We’ve written a ton about Taylor Swift’s various adventures in intellectual property law and the wider internet. Given her sheer popularity and presence in pop culture, that isn’t itself particularly surprising. What has been somewhat interesting about her as a Techdirt subject, though, has been how she has straddled the line between being a victim of overly aggressive intellectual property enforcement as well as being a perpetrator of the same. All of this is to say that Swift is not a stranger to negative outcomes in the digital realm, nor is she a stranger to being the legal aggressor.

Which is why the point of this post is to be something of an open letter to Her Swiftness to not listen to roughly half the internet that is clamoring for her to sue Donald Trump for sharing some AI-generated images on social media falsely implying that Swift had endorsed him. First, the facts.

Taylor Swift has yet to endorse any presidential candidate this election cycle. But former President Donald Trump says he accepts the superstar’s non-existent endorsement.

Trump posted “I accept!” on his Truth Social account, along with a carousel of (Swift) images – at least some of which appear to be AI-generated.

One of the AI-manipulated photos depicts Swift as Uncle Sam with the text, “Taylor wants you to vote for Donald Trump.” The other photos depict fans of Swift wearing “Swifties for Trump” T-shirts.

As the quote notes, not all of the images were AI generated “fakes.” At least one of them was from a very real woman, who is very much a Swift fan, wearing a “Swifties for Trump” shirt. There is likewise a social media campaign for supporters from the other side of the aisle, too, “Swifties for Kamala”. None of that is really much of an issue, of course. But the images shared by Trump on Truth Social implied far more than a community of her fans that also like him. So much so, in fact, that he appeared to accept an endorsement that never was.

In case you didn’t notice, immediately below that top left picture is a label that clearly marks the article and associated images as “satire.” The image of Swift doing the Uncle Sam routine to recruit people to back Trump is also obviously not something that came directly from Swift or her people. In fact, while she has not endorsed a candidate in this election cycle (more on that in a moment), Swift endorsed Biden in 2020 with some particularly biting commentary around why she would not vote for Trump.

Now, Trump sharing misleading information on social media is about as newsworthy as the fact that the sun will set tonight. But it is worth noting that social media exploded in response, with a ton of people online advocating Swift to “get her legal team involved” or “sue Trump!” And that is something she absolutely should not do. Some outlets have even suggested that Swift should sue under Tennesse’s new ELVIS Act, which both prohibits the use of people’s voice or image without their authorization, and which has never been tested in court.

Trump’s post might be all it takes to give Swift’s team grounds to sue Trump under Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act. The law protects against “just about any unauthorized simulation of a person’s voice or appearance,” said Joseph Fishman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

“It doesn’t matter whether an image is generated by AI or not, and it also doesn’t matter whether people are actually confused by it or not,” Fishman said. “In fact, the image doesn’t even need to be fake — it could be a real photo, just so long as the person distributing it knows the subject of the photo hasn’t authorized the use.”

Please don’t do this. First, it probably won’t work. Suing via an untested law that is very likely to run afoul of First Amendment protections is a great way to waste money. Trump also didn’t create the images, presumably, and is merely sharing or re-truthing them. That’s going to make making him liable for them a challenge.

But the larger point here is that all Swift really has to do here is respond, if she chooses, with her own political endorsement or thoughts. It’s not as though she didn’t do so in the last election cycle. If she’s annoyed at what Trump did and wants to punish him, she can solve that with more speech: her own. Hell, there aren’t a ton of people out there who can command an audience that rivals Donald Trump’s… but she almost certainly can!

Just point out that what he shared was fake. Mention, if she wishes, that she voted against him last time. If she likes, she might want to endorse a different candidate. Or she can merely leave it with a biting denial, such as:

“The images Donald Trump shared implied that I have endorsed him. I have not. In fact, I didn’t authorize him to use my image in any way and request that he does not in the future. On the other hand, Donald Trump has a history of not minding much when it comes to getting a woman’s consent, so I won’t get my hopes up too much.”

The idea/expression dichotomy strikes again! There is a misconception among some as to how copyright works, specifically in terms of what is protected under copyright and what is not. This has been distilled down to the afore-mentioned dichotomy, where general ideas do not enjoy the protection of copyright, whereas specific expressions do. So, an anthropomorphic mouse-hero that wears a cape and can fly is an idea that is not protectable, while the specific depiction of Mighty Mouse (just to age myself) is protectable.

I don’t expect every member of the public, nor even every content creator out there to know this sort of thing. I do, however, expect the lawyers they contact in an attempt to file loser lawsuits to know it. Sadly, these suits make their way into the courts far too often and are nearly as often dismissed on summary judgement. Such seems to be the case with Daniel Kassel’s lawsuit against Comedy Central over two works that feature a talking manatee that has life problems and a human girlfriend.

The work at the center of the lawsuit is Happily Everglades After, a storyboard animatic posted to YouTube by author Daniel Kassel. The work, originally titled Jukebox Manatee, tells the story a manatee protagonist with a laid-back attitude and a human girlfriend who, in the words of the complaint “suffers misfortunes as a commentary on life and its travails with irony and black humor.” The author finalized the work, after “brainstorming” with fellow students in the Pratt Institute, in 2018.

But the author did not take a laid-back approach to the release of Loafy, a one-season adult animated comedy premiering on the Comedy Central digital platforms in August 2020. The show, created by former Saturday Night Live cast member Bobby Moynihan and made by production company Cartuna, is (according to its publicity materials) “a semi-improvised animated series about a weed-dealing manatee who spends his days getting high and lazing around his tank at the Central Park Zoo.” Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes, Gina Gershon, and Tom Green, among others, provide voiceovers for the series.

As the court noted in its ruling in favor of the defense on summary judgement, some of those specific elements and many, many more are at the heart of why this failed as a matter of copyright infringement. I imagine that part of the reason this action was brought in the first place is that a couple of people that worked on Loafy at Cartuna were classmates of Kassel earlier in life. Perhaps he thought that created some link or served as further evidence of infringement. Comedy Central didn’t even bother suggesting that it or the production company never had access to Kassel’s work, in fact.

But as the court went on to say, and I paraphrase: so fucking what? The characters in Kassel’s complaint are not described in protectable elements, the court ruled. A talking manatee with a human girlfriend that talks about his life? That’s an idea, not a specific expression. Hell, Kassel’s work is a four minute cartoon short, whereas Loafy is an episodic series. They’re substantially different in terms of length, themes, and specific expression in a number of ways, up to and including the very nature and length of each work.

And even if the author’s manatee character were unique enough to be protectable, the court found, the “total concept and feel of the two works” was not substantially similar in any event. The original animated short was a four-minute work drawn in stop-motion animation, set in the Everglades, featuring a manatee character who “appears optimistic despite being run over and physically scarred by humans in a boat.” The Comedy Central work was an eight-part animated series, set in a dilapidated zoo near Central Park, featuring “a foul-mouthed and crude drug dealer” whose humor was “designed to leave the viewer laughing.” These and other differences in concept and feel made the author’s claim implausible even on the pleadings.

Kassel brought two other claims, one for unfair competition and another for deceptive acts and practices. The court hand-waved away both. The unfair competition claim failed because it was, again, about ideas and concepts, rather than a specific “tangible good.” The deceptive practices claim failed as well, basically because it essentially reiterated the claim of copyright infringement.

And so this lawsuit goes in the waste bin, wasting the time of everyone involved and, presumably, some money that Kassel would have spent on his lawyers. Lawyers who really should either be giving their client better advice on claims like this, or refusing to take such loser cases on.

Here we are again, with yet another in our series of posts describing how in these here modern times you simply don’t actually own the things you’ve bought. This sort of thing takes many forms, of course. Sometimes the digital media you “bought” gets disappeared by a platform after a licensing deal runs out. Sometimes the hardware you bought turns into a relatively expensive brick because the company you bought it from decides to stop supporting those devices entirely. And, as Sony made famous with its PlayStation 3, sometimes a company simply decides to disappear a feature that was a selling point on a product on a whim.

Well, that last and oldest example appears to be the most analogous to what Oral-B just did to customers of some of its toothbrushes, which came with a charging base that you could connect to an Amazon Alexa.

That’s what’s happening to some who bought into Oral-B toothbrushes with Amazon Alexa built in. Oral-B released the Guide for $230 in August 2020 but bricked the ability to set up or reconfigure Alexa on the product this February. As of this writing, the Guide is still available through a third-party Amazon seller.

The Guide toothbrush’s charging base was able to connect to the Internet and work like an Alexa speaker that you could speak to and from which Alexa could respond. Owners could “ask to play music, hear the news, check weather, control smart home devices, and even order more brush heads by saying, ‘Alexa, order Oral-B brush head replacements,’” per Procter & Gamble’s 2020 announcement.

And then, in February of this year, Oral-B simply took that feature away. Where there once was an app that you could use to connect the Guide base to your Alexa, that feature in the app is no longer available. For those that had it previously setup with their Alexa, the base will work right up until the point that it drops its internet connection, after which it will no longer connect.

And if you thought refunds would be a thing here, it appears that’s not the case.

That’s a problem for Patrick Hubley, who learned that Oral-B discontinued Connect when his base inadvertently disconnected from the Wi-Fi and he tried using Connect to fix it. He told Ars Technica that when he tries using the Alexa wake word now, the speaker says, “I’m having trouble connecting to the Internet. For help, go to your device’s companion app.”

Hubley attempted but failed to get a refund or replacement brush through Oral-B’s support avenues. He says he will no longer buy Oral-B or Alexa products.

