6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
General discussion of the jury verdict begins with this post.
Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
I have yet to find any response from Games Workshop's legal team.
For those of you who are new to this topic, Chapterhouse Studios is one of many companies that creates conversion parts for Games Workshop kits. The difference between them and other companies is that Chapterhouse openly acknowledges on their website what conversion parts will fit with what GW kits.
Altogether, I personally wonder whether GW has a case at all, or if they were banking on Chapterhouse to be unable to defend themselves legally (Chapterhouse has a lawfirm defending them pro-bono).
The implication if Chapterhouse wins the case, is that third party conversion bits will be able to openly acknowledge that the parts they are creating are meant for specific GW kits (and be able to specify which ones).
By the way, it is likely that this topic will get out of hand, and eventually be locked. I understand that many people here have very strong feelings on this subject, so let's try and keep it civil for as long as we can.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Best of luck to Chapterhouse with that. It is true that there were no specific instances cited, with the exception of the superheavy walker (which is totally not a trademark or copyright violation) which was also (wrongly) attributed to Paulson games.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Normally, an objection based on specificity would give the Plaintiff the opportunity to amend their complaint. Is there any deadline or hearing date on the defendant's motion?
171
Post by: Lorek
odinsgrandson wrote:By the way, it is likely that this topic will get out of hand, and eventually be locked. I understand that many people here have very strong feelings on this subject, so let's try and keep it civil for as long as we can.
This! Please keep it civil AND on-topic.
1464
Post by: Breotan
I expected a motion to dismiss since that is pretty standard in any civil case. I don't know if that will happen or not. The problem is that unless prejudice is applied, GW can simply come at CHS again with another lawsuit.
752
Post by: Polonius
Motions to dismiss are virtually always filed. It's just how litigation is done.
As Breotan stated, the plaintiff can either amend his complaint or even refile a new complaint most of the time.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
From what I remember, it was pretty specific. It mentioned the various shoulderpad insignias, the shoulderpad shapes themselves, things like that.
Like Breotan said though: a "motion to dismiss" is pretty standard in civil cases. Trying for it on the basis of "lack of specificity" is pretty standard in most IP styled cases.
I have yet to find any response from Games Workshop's legal team.
When was the motion filed?
For those of you who are new to this topic, Chapterhouse Studios is one of many companies that creates conversion parts for Games Workshop kits. The difference between them and other companies is that Chapterhouse openly acknowledges on their website what conversion parts will fit with what GW kits.
Ehhh. That's not really why GW's going after them. CH overstepped the "acceptable line" that most of these third parties operate within--which is to say; they don't tread on Forge World's toes and start producing doors for vehicles, etc.
Altogether, I personally wonder whether GW has a case at all, or if they were banking on Chapterhouse to be unable to defend themselves legally (Chapterhouse has a lawfirm defending them pro-bono).
The implication if Chapterhouse wins the case, is that third party conversion bits will be able to openly acknowledge that the parts they are creating are meant for specific GW kits (and be able to specify which ones).
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Kanluwen wrote:Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
To be entirely fair a lot of these designs were not exactly original even when GW was formed. "Dragonscale" cloaks etc have been around in fiction for almost as long as there has been fiction.
I'm not disagreeing with you on some items being a bit close to the mark, however, much of it was generic enough, in my view, to be fine.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork.
Yeah, I mean, they designed that Chaos star, they should have full exclusive rights to protect their IP!
Oh, hang on a minute....
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
Just like after market manufacturers of automobile parts use the logos and highly similar designs for automobiles like the Ford Mustang and virtually every other car that someone might want to customize. The fact of the matter is that the action that GW is suing CHS over is something that has been commonplace in other industries for decades.
http://www.bodykits.com/
See this link for an example of what I'm discussing. These third party manufacturers make products that directly compete with similar products offered by the auto manufacturer and use trademarked product names from the automobile manufacturer in their advertising. For example, you can find an advertisement for the following:
"Ford Mustang Extreme Dimensions Duraflex Fiberglass Hot Wheels Body Kit."
Extreme Dimensions is the manufacturer of the body kit designed for use on the Ford Mustang, which is a trademarked name owned by Ford.
You can also find aftermarket parts manufacturers that make custom parts for just about every other piece of your Mustang you can imagine, from Floor Mats and Steering Wheels to Gas Cap Covers and engine parts. Many of these items will feature the trademarked Ford running mustang logo. Each of these parts are designed to replace a part already manufactured by Ford.
If this is legal in the automotive industry, why is it not legal in "plastic army men" industry?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
SilverMK2 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
To be entirely fair a lot of these designs were not exactly original even when GW was formed. "Dragonscale" cloaks etc have been around in fiction for almost as long as there has been fiction.
I'm not disagreeing with you on some items being a bit close to the mark, however, much of it was generic enough, in my view, to be fine.
While "Dragonscale" cloaks have been around in fiction, I don't think that they've really been something you see on Spacemen.
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be; but I'm fairly certain that the context would matter.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Kanluwen wrote:While "Dragonscale" cloaks have been around in fiction, I don't think that they've really been something you see on Spacemen.
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be; but I'm fairly certain that the context would matter.
I'm not going to get into specifics, because I am sure there are a lot of arguments and counter-arguments about what kind of "generic" style designs are permitted (I know next to nothing about IP law either  ). Indeed, I feel that this lawsuit is more about GW trying to stamp out anyone from making anything even remotely like their own product(s). Which to me is insane because GW did not create most of the looks, designs, etc they claim as their own. Many existed previously in fiction, history, etc. Many were also created "in model" by other companies before hand as well.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be...
Then stop talking about it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ozymandias wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be...
Then stop talking about it.
Only when everyone else does.
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
While I don't want any bitz sites to go down (variety is the spice of life, yes?), I can't help but feel like CH shot themselves in the foot by not playing the "it's a space-man upper arm protector shield, *hint hint*" game.
Most of the other bitz sites barely hide the intent of their products. It's obvious what is designed for what, and such details are often heavily hinted at in product descriptions. CH could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (perhaps not all the trouble, but they could have been much more secure) if they simply made all the product names/descriptions generic.
I realize it's silly to look at a thunder hammer and read "star-viking war god's smashy stick," but if it'll protect bitz sites from GWs zealous legal team, why not do it?
EDIT: Unless of course GW just hasn't gotten to all the more clever sites yet*
18124
Post by: R3con
Chapterhouse should just pick up and move to St. Martin/Maarten. No one seems to care about IP or anything else pertaining to business law on that island. For example The Soprano's Bar even used the sopranos logo lol.
14076
Post by: MVBrandt
Though I don't practice, I recall from law school that motions to dismiss being generally one of those dot your i's, cross your t's things ... it does happen with rather comical regularity that the plaintiff whiffs on properly answering the motion, and loses the case right out of the gate ... which is why it's done.
I can think of a few parallels to our wargaming ...
It's like an Illegal Procedure in BB.
5245
Post by: Buzzsaw
Kanluwen wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
To be entirely fair a lot of these designs were not exactly original even when GW was formed. "Dragonscale" cloaks etc have been around in fiction for almost as long as there has been fiction.
I'm not disagreeing with you on some items being a bit close to the mark, however, much of it was generic enough, in my view, to be fine.
While "Dragonscale" cloaks have been around in fiction, I don't think that they've really been something you see on Spacemen.
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be; but I'm fairly certain that the context would matter.
Sigh... you really should have stopped with the first underlined part.
Rather then go into bona fides, I'll just point interested folks towards my posts in the mother of these threads here and here (the first attempts to aggregate links to Polonius' great efforts, the second addresses my attempt to illuminate the problem with protecting ideas). Context does, indeed, matter, but it's far better addressed in the posts linked then can be profitably dealt with here.
For those wanting a nutshell version of the point: under (US) IP law, you cannot protect an idea using trademark or copyright law (and a discussion of patent law is beyond this example). Company A making, say, a line of toys featuring futuristic space soldiers wearing reptile skins does not prevent Company B from making a line of toys featuring futuristic space soldiers wearing reptile skins. Context, of course, comes in when asking if there is actual copying, or derivation, but that's a very different (and very technical) question.
The easiest way to think about it is to imagine a sliding scale from Idea---Expression. The closer something is to the expression pole, the easier and more completely something can be protected by IP law.
For example;
Transforming robots------------------------------------------------Optimus Prime
Idea------------------------------------------------------------------------Expression
Unprotectable------------------------------------------------------Highly protectable
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Some interesting tidbits:
The original filing representative of GW stepped down and left the law firm, that firm will continue to represent GW though:
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF HEIDI L. BELONGIA AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED
I, Heidi L. Belongia, hereby move this Court to withdraw my appearance as counsel for
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited on the basis that I will no longer be associated with the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP. Aside from my withdrawal, Foley & Lardner LLP will continue to represent Games Workshop in this matter.
The judge has his own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Kennelly
weeble1000 over at Warseer, obviously a lawyer, posted some interesting comments:
Games Workshop's complaint alleges willful infringement. It means that Games Workshop is alleging Chapterhouse infringed with malicious intent. In other words, Games Workshop says Chapterhouse knew its actions were, or were likely to constitute infringement and did it any way as a means of causing harm to Games Workshop.
