That still has nothing to do with LoL being skeezy.

Its the plaintiff’s duty to prove guilt, not the defendant’s duty to prove innocence.

Defense of the Ancients isn’t WC3 lore related.

Blizz sued Valve first. They literally made the first claim.

And yet nothing either of you said has anything to do with LoL being skeezy.

Thats not the issue.

That implies Blizzard/Activision owned the rights in the first place.

Activision owns Blizzard. Why would Activision would back off from itself?

The short answer is: Yes. Valve can do this.

Implying you know anything about celtic mythology.

Blizzard’s EULA has changed over time, so it would depend on the wording of the WC3's EULA at the time.

Except thats not what Valve is suing them over.

Activision Blizzard DID try to burn it down entirely. Go read what happened when Valve first tried to use the DOTA name.

They were probably trying to save money on ammo. Everyone’s worried about budget cuts these days.

So Activision should sell on Steam for $42 and sell on Bnet for $48?

You obviously don’t use Battle Net.

Because we don’t get to play the same game.

You’re confused by a black man being arrested?

The millions of people who still buy and play Counter-Strike?

Happens with male candidates as well. A physically taller male candidate can always one-up a physically shorter male candidate by slightly leaning over them to give the impression of “I will lord over you”.