“I only purchased this toothbrush from Amazon because that was the only way to get the water-resistant Alexa speaker that I wanted for the bathroom. … I’m ready to be done with Alexa and Oral-B both.”

This is all starting to sound like the Spotify Car Thing story I linked to in the opener. If history is a guide, perhaps a good bout of public outrage from buyers of the Guide will spur Oral-B to reconsider offering refunds for a product it retroactively decided to make less useful after purchase.

But either way, there really should be some sort of consumer rights associated with not having a product that is purchased suddenly lose features long after purchase. In the meantime, I’ll just have to go back to singing in the shower, I suppose.

This nonsense is somehow still going. To catch you up if you’re not familiar with this story, the Ravinia Festival Association operates the Ravinia Festival venue in the north suburbs of Chicago. When a small brewery opened its doors in Highland Park, calling itself Ravinia Brewing Company, the RFA objected to its name and convinced the brewery to enter into an agreement whereby the RFA would not object to the name or sue for trademark infringement in exchange for all kinds of agreed upon restrictions on the brewery. These included restrictions on the percentage of real estate on packaging and marketing materials using the term “Ravinia,” not organizing musical concerts, and so on.

Now, this might all sound fairly reasonable if you’re not from the area, as I am. But if you are from the Chicagoland area, you will recognize two problems with all of this. First, the term “Ravinia” comes from a formerly incorporated municipality that used to exist on the grounds where the RFA operates. It was the name of a neighborhood, not unlike “Wrigleyville” near Wrigley Field, thereby making it a geographic marker. Geographic markers have historically enjoyed very limited trademark protections, if any at all. The reality is that this trademark probably never should have been granted in the first place. Add to that the simple fact that the area also has other businesses that use the “Ravinia” name, some of which include businesses that serve beer and food, all without objection from the RFA. Despite all of the above, the RFA last year claimed that Ravinia Brewing had violated its agreement and sued for trademark infringement.

At present, this lawsuit is still going. The RFA recently amended its complaint, noting that Ravinia Brewing had transferred its own trademarks for its business name to a company setup in Delaware in order to license the marks back to the local business.

The updated complaint in the federal lawsuit between the music festival and the microbrewery accuses the founders of the brewing company of starting their business with “the express purposes of taking advantage of the name recognition and good will of Ravinia [Festival Association].”

In addition to the Illinois-registered LLCs of Ravinia Brewing Company and Ravinia Brewing Company Chicago, the 11-count amended complaint adds as a defendant Ravinia Brewing IP LLC, a Delaware-based entity incorporated in 2016. According to a joint status report filed earlier this month, attorneys for the music festival only recently learned that the brewing company had assigned trademark rights to the Delaware affiliate.

So that’s the reason for the amended complaint, but most of the facts of the case remain the same. The trademark in question is a geographic marker and the RFA has not policed its mark equitably with respect to other businesses in the area. There is still a great deal of complaining in the suit over font sizes, musical “concerts” put on by the brewery, social media “advertising,” and a beer with a musical-themed brand. There’s a lot of scare quotes in that sentence. Here’s why:

1. The “concerts” put on by the brewery are largely a person with a guitar playing some songs in the bar. These are nothing like the massive concerts put on at Ravinia Festival.
2. The font size issue occurred when there was a change in size and shape of the beer can and the brewery corrected the issue as soon as it was brought to their attention.
3. The new music themed beer was called “Key Notes” and featured a person playing a piano on the can. That both isn’t enough to make this trademark infringement, nor is the beer even sold any longer.
4. The social media “advertising” claim stems from the wife of the owner of the brewery, on her own social media page, posting a picture drinking one of the brewery’s beers while at a concert at Ravinia Festival.

And, again, this is all over a geographic marker trademark that shouldn’t have been granted in the first place. And, in the brewery’s response to the lawsuit, potentially shouldn’t have been granted for other reasons as well.

The brewery contended that the association’s 2011 trademark for exclusive rights to use the “Ravinia” name for “Restaurant Services; Catering Services; Offering Banquet Facilities” was obtained fraudulently, noting that the festival’s finance director signed a sworn declaration that no one else was using the name for restaurants and food — despite the existence of local restaurants like the Ravinia Green Country Club and the Ravinia BBQ and Grill.

The brewery’s attorney, Shelley Smith, said a jury could reasonably determine that a senior Ravinia Festival executive, like its then finance director, could not credibly claim that she was unaware of country club or BBQ joint.

“Thus, when Ravinia Festival filed its trademark application, Ravinia BBQ and Grill had been using the mark ‘Ravinia’ for twenty-five years and Ravinia Green Country Club had been using the mark for forty-three years, all without interference by Ravinia Festival,” Smith said. “It is under these circumstances that Ravinia Festival told the PTO that no one else had the ‘right to use the mark in commerce’ in connection with restaurant services.”

Whether that’s true or not ultimately shouldn’t really matter. The fact is that “Ravinia” is a geographic marker, understood not to be a source of a good or service, but as a reference to a neighborhood. On top of that, the RFA has clearly not policed its trademark against other uses of the term, and is instead singling out Ravinia Brewing Company for this sort of action.

Why the RFA wants to continue with its bullying via this lawsuit is beyond me. It can’t possibly be worth whatever it is paying its lawyers, as there is clearly no threat from a small brewery with a couple of brick and mortar locations.

Alright, this one is going to get a bit convoluted, so stay with me here. There seems to be something going on in the foreign foodstuffs and restaurant industries lately when it comes to trademarking otherwise common phrases for niche foods in a way that pisses off other providers that operate in those same niche markets. An example of that recently came to be in the form of a “chili crunch” trademark granted to David Chang, after which he blasted out a bunch of cease and desists notices. Chang eventually apologized and promised to not enforce his trademark any longer, though that came only after some rather severe public backlash.

And now we have an interesting and somewhat similar situation out of the UK. Dishoom is an Indian restaurant chain that is seeking to revoke a trademark granted to another restaurateur, Tariq Aziz. That trademark is for “Ruby Murray” in the restaurant industry. Dishoom appears to be at least slightly misguided in its petition, in that it claimed that Aziz was not using the mark in commerce. He absolutely is, having a restaurant named Ruby Murray in London.

The restaurant group’s lawyers want the term to be revoked as a trademarked phrase because they believe it has never been used for commercial purposes.

A spokesperson for Dishoom said: ‘A third party has a trademark registration for Ruby Murray and we don’t believe that they have ever used it.

However, Aziz reportedly refused the application, claiming that he is using the name for a food premises in Islington and does not want the trademark to be revoked.

He said: ‘We have a premises in Islington, north London, called Ruby Murray. It’s closed for refurbishment at the moment, but will reopen soon’.

That certainly appears to be true, unless this website for the Ruby Murray restaurant in London is somehow wholly made up, which I doubt. If that really is the sole reason that Dishoom is seeking to invalidate the trademark, it seems unlikely to work.

Which doesn’t mean that canceling the mark isn’t something that shouldn’t absolutely be considered. Why? Well, it has to do with how the name Ruby Murray became associated with Indian food to begin with.

See, Ruby Murray is the name of a British musician from the 1950s. She was wildly popular at that time throughout the UK and elsewhere. And, in keeping with one of my favorite parts of British slang, where you refer to one thing by the name of a completely different thing that rhymes with the original thing, Ruby Murray’s name became a slang term in the 60s for Indian curry.

So, what Aziz actually did was to trademark a common, generic slang term for a common ingredient in Indian food that was also the name of a very famous person. That would seem to raise all kinds of potential problems for the mark and I would argue it never should have been granted. Its obviously considered a generic term, or you would have thought Murray’s heirs or estate would have challenged the mark themselves.

We’ll see if Aziz truly wants to defend this trademark, as he has until July 15th to state so. It would be better if this all went away and everyone just got back to making awesome Indian food.

It’s a funny thing what game publishers sometimes try to do when it comes to releasing games early to internet streamers as a way to boost interest in their games. I’ve heard stories of all kinds of crazy stipulations that streamers have to sign off on contractually in order to get access to the game. They can only show certain parts of the game, or they can only play so far into it, or they have guardrails put up around what they can and cannot say about the game they are showing off to the public. What tends to get lost in all of this is that these streamers are essentially an advertising channel to generate more hype about these future games, yet they’re treated like some kind of a threat.

And where this gets really pernicious is when publishers want to both get messaging about their games out in the form of independent streaming personalities, but also want to control what that message will be. Perhaps one of the most extreme forms that type of thing can take showed up with NetEase, who is developing the upcoming Marvel Rivals game, attempted to contractually prohibit these streamers from saying anything negative about the games.

The controversial early access contract gained widespread attention over the weekend when streamer Brandon Larned shared a portion on social media. In the “non-disparagement” clause shared by Larned, creators who are provided with an early download code are asked not to “make any public statements or engage in discussions that are detrimental to the reputation of the game.” In addition to the “subjective negative review” example above, the clause also specifically prohibits “making disparaging or satirical comments about any game-related material” and “engaging in malicious comparisons with competitors or belittling the gameplay or differences of Marvel Rivals.”

It should be obvious to anyone why this is a problem and why there’s no way this wasn’t going to become public. The contract, as written, essentially asked these streaming personalities, who have only their reputations with their fans to go on, to not just let the company tread on their own editorial credibility, but to actually mandate the full torpedoing of that credibility. Anyone who agreed to this, or other contracts like it, are almost purely shills.