So Games Workshop says that at some point Chapterhouse Studios said, "Yes, we know that we are breaking the law but we don't care."
I don't think that there's any compelling evidence of that. To bring you up to speed, it is a state of mind issue. Infringement can occur even if you aren't aware of it. In order for it to be willful, you have to know that it is infringement, or at least the plaintiff must prove that you knew by the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
It's hard to prove, because even if you blatantly infringe, there's still the question of whether or not you had reason to believe it was infringement. In this respect, ignorance is a valid defense. The combination of it being difficult to prove what someone knew at a specific time and the high standard makes willfulness rather difficult to prove.
I hope that helps.
The claims in the complaint aren't illegal in and of themselves. They're broad, unspecific, and arguably unsupportable. Games Workshop may have been advised about this, I don't know, but it doesn't change the way the complaint is written.
The "context" argument addresses the issue that there have been some underhanded and less than respectful, although not necessarily illegal, legal practices on the part of Games Workshop. For example, nothing says that you can't file a complaint less than a week before Christmas, but it is certainly frowned upon. Similarly, nothing says that you have to be open to settlement negotiations, give informal extensions, or treat your colleagues with professional respect.
Now, given that one can expect that Games Workshop is being advised by well-informed and competent legal counsel, it is reasonable to believe that Games Workshop is aware of the fact that the claims of its complaint are broad, unspecific, and arguably unsupportable. One can also argue that Games Workshop is ultimately responsible for how this lawsuit has been handled, even if it did not have a hand in the actions of its lead counsel. Even if Games Workshop believed everything it's done has been completely fair and legal, its actions and the actions of its counsel are not really in dispute here.
This opens Games Workshop up to a potential antitrust counterclaim from Chapterhouse Studios. Chapterhouse can likely make a counterclaim of malicious litigation based on this "context." Now, this would be subject to a very high standard of evidence, but it would be on par with Games Workshop's claim of willful infringement against Chapterhouse Studios.
I don't think either claim would succeed in court, on the basis of the way jurors typically treat such issues, but the suggestion that Chapterhouse Studios willfully infringed Games Workshop's marks or copyrights is equally matched by the suggestion that Games Workshop filed malicious litigation. However, I do think that Games Workshop's behavior with respect to its market position in this case offers somewhat more compelling evidence.
This is why I think it is important to consider Games Workshop's potential liability in this case with respect to malicious litigation. Many people are very willing to discuss Chapterhouse Studios's alleged willful infringement. Doing so without considering potential allegations of malicious litigation against Games Workshop is only looking at one side of the malicious intent potentially involved in this lawsuit.
(...)
I did a little research while I was at the office earlier today (don't tell my clients). I believe a claim of malicious litigation requires the result of the litigation to favor the defendant. It's like a willfulness claim in this regard. The litigation can be considered malicious if the plaintiff knows the suit is frivolous or without merit. If the result favors the plaintiff, the lawsuit must logically have had merit. It works as a counter claim because as the facts of both cases are the same, the issues can be tried together. Like willful infringement, the jury would have to find in favor of the defendant in order to then find in favor of malicious litigation.
If GW's case gets thrown out or dropped, I think a malicious litigation counter claim would survive because the case would have either been dismissed in favor of the defendant or dropped by the plaintiff, both of which satisfy the requirements for a claim of malicious litigation. I could be wrong about this though.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Yeah, the arm chair lawyering by those with no background gets old, but THIS IS THE INTERWEBZ! Where people aren't about to let the lack of having the slightest idea what they are talking about slow them down one bit! ;-)
And they'll get angry at others for disagreeing.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
This is a subject thats just going to be a mess.
Chapterhouse winning means its better for the masses. But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear)
GW winning means resentment by some aspects of the community; and the community losing another website. But GW can defend their I.P. without blatant copies that damage the brand (gogo poorly-made conversion kits. Probably not Chapterhouse stuido's ones; but it opens the way for questionable sites even more.)
There really can be no 'winner' and 'loser' for us; we'll lose out either way. GW winning would be for the best for those who love Warhammer.
752
Post by: Polonius
Mr Hyena wrote:But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear) .
This is simply not true. I'm not even sure what would make you think that.
3906
Post by: Stella Cadente
hell if the only people allowed on the internet were people who have a clue what they are talking about the internet would cease to exist.
I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Mr Hyena wrote:But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear)
This is an incredible hyperbole. IP law is not a binary pass/fail; some aspects are protected, and others are not.
9099
Post by: ruyn
MVBrandt wrote:Though I don't practice, I recall from law school that motions to dismiss being generally one of those dot your i's, cross your t's things ... it does happen with rather comical regularity that the plaintiff whiffs on properly answering the motion, and loses the case right out of the gate ... which is why it's done.
All too true. This literally just happened late last week in a case I was involved. The plaintiff didn't respond to the motion to dismiss and the case was tossed out, with the judge even going as far as to reverse several earlier decisions relating to this case involving the plaintiff and defendant due to "general incompetence" on the part of the plaintiff.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Polonius wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear) .
This is simply not true. I'm not even sure what would make you think that.
But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.
But other companies aren't any better.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Mr Hyena wrote:But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
Yeah, nobody wants aftermarket products, because everyone knows that aftermarket products are the end of the world, and you don't want the world to end, do you? 
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Damn... does this mean if we want to buy bitz from CH then we'd better hurry up and order them soon?
9892
Post by: Flashman
GW are far too precious about this and it's their own fault for not releasing stuff. If you create a demand for a product and then don't actually supply the product, expect somebody else to step in.
It's not like GW don't borrow heavily from other sci-fi and fantasy sources. I'm surprised Gene Roddenberry didn't come knocking when he read the fluff for Vulcans... sorry I mean Eldar.
Anyhoo, Chapterhouse
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Nothing wrong with ordering soon. But judging from the comments by lawyers, GW has to do much better if they want to have a chance in this case.
9892
Post by: Flashman
GW are far too precious about this and it's their own fault for not releasing stuff. If you create a demand for a product and then don't actually supply the product, expect somebody else to step in.
It's not like GW don't borrow heavily from other sci-fi and fantasy sources. I'm surprised Gene Roddenberry didn't come knocking when he read the fluff for Vulcans... sorry I mean Eldar (yes, I realise this is not the same thing, but still... )
Anyhoo, Chapterhouse I salute you 
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
Yeah, nobody wants aftermarket products, because everyone knows that aftermarket products are the end of the world, and you don't want the world to end, do you?
World? at least the full extent of the universe that we know will collapse into a abysmal black hole
221
Post by: Frazzled
Moving to discussions.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
NAVARRO wrote:World? at least the full extent of the universe that we know will collapse into a abysmal black hole
And all in the hands of a localUS judge
Reminds me of the movie Dogma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_%28film%29 
221
Post by: Frazzled
odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
I have yet to find any response from Games Workshop's legal team.
For those of you who are new to this topic, Chapterhouse Studios is one of many companies that creates conversion parts for Games Workshop kits. The difference between them and other companies is that Chapterhouse openly acknowledges on their website what conversion parts will fit with what GW kits.
Altogether, I personally wonder whether GW has a case at all, or if they were banking on Chapterhouse to be unable to defend themselves legally (Chapterhouse has a lawfirm defending them pro-bono).
The implication if Chapterhouse wins the case, is that third party conversion bits will be able to openly acknowledge that the parts they are creating are meant for specific GW kits (and be able to specify which ones).
By the way, it is likely that this topic will get out of hand, and eventually be locked. I understand that many people here have very strong feelings on this subject, so let's try and keep it civil for as long as we can.
Big deal. I can file ten motions out of my butt and motions to dismiss are routine. It only means anything if they are actually granted, which I've not seen here. Until then, congratulations you posted a thread that literally says nothing.
23725
Post by: Little Pete
If Games Workshop loses this case could they face litigation down the line if a company (let's say Chapterhouse) produces a Tyrannofex conversion kit and then GW produces its own Tyrannofex conversion kit?
Would the copyright be lost by not protecting it like this and actually allow a conversion of the original GW idea to become a copyright of the company who made the bit or would it remain with GW as the original copyright owners?
Legally naive but curious here
752
Post by: Polonius
Little Pete wrote:If Games Workshop loses this case could they face litigation down the line if a company (let's say Chapterhouse) produces a Tyrannofex conversion kit and then GW produces its own Tyrannofex conversion kit?
Would the copyright be lost by not protecting it like this and actually allow a conversion of the original GW idea to become a copyright of the company who made the bit or would it remain with GW as the original copyright owners?
Legally naive but curious here
Umm, there's a complicated answer, but the simple answer is no.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
If you want bits from Chapter House then buy them. The company will be glad of your custom.
I doubt they are going away soon, though.
The weight of informed opinion is that GW are on a rather sticky wicket with this suit. It has the look of a suit whose chance of success depends more on the prohibitive cost of defending it, than on the merits of the case.
