compare them.
Saying a competing game is a DOTA is just like using Xerox in place of photocopier, Gillette in place of razor blade, "to Google" in place of "to search the Internet for". Common usages, misappropriating a brand name, but this does not preclude those brands from being trademarked.
BTW, "WoW-like" can be seen as a sub-genre of MMOs with ample usage of instancing for group content, limits on how many players may join in a group and reap the benefits, little to no sandbox features, little to no death penalties, gear binding used to prevent players from obtaining most group rewards without actually doing the group content, etc. A surprisingly large number of MMOs fit this description, most (if not all) of them appearing after WoW proved successful.
"Diablo-like" was an even more common term back in the day. Given the absurd success Diablo and Diablo 2 had, and the amount of time Blizzard has taken to provide a new game in the series, a huge number of very similar games sprung up. I even purchased a few. And I clearly remember the gaming press calling them "Diablo-like" and similar terms.
@JattTheRogue:
Indie games, and mods - even if released for free - deserve protection just like games from big companies. The fact it's just a bunch of players coding in their fee time and without money to pay a lawyer does not make them any less deserving of copyright and trademark protection.
Of course, DOTA shouldn't be able to distribute the parts from Warcraft 3 together with the mod. But the name "DOTA" was never Blizzard's; DOTA's developers were fee to trademark it from the start. And from the moment the devs removed the parts copyrighted and trademarked by Blizzard in order to release a new game, it's their game, to do as they want - which includes the right to make a partnership with a big Blizzard competitor.
It's the same thing that happens when a programmer makes an iPhone app and ports it to Android. On the iPhone, he was using a series of iOS resources provided, and copyrighted, by Apple. When porting to Android, the developer removes those resources and uses corresponding Android resources provided by Google. This does not reduce in any way the developer's rights to the app, including the associated copyrights and trademarks.
Zedd Feb 17th 2012 10:04PM
@DarkWalker
MMORPG was not always considered a genre, the concept can trace it's lineage back to only 1 or 2 successful games. Just like DotA.
I think that's part of the inherent problem with the whole trademarking thing and the lineage of DotA over the last years. It's BECOME a genre, even if it wasn't before.
No, a lot of people don't know what a "Defense of the Ancients" or "Action Real Time Strategy" game is, but that's because it is (relatively) new to the scene as a game unto itself.
What started as a mod for another game has now developed into it's own genre of other games and I for one think it's pretty awesome, Eul and Guinsoo and IceFrog have created something that will live on for a long time.
On a side note, I personally think ARTS is better fitting than DotA as an all-encompassing name, but worse names have caught-on to describe things in the past....
DarkWalker Feb 18th 2012 6:44AM
@Zedd:
The crux of the matter is not whether or not there is a genre of games similar to DOTA (or whether or not MMORPG is/was a genre). It's whether or not DOTA merits trademark protection.
The specific term MMORPG never merited trademark protection because it was born as a generic term that tried to describe a nascent genre of games. It doesn't matter that the genre was in it's infancy. Trying to trademark it would be akin to trademarking "text editor" back when computing was in it's infancy; you can't trademark something that is just a generic description of the product.
DOTA is not a generic term. It's a game name (or mod name, whatever), and not a generic description of the genre. The fact a whole genre sprung from games like it does not make "DOTA" any less deserving of trademark protection (and the fact it was not the first such game makes any claim that the name "DOTA" describes a genre even less valid).
On the other hand, the terms "MOBA" and "ARTS" would not merit trademark protection simply because they ARE generic descriptions of the genre :)
Saeadame Feb 18th 2012 7:27AM
What's this "trademark protection" crap - "protection" implies that the reason people want the term trademarked ISN'T just so they can make a ton of money off other people if they want to use it. Make no mistake, Valve isn't applying for trademark to "protect" the term DOTA, it's all about money and it's always about money. Personally, if people think DOTA is a genre term or has the potential to BE a genre term (which, if this trademark is prevented, it could bump it from "maybe a genre, to some people" to "probably a genre"), then hell, go for it. There's no reason why Valve can't still call its game DOTA 2, it just means it won't have a lockdown on the term DOTA - which, frankly, I don't have a problem with. People are so trademark-crazy these days its ridiculous.
DarkWalker Feb 18th 2012 1:35PM
@Saeadame
What you might be missing is that Valve employs the current developer of DOTA. In other words, Valve is applying for the trademark with the blessings of the current DOTA developer.
It's not simply a matter of Valve trying to profit from someone's else work. Valve offered the current DOTA developer a place to be, funding, and the chance to launch a new version of his game under the Valve label. Of course, there is money to be made, but the DOTA developer is getting what he most likely considers a fair cut - otherwise, he wouldn't be on board with Valve.
So, IMHO, the only parties that have any legitimacy to block the trademark are the previous DOTA developers, the people that actually created and used the name before IceFrog became the developer.
Blizzard trying to block the DOTA trademark strikes me as just a greedy company trying to prevent a developer from benefiting from his own work, from enjoying the exclusivity creators are entitled to by the law. Blizzard seems to want a free ride on DOTA's success, down to using the DOTA name, without having to pay anything to it's creators.
Evelinda Feb 20th 2012 10:13PM
So I really wanted to say that it bugs me how commenters downvote everything they disagree with. I don't agree with DarkWalker's interpretation, but he's making cogent points in a clear and concise manner, and he's doing it respectfully. Why does that merit downvoting?
I think other people have covered my disagreement with your earlier points fairly well dark, but as to your last point... Blizzard isn't trying to stop DOTA 2 being released, or trying to force valve to pay them for use of the name, they're just trying to stop them trademarking the name so that valve is the only company that can use it.
Even without the tm, valve can still release DOTA 2, they can still call it DOTA 2,and they can still make bucketloads of money. EVEN IF they had to change the name to something else, Protection of the Elderly or something equally stupid, they're still going to sell a million copies, and Icefrog is still going to make a bundle from his hard work.