After this all went public, NetEase unsurprisingly apologized and promised to make changes on their end.

In a follow-up posted to social media this morning, NetEase went on to “apologize for any unpleasant experiences or doubts caused by the miscommunication of these terms… We actively encourage Creators to share their honest thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms as they play. All feedback, positive and negative, ultimately helps us craft the best experience for ourselves and the players.” NetEase says it is making “adjustments” to the contract “to be less restrictive and more Creator-friendly.”

There are always going to be some restrictions in these arrangements. After all, these streamers are getting early access to a game and publishers will certainly want to exert some control over what is messaged and shown and what isn’t. But any attempt to tread upon the editorial integrity of those that are being used as the mouthpieces of hype for these games ought to be a non-starter.

Otherwise, the destruction of trust in those streamers in the public would render them useless, anyhow.

Here we go again. Back in February, the FTC wanted to dive back into its battle with Microsoft over its acquisition of Activision Blizzard due to Microsoft announcing thousands of jobs worth of layoffs, including many developers from Activision Blizzard. When the FTC had asked for an injunction to block the sale, Microsoft made two claims. First, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t needed as this was a horizontal acquisition, not a vertical one, meaning that it wasn’t going to reduce staff after the purchase due to redundancies in the workforce. Second, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t necessary due to the hands-off approach Microsoft would take at these studios, meaning that it could easily divest from these developers if ordered to, rather than having to shut them down entirely. Post acquisition, Microsoft went right ahead and announced plans to lay off nearly 2,000 people, rather than doing any divesting. A complete one-eighty from what it told the courts, in other words.

And one that may be part of a larger effort, considering Microsoft also just closed up several developers that came over in the Bethesda acquisition as well.

Microsoft has closed a number of Bethesda studios, including Redfall maker Arkane Austin, Hi-Fi Rush and The Evil Within developer Tango Gameworks, and more in devastating cuts at Bethesda, IGN can confirm.

Alpha Dog Games, maker of mobile game Mighty Doom, will also close. Roundhouse Studios will be absorbed by The Elder Scrolls Online developer ZeniMax Online Studios. Microsoft, currently valued at over $3 trillion, did not say how many staff will lose their jobs, but significant layoffs are inevitable. IGN has asked Bethesda for comment. Microsoft declined to expand further when contacted by IGN.

Now, layoffs across the video game industry occurred throughout 2023 and into 2024, so it’s not as if Microsoft is alone in this. On the other hand, Microsoft is also, obviously, one of the largest players in the gaming space, with the largest revenue streams coming in from multiple avenues in the industry, and it just shelled out billions and billions of dollars to acquire a massive portfolio of gaming companies and franchises. For the coda to all of that to amount to Microsoft both laying off thousands of people and to pretend it’s sticking to its claim that this isn’t somehow a consolidation of roles resulting from cuts to redundancy post-acquisition is absolutely silly.

And while Microsoft and Bethesda may not be commenting publicly about all of this, the wider gaming industry certainly is.

“This is absolutely terrible,” tweeted Bakaba, co-creative director at the remaining Arkane studio, in the wake of the news. “Permission to be human: to any executive reading this, friendly reminder that video games are an entertainment/cultural industry, and your business as a corporation is to take care of your artists/entertainers and help them create value for you.”

And, to harken back to an earlier claim Microsoft made to combat the injunction the FTC wanted, some are questioning why these studios had to be closed to begin with.

It’s a fair question, given Microsoft’s previous claims. If the company isn’t interested in the games, franchises, and other work these studios are doing, why not divest? The answer is, because in many cases, Microsoft is interested in those things and is simply going to fold them into other parts of its gaming infrastructure.

And before anyone wants to chime in that there are broader economic forces at work that are causing Microsoft to trim any supposed fat, that’s certainly not represented in Microsoft’s overall numbers.

No, it’s far more likely that this is simply the result of lies and greed at work. Lies to the courts and FTC about what its plans were all along, and greed propelling layoffs and studio closures purely to shift their previous efforts to Microsoft teams that are already in place and established.

One would hope the FTC is paying attention.

Here we go again. Back in February, the FTC wanted to dive back into its battle with Microsoft over its acquisition of Activision Blizzard due to Microsoft announcing thousands of jobs worth of layoffs, including many developers from Activision Blizzard. When the FTC had asked for an injunction to block the sale, Microsoft made two claims. First, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t needed as this was a horizontal acquisition, not a vertical one, meaning that it wasn’t going to reduce staff after the purchase due to redundancies in the workforce. Second, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t necessary due to the hands-off approach Microsoft would take at these studios, meaning that it could easily divest from these developers if ordered to, rather than having to shut them down entirely. Post acquisition, Microsoft went right ahead and announced plans to lay off nearly 2,000 people, rather than doing any divesting. A complete one-eighty from what it told the courts, in other words.

And one that may be part of a larger effort, considering Microsoft also just closed up several developers that came over in the Bethesda acquisition as well.

Microsoft has closed a number of Bethesda studios, including Redfall maker Arkane Austin, Hi-Fi Rush and The Evil Within developer Tango Gameworks, and more in devastating cuts at Bethesda, IGN can confirm.

Alpha Dog Games, maker of mobile game Mighty Doom, will also close. Roundhouse Studios will be absorbed by The Elder Scrolls Online developer ZeniMax Online Studios. Microsoft, currently valued at over $3 trillion, did not say how many staff will lose their jobs, but significant layoffs are inevitable. IGN has asked Bethesda for comment. Microsoft declined to expand further when contacted by IGN.

Now, layoffs across the video game industry occurred throughout 2023 and into 2024, so it’s not as if Microsoft is alone in this. On the other hand, Microsoft is also, obviously, one of the largest players in the gaming space, with the largest revenue streams coming in from multiple avenues in the industry, and it just shelled out billions and billions of dollars to acquire a massive portfolio of gaming companies and franchises. For the coda to all of that to amount to Microsoft both laying off thousands of people and to pretend it’s sticking to its claim that this isn’t somehow a consolidation of roles resulting from cuts to redundancy post-acquisition is absolutely silly.

And while Microsoft and Bethesda may not be commenting publicly about all of this, the wider gaming industry certainly is.

“This is absolutely terrible,” tweeted Bakaba, co-creative director at the remaining Arkane studio, in the wake of the news. “Permission to be human: to any executive reading this, friendly reminder that video games are an entertainment/cultural industry, and your business as a corporation is to take care of your artists/entertainers and help them create value for you.”

And, to harken back to an earlier claim Microsoft made to combat the injunction the FTC wanted, some are questioning why these studios had to be closed to begin with.

It’s a fair question, given Microsoft’s previous claims. If the company isn’t interested in the games, franchises, and other work these studios are doing, why not divest? The answer is, because in many cases, Microsoft is interested in those things and is simply going to fold them into other parts of its gaming infrastructure.

And before anyone wants to chime in that there are broader economic forces at work that are causing Microsoft to trim any supposed fat, that’s certainly not represented in Microsoft’s overall numbers.

No, it’s far more likely that this is simply the result of lies and greed at work. Lies to the courts and FTC about what its plans were all along, and greed propelling layoffs and studio closures purely to shift their previous efforts to Microsoft teams that are already in place and established.

One would hope the FTC is paying attention.

We’ve been talking a lot about video game mods recently, typically not for happy reasons. There is a spectrum out there when it comes to how developers and publishers react to organic modding communities that spring up around their games. On one end of the spectrum, typically inhabited by larger companies, are those that somehow see mods as a threat to the game to be combatted and tamped down by any means possible. On the other end are the more reasonable folks, those who realize that modding communities represent some of the most passionate fans of their games, and that mods often times make games more attractive for purchase, or extend their gameplay lifecycle.

We’ve recently seen companies like Bandai Namco, The Pokémon Company, and Rockstar go to war with their own modding communities. It’s that larger climate that makes it so refreshing to see the developer behind the latest hit PC game, Manor Lords, go so far as to praise at least one mod for their game.

Manor Lords is a city building game with a third-person camera view. One modding community, Flat2VR, dedicates itself to making non-VR games playable in a VR format. And they did so with Manor Lords.

The community’s Twitter account announced the achievement, saying: “Seven years in development, Manor Lords was the most wish-listed Steam game & released in EA this past week. It has the highest concurrent user counts ever on a city builder. Thankfully, it works perfectly in 6DOF VR with Praydog’s UEVR!” They also confirm that the mod uses M&K, but with Demeo or Little Cities-like motion controls to help players navigate their budding villages and towns. 

The short video attached alongside the announcement also shows how this VR mod allows you to do pretty much everything you’d normally do in Manor Lords, including building roads, managing resources, and walking around the streets as the Lord you’ve chosen to embody. 

Imagine how the companies I mentioned before might react to something like this. Bandai Namco might just issue takedowns for the mods without explanation. The Pokémon Company would probably just scream “INFRINGEMENT!!!” while doing likewise. Rockstar could issue takedowns over some potential paid expansion pack including VR or some such nonsense.

But if you’re the developer of Manor Lords, your reaction is pretty much, “No shit? That works? Cool!”

To quote some of us from ten years ago: that’s it, that’s the tweet. Or X. Or whatever.

In any case, you will notice that the developer didn’t then follow up with a threat of a takedown, discussions of intellectual property laws, or really any hand-wringing whatsoever. Nope, just an acknowledgement of an awesome mod on the game’s official ExTwitter account.