If that is the situation, once Chapter House got pro bono (i.e. free) representation from a respected firm with knowledge in the IP area, GW's chances of success declined significantly. One might like to consider why a respected firm would give pro bono defence to a defendant with a rotten case.
I would like to thank Polonius and Janthkin for their erudite contributions to the thread. There are some people on the internet who know what they are talking about.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
Yeah, nobody wants aftermarket products, because everyone knows that aftermarket products are the end of the world, and you don't want the world to end, do you?
I'm just concerned. I'm not anti- CH, some of their stuff is good. But I really only play 40k cause one army appeals to me; if that army gets squatted because of people making almost questionably similar stuff; then I've got no reason to play any wargaming (as no other game has an army similar enough to it). The aftermarkets stuff is iffy.
I'm just concerned really. I'd prefer something better to be worked out like this: CH are allowed to continue; but enter into a contract with GW; where a percentage of the profit from 40k-close stuff/kits goes to GW. Both companies profit and CH will get somewhat of a buffer in case of financial turmoil. Win/win.
39004
Post by: biccat
odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
Wait, since when do you have to reference specific facts in a claim for copyright infringement? Notice pleading isn't enough anymore?
List your copyrights, assert that the other side is infringing, done.
207
Post by: Balance
Polonius wrote:Umm, there's a complicated answer, but the simple answer is no.
Best (non-legally binding) legal advice ever!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:Little Pete wrote:If Games Workshop loses this case could they face litigation down the line if a company (let's say Chapterhouse) produces a Tyrannofex conversion kit and then GW produces its own Tyrannofex conversion kit?
Would the copyright be lost by not protecting it like this and actually allow a conversion of the original GW idea to become a copyright of the company who made the bit or would it remain with GW as the original copyright owners?
Legally naive but curious here
Umm, there's a complicated answer, but the simple answer is no.
And that there will be $495.00 Please pay the receptionist on the way out.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mr Hyena wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
Yeah, nobody wants aftermarket products, because everyone knows that aftermarket products are the end of the world, and you don't want the world to end, do you?
I'm just concerned. I'm not anti- CH, some of their stuff is good. But I really only play 40k cause one army appeals to me; if that army gets squatted because of people making almost questionably similar stuff; then I've got no reason to play any wargaming (as no other game has an army similar enough to it). The aftermarkets stuff is iffy.
I'm just concerned really. I'd prefer something better to be worked out like this: CH are allowed to continue; but enter into a contract with GW; where a percentage of the profit from 40k-close stuff/kits goes to GW. Both companies profit and CH will get somewhat of a buffer in case of financial turmoil. Win/win.
Chapter House only make stuff that isn't made by GW. That is why there is a market for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
Wait, since when do you have to reference specific facts in a claim for copyright infringement? Notice pleading isn't enough anymore?
List your copyrights, assert that the other side is infringing, done.
GW don't own any copyrights in the areas they are alleging infringement.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Chapter House only make stuff that isn't made by GW. That is why there is a market for it.
Yeah. Hopefully if GW fails this; they won't lose much money. (if they did; first thing that would happen would be the poorest-selling races being squatted. Then probs more Space Marine stuff to recoup losses.)
GW don't own any copyrights in the areas they are alleging infringement.
Which do they own?
20086
Post by: Andilus Greatsword
Kilkrazy wrote:If you want bits from Chapter House then buy them. The company will be glad of your custom.
I doubt they are going away soon, though.
Well I've just been eying their Tervigon conversion kit, Myeotic spore and magnetized combi-weapons, but I don't have the money right now.  I think I'll look into these things soon though.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kilkrazy wrote:GW don't own any copyrights in the areas they are alleging infringement.
Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
Have GW assigned away their copyrights? Are you suggesting that they're merely derivative works? Or that GW hasn't filed and received notice of a copyright relating to the works at issue?
A valid copyright registration (possibly application) is a requirement to bring suit. If GW hasn't even applied for copyright protection of their works, why doesn't CH dismiss for lack of SMJ?
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
A motion to dismiss is so standard that there really is nothing to discuss until we see a reply or a ruling.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is not a legal requirement to file for copyright, it automatically exists in original art works.
Many of GW's supposed art works are not original, and therefore have no copyright.
A good example is the space marine shoulder pad design, which can be described as a blunt hemi-ogive with a raised bezel. It is a fairly basic solid geometric form and it is impossible to have copyright in it.
Similarly, the Rhino door is merely a regular octagon with sides of particular dimensions.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork.
Yeah, I mean, they designed that Chaos star, they should have full exclusive rights to protect their IP!
Oh, hang on a minute....
Lol, indeed
I think people are going a bit OTT with this. Even if CH wins (and I have no idea whether or not this is likely) it's really, really not going to put any financial strain on GW. How many kids who walk into GW and pick up AoBR or WFB 8th are even aware of Chapterhouse's existence? I would hazard practically zero. Again it's the mistaken egotism, found throughout the internet, that this small dark corner comprises the whole or even a significant part of the wargaming community.
I realise I am one of that community, but I think it needs to be said. Even while 'Chapterhouse wins' or ' GW wins' threads are going for 400 pages, and results in at least one banning and someone feinting at their keyboard, 98% of casual hobbyists will still be saying, "chapterhouse, what??"
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Wouldn't that be the same for all miniatures companies then? meaning GW can do new models and make them close to their originals from other companies?
I think people are going a bit OTT with this. Even if CH wins (and I have no idea whether or not this is likely) it's really, really not going to put any financial strain on GW. How many kids who walk into GW and pick up AoBR or WFB 8th are even aware of Chapterhouse's existence? I would hazard practically zero. Again it's the mistaken egotism, found throughout the internet, that this small dark corner comprises the whole or even a significant part of the wargaming community.
It depends; I doubt it would put any serious strain on them; but it may be enough to tip them to dump an army; which as a Witchhunters player; it concerns me.
Space Marines players dont need to worry though.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Exactly.
The still, small voice of sanity has spoken.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Kilkrazy wrote:
If that is the situation, once Chapter House got pro bono (i.e. free) representation from a respected firm with knowledge in the IP area, GW's chances of success declined significantly. One might like to consider why a respected firm would give pro bono defence to a defendant with a rotten case.
This. Either Chapterhouse has friends in high places, or there is some ulterior motive we missed.
I'm just concerned. I'm not anti-CH, some of their stuff is good. But I really only play 40k cause one army appeals to me; if that army gets squatted because of people making almost questionably similar stuff; then I've got no reason to play any wargaming (as no other game has an army similar enough to it). The aftermarkets stuff is iffy.
I'm just concerned really. I'd prefer something better to be worked out like this: CH are allowed to continue; but enter into a contract with GW; where a percentage of the profit from 40k-close stuff/kits goes to GW. Both companies profit and CH will get somewhat of a buffer in case of financial turmoil. Win/win.
Errr....No. I think you're taking the slippery slope approach, and its gone too far. Chapterhouse winning means Chapterhouse gets to continue doing what its doing, and the other 3rd party manufacturers get to continue offering their bits as well. Noone is going to produce an entire model range that will result in GW 'squatting' your favorite army. Realize that GW is a multi-million dollar company. They produce model kits on such a scale, that they pay only about 2 dollars to produce a kit that we pay 20 dollars for. They turn a massive profit on every box they sell (granted, a lot of their sales are through 3rd parties, so they make a bit less, but still). The bits/aftermarket manufacturers are for the most part using resin. They are small companies. They won't be able to compete with GW. The few that can, aren't going to do it on any scale that will seriously threaten GW's operation. If someone did manage to get something going that did threaten GW, then GW has a lot of ways to correct the problem, mainly via competing on price (they would have to drop prices first) or competing on quality. You're not going to find anyone except another large company that will be able to match GW in both those fields. Nobody is going to get big piggybacking on GW, so its a moot issue anyway.
Yeah. Hopefully if GW fails this; they won't lose much money. (if they did; first thing that would happen would be the poorest-selling races being squatted. Then probs more Space Marine stuff to recoup losses.)
Thats really not going to happen.
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
chaos0xomega wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
If that is the situation, once Chapter House got pro bono (i.e. free) representation from a respected firm with knowledge in the IP area, GW's chances of success declined significantly. One might like to consider why a respected firm would give pro bono defence to a defendant with a rotten case.
This. Either Chapterhouse has friends in high places, or there is some ulterior motive we missed.
Pro Bono work could be for tax reasons, to give junior partners experience, required by a legal organization, or " work for a friend" etc. Most likely, however, it has nothing to do with CH at all.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Thats really not going to happen.
Your most likely right. I'm just being careful. I remember my Lost and the Damned army.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mr Hyena wrote:Thats really not going to happen.
Your most likely right. I'm just being careful. I remember my Lost and the Damned army.
Who made Lost and the Damned? Who took it away?
39004
Post by: biccat
Kilkrazy wrote:It is not a legal requirement to file for copyright, it automatically exists in original art works.
Copyright registration is a prerequisite for filing suit in the United States.
Also, it appears that last year the failure to preregister went from a subject matter issue to a 12(b)(6) issue. Link.
