Jump to content
Create New...

ShadowOfaSolja

Members
  • Posts

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by ShadowOfaSolja

  1. It's funny because I've been a member of this site since the beginning of Socom 3, I have taken my breaks and have been removed numerous times but please dont say that I only come here to rant or rave when you yourself have a grand total of 118 posts. Now I never post but still manage to have over 300. That being said when I first came to UF there was an actual living community here and the forums were active with over 100 new posts each day in the general section. No matter my disputes I will say that Tow and Sniper knew how to build a community and did a great job at that. It may have had a slow decline prior to their departure but this community has come to a standstill since it has switched owners because there has been no focus on building the community up. All attention has been paid to gaining some form of name recognition assuming that the continue would grow along with it. So I'm sorry but I don't really care to post on the whopping 2-3 live threads in the general section these days, I'll do that on my clan forums. And Im sorry if your post wasn't directed at me but Im making the assumption that it was as well as 1-2 possible other posters.
  2. To answer your question peebrain, I was stating that they can't patent the Tacmap being used on the UF site without Snipers consent because they did not invent it. The same reason you cant buy a pencil and then put a patent on it. The patent is to be for (or with permission from) the actual inventor/creator. And thanks Dirty, I had all the info but I had no desire to put it together in essay form lol. I was looking for these though: Because if in fact all of those questions were answered "No" then you have officially lied to the United States Government. Not only do I personally still have archives showing the map in use but it shows it being used before you became directors of UF. There are also archives showing that you knew of other tacmaps being used and that you have no creative rights to the design your trying to put a patent on. While I honestly see this as being some type of scare tactic, It just appears to be a waste of money because I thinks it's very easy to see that should anyone (and I'm sure someone will) decide to make an appeal against this patent, the patent will fail miserably. And should you go through and someone doesnt appeal and then you try to enforce the patent. Once they show that you knowingly filed false documents then the legal ramifications are on the Directors, not the one pursuing there own tournaments.
  3. And Bandit please don't take this as me coming at you at all. I have a lot of respect for you as a community member and I'm sure you do a great job here as a Staff member. This is in no way a personal attack, I'm simply stating my position and what I feel the outcome will be since this seems to be a very premature announcement that may not have been thought all the way through by the powers at be.
  4. And there isn't even an intellectual copyright leg to stand on. Not only that but UF is not the inventor of the Tacmap style tournament as stated before. Now where Disney is concered, they Trademarked the use of Seal Team 6, they did not place a patent on it. Trademarking is completely different as it forms an association such as a name brand. Now there are tons of words that are trademarked such as "Let's Get Ready to RUUUUUMMMBLEEEEE". You can't say that in any broadcast forum without taking a risk of being sued but he didnt invent the words. Patents follow completely different set of rules and without any intellectual right or claim over creating said product you can not form a patent on it. There for you as the Directors cant even patent your own map without getting consent from Sniper. See where I'm going with this? Now as this no longer effects me since I have no desire to create a tournament I'm simply letting the information be known that despite it's current status and what will surely be a drawn out approval process it won't hold up despite how hard you attempt to enforce it. The pending status costs $300 and by the end you'll need to spend a lot more to get the actual patent which I doubt will be approved.
  5. Yes but by your logic your saying that UF should also be able to lawfully place a patent on Single Elim Tourneys, Round Robin Tourneys and any other tournament form. Now if thats not the case then why is it any different for this tournament form? Is the only thing stopping them the fact that someone else has a patent? If so I'm sure the legal steps were not taken to gain license to use them here. And hell while we're at it why not place a patent on gaming ladders or has MLG already done that? The point is that there is a reason there is not patent on these. It's the same reason vBulletin can't make SMF or PHPBB stop making forums. While you can prevent people from using YOUR map or require them to have a license you can't stop them from playing off the concept anymore than MLG/GB can prevent UF from doing a ladder system.
  6. http://replay.web.archive.org/20050306154940/http://socomquest.com/socomquest%20home%20page.html
  7. Socom Quest is the original Tac Map tournament that TOW and APC Participated in before making Urgent Fury. You can see that on the video made for PS Home where they talking about taking the Tacmap Concept from another tournament and improving it and now they are attempting (unsuccessfully most likely) to prevent anyone else from having the same opportunity that Tow and Sniper had when they made UF. Also here is a Member of Rec-Cell (One of the Creators Clans) saying they are involved: http://www.video-game-forums.com/older-threads/27279-socom-quest-promo-site-link.html And Here is a Link to the old forums: http://socomquest.proboards.com/index.cgi?
  8. Im sorry but that is just ridiculous. It would be one thing if UF invented the Tacmap but it didnt. The only thing you're trying to accomplish here is preventing other sites from doing exactly what UF did and that's steal an idea and try to improve it to the best of their ability. If you honestly think that you have the right to claim a Tacmap as a UF style your joking yourself. It was not a UF invention, does not belong to UF, and to that extent UF didnt even do it the best. There are better maps, more inclusive rules, and better thought out war methods and I'm sorry if UF who "Welcomes competing sites" is so worried that a different site might steal the idea (as uf did from socom quest) and do it better but this is just absurd. Good luck on your patent but I doubt it will hold up with any real merit.
  9. got 6 on right now, jump on SCA to join in.
  10. no it's nothing like the COD system. You set up the room and have to launch it before anyone else can join. Then it waits until the min number of players enter (8 players) and launches into the 20 second lobby to team switch and then starts up.
  11. haha you know it Halo, would be like old times seeing you guys again.
  12. Hey guys, TNU would like to invite everyone to jump on Socom Combined Assault for some classic action. With the PSN still down and some of our socom addictions going unsatisfied we figured we would jump on a version that does not depend on the PSN. [s+S] put up a room last night so we figured it sounded like a good idea to follow suit and host a night as well. The room will be going up at 9pm EST in US East Ranked. Room name: TNU Password: classic Everyone is welcome to join us. If you have an Old USB 2.0 headset make sure you plug it in. We will not be including map packs in the room so no worries there. Just come by and say what's up and get your fix.
  13. haha whats up buddy? Long time no talk man. How you been?
  14. I would usually stay out of this but I am curious. Had there not been such a large response and show of support from the clans and staff who left showing their disapproval with the ruling would it still have been readdressed and the ruling changed to meet what was initially being asked for? It just seems like had there not been such a large response then this issue would have been left alone at the "Final Ruling" stage.
  15. No ruthless I agree with you, Doing no boom sounds like it would encourage gun fights but what it turns into is a sniping match and then a last minute push to complete the win. Taking away explosives makes people play more cautious then normal so you are lucky to get them away from their side of the map and no one wants to venture into an ambush so then the other team stays on their side of the map. Its just not a great situation.
  16. lol yea, for only being a few hours into the beta it wasnt a bad match. Now that we have a squad who is somewhat familiar i think the outcome will be a little different next time
  17. sounds good truth, we always have a good time playing you guys. Ill make sure your on my friends list so we can set something up
  18. we currently have 22 in the beta but usually have 6-9 playing most of the day/night
  19. Just curious if anyone wanted to set up some little scrimms. If i can get a few of the other leaders from here on my friends list we usually have between 6-9 on ready to play and would like to have some matches without having to continually wait on the clan match system.
  20. Confirmed, just had a clan mate download it from someone else and both are online together and it works just fine.
  21. haha, and yes you can use it on your current PSN Stonewall

Military including Active, Reserve, Veteran and Dependents get 50% off of our Spec Ops Premium Experience

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this site you agree to our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search