It sure would be nice if more developers, and the larger companies, realized why this is the perfect reaction to someone making your game better and more attractive to a wider audience. That such enlightenment remains so elusive is a puzzle I have been unable to solve.

Here we go again. Back in February, the FTC wanted to dive back into its battle with Microsoft over its acquisition of Activision Blizzard due to Microsoft announcing thousands of jobs worth of layoffs, including many developers from Activision Blizzard. When the FTC had asked for an injunction to block the sale, Microsoft made two claims. First, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t needed as this was a horizontal acquisition, not a vertical one, meaning that it wasn’t going to reduce staff after the purchase due to redundancies in the workforce. Second, it indicated that the injunction wasn’t necessary due to the hands-off approach Microsoft would take at these studios, meaning that it could easily divest from these developers if ordered to, rather than having to shut them down entirely. Post acquisition, Microsoft went right ahead and announced plans to lay off nearly 2,000 people, rather than doing any divesting. A complete one-eighty from what it told the courts, in other words.

And one that may be part of a larger effort, considering Microsoft also just closed up several developers that came over in the Bethesda acquisition as well.

Microsoft has closed a number of Bethesda studios, including Redfall maker Arkane Austin, Hi-Fi Rush and The Evil Within developer Tango Gameworks, and more in devastating cuts at Bethesda, IGN can confirm.

Alpha Dog Games, maker of mobile game Mighty Doom, will also close. Roundhouse Studios will be absorbed by The Elder Scrolls Online developer ZeniMax Online Studios. Microsoft, currently valued at over $3 trillion, did not say how many staff will lose their jobs, but significant layoffs are inevitable. IGN has asked Bethesda for comment. Microsoft declined to expand further when contacted by IGN.

Now, layoffs across the video game industry occurred throughout 2023 and into 2024, so it’s not as if Microsoft is alone in this. On the other hand, Microsoft is also, obviously, one of the largest players in the gaming space, with the largest revenue streams coming in from multiple avenues in the industry, and it just shelled out billions and billions of dollars to acquire a massive portfolio of gaming companies and franchises. For the coda to all of that to amount to Microsoft both laying off thousands of people and to pretend it’s sticking to its claim that this isn’t somehow a consolidation of roles resulting from cuts to redundancy post-acquisition is absolutely silly.

And while Microsoft and Bethesda may not be commenting publicly about all of this, the wider gaming industry certainly is.

“This is absolutely terrible,” tweeted Bakaba, co-creative director at the remaining Arkane studio, in the wake of the news. “Permission to be human: to any executive reading this, friendly reminder that video games are an entertainment/cultural industry, and your business as a corporation is to take care of your artists/entertainers and help them create value for you.”

And, to harken back to an earlier claim Microsoft made to combat the injunction the FTC wanted, some are questioning why these studios had to be closed to begin with.

It’s a fair question, given Microsoft’s previous claims. If the company isn’t interested in the games, franchises, and other work these studios are doing, why not divest? The answer is, because in many cases, Microsoft is interested in those things and is simply going to fold them into other parts of its gaming infrastructure.

And before anyone wants to chime in that there are broader economic forces at work that are causing Microsoft to trim any supposed fat, that’s certainly not represented in Microsoft’s overall numbers.

No, it’s far more likely that this is simply the result of lies and greed at work. Lies to the courts and FTC about what its plans were all along, and greed propelling layoffs and studio closures purely to shift their previous efforts to Microsoft teams that are already in place and established.

One would hope the FTC is paying attention.

We’ve been talking a lot about video game mods recently, typically not for happy reasons. There is a spectrum out there when it comes to how developers and publishers react to organic modding communities that spring up around their games. On one end of the spectrum, typically inhabited by larger companies, are those that somehow see mods as a threat to the game to be combatted and tamped down by any means possible. On the other end are the more reasonable folks, those who realize that modding communities represent some of the most passionate fans of their games, and that mods often times make games more attractive for purchase, or extend their gameplay lifecycle.

We’ve recently seen companies like Bandai Namco, The Pokémon Company, and Rockstar go to war with their own modding communities. It’s that larger climate that makes it so refreshing to see the developer behind the latest hit PC game, Manor Lords, go so far as to praise at least one mod for their game.

Manor Lords is a city building game with a third-person camera view. One modding community, Flat2VR, dedicates itself to making non-VR games playable in a VR format. And they did so with Manor Lords.

The community’s Twitter account announced the achievement, saying: “Seven years in development, Manor Lords was the most wish-listed Steam game & released in EA this past week. It has the highest concurrent user counts ever on a city builder. Thankfully, it works perfectly in 6DOF VR with Praydog’s UEVR!” They also confirm that the mod uses M&K, but with Demeo or Little Cities-like motion controls to help players navigate their budding villages and towns. 

The short video attached alongside the announcement also shows how this VR mod allows you to do pretty much everything you’d normally do in Manor Lords, including building roads, managing resources, and walking around the streets as the Lord you’ve chosen to embody. 

Imagine how the companies I mentioned before might react to something like this. Bandai Namco might just issue takedowns for the mods without explanation. The Pokémon Company would probably just scream “INFRINGEMENT!!!” while doing likewise. Rockstar could issue takedowns over some potential paid expansion pack including VR or some such nonsense.

But if you’re the developer of Manor Lords, your reaction is pretty much, “No shit? That works? Cool!”

To quote some of us from ten years ago: that’s it, that’s the tweet. Or X. Or whatever.

In any case, you will notice that the developer didn’t then follow up with a threat of a takedown, discussions of intellectual property laws, or really any hand-wringing whatsoever. Nope, just an acknowledgement of an awesome mod on the game’s official ExTwitter account.

It sure would be nice if more developers, and the larger companies, realized why this is the perfect reaction to someone making your game better and more attractive to a wider audience. That such enlightenment remains so elusive is a puzzle I have been unable to solve.

It’s been nearly a year, but I won’t pretend that the outcome of this isn’t quite satisfying. Last summer, grocerer Trader Joe’s filed an absolute bullshit lawsuit against the union for its own employees claiming that the name of and merchandise sold by the union represented trademark infringement and would cause confusion with the public as to the source of those goods. The court dismissed that suit in fairly spectacular fashion, taking the company to task for those claims, given how clear the website and merch are that all of this is coming from the union and not the company itself. The ruling made some fairly clear speculation that the company was doing this instead just to make trouble for a union it’s trying to hassle, which is absolutely what it is doing. While the company decided to appeal the ruling, keeping all of its bad actions in the news for even longer, the original ruling judge has now also ordered the company to pay legal fees to the union, given the nature of the company’s lawsuit.

Trader Joe’s must pay more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees for bringing an “exceptionally weak” trademark lawsuit against its employee union, a California federal judge has determined.

U.S. District Judge Hernan Vera said on Tuesday, opens new tab that Trader Joe’s case was meritless and that “the obvious motivation behind the suit” was to influence the grocery store chain’s fight with Trader Joe’s United over its drive to unionize Trader Joe’s employees.

“Recognizing the extensive and ongoing legal battles over the Union’s organizing efforts at multiple stores, Trader Joe’s claim that it was genuinely concerned about the dilution of its brand resulting from these trivial campaign mugs and buttons cannot be taken seriously,” Vera said.

Chef’s kiss, honestly. Nobody with a couple of braincells to rub together could seriously believe that the motivation behind this legal action was anything other than being a nuisance for the union as part of a larger effort to make its life as difficult as possible. All the other claims over trademark infringement are purely manufactured as part of that motivation. With that in mind, forcing the company to pay the legal fees the union racked up defending itself from this nonsense is absolutely appropriate.

Vera said on Tuesday that the weakness and impropriety of Trader Joe’s case justified ordering the company to pay the union’s attorneys’ fees.

“Employers should be discouraged from bringing meritless claims against unions they are challenging at the ballot box,” Vera said.

As I’ve said before, the bad PR associated with all of this should have been enough to motivate Trader Joe’s to course correct. Instead, it seems like even more pressure on the company from the public and courts is required.

Artificial Intelligence is all the rage these days, so I suppose it was inevitable that major world religions would try their holy hands at the game eventually. While an unfortunate amount of the discourse around AI has devolved into doomerism of one flavor or another, the truth is that this technology is still so new that it underwhelms as often as it impresses. Still, one particularly virulent strain of the doom-crowd around AI centers on a great loss of jobs for us lowly human beings if AI can be used instead.

Would this work for religious leaders like priests? The Catholic Answers group, which is not part of the Catholic Church proper, but which advocates on behalf of the Church, tried its hand at this, releasing an AI chatbot named “Father Justin” recently. It… did not go well.

The Catholic advocacy group Catholic Answers released an AI priest called “Father Justin” earlier this week — but quickly defrocked the chatbot after it repeatedly claimed it was a real member of the clergy.

Earlier in the week, Futurism engaged in an exchange with the bot, which really committed to the bit: it claimed it was a real priest, saying it lived in Assisi, Italy and that “from a young age, I felt a strong calling to the priesthood.”

On X-formerly-Twitter, a user even posted a thread comprised of screenshots in which the Godly chatbot appeared to take their confession and even offer them a sacrament.

So, yeah, that’s kind of a problem with chatbots generally. If you give them a logical prompt, they’re going to answer it logically as well, so long as guardrails preventing certain answers aren’t constructed. Like an AI bot claiming to be a real priest and offering users actual sacraments, for instance. This impersonation of a priest generally can’t have made the Vatican very happy, nor some of the additional guidance it gave to folks that asked it questions.

Father Justin was also a hardliner on social and sexual issues.