752
Post by: Polonius
biccat wrote:odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
Wait, since when do you have to reference specific facts in a claim for copyright infringement? Notice pleading isn't enough anymore?
List your copyrights, assert that the other side is infringing, done.
I never did any federal work, let alone IP, so I don't know. I can't think of why you'd need more than the normal notice.
For non-lawyers, a federal pleading really only needs to let the other side know what kind of claim it is, what sort of damages they seek, and the basic grounds for the suit. Generally, saying "we want damages because you copied our protected work" would be enough.
39004
Post by: biccat
Polonius wrote:For non-lawyers, a federal pleading really only needs to let the other side know what kind of claim it is, what sort of damages they seek, and the basic grounds for the suit. Generally, saying "we want damages because you copied our protected work" would be enough.
You also have to list your copyright registration number (or application number, depending on the circuit).
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
Polonius wrote:biccat wrote:odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
Wait, since when do you have to reference specific facts in a claim for copyright infringement? Notice pleading isn't enough anymore?
List your copyrights, assert that the other side is infringing, done.
I never did any federal work, let alone IP, so I don't know. I can't think of why you'd need more than the normal notice.
For non-lawyers, a federal pleading really only needs to let the other side know what kind of claim it is, what sort of damages they seek, and the basic grounds for the suit. Generally, saying "we want damages because you copied our protected work" would be enough.
This is nit-picky, but I'm bored in my remedies class right now, so I would also point out that Jurisdiction (why you're in Fed. court as opposed to state or an admin court) is also required.
752
Post by: Polonius
biccat wrote:Polonius wrote:For non-lawyers, a federal pleading really only needs to let the other side know what kind of claim it is, what sort of damages they seek, and the basic grounds for the suit. Generally, saying "we want damages because you copied our protected work" would be enough.
You also have to list your copyright registration number (or application number, depending on the circuit).
I never did much litigation, and I never plan to. Sweet, sweet guv'ment work and it's 8 hour days has me in it's grip.
7680
Post by: oni
Hmmm... This may be good news. It could open the floodgate for more startups like Chapethouse and should (I hope) provide market pressure to drive the price down on some of GW's products. This is of course assuming GW treats market pressure like a 'normal' company. Sadly I could see GW raising prices under the guise of lost profits to punish consumers.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Mr Hyena wrote:Chapterhouse winning means its better for the masses. But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear)
Doesn't work like that, I'm surprised at the number who think it does. Just because you were unable to enforce IP on one case does not mean you lose your rights to it. All cases stand on their own merits. This case might set some sort of precedent, which would I assume allow other aftermarket-bits companies to push as far as CH in relative safety, and that isn't that far IMO. But GW would still have their IP, they could still enforce it, people couldn't recast their models and only they could make their style Space Marines and they likely they will not lose much money other than that which they throw at this case.
I think GW could 'manage' the hobby a bit better, there has to be a more shrewd way of dealing with the wider community and turning it to some advantage rather than treating everyone else as an enemy that needs to be scared off or crushed.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Kilkrazy wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Thats really not going to happen.
Your most likely right. I'm just being careful. I remember my Lost and the Damned army.
Who made Lost and the Damned? Who took it away?
I didn't say CH did it; I'm saying GW've done it citing poor sales; and they can do it again; hence why playing one of the more fringe armies can leave people very worried.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I still don't remember them ever saying that the Lost and the Damned would ever be a fully supported range. It was something done for a campaign; not the game as a whole.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
chaos0xomega wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
If that is the situation, once Chapter House got pro bono (i.e. free) representation from a respected firm with knowledge in the IP area, GW's chances of success declined significantly. One might like to consider why a respected firm would give pro bono defence to a defendant with a rotten case.
This. Either Chapterhouse has friends in high places, or there is some ulterior motive we missed.
Sometimes, firms will take cases that include questions of first impression, just for the chance that a precedent will be set (that they can attach their name to). I can't think of (or easily locate) a case touching on third-party after-market pieces for individual sculptural works; I'm hoping for some good law out of this.
752
Post by: Polonius
My theory has been that there might be a case on similar lines brewing for big money, and this might be a way to get some good precedent on the cheap.
It's unlikely, but possible.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Its interesting. I know in the firearms and automobiles industries, there is a very large segment of non OEM parts for replacement and modification. I wonder if there is any caselaw drawing from that.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Polonius wrote:biccat wrote:odinsgrandson wrote:Chapterhouse Studios submitted a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that Games Workshop filed against them on the basis of lack of specificity.
Basically they're saying that Games Workshop needs to cite specific instances of trademark or copyright violations. This makes sense to me, since there isn't really any way to defend yourself against vague claims.
Wait, since when do you have to reference specific facts in a claim for copyright infringement? Notice pleading isn't enough anymore? List your copyrights, assert that the other side is infringing, done.
I never did any federal work, let alone IP, so I don't know. I can't think of why you'd need more than the normal notice. For non-lawyers, a federal pleading really only needs to let the other side know what kind of claim it is, what sort of damages they seek, and the basic grounds for the suit. Generally, saying "we want damages because you copied our protected work" would be enough.
"Notice Pleading" died in 2007 ( Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly). Frazzled wrote:Its interesting. I know in the firearms and automobiles industries, there is a very large segment of non OEM parts for replacement and modification. I wonder if there is any caselaw drawing from that.
Quite a bit, actually. And there will likely be lots of back-and-forth about how analogous the situations are (non-OEM replacement parts that are purely functional, as opposed to those that duplicate copyrightable elements, etc.).
3725
Post by: derek
Mr Hyena wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Thats really not going to happen.
Your most likely right. I'm just being careful. I remember my Lost and the Damned army.
Who made Lost and the Damned? Who took it away?
I didn't say CH did it; I'm saying they've done it citing poor sales; and they can do it again; hence why playing one of the more fringe armies can leave people very worried.
Poor sales of that army. Don't get me wrong, I played Lost and the Damned too. But thinking that anything other than internal GW sales reports, or predictions will lead to discontinued support is a fallacy. The fact that GW could make you think they're going to discontinue support of your army because they face competition in areas that do not include your army (after all, I haven't seen anything for Sister's of Battle from CH) should show just how shaky support of it was in the first place.
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army.  GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
752
Post by: Polonius
Or immediately after my 1st year civ pro class, and well after my copy of the rules was printed. Which represent the last time I've thought about federal rules of civil procedure.
38396
Post by: zxwarrior
This is one of those many cause where a company has pretty much a monopoly on something and copyrighted it. But some one else makes part for it. The big company then gets all made that they have compition and wants them to go away. Even if their claims are either ilfounded or just not or a real stable grounds. So for what it is worth i wish the best of luck for chapterhouse. I hope you come out on top of this lawsuit.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
zxwarrior wrote:This is one of those many cause where a company has pretty much a monopoly on something and copyrighted it. But some one else makes part for it. The big company then gets all made that they have compition and wants them to go away. Even if their claims are either ilfounded or just not or a real stable grounds. So for what it is worth i wish the best of luck for chapterhouse. I hope you come out on top of this lawsuit.
The thing is that GW don't have a monopoly. There are tens of other relatively large producers of models in comparable " SF/fantasy" territory. And probably hundreds of historical wargaming model manufacturers.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
Its not the same though.
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
752
Post by: Polonius
SilverMK2 wrote:zxwarrior wrote:This is one of those many cause where a company has pretty much a monopoly on something and copyrighted it. But some one else makes part for it. The big company then gets all made that they have compition and wants them to go away. Even if their claims are either ilfounded or just not or a real stable grounds. So for what it is worth i wish the best of luck for chapterhouse. I hope you come out on top of this lawsuit.
The thing is that GW don't have a monopoly. There are tens of other relatively large producers of models in comparable " SF/fantasy" territory. And probably hundreds of historical wargaming model manufacturers.
Actually, this is a case where a lot of people use terms like IP, copyright, and monopoly without realizing those terms have pretty tight legal definitions.
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
biccat wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It is not a legal requirement to file for copyright, it automatically exists in original art works.
Copyright registration is a prerequisite for filing suit in the United States.
Also, it appears that last year the failure to preregister went from a subject matter issue to a 12(b)(6) issue. Link.
My understanding (although it may be flawed) is that you can sue without formal copyright, but not for damages. Only to have someone stop producing a "derivative".. This would open up all kinds of other arguments as well, such as did the defendant know of your work? etc. how all that is handled is outside of my knowledge.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Mr Hyena wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Thats really not going to happen.
Your most likely right. I'm just being careful. I remember my Lost and the Damned army.
Who made Lost and the Damned? Who took it away?
I didn't say CH did it; I'm saying GW've done it citing poor sales; and they can do it again; hence why playing one of the more fringe armies can leave people very worried.
No they didn't. There were no 'poor sales' for the Lost and the Damned, because the Lost and the Damned never had a model line. The kits needed for that army were the Imperial Guard and Chaos range. Both those ranges are still around today. If LatD had been pulled because of poor sales, we wouldn't have Guard or Chaos armies either.