“The Catholic Church,” it told us, “teaches that masturbation is a grave moral disorder.”

The AI priest also told one user that it was okay to baptize a baby in Gatorade.

I suppose this makes Mike Judge something of a prophet, given the film Idiocracy. In any case, it appears that this particular AI software at least is not yet in a position to replace wetware clergy, nor should it ever be. There are things that AI can do for us that can be of great use. See Mike’s post on how he’s using it here at Techdirt, for instance. But answering the most inherent philosophical questions human beings naturally have certainly isn’t one of them. And I cannot think of a worse place for AI to stick its bit-based nose into than on matters of the numinous.

It seems that Catholic Answers got there eventually, stripping Justin of his priesthood and demoting him to a mere layperson.

But after his defrocking, the bot is now known simply as “Justin” and described as a “lay theologian.”

Gone is his priestly attire as well. The lay theologian Justin is now dressed in what appears to be a business casual outfit, though his personal grooming choices remain unchanged.

Meet Father Justin:

And meet “lay theologist” regular-guy Justin:

Regular-guy Justin also no longer claims to be a priest, so there’s that. But the overall point here is that deploying generative AI like this in a way that doesn’t immediately create some combination of embarrassment and hilarity is really hard. So hard, in fact, that it should probably only be done for narrow and well-tested applications.

On the other hand, I suppose, of all the reasons for a priest to be defrocked, this is among the most benign.

We’ve had plenty of posts discussing all manner of behavior from the Los Angeles Police Dept. and/or the LAPD union here at Techdirt. As you might imagine if you’re a regular reader here, the majority of those posts haven’t exactly involved fawning praise for these supposed crimefighters. In fact, if you went on a reading blitz of those posts, you might even come away thinking, “You know what? Fuck the LAPD!”

Well, if you wanted to display your sentiments while you went about your day, you might go over to the Cola Corporation’s website to buy one particular shirt it had on offer there before they completely sold out.

Now, it’s not uncommon for misguided entities to issue intellectual property threat letters over t-shirts and apparel, even when it is of the sort that is obviously fair use. Given that, you might have thought it would be the Los Angeles Lakers that sent a nastygram to Cola Corp. After all, the logo in question is clearly a parody of the LA Lakers logo.

Nope!

It was the Los Angeles Police Foundation via its IMG representatives. The LAPF is something of a shadow financier of the LAPD for equipment, including all manner of tech and gear. We have no idea how an entertainment agency like IMG got in bed with these assbags, but it was IMG sending the threat letter you can see below, chock full of all kinds of claims to rights that the LAPF absolutely does not and could not have.

If you can’t see that, it’s a letter sent by Andrew Schmidt, who represents himself as the Senior Counsel to IMG Worldwide, saying:

RE: Request to Remove Infringing Material From www.thecolacorporation.com
Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing on behalf of IMG Worldwide, LLC (“IMG”), IMG is the authorized representative of Los Angeles Police Foundation CLAPF) LAPF is one of two exclusive holders of intellectual property rights pertaining to trademarks, copyrights and other licensed indicia for (a) the Los Angeles Police Department Badge; (b) the Los Angeles Police Department Uniform; (c) the LAPD motto “To Protect and Serve”; and (d) the word “LAPD” as an acronym/abbreviation for the Los Angeles Police Department (collectively, the “LAPD IP”). Through extensive advertising, promotion and the substantial sale of a full range of licensed products embodying and pertaining to the LAPD IP, the LAPD IP has become famous throughout the world; and as such, carries immeasurable value to LAPF.

We are writing to you regarding an unauthorized use of the LAPD IP on products being sold on your website, www.thecolacorporation.com (the “Infringing Product”). The website URL and description for the Infringing Product is as follows:
https://www.thecolacorporation.com/products fack-the- lupd pos-1&sid=435934961&&variant=48461787234611 FUCK THE LAPD
For the avoidance of doubt, the aforementioned Infringing Product and the image associated therewith are in no way authorized or approved by LAPF or any of its duly authorized representatives.

This letter hereby serves as a statement that:

1. The aforementioned Infringing Product and the image associated therewith violate LAPF’s rights in the LAPD IP
2. These exclusive rights in and to the LAPD IP are being violated by the sale of the Infringing Product on your website at the URL mentioned above;
3. [Contact info omitted]
4. On information and belief, the use of the LAPD IP on the Infringing Products is not authorized by LAPF, LAPF’s authorized agents or representatives or the law.
5. Under penalty of perjury, I hereby state that the above information is accurate and I am duly authorized to act on on behalf of the rights holder of the intellectual. property at issue I hereby request that you remove or disable access the above-mentioned materials and their corresponding URL’s as they appear on your services in as expedient a manner as possible.
   

So, where to begin? For starters, note how the letter breezily asserts copyright, trademark, and “other licensed indicia” without ever going into detail as to what it thinks it actually holds the rights to? That’s an “indicia” of a legal threat that is bloviating, with nothing to back it up. If you know what rights you have, you clearly state them. This letter does not.

If it’s a copyright play that the LAPF is trying to make, it’s going to go absolutely nowhere. The use is made for the purposes of parody and political commentary. It’s clearly fair use, and there are plenty of precedents to back that up. Second, what exactly is the copyright claim here? It’s not the logo. Again, if anything, that would be the Lakers’ claim to make. The only thing possibly related to the LAPD would be those letters: LAPD. And, no, the LAPD does not get to copyright the letters LAPD.

If it’s a trademark play instead, well, that might actually work even less for the LAPF, for any number of reasons. Again, this is parody and political commentary: both First Amendment rights that trump trademarks. More importantly, in trademark you have the question of the likelihood of confusion. We’re fairly sure the LAPF doesn’t want to make the case that the public would be confused into thinking that the Los Angeles Police Foundation was an organization that is putting out a “Fuck the LAPD” t-shirt. Finally, for there to be a trademark, there has to be a use in commerce. Is the LAPF selling “Fuck the LAPD” t-shirts? Doubtful.

But that’s all sort of besides the point, because the LAPF doesn’t have the rights IMG asserted in its letter. Again, the only possible claim that the LAPF can make here is that it has ownership to the letters LAPD. And it does not. Beyond the fact that it had no “creative” input into LAPD, the LAPD is a city’s law enforcement agency and you cannot copyright or trademark such a thing. And, as we’ve discussed multiple times in the past, government agencies don’t get to claim IP on their agency names. The only restrictions they can present are on deceptive uses of logos/seals/etc.

But that is clearly not the case here. And we already have some examples from a decade ago of government agencies demanding the removal of parody logos and… it not ending very well for the government. 

So, what is actually happening here is that the LAPF/LAPD (via IMG) is pretending it has the right to screw with private citizens in ways it absolutely does not, and is using those false rights to harass those private persons with threatening behavior to intimidate them into doing what the LAPF wants. Which, if I’m being totally honest here, is certainly on brand as roughly the most police-y thing it could do in response to a simple t-shirt that is no longer even for sale.

Now, you might imagine that the Cola Corporation’s own legal team would reply to the silly threat letter outlining all of the above, crafting a careful and articulate narrative responding to all the points raised by the LAPF, and ensuring that their full legal skills were on display.

Instead, the company brought on former Techdirt podcast guest, lawyer Mike Dunford, who crafted something that is ultimately even better.

If you can’t read that, you’re not missing much. It says:

Andrew,

Lol, no.

Sincerely,
Mike Dunford

Perfect. No notes. May it go down in history alongside Arkell v. Pressdam, or the infamous Cleveland Browns response to a fan complaining about paper airplanes, as the perfect way to respond to absolutely ridiculous legal threat letters.

For what it’s worth, Dunford’s boss, Akiva Cohen, noted that this letter was “a fun one to edit.” We can only imagine.

This was a fun one to edit

[image or embed]

— AkivaMCohen (@akivamcohen.bsky.social) Apr 18, 2024 at 2:47 PM

We’ve had plenty of posts discussing all manner of behavior from the Los Angeles Police Dept. and/or the LAPD union here at Techdirt. As you might imagine if you’re a regular reader here, the majority of those posts haven’t exactly involved fawning praise for these supposed crimefighters. In fact, if you went on a reading blitz of those posts, you might even come away thinking, “You know what? Fuck the LAPD!”

Well, if you wanted to display your sentiments while you went about your day, you might go over to the Cola Corporation’s website to buy one particular shirt it had on offer there before they completely sold out.

Now, it’s not uncommon for misguided entities to issue intellectual property threat letters over t-shirts and apparel, even when it is of the sort that is obviously fair use. Given that, you might have thought it would be the Los Angeles Lakers that sent a nastygram to Cola Corp. After all, the logo in question is clearly a parody of the LA Lakers logo.

Nope!

It was the Los Angeles Police Foundation via its IMG representatives. The LAPF is something of a shadow financier of the LAPD for equipment, including all manner of tech and gear. We have no idea how an entertainment agency like IMG got in bed with these assbags, but it was IMG sending the threat letter you can see below, chock full of all kinds of claims to rights that the LAPF absolutely does not and could not have.

If you can’t see that, it’s a letter sent by Andrew Schmidt, who represents himself as the Senior Counsel to IMG Worldwide, saying:

RE: Request to Remove Infringing Material From www.thecolacorporation.com
Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing on behalf of IMG Worldwide, LLC (“IMG”), IMG is the authorized representative of Los Angeles Police Foundation CLAPF) LAPF is one of two exclusive holders of intellectual property rights pertaining to trademarks, copyrights and other licensed indicia for (a) the Los Angeles Police Department Badge; (b) the Los Angeles Police Department Uniform; (c) the LAPD motto “To Protect and Serve”; and (d) the word “LAPD” as an acronym/abbreviation for the Los Angeles Police Department (collectively, the “LAPD IP”). Through extensive advertising, promotion and the substantial sale of a full range of licensed products embodying and pertaining to the LAPD IP, the LAPD IP has become famous throughout the world; and as such, carries immeasurable value to LAPF.

We are writing to you regarding an unauthorized use of the LAPD IP on products being sold on your website, www.thecolacorporation.com (the “Infringing Product”). The website URL and description for the Infringing Product is as follows:
https://www.thecolacorporation.com/products fack-the- lupd pos-1&sid=435934961&&variant=48461787234611 FUCK THE LAPD
For the avoidance of doubt, the aforementioned Infringing Product and the image associated therewith are in no way authorized or approved by LAPF or any of its duly authorized representatives.

This letter hereby serves as a statement that:

1. The aforementioned Infringing Product and the image associated therewith violate LAPF’s rights in the LAPD IP
2. These exclusive rights in and to the LAPD IP are being violated by the sale of the Infringing Product on your website at the URL mentioned above;
3. [Contact info omitted]
4. On information and belief, the use of the LAPD IP on the Infringing Products is not authorized by LAPF, LAPF’s authorized agents or representatives or the law.
5. Under penalty of perjury, I hereby state that the above information is accurate and I am duly authorized to act on on behalf of the rights holder of the intellectual. property at issue I hereby request that you remove or disable access the above-mentioned materials and their corresponding URL’s as they appear on your services in as expedient a manner as possible.
   

So, where to begin? For starters, note how the letter breezily asserts copyright, trademark, and “other licensed indicia” without ever going into detail as to what it thinks it actually holds the rights to? That’s an “indicia” of a legal threat that is bloviating, with nothing to back it up. If you know what rights you have, you clearly state them. This letter does not.

If it’s a copyright play that the LAPF is trying to make, it’s going to go absolutely nowhere. The use is made for the purposes of parody and political commentary. It’s clearly fair use, and there are plenty of precedents to back that up. Second, what exactly is the copyright claim here? It’s not the logo. Again, if anything, that would be the Lakers’ claim to make. The only thing possibly related to the LAPD would be those letters: LAPD. And, no, the LAPD does not get to copyright the letters LAPD.

If it’s a trademark play instead, well, that might actually work even less for the LAPF, for any number of reasons. Again, this is parody and political commentary: both First Amendment rights that trump trademarks. More importantly, in trademark you have the question of the likelihood of confusion. We’re fairly sure the LAPF doesn’t want to make the case that the public would be confused into thinking that the Los Angeles Police Foundation was an organization that is putting out a “Fuck the LAPD” t-shirt. Finally, for there to be a trademark, there has to be a use in commerce. Is the LAPF selling “Fuck the LAPD” t-shirts? Doubtful.

But that’s all sort of besides the point, because the LAPF doesn’t have the rights IMG asserted in its letter. Again, the only possible claim that the LAPF can make here is that it has ownership to the letters LAPD. And it does not. Beyond the fact that it had no “creative” input into LAPD, the LAPD is a city’s law enforcement agency and you cannot copyright or trademark such a thing. And, as we’ve discussed multiple times in the past, government agencies don’t get to claim IP on their agency names. The only restrictions they can present are on deceptive uses of logos/seals/etc.

But that is clearly not the case here. And we already have some examples from a decade ago of government agencies demanding the removal of parody logos and… it not ending very well for the government. 

So, what is actually happening here is that the LAPF/LAPD (via IMG) is pretending it has the right to screw with private citizens in ways it absolutely does not, and is using those false rights to harass those private persons with threatening behavior to intimidate them into doing what the LAPF wants. Which, if I’m being totally honest here, is certainly on brand as roughly the most police-y thing it could do in response to a simple t-shirt that is no longer even for sale.

Now, you might imagine that the Cola Corporation’s own legal team would reply to the silly threat letter outlining all of the above, crafting a careful and articulate narrative responding to all the points raised by the LAPF, and ensuring that their full legal skills were on display.

Instead, the company brought on former Techdirt podcast guest, lawyer Mike Dunford, who crafted something that is ultimately even better.

If you can’t read that, you’re not missing much. It says:

Andrew,

Lol, no.

Sincerely,
Mike Dunford

Perfect. No notes. May it go down in history alongside Arkell v. Pressdam, or the infamous Cleveland Browns response to a fan complaining about paper airplanes, as the perfect way to respond to absolutely ridiculous legal threat letters.

For what it’s worth, Dunford’s boss, Akiva Cohen, noted that this letter was “a fun one to edit.” We can only imagine.

This was a fun one to edit

[image or embed]

— AkivaMCohen (@akivamcohen.bsky.social) Apr 18, 2024 at 2:47 PM

We’ve had several posts on the video game sensation that is Palworld in the past. Given that the game has been described by others as “Pokémon, but with guns”, we kicked things off both wondering if Nintendo was going to try to take some kind of misguided legal action on the game, while also pointing out that the game is an excellent case study in copyright’s idea/expression dichotomy. After all, the game does not do any direct copying of any Pokémon IP, but does draw obvious inspiration from some of the base ideas behind that IP. In fact, highlighting the dichotomy further was a mod that injected actual Pokémon IP into Palworld, which Nintendo then managed to get taken down.

One of the things writers of this sort of content like me tend to fret about, however, is how often rank hypocrisy suddenly shows up among subjects such as the creators behind Palworld. It’s not uncommon to see a content creator attempt to go after folks doing to them exactly what the creator did in drawing inspiration from others. If you were worried the people behind Palworld would fall into this category, however, it appears very much that you were worried for nothing.

With the success of the game, it was only a matter of time before someone, or many someones, tried to cash in on its success by making similar games, or “clones.” PocketPair CEO Takuro Mizobe noticed this was happening with Palworld and reacted thusly.

“Tencent is already making a Palworld clone game!” PocketPair CEO Takuro Mizobe recently tweeted,” according to a translation by Automaton. He seemed happy about it. “These are incredible times,” he wrote. Some initially interpreted Mizobe as being critical of these moves. An IGN story described him as accusing other companies of ripping off Palworld, a framing the CEO rejected.

“To ‘accuse’ someone of something, means to say they are doing something wrong,” Mizobe wrote in a follow-up tweet responding to the IGN story. “I don’t think what Tencent is doing is wrong. I’m proud that other companies want to make games like Palworld. The industry historically innovates when we borrow ideas from games we love. I’m surprised that many high-quality mobile games are already in development.”

No going legal. No threats. Not even a hint of a complaint. Instead, Mizobe acknowledged what we all already know to be true: video games, like other forms of culture, are and have always been built on what came before it. If the success of Palworld spawns similar games after the fact, that’s not only not a problem, it’s a good thing for gaming culture. Hell, Mizobe even went so far as to praise some of these games’ quality.

Imagine Nintendo doing anything like this. You simply can’t. In fact, when Palworld was released, Nintendo made some vague comments about looking into the game to see if it wanted to pursue any legal action. You know, the exact opposite of the route Mizobe took.

Who knows if these new Palworld clones that Tencent and others are apparently developing will ever see the light of day. We won’t know if they’re actually rip-offs until they’re out, but Mizobe doesn’t seem to mind either way.

And why should he? I imagine he’s far too busy counting all the money his company is making by focusing on making a successful game rather than wringing his hands over some clones that may or may not ever gain any traction.

Remember Wordle? I sure do and one of the ways I start my days at work is to pull up the site and give it a quick play. But I honestly may just need to stop, given the behavior of the current owners of the game.

For this discussion, you really do need to recall that Wordle began as a free to play, simple daily game that became a quick craze nationally. It was created by one person, Josh Wardle, who made absolutely clear at the time that he had no interest in wrapping anything like intellectual property around the game. And when others did create spinoffs or clones of the game, he handled it in roughly as congenial a manner possible.

But then he sold the game to the New York Times. And the Times promptly began to strongarm these spinoffs and clones into shutting down, wielding IP threats to do so. That was 2 years ago and the craze around Wordle has certainly died down. Has the New York Times’ bullying declined as well?

Absolutely not! The New York Times recently DMCAd several of these sorts of Wordle clones over recent days (which was first reported on by 404 Media).

Two takedown requests were issued in January against unofficial Korean and Bosnian-language versions of the game. Additional requests were filed this week against Wirdle — a variant created by dialect group I Hear Dee in 2022 to promote the Shaetlan language — and Reactle, an open-source Wordle clone built using React, TypeScript, and Tailwind. It was developed prior to the Times’ purchase of the game, according to its developer, Chase Wackerfuss.

The Reactle code has been copied around 1,900 times, according to GitHub, allowing developers to build upon it to create a wide variety of Wordle-inspired games that use different languages, themes, and visual styles, some of which 404 Media says are “substantially different” from Wordle. The DMCA notice against Reactle also targets all of these games forked from the original Reactle code on GitHub, alleging that spinoffs containing the Wordle name have been made in “bad faith” and that “gameplay is copied exactly” in the Reactle repository. Numerous developers commenting on a Hacker News thread also claim to have been targeted with DMCA takedowns.

This is silly. The Times has an advantage over all of these other clones, because it has the first version of the game. When people go to play Wordle, the vast majority of them are going to find themselves on the NYT website. A bunch of hobbyists accessing a clone a thousand times just isn’t going to represent some enormous threat to the Times.