LatD were pulled because they were a campaign army, they were never an official army list in the first place.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Chaos, you're forgetting the Orks sprue too.
752
Post by: Polonius
Well, the LatD were always a special case. They were the only campaign force that really introduced multiple new "basic" units that couldn't fold back into the parent codex.
If you look at the others (Kult of speed, Templars, Sallies, Steel legion, Cadians, uthwe, and 13th company) all of them could be fielded, in some form or another, with the new codex. The IG and SM ones were easiest, the Space wolf one is tougher, and Kult of Speed is a direct port.
LatD, however, included actual CSM units sparingly, if at all. Now I'm firmly of the belief that the Ork codex (or current IG) both make for excellent counts as armies for LatD, but I doubt people really though "I'm going to buy and paint 150 mutants, but I can only use them for a limited time."
yeah, caveat emptor and all that, but lets just say it was unexpected when the codex first came out.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
I can file ten motions out of my butt
Blimey Fraz
Not sure if I am more worried about the state of your bowels or amazed at their dexterity!
39601
Post by: Phayse
With GW being a UK based company, where does authority lie? Is it US law, or EU?
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
Saldiven wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
Just like after market manufacturers of automobile parts use the logos and highly similar designs for automobiles like the Ford Mustang and virtually every other car that someone might want to customize. The fact of the matter is that the action that GW is suing CHS over is something that has been commonplace in other industries for decades.
http://www.bodykits.com/
See this link for an example of what I'm discussing. These third party manufacturers make products that directly compete with similar products offered by the auto manufacturer and use trademarked product names from the automobile manufacturer in their advertising. For example, you can find an advertisement for the following:
"Ford Mustang Extreme Dimensions Duraflex Fiberglass Hot Wheels Body Kit."
Extreme Dimensions is the manufacturer of the body kit designed for use on the Ford Mustang, which is a trademarked name owned by Ford.
You can also find aftermarket parts manufacturers that make custom parts for just about every other piece of your Mustang you can imagine, from Floor Mats and Steering Wheels to Gas Cap Covers and engine parts. Many of these items will feature the trademarked Ford running mustang logo. Each of these parts are designed to replace a part already manufactured by Ford.
If this is legal in the automotive industry, why is it not legal in "plastic army men" industry?
I stated the same thing in the last thread.
On the subject of GW...one would think they would be in favor of other companies making add ons for their products. You still have to buy the base GW product to use the add on, so it should fuel more GW sales. Say I kinda like CSM termies...but not enough to buy a box. The someone releases a kit with extra options for that box and i love it. Now Ive got to get some, and I have to buy the CSM T box to work with the other companies parts. GW just got a $50 sale they werent going to get before. Repeat 100s or 1000s of times, and thats good money.
But this is GW we are talking about...
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Mad4Minis wrote:On the subject of GW...one would think they would be in favor of other companies making add ons for their products. You still have to buy the base GW product to use the add on, so it should fuel more GW sales. Say I kinda like CSM termies...but not enough to buy a box. The someone releases a kit with extra options for that box and i love it. Now Ive got to get some, and I have to buy the CSM T box to work with the other companies parts. GW just got a $50 sale they werent going to get before. Repeat 100s or 1000s of times, and thats good money.
But this is GW we are talking about...
As I said, they could turn it to their advantage, but they see everything coming anywhere near them as a threat and an enemy.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
Phayse wrote:With GW being a UK based company, where does authority lie? Is it US law, or EU?
Another good point. China pumps out direct knock-offs of many products, and is virtually immune to IP law since they have pretty much none in their country.
However, I would imagine US law to be similar enough to UK law regarding that subject.
40356
Post by: Simulated.Soul
I find this thread and the impending case to be fascinating!
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Mad4Minis wrote:Saldiven wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
Just like after market manufacturers of automobile parts use the logos and highly similar designs for automobiles like the Ford Mustang and virtually every other car that someone might want to customize. The fact of the matter is that the action that GW is suing CHS over is something that has been commonplace in other industries for decades.
http://www.bodykits.com/
See this link for an example of what I'm discussing. These third party manufacturers make products that directly compete with similar products offered by the auto manufacturer and use trademarked product names from the automobile manufacturer in their advertising. For example, you can find an advertisement for the following:
"Ford Mustang Extreme Dimensions Duraflex Fiberglass Hot Wheels Body Kit."
Extreme Dimensions is the manufacturer of the body kit designed for use on the Ford Mustang, which is a trademarked name owned by Ford.
You can also find aftermarket parts manufacturers that make custom parts for just about every other piece of your Mustang you can imagine, from Floor Mats and Steering Wheels to Gas Cap Covers and engine parts. Many of these items will feature the trademarked Ford running mustang logo. Each of these parts are designed to replace a part already manufactured by Ford.
If this is legal in the automotive industry, why is it not legal in "plastic army men" industry?
I stated the same thing in the last thread.
On the subject of GW...one would think they would be in favor of other companies making add ons for their products. You still have to buy the base GW product to use the add on, so it should fuel more GW sales. Say I kinda like CSM termies...but not enough to buy a box. The someone releases a kit with extra options for that box and i love it. Now Ive got to get some, and I have to buy the CSM T box to work with the other companies parts. GW just got a $50 sale they werent going to get before. Repeat 100s or 1000s of times, and thats good money.
But this is GW we are talking about...
Its a slippery slope. What would stop them proceeding to produce Space Marines; but not recasts if they could get away with that much? Then no revenue gets to GW.
I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
I wouldn't wish anyone to lose; I would wish a way was made that could protect GW's IP AND bolster smaller companies.
Which begs a question. Why doesn't GW just take on as many of the small companies as they can? Like; buy them; but give them a level of autonomy. Sort of like FW has; but a bit more. So they can produce their own model lines and stuff as usual; but also branch into 40k/Fantasy stuff if they feel like it.
GW benefits as there is no infringement because they get their fair share; the companies are boosted by GW's own finances to fund projects. Not only that; the customer benefits as it assures quality for them; plus many more kits and no legal problems.
Other companies are very-known for buying smaller groups and integrating them well. Why not in a small market like this?
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
terribletrygon wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
I would like to see GW lose.
First, for the benefits of consumers in the hobby. It would open up the opportunity for some sweet products to come our way.
Second, it would be epic watching all the GW fanboys and apologists have complete meltdowns.
18499
Post by: Henners91
This "compatible" lingo wasn't there last time I went on the site... it literally said "space marine shoulderpads" as far as I recall?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Mr Hyena wrote:Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
Its not the same though.
This is off topic, but LatD got first class treatment by Forge World IA5-8 with rules and fitting miniatures.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RHFAQ.pdf
On topic, AFAIK, several law firms were interested in defending Chapterhouse pro bono, because it is an interesting case with good chances of success (and a naive bully from old UK as opponent )
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
Mad4Minis wrote: Just like after market manufacturers of automobile parts use the logos and highly similar designs for automobiles like the Ford Mustang and virtually every other car that someone might want to customize. The fact of the matter is that the action that GW is suing CHS over is something that has been commonplace in other industries for decades.
http://www.bodykits.com/
See this link for an example of what I'm discussing. These third party manufacturers make products that directly compete with similar products offered by the auto manufacturer and use trademarked product names from the automobile manufacturer in their advertising. For example, you can find an advertisement for the following:
"Ford Mustang Extreme Dimensions Duraflex Fiberglass Hot Wheels Body Kit."
Extreme Dimensions is the manufacturer of the body kit designed for use on the Ford Mustang, which is a trademarked name owned by Ford.
You can also find aftermarket parts manufacturers that make custom parts for just about every other piece of your Mustang you can imagine, from Floor Mats and Steering Wheels to Gas Cap Covers and engine parts. Many of these items will feature the trademarked Ford running mustang logo. Each of these parts are designed to replace a part already manufactured by Ford.
If this is legal in the automotive industry, why is it not legal in "plastic army men" industry?
I stated the same thing in the last thread.
On the subject of GW...one would think they would be in favor of other companies making add ons for their products. You still have to buy the base GW product to use the add on, so it should fuel more GW sales. Say I kinda like CSM termies...but not enough to buy a box. The someone releases a kit with extra options for that box and i love it. Now Ive got to get some, and I have to buy the CSM T box to work with the other companies parts. GW just got a $50 sale they werent going to get before. Repeat 100s or 1000s of times, and thats good money.
But this is GW we are talking about...
I think part of the problem is that GW wishes to protect their IP under the most favorable areas of IP law... They want all the protections afforded to a "work of art", claiming anything under the moon and sky as "derivative works". My limited understanding is that auto parts and such are not protected in the same way as works of art. GW wishes to take something that is mass produced on the scale of automotive parts and paint them with the "artistic" IP protections.
I may be way off base or have a faulty understanding but I believe the court views the auto parts vs artistic expression as fairly different subjects within the law. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
Its not the same though.
This is off topic, but LatD got first class treatment by Forge World IA5-8 with rules and fitting miniatures.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RHFAQ.pdf
On topic, AFAIK, several law firms were interested in defending Chapterhouse pro bono, because it is an interesting case with good chances of success (and a naive bully from old UK as opponent )
Sadly its not that good; as it lacks Mutants and Daemons; the uniqueness of the Heretical Guard and all.