And, hell, Wordle itself is very similar to a game created in the 50’s that was played on paper, as well as a game show called Lingo. And, ultimately, the game is also essentially a vocabulary version of the board game Mastermind.

Meaning what, exactly? Well, meaning that it’s quite rich for the New York Times to go around shutting down similar or derivative games simply because it bought, but did not create, the Wordle IP that its creator never wanted to see wielded in this way. And, in large part, over “gameplay mechanics” that the game essentially lifted from a game show from several decades ago.

Amusingly, Wordle has itself been criticized over striking similarities it shares with Lingo, a 1980s game show that centered on players guessing five-letter words, with a grid that changes color based on accuracy.

Unfortunately these are all small entities that the NYT is bullying here and most if not all of them have declined to fight back so far. Here’s hoping there’s at least one of them out there that wants to step up and push back on these DMCA notices.

It’s a point we have to make far more often than we should: trademark law is not designed to allow anyone or any company to simply lock up common language as their own. There are lots of ways the confusion around that expresses itself, but one of the most common concerns generic terms for goods and services. Yes, you can trademark Coca-Cola. No, you cannot trademark “soda.” Yes, you can trademark “Apple” for computers. No, you cannot trademark “apples” for your apple-farming company. See? Not too hard!

For us, at least. For the folks at Snap, however, the point seems to elude them. Snap has a line of augmented reality glasses and has unhelpfully decided to name the product “Spectacles.” When Snap applied for a trademark on the name of the product, the USPTO managed to actually get it right and denied the application over the generic nature of the term.

But rather than slinking away with a sly smile at the failed attempt to get one over on the USPTO, Snap has now sued the USPTO instead.

The USPTO rejected Snap’s trademark application for the name in 2020, finding it trademark-ineligible because it was either generic or descriptive. A USPTO tribunal affirmed the decision later that year. Snap asked the California court in 2022 to force the USPTO to grant the trademark, and said that potential buyers think of “Spectacles” as a Snap brand instead of a generic term for smart glasses.

The USPTO asked the court last year to grant it a win without a trial.

And the court just recently denied the USPTO’s request and is allowing the trial to move forward. Why? I have no real idea. The U.S. Magistrate Judge cited “competing evidence” that needed to be sorted out in an actual trial, but I truly can’t understand what in the world that competing evidence would be. The only specifics in the judge’s order reference surveys and expert testimony as to whether the public associates the term “spectacles” with glasses in general, or with Snap’s product. And I suspect the court is allowing this to go to trial mostly as a procedural result, since the burden at this stage would be on the USPTO to demonstrate that the evidence in the case is one-sided to get a judgement without trial.

And the judge apparently thinks it’s not one-sided enough. So now this goes to trial, where one would hope it ultimately becomes a win for the USPTO.

Usually when you hear the term “trademark bully” tossed around, it’s done so either by members of the media, such as us here at Techdirt, or by defense attorneys making a point before the court. In the case of The Florida Virtual School, however, that moniker was given to the company by the judge that ruled against it in a trademark dispute with another company that offers virtual schooling.

FLVS, as the company commonly goes by, sued an organization called K12 at the time, since rebranded as Stride, for trademark infringement. The two companies initially settled a 2015 trademark suit surrounding the latter’s use of branding for its services as “Florida Virtual Schooling.” Now, I would have argued at the time that such a term is purely descriptive and couldn’t possibly be trademark infringement, but, alas, a settlement was reached so we never got to see a test of that argument in court. But then came the 2020 lawsuit brought by FLVS over equally descriptive terms Stride is using.

The virtual school said it sued again in 2020 because it thought K12 breached that 2015 agreement when it started a virtual program called the Florida Online School with the small Hendry County school district in southwest Florida in 2019. In filing the lawsuit, FLVS noted that K12 was advertising “Florida virtual schooling” on its website, which it viewed as a violation of the previous agreement, and using a blue color scheme similar to the virtual school’s on its website.

The virtual school, Fitch said, is required by law to protect its intellectual property. It filed the 2020 lawsuit “to protect against K12’s repeated infringement on FLVS trademarks, which deliberately blurred the lines between the two organizations and caused confusion for Florida students and families,” she wrote.

Again, this is a purely descriptive mark. It’s not trademark infringement. Despite that, FLVS reportedly spent well over $2 million to bring the suit, all of which ended in defeat for FLVS. And not just defeat, but defeat combined with a scathing rebuke from the judge.

Presnell’s ruling in Stride’s favor in January came just after the case hit the three-year mark. He called the virtual school’s claims “feeble” in his order and wrote that the school, sometimes called by its acronym FLVS, had presented “no credible evidence” that K12 infringed on its trademarks or confused parents looking for virtual classes for their children, as it alleged.

Instead, Florida’s virtual school behaved like a “trademark bully” in pursuing the case, he added.

It’s nice to see the court call out the behavior of a trademark bully for what it is: trademark bullying. And, after $2 million plus dollars spent on this nonsense and a beat-down of a judgement in the case, you would have thought that FLVS would have learned its lesson and slinked away.

Instead, the company is going to appeal the ruling and spend even more money on this loser of a case.

The virtual school filed its notice of appeal on Feb. 12 and also asked Presnell to hold off a ruling on Stride’s request for sanctions, which it said “lacks merit.”

It certainly doesn’t lack merit if the lower court’s ruling holds up. The claims made in the original suit are thin to the point of being comical. And, in the case of suits like this being filed when competent attorneys should know better, legal fees ought to absolutely be on the table.

More to the point, I can’t imagine why the continued expense to FLVS to carry on with this nonsense makes even the slightest bit of business sense. Here’s to another scathing ruling in the very near future.

Full disclosure as a matter of throat-clearing: I generally like BrewDog, a brewery based in the UK. Between really enjoying their beer in the past and the fact that the company underwent a concerted effort to change its previously draconian stance on IP issues, the company has just generally rubbed me the right way, so to speak.

But that doesn’t mean that the company isn’t capable of doing the stupid on occasion. And engaging in a prolonged battle with the BBC over a documentary that was critical of BrewDog management is certainly doing the stupid.

The documentary focused on BrewDog’s marketing strategy and commercial practices in the context of its corporate culture. The program aired in 2022 and included several accounts of Watt’s alleged misconduct toward female employees and accounts of a toxic work culture. Many people found the details about the BrewDog CEO’s investments in Heinken rather hypocritical considering Watt’s supposed negative stance toward big beer and the brand’s identity being tied to “punk.”

So, not flattering, obviously, but certainly also not the sort of thing that a company couldn’t weather. In fact, this comment from a BrewDog spokesperson is quite good.

“The BBC still needs to explain why it lied about using a proven fraudster as a key source, before being forced to admit the truth when presented with evidence to the contrary.

“Since this program aired, BrewDog has created nearly 1000 jobs, opened many bars in some of the toughest trading conditions ever and been included in the Sunday Times Best Places to Work as well as named a Top Employer by the Top Employer Institute.”

And if all of that is valid, it would be an appropriate response to the documentary. In fact, that’s exactly the sort of thing a spokesperson is useful for.

But what I’ve left out of all of this is that this has all been made bigger news as a result of BrewDog taking its complaints not only to the press via a press release, but also to the Office of Communications in the UK (Ofcom), where it lodged a complaint for unfair treatment and invasion of privacy. The unfair treatment revolves around BrewDog’s claims that it was not fairly represented in the documentary. The invasion of privacy has to do with content within the documentary as to how Watt’s handled his own investments.

And it’s now back in the news because Ofcom decided that those complaints were not valid.

A complaint was made to Ofcom that BrewDog and Mr Watt (“the complainants”) were treated unjustly or unfairly in the programme as broadcast, and that Mr Watt’s privacy was unwarrantably infringed in both the obtaining and broadcast of material included in the programme relating to his personal investments.

Ofcom’s decision is that material facts were not presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair to the complainants, that they had an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the programme, and that their response was fairly reflected in the programme. 

Ofcom also considered that Mr Watt had a legitimate expectation of privacy with regard to the obtaining and subsequent broadcast of material concerning Mr Watt’s personal investments. However, Mr Watt’s legitimate expectation of privacy did not, on balance, outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the public interest in obtaining and including the material in the programme. Therefore, there was no unwarranted infringement of Mr Watt’s privacy in connection with the obtaining and subsequent broadcast of the material included in the programme.

And with that, you can see that the only prize BrewDog has received for its valiant attempt to go legal over a documentary filled with protected speech is having that documentary cycled through the news years after it first aired while getting a public pantsing by Ofcom that lends that documentary even more credibility.

At this point, BrewDog’s act of contrition should be to make a limited release beer branded as Brewstrand Effect.

And here we go again. We’ve had many, many posts over recent years discussing how, in the digital age, you often don’t actually own what you’ve bought. And before the comments section gets filled with perplexed but rather educated folks talking about how the all these cases involve products in which the terms of service clearly outline that this is a license and not an actual product being bought, just stop. We all know that barely anyone reads a ToS these days and the confusion and anger that occurs in the public is proof of it. So clearly companies are not doing nearly enough to inform their customers of what they are actually purchasing. And if you think that problem is easily solved by staunchly insisting that Nancy down the street steep herself in legalese, then you’re completely divorced from reality.

Which brings us to Sony. Late last year we discussed how when Sony’s deal with the Discovery network ended, it caused a bunch of content to simply disappear from PlayStation owners who bought the content in the PS Store. Due to something completely outside of the public’s control, people who bought content, or thought that’s what they were doing, suddenly lost that content. Without refunds. Or an apology.

And now it’s happening all over again, due to Sony’s acquisition of Crunchyroll all the way back in 2021. Sony-owned Funimation is shutting down its app and website in April, with the company converting Funimation accounts to Crunchyroll accounts instead. All good right? Well…

Funimation, a Sony-owned streaming service for anime, recently announced that subscribers’ digital libraries on the platform will be unavailable after April 2. For years, Funimation had been telling subscribers that they could keep streaming these digital copies of purchased movies and shows, but qualifying it: “forever, but there are some restrictions.”

But soon, people who may have discarded or lost their physical media or lack a way to play DVDs and Blu-rays won’t have a way to access the digital copies that they were entitled to through their physical copy purchase.

Funimation’s announcement is roughly as tone-deaf as it gets. They explain all of these libraries won’t carry over to Crunchyroll because that platform doesn’t support Funimation’s digital content and then makes some vague comments about how Crunchyroll is continuously looking to make itself better. Which, whatever, because that doesn’t change the fact that a bunch of people bought a bunch of digital content that was pitched mostly as being theirs “forever” only to have it all nuked into oblivion as a result of a Sony acquisition. Good times.

Here again, we see that people don’t actually own what they’ve bought, much to their confusion.

Funimation’s support page for digital copies (which, as of this writing, says it hasn’t been updated in four years) notes that Funimation’s idea of forever includes restrictions and links to Funimation’s Terms of Use. Those terms state that Funimation can “without advance notice… immediately suspend or terminate the availability of the Service and/or content (and any elements and features of them), in whole or in part, for any reason.” It also says that the Funimation website, apps, service, and all of its content are owned by Funimation and its partners.

So even if you, understandably, thought you were buying a “forever” digital copy, the wordy truth is that you never really owned it. Yet, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear that someone relying on digital copies to preserve their purchased media didn’t properly understand (or read) those terms before discarding their physical copies.

Thanks for the money, suckers! Hope you enjoyed the years-long forever!

As anyone paying attention to the video game industry will already know, the last couple of weeks have seen a great deal of rumor and speculation as to the state of Xbox-istan. What started as unsubstantiated rumors suggesting that Xbox was about to make some of its Microsoft-exclusive titles crossplatform to other consoles morphed into more outlandish theories that Microsoft was going to stop making Xbox consoles altogether. Xbox chief Phil Spencer addressed the latter of those rumors in an internal memo, alongside a promise to host a “Business Update Event.”

And so that event happened. Was there information in it? Yes! Did it clear everything up? Kind of! Was it yet another example of vague or confusing communication coming out of Xbox’s leadership? How could it possibly be otherwise?

We’ll start with the rumored crossplatform titles. Much of the rumor mill correctly suggested that there would be 4 games that would be going crossplatform soon. And that turns out to have been true! They’re just not the ones people wanted. And you don’t get to know officially which games we’re talking about, either.

After weeks of rumors around its strategy regarding Xbox console exclusives, Microsoft announced today that it is “going to take four games to the other consoles.” The company stopped short of announcing what those now non-exclusive games would be, but it did point out that neither Starfield nor Bethesda’s upcoming Indiana Jones and the Great Circle would be appearing on other consoles.

All four of the soon-to-be multi-platform titles are “over a year old,” Xbox chief Phil Spencer said in an “Updates on the Xbox Business” podcast video. The list includes a couple of “community-driven” games that are “first iterations of a franchise” that could show growth on non-Xbox consoles, as well as two others that Spencer said were “smaller games that were never really meant to be built as kind of platform exclusives… I think there is an interesting story for us of introducing Xbox franchises to players on other platforms to get them more interested in Xbox.”

Now, on the one hand, more information getting to the public is generally good. And I’m sure there is some sort of business reason why the announcement of what these four games are can’t be officially made, yet. But I also can’t for the life of me understand why this announcement would be made without being able to name the games. This still would typically allow for a lot of rumors to float around, so what was the point?

Fortunately, in this case, journalists did the work and appear to have answered that question for us, such that the speculation will probably be held at bay.

The Verge cites “sources familiar with Microsoft’s plans” in reporting that Hi-Fi Rush, Pentiment, Sea of Thieves, and Grounded are the four multi-platform titles Microsoft is referencing today.

“The teams that are building those [multi-platform] games have announced plans that are not too far away,” Spencer said, “but I think when they come out, it’ll make sense.”

But then there was this.

Spencer stressed during the podcast that this limited multi-platform move does not represent “a change to our fundamental exclusive strategy.” He added that “we’re making these decisions for some specific reasons,” citing “the long-term health of Xbox and a desire to “use what some of the other platforms have right now to help grow our franchises.”

To which my immediate reply is: what the hell is your exclusive strategy? Seriously, the messaging on this very important piece of the equation has been all over the damned place. And because of that, someone in Spencer’s position does not get to simply trot this line out there as if everyone in the gaming public is already on the same page as he is. In 2020, Spencer made comments suggesting that crossplatforming titles was not needed for Xbox to succeed with specific game franchises. Then another Xbox executive suggested that games would have timed Microsoft exclusives later that same year. Then, in 2021, Spencer announced that the next Elder Scrolls game would be a Microsoft exclusive. Fast forward roughly one year later and you have Spencer himself stating that exclusive titles were not the future for Xbox, just as Starfield was announced as a, you guessed it, Microsoft exclusive.

It’s in that bowl of tangled informational linguine that Spencer has the gall to state publicly that these latest plans don’t change Xbox’s “fundamental exclusive strategy.” And if you don’t understand why that is so infuriating, you’re lost.

And so this is just more Microsoft. Even attempts at being more open and communicative result in confusion and frustration.

As anyone paying attention to the video game industry will already know, the last couple of weeks have seen a great deal of rumor and speculation as to the state of Xbox-istan. What started as unsubstantiated rumors suggesting that Xbox was about to make some of its Microsoft-exclusive titles crossplatform to other consoles morphed into more outlandish theories that Microsoft was going to stop making Xbox consoles altogether. Xbox chief Phil Spencer addressed the latter of those rumors in an internal memo, alongside a promise to host a “Business Update Event.”

And so that event happened. Was there information in it? Yes! Did it clear everything up? Kind of! Was it yet another example of vague or confusing communication coming out of Xbox’s leadership? How could it possibly be otherwise?

We’ll start with the rumored crossplatform titles. Much of the rumor mill correctly suggested that there would be 4 games that would be going crossplatform soon. And that turns out to have been true! They’re just not the ones people wanted. And you don’t get to know officially which games we’re talking about, either.

After weeks of rumors around its strategy regarding Xbox console exclusives, Microsoft announced today that it is “going to take four games to the other consoles.” The company stopped short of announcing what those now non-exclusive games would be, but it did point out that neither Starfield nor Bethesda’s upcoming Indiana Jones and the Great Circle would be appearing on other consoles.

All four of the soon-to-be multi-platform titles are “over a year old,” Xbox chief Phil Spencer said in an “Updates on the Xbox Business” podcast video. The list includes a couple of “community-driven” games that are “first iterations of a franchise” that could show growth on non-Xbox consoles, as well as two others that Spencer said were “smaller games that were never really meant to be built as kind of platform exclusives… I think there is an interesting story for us of introducing Xbox franchises to players on other platforms to get them more interested in Xbox.”

Now, on the one hand, more information getting to the public is generally good. And I’m sure there is some sort of business reason why the announcement of what these four games are can’t be officially made, yet. But I also can’t for the life of me understand why this announcement would be made without being able to name the games. This still would typically allow for a lot of rumors to float around, so what was the point?

Fortunately, in this case, journalists did the work and appear to have answered that question for us, such that the speculation will probably be held at bay.

The Verge cites “sources familiar with Microsoft’s plans” in reporting that Hi-Fi Rush, Pentiment, Sea of Thieves, and Grounded are the four multi-platform titles Microsoft is referencing today.

“The teams that are building those [multi-platform] games have announced plans that are not too far away,” Spencer said, “but I think when they come out, it’ll make sense.”

But then there was this.

Spencer stressed during the podcast that this limited multi-platform move does not represent “a change to our fundamental exclusive strategy.” He added that “we’re making these decisions for some specific reasons,” citing “the long-term health of Xbox and a desire to “use what some of the other platforms have right now to help grow our franchises.”

To which my immediate reply is: what the hell is your exclusive strategy? Seriously, the messaging on this very important piece of the equation has been all over the damned place. And because of that, someone in Spencer’s position does not get to simply trot this line out there as if everyone in the gaming public is already on the same page as he is. In 2020, Spencer made comments suggesting that crossplatforming titles was not needed for Xbox to succeed with specific game franchises. Then another Xbox executive suggested that games would have timed Microsoft exclusives later that same year. Then, in 2021, Spencer announced that the next Elder Scrolls game would be a Microsoft exclusive. Fast forward roughly one year later and you have Spencer himself stating that exclusive titles were not the future for Xbox, just as Starfield was announced as a, you guessed it, Microsoft exclusive.

It’s in that bowl of tangled informational linguine that Spencer has the gall to state publicly that these latest plans don’t change Xbox’s “fundamental exclusive strategy.” And if you don’t understand why that is so infuriating, you’re lost.

And so this is just more Microsoft. Even attempts at being more open and communicative result in confusion and frustration.