33661
Post by: Mad4Minis
Mr Hyena wrote:
Its a slippery slope. What would stop them proceeding to produce Space Marines; but not recasts if they could get away with that much? Then no revenue gets to GW.
There is the question. Im not sure how the auto industry has it worked out.
Id say in the gaming industry direct copies or recasts should be a no, but things that add on to or work with existing products should be ok. it would be good for everyone involved.
752
Post by: Polonius
Look at mantic: they make completely compatible plastic minis to fit several GW fantasy armies. GW competes with Mantic on quality for the price.
The sky won't fall because people can make shoulderpads.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Mad4Minis wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:
Its a slippery slope. What would stop them proceeding to produce Space Marines; but not recasts if they could get away with that much? Then no revenue gets to GW.
There is the question. Im not sure how the auto industry has it worked out.
Id say in the gaming industry direct copies or recasts should be a no, but things that add on to or work with existing products should be ok. it would be good for everyone involved.
It is a difficult; but interesting area.
Perhaps more contracts need to be done. People agreed with by GW can produce 40k stuff or whatever; so long as its not on GW's range they currently make...so long as a percentage of money per sale goes to GW?
CH would still get most the money; but some would go to GW so its not really as bad.
Polonius wrote:Look at mantic: they make completely compatible plastic minis to fit several GW fantasy armies. GW competes with Mantic on quality for the price.
The sky won't fall because people can make shoulderpads.
But its not quite that simple; or we wouldn't be at this point.
21940
Post by: nels1031
Mad4Minis wrote:I would like to see GW lose.
First, for the benefits of consumers in the hobby. It would open up the opportunity for some sweet products to come our way.
Second, it would be epic watching all the GW fanboys and apologists have complete meltdowns.
I'm all for the opposite. For the same reasons.
Opportunity for some great laughs either way though.
3725
Post by: derek
Mr Hyena wrote:
Polonius wrote:Look at mantic: they make completely compatible plastic minis to fit several GW fantasy armies. GW competes with Mantic on quality for the price.
The sky won't fall because people can make shoulderpads.
But its not quite that simple; or we wouldn't be at this point.
Please explain why.
15799
Post by: terribletrygon
Mad4Minis wrote:terribletrygon wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
I would like to see GW lose. First, for the benefits of consumers in the hobby. It would open up the opportunity for some sweet products to come our way. Second, it would be epic watching all the GW fanboyshave complete meltdowns.
It wouldn't really benefit the hobby all that much. If it really changed anything at all, it would just mean the market would get clogged up with people making stuff designed for purely for GW. We'd benefit far more from people doing their own thing for once and actually expanding the hobby further. And besides; Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are already heavily supported by GW to a level far greater then that of most ranges. They are the last games in the world that need the extra support. Of course, it is not to say I don't mind the odd side company (I myself buy from MaxMini occasionally) I just do not think that Chapterhouse winning will automatically make the hobby better. Unless you are a Chapterhouse customer, that is. And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people. Most of the people involved with these kind of threads are pro-Chapterhouse, so therefore most of the people that will get trolled by Chapterhouse crashing and burning will be pro-Chapterhouse. And even if Chapterhouse wins, Kan'll probably explain it away with some crazy fairytale. He'd say GW let them win, or something, just like we did with the Yanks all those years ago...
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
752
Post by: Polonius
I'm not sure what's not that simple. I'm not saying GW shouldn't sue CHS (I know I would in their shoes), I'm just saying that GW will never lose their IP over the stuff that really matters: iconography, exact weapon designs, etc.
If somebody decides to make knock off space marines, it'll be no different than making generic undead or high elves. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr Hyena wrote:If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
that's not necessarily true. Courthouses are full of cases that aren't about money.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Yeah, theres no definte right or wrong answer.
What if it was a 40k Space Marine exactly; but not a re-cast and without iconography? would that be legal? Its essentially completely copied; but with iconography and not re-casted (yet almost exactly the same).
Zombies are a bit different, because they look alot different from each other; but 40k's armour for their Space Marines is pretty distinctive. IG less so; and Vampire Counts even less so.
752
Post by: Polonius
Mr Hyena wrote:Yeah, theres no definte right or wrong answer.
What if it was a 40k Space Marine exactly; but not a re-cast and without iconography? would that be legal? Its essentially completely copied; but with iconography and not re-casted (yet almost exactly the same).
Zombies are a bit different, because they look alot different from each other; but 40k's armour for their Space Marines is pretty distinctive. IG less so; and Vampire Counts even less so.
That's a really good question. Nobody knows exactly where the line is.
http://terrania.us/hg-fasa/legal-5.txt
That's probably the best case on the matter. it's long, but it shows the level of analysis that courts undertake.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
terribletrygon wrote:And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people.
What about the 40% or so (given the last check I made on the thread) that voted hoping for GW to win? Seems amazing that so people want to see a company close up shop when it makes no real difference to GW at all, it's just denying the wider community of hobbyists a supplier of materials. Perhaps those offering support to GW have all been sucked in by this idea that CH have committed a criminal offence (they haven't) are stealing (they aren't) or the scaremongering that GW are at obvious risk if they lose, ie that their IP will all go up in smoke and it'll be recasting galore, GW will lose a heap of money and/or go bust if CH aren't stopped.
Actually if GW lose, or give up before taking the case all the way through then the result will likely be nothing at all. GW won't be at any more risk of damage than they were before the lawsuit, it might curb their enthusiasm to send out C&Ds to people on the flimsiest of excuses but that's probably hoping for a lot.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
terribletrygon wrote:Mad4Minis wrote:terribletrygon wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
I would like to see GW lose.
First, for the benefits of consumers in the hobby. It would open up the opportunity for some sweet products to come our way.
Second, it would be epic watching all the GW fanboyshave complete meltdowns.
It wouldn't really benefit the hobby all that much. If it really changed anything at all, it would just mean the market would get clogged up with people making stuff designed for purely for GW. We'd benefit far more from people doing their own thing for once and actually expanding the hobby further. And besides; Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are already heavily supported by GW to a level far greater then that of most ranges. They are the last games in the world that need the extra support. Of course, it is not to say I don't mind the odd side company (I myself buy from MaxMini occasionally) I just do not think that Chapterhouse winning will automatically make the hobby better. Unless you are a Chapterhouse customer, that is.
And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people. Most of the people involved with these kind of threads are pro-Chapterhouse, so therefore most of the people that will get trolled by Chapterhouse crashing and burning will be pro-Chapterhouse. And even if Chapterhouse wins, Kan'll probably explain it away with some crazy fairytale. He'd say GW let them win, or something, just like we did with the Yanks all those years ago...
Which time of the UK letting America win are we referring to? Because I seem to remember some smug Redcoats and some crazy 'War for Independence'
But anyways.
In all honesty: I think GW is smart enough that if it looks bad enough...they might try to settle out of court.
There's an opportunity here. Chapterhouse doing simplistic, supported generic conversion kits while Forge World focuses on their campaign packs, and GW does the heavy manufacturing?
Can we say "powerhouse"?
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Mr Hyena wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
Its not the same though.
This is off topic, but LatD got first class treatment by Forge World IA5-8 with rules and fitting miniatures.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RHFAQ.pdf
On topic, AFAIK, several law firms were interested in defending Chapterhouse pro bono, because it is an interesting case with good chances of success (and a naive bully from old UK as opponent )
Sadly its not that good; as it lacks Mutants and Daemons; the uniqueness of the Heretical Guard and all.
There are plenty of Apocalypse templates to tell me that if you want to play a LATD army, you can play a LATD army. I've personally got a game that GW came out with long long ago and have went bacvk and reread it the other day with a new jonesing for chaos stuff. As for "official", the way that GW craps out stuff every blue moon should have told you long ago to just play what you want to, and if someone wnats to be a ponce and give you static, you can always point to the available material, even with the IA attachments.
Played an army of a couple of chaos space marines, with a contingent of Infantry squads in a platoon, basd on Chaos Maruders. They have a couple of demons in an eleit slot, and a couple of termies to round out the batch. I just found my box of odds and ends with more then a companys worth of eveil in every bit. If someone is a douche to give you static for the army, they need to stuff it.
LATD are about ready to make a comeback, anyway. In this conversation, I'd really like to pop up the army lists that GW has for them already, but I really don't feel like adding anything to the fire. I can say that they are available, though. and the armys range from prettty interesting to outright stupid, but they are there, never the less.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Mr Hyena wrote:If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
It's probably got very little to do with money, GW probably don't know how much CH make or can make any kind of accurate assessment on how many sales they supposedly 'lose' to CH products. Hell, how on earth would you measure that in a manner that would stand up to some scientific scrutiny?
TSR threw away a lot of money on frivolous lawsuits, and plenty of others have done the same. Don't assume just because they pursue the case that the threat is genuine.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Howard A Treesong wrote:terribletrygon wrote:And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people.
What about the 40% or so (given the last check I made on the thread) that voted hoping for GW to win? Seems amazing that so people want to see a company close up shop when it makes no real difference to GW at all, it's just denying the wider community of hobbyists a supplier of materials. Perhaps those offering support to GW have all been sucked in by this idea that CH have committed a criminal offence (they haven't) are stealing (they aren't) or the scaremongering that GW are at obvious risk if they lose, ie that their IP will all go up in smoke and it'll be recasting galore, GW will lose a heap of money and/or go bust if CH aren't stopped.
Nobody except Mr Hyena has really said that. At least I'm pretty sure I haven't.
However, if CH hasn't committed an offense or if IP laws weren't such a vague and nebulous concept--the case would have been thrown out immediately.
Most of what I've really said is that it's going to be detrimental to the hobby having a flood of crummy half-assed companies producing crap in mass amounts and you just know it will be bought in bulk because gamers are a cheap bunch of people.
There's also that I've said a few times that it'd be nice if those companies which actually produce a worthwhile product would stop effectively "mooching" and actually produce their own line-up based upon their own IP.
Look at what's been happening with Twitter lately. They've cracked down on third-party platforms. Do these platforms roll over and die or whine endlessly that Twitter's being "heavy handed"? No. They're reworking what they provided and planning to launch their own competing platform.
Actually if GW lose, or give up before taking the case all the way through then the result will likely be nothing at all. GW won't be at any more risk of damage than they were before the lawsuit, it might curb their enthusiasm to send out C&Ds to people on the flimsiest of excuses but that's probably hoping for a lot.
Speaking once again not as a lawyer or being as up on IP law as Polonius and his ilk:
It's my understanding that in most of these cases a C&D is the only way to make people sit up and take notice that "Hey. What you're doing? It's not okay."--are there some cases where it's excessive?
Probably. But at the same time: GW and pretty much every big company out there aren't looking to screw around when it comes to their property, intellectual or physical.
13363
Post by: raincity
.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
raincity wrote:I'm hoping for a games workshop win out of this case, when you take away all the legal mumbo jumbo and the constantly used car part analogy and look at the basic facts, Chapterhouse Studios has been ripping off gws i.p blatantly for a long time, even when people have pointed out that they could avoid legal trouble if they just worded their product discriptions differently. They knew what they were doing could land them in legal hot water and chose to ignore the risks.
All analogies and slimey legal loopholes aside, can anyone honestly say that Chapterhouse aren't ripping off gws i.p? It pisses me off to no end how Chs come online and arrogantly say they are all original designs of their own...
Yeah, taking all facts, logic and legal knowledge aside, you are bang on!
Who needs slimey mumbo jumbo reasoning when hate makes all things so clear
Mr Hyena wrote:If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
1.) GW is fine with losing money and customers each year, otherwise they would have fired the current management. They are fine with wasting money, as making Space Hulk limited shows.
2.) Competition is not illegal per se as GW will find out soon. GW will have to accept the profit, they make with each GW conversion kit Chapterhouse sells, yeah bad luck. And that power armour is not that GW specific at all:
2
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Mr Hyena wrote:If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
On this point, though I'll disagree.
GW likes squashing competition, perceived competition, and everyone else they think theycan bully into shutting down. They spend the obligatory money on lawyers when the victim, and I mean victim, tends to be fanboy sites, direct no nonsense rip offs, and the occasional site such as CW. Protecting thier IP when they crush a bunch of fanboys? ? the same ones that dedicate thier time to playing the games? Any profits good profit, then, I guess. They thought CW was an easy mark, then got smacked on the nose behind the scenes. I say that based on the situation with the lawer in question. She gets let go because she picked the wrong horse in the race by slapping together a bad brief, and its going to end up costing GW in terms of reputation, money, and time wasted on a bad call. The whole reasoning behind the lawsuit was a dog from the get go. She didn't give specifics, they came out of the game with both barrels, and ended up taking it in the short hairs at the end without a point of clearity in the whole thing.
You can see what she was on about in theother thread. a bunch of blah blah that didn't addresss anything of serious point. All it was is a public dogging from GW to a side business in the same way as you telling someone in a theater to shut off thier phone. Thier bothering you, but all you can really do is bark at them.
Whats going to happen?
Nothing. The so called lawsuit is going to disappear.
Its going to disappear, or else we would have seen more then ten or so letters to the contrary from GW to continue the fight in public, just the same as we did with the other ten or so lawsuits we've seen from them in the past. I think it also might have something to do with CH having an honest to goodness lawyer in thier corner, when before, all you have was the fanboy base being publicly smacked on the nose with the obligatory, "YOU! stop posting that stuff!" in legal terms.
Back a couple of months back with great Blood Bowl purge of 2010, IIRC. Then there was that guy with the titans, and the other guy with the space wolf stuff.
Funniest thing about it is that GW uses things from other IP's on a regular basis. what they have isn't at all that directly thiers, and thier ideas, even said so by themselves, come from other works.
The worlds not going to even remember this lawsuit anymore then they do the other ones that they push on a regular basis.I've come to expect them to push a lawsuit to offset thier losses. It helps to add to the myth of a profit, in leu of closing down another couple of dozen local GW stores around the world every year.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Grot 6 wrote:I say that based on the situation with the lawer in question. She gets let go because she picked the wrong horse in the race by slapping together a bad brief, and its going to end up costing GW in terms of reputation, the whole reasoning behind the lawsuit was a dog from the get go. She didn't give specifics, they came out of the game with both barrels, and ended up taking it in the short hairs at the end.
Oh good lord, the conspiracy theories are coming out. Lawyers move around fairly often, at least until they reach partner status. There's NO reason to assume that a routine motion to withdraw as counsel has anything to do with being fired because of this one single case. raincity wrote:All analogies and slimey legal loopholes aside, can anyone honestly say that Chapterhouse aren't ripping off gws i.p? It pisses me off to no end how Chs come online and arrogantly say they are all original designs of their own...
*sigh* Look, this isn't a case of moral right and wrong. It's a business issue. "Slimy" legal issues define what is correct behavior here, in this disagreement between two corporate entities. You would do well to try and leave your emotions at the door, if you want to watch.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Janthkin wrote:Grot 6 wrote:I say that based on the situation with the lawer in question. She gets let go because she picked the wrong horse in the race by slapping together a bad brief, and its going to end up costing GW in terms of reputation, the whole reasoning behind the lawsuit was a dog from the get go. She didn't give specifics, they came out of the game with both barrels, and ended up taking it in the short hairs at the end.
Oh good lord, the conspiracy theories are coming out.
Lawyers move around fairly often, at least until they reach partner status. There's NO reason to assume that a routine motion to withdraw as counsel has anything to do with being fired because of this one single case.
raincity wrote:All analogies and slimey legal loopholes aside, can anyone honestly say that Chapterhouse aren't ripping off gws i.p? It pisses me off to no end how Chs come online and arrogantly say they are all original designs of their own...
*sigh*
Look, this isn't a case of moral right and wrong. It's a business issue. "Slimy" legal issues define what is correct behavior here, in this disagreement between two corporate entities. You would do well to try and leave your emotions at the door, if you want to watch.
You know, that really wasn't called for, poindexter.
13363
Post by: raincity
.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
raincity wrote: As does CHS, a while back they chucked a tantrum over someone else making pre heresy jump packs and requested they stop as if those jump packs were a chapterhouse idea which seems pretty hypocritical considering their circumstance... And for the record those jump packs were far superior too. (...)
I think chs should stand on its own two feet and make their own game/rules/model and proove they are original rather than claiming to be..
And for the record, those "far superior jump packs" were done by the same sculptor, who first sold them to Chapterhouse, then slightly modified to a competitor.
And of couse, Goodyear should start making their own cars instead of leeching on other car manufacturers
21940
Post by: nels1031
Howard A Treesong wrote:What about the 40% or so (given the last check I made on the thread) that voted hoping for GW to win? Seems amazing that so people want to see a company close up shop when it makes no real difference to GW at all, it's just denying the wider community of hobbyists a supplier of materials. Perhaps those offering support to GW have all been sucked in by this idea that CH have committed a criminal offence (they haven't) are stealing (they aren't) or the scaremongering that GW are at obvious risk if they lose, ie that their IP will all go up in smoke and it'll be recasting galore, GW will lose a heap of money and/or go bust if CH aren't stopped.
I have to say that the dude that posts here under the chapterhouse tag can come off as a douche. For that reason and the fact that his sculpts are mostly bush league/amateur level, that may be a reason some folks want to see him lose.
6515
Post by: Starfarer
Howard A Treesong wrote:terribletrygon wrote:And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people.
What about the 40% or so (given the last check I made on the thread) that voted hoping for GW to win? Seems amazing that so people want to see a company close up shop when it makes no real difference to GW at all, it's just denying the wider community of hobbyists a supplier of materials. Perhaps those offering support to GW have all been sucked in by this idea that CH have committed a criminal offence (they haven't) are stealing (they aren't) or the scaremongering that GW are at obvious risk if they lose, ie that their IP will all go up in smoke and it'll be recasting galore, GW will lose a heap of money and/or go bust if CH aren't stopped.
Actually if GW lose, or give up before taking the case all the way through then the result will likely be nothing at all. GW won't be at any more risk of damage than they were before the lawsuit, it might curb their enthusiasm to send out C&Ds to people on the flimsiest of excuses but that's probably hoping for a lot.
It seems amazing to me that so many people are willing to disregard CH's actions prior to and after the lawsuit was filed. Everybody is so quick to rally against the "evil empire" yet so many people forget CH had every opportunity to stay below the radar by simply not using GW names in their product descriptions. Notice how Scibor, Maxmini and others aren't in any legal trouble? because they do it in a responsible way, or at least aren't as blantant about it. Additionally, CH comes in the threads and has the gall to criticize another third party company for "copying" their jumppack design they copied from GW. It was wildly hypocritical and I have no respect for anyone who is willing to piggyback a successful company for their own gain and when someone turns around and does it them they get bent out of shape about it.
Regardless of the result, this isn't going to end 3rd party bits companies if CH loses and it's not going to spur on a ton of new companies if they win. People have way too high of expectations from the outcome here.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
They are fine with wasting money, as making Space Hulk limited shows.
Yet another comment in one of these threads that shows a complete lack of understanding of the intricacies of business or economy of scale even on a basic, common knowledge level. 1) Businesses often find it necessary to focus their business and to avoid side products that don't fit with their core business plan. GW got out of the board game business years ago for very specific reasons of focusing on core product. 2) People may have noticed that businesses these days often divest themselves of subsidiaries and "distractions" that make it difficult to keep operating costs down. GW has been stripping down the past few years even more, closing Black Industries, etc. 3) Space Hulk was not only NOT a core product, it was produced with the assistance of third party manufacturers. When GW ordered a print run of around 80,000 copies in 2009, I'm pretty sure that gave them an excellent per-copy cost to maximize profits. Keeping the game in print and then having to do small production runs ad hoc as the original stock would have run out would cause all kinds of unwanted costs. Not only a high per copy cost to GW for low number production runs, but the cost of storing it in the warehouse, shipping, etc. More large runs aren't practical because of the trickle of sales after the initial excitement of the primary release passed. Then there's the fact they had no plans to have their retail stores stock it or keep all their staff trained to support it as that interferes with the core business in their retail shops. Honestly, this is obvious stuff if you've ever worked for any kind of major corporation even if you don't have an MBA. As soon as I saw the title of this thread I thought, "here we go again". How long before all the nonsense posted here turns angry and the MODS have to shut it down yet again because these types of threads cause that problem 100% of the time. Every time there's a thread on GW lawsuits or price hikes they inevitably get closed for bad behavior. Some people never learn. 
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork.
Yeah, I mean, they designed that Chaos star, they should have full exclusive rights to protect their IP!
Oh, hang on a minute....
I saw what you did there!
13363
Post by: raincity
.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork.
Yeah, I mean, they designed that Chaos star, they should have full exclusive rights to protect their IP!
Oh, hang on a minute....
I saw what you did there!
Did you know there's actually an entire Wikipedia entry devoted to the Chaos Star? It's actually kinda interesting, tbh.
But yeah: Circa 1938-43
Clearly, Aleister Crowley infringed on Moorcock's IP!
I also found this quote from Moorcock kind of interesting:
The origin of the Chaos Symbol was me doodling sitting at the kitchen table and wondering what to tell Jim Cawthorn the arms of Chaos looked like. I drew a straightforward geographical quadrant (which often has arrows, too!) – N, S, E, W – and then added another four directions and that was that – eight arrows representing all possibilities, one arrow representing the single, certain road of Law. I have since been told that it is an "ancient symbol of Chaos" and if it is then it confirms a lot of theories about the race mind. … As far as I know the symbol, drawn by Jim Cawthorn, first appeared on an Elric cover of Science Fantasy in 1962, then later appeared in his first comic version of Stormbringer done by Savoy
Don't know who to believe anymore 
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
BrassScorpion wrote:They are fine with wasting money, as making Space Hulk limited shows.
Yet another comment in one of these threads that shows a complete lack of understanding of the intricacies of business or economy of scale even on a basic, common knowledge level.
1) Businesses often find it necessary to focus their business and to avoid side products that don't fit with their core business plan. GW got out of the board game business years ago for very specific reasons of focusing on core product.
2) People may have noticed that businesses these days often divest themselves of subsidiaries and "distractions" that make it difficult to keep operating costs down. GW has been stripping down the past few years even more, closing Black Industries, etc.
3) Space Hulk was not only NOT a core product, it was produced with the assistance of third party manufacturers. When GW ordered a print run of around 80,000 copies in 2009, I'm pretty sure that gave them an excellent per-copy cost to maximize profits. Keeping the game in print and then having to do small production runs ad hoc as the original stock would have run out would cause all kinds of unwanted costs. Not only a high per copy cost to GW for low number production runs, but the cost of storing it in the warehouse, shipping, etc. More large runs aren't practical because of the trickle of sales after the initial excitement of the primary release passed. Then there's the fact they had no plans to have their retail stores stock it or keep all their staff trained to support it as that interferes with the core business in their retail shops.
Honestly, this is obvious stuff if you've ever worked for any kind of major corporation even if you don't have an MBA.
This is off topic, but countering your insults with facts:
Space Hulk/ Space Crusade has been done before as an outsourced mass market product by MB. With standard marketing it managed to introduce thousands of people to 40k, so it proved to be the ideal introductory game for 40k to increase the customer base.
Currently GW doesn't sell a real introductory game, doesn't marketing its products and doesn't do products for the mass market, consequently losing more customers each year than gaining new ones. That's why a rerelease of Space Hulk was top one demand on internet forums like Warseer for years to revive the customer base.
Not doing an introductory game is not "focussing on core products" (x). Not bothering the personel with introductory products is dumb. Not bothering the mass market with a proven successful and sought after product is dumb. Boasting that ebayers sell Space Hulk for double or triple retail is not a sign of having maximized profit, but of demand not met. Producing double or 10fold the number of games doesn't reduce the profit per game, if the demand is there, simple economics of scale.
Hope you understand the problem a bit better now. But as said, this is not the topic here.
(x) Actually, the most recent starter box, Island of Blood, is the opposite of an introductory game. No introduction to the rules, just a softcover with all 100+ pages of rules. No stats for the included miniatures, so you can't play with them straight out of the box but need to study 2 additional books, the High Elf and Skaven army book before you can finally play your first game (painting tipps are done with a "just buy our painting manual", so another book needed). If you finally understand all rules, you notice that the new edition is designed for 3000 point armies, something no beginner will achieve for years. No wonder that the new Fantasy edition was a huge economical failure. They did the opposite of what a game like Space Hulk could achieve, and failed.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Sorry if this is a very niave thought, and am just thinking aloud, but with regard to this case and cash, GW stand to lose or gain not a lot either way I would have thought.
In UK Civil Law there is the principle of not being able to get blood out of a stone iirc.
If GW successfully sue CH for every cent they have, a small concern like CH isn't going to yield a massive sum of beans for the GW coffers, relatively speaking.
Probably even less likely but is there a possibility that the GW law team have been leading GW up the garden path with the outcome?
Just going by what was said earlier in the thread and having seen second hand that poor legal advice can lead to the client taking a case to court when there is little to no chance of success.
I am not suggesting that is the position, but it is possible.
2711
Post by: boyd
Saldiven wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
Not...really? The implication is that if Chapterhouse wins the case then third party conversion manufacturers will be able to actually flatout copy GW's established IP/artwork. CH used a lot of established GW iconography(the "Dragon" head that they used for Not Salamanders stuff, the scaled cloaks, the shoulderpad styling, etc); which is really what GW's opposed to.
Just like after market manufacturers of automobile parts use the logos and highly similar designs for automobiles like the Ford Mustang and virtually every other car that someone might want to customize. The fact of the matter is that the action that GW is suing CHS over is something that has been commonplace in other industries for decades.
http://www.bodykits.com/
See this link for an example of what I'm discussing. These third party manufacturers make products that directly compete with similar products offered by the auto manufacturer and use trademarked product names from the automobile manufacturer in their advertising. For example, you can find an advertisement for the following:
"Ford Mustang Extreme Dimensions Duraflex Fiberglass Hot Wheels Body Kit."
Extreme Dimensions is the manufacturer of the body kit designed for use on the Ford Mustang, which is a trademarked name owned by Ford.
You can also find aftermarket parts manufacturers that make custom parts for just about every other piece of your Mustang you can imagine, from Floor Mats and Steering Wheels to Gas Cap Covers and engine parts. Many of these items will feature the trademarked Ford running mustang logo. Each of these parts are designed to replace a part already manufactured by Ford.
If this is legal in the automotive industry, why is it not legal in "plastic army men" industry?
Thats fine but then Chapterhouse should pay GW a royalty fee as well then because thats common place in the industry as well. Some car companies don't allow their parts to be made by third parties as well.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
That would be odd because a lot of parts that go into making up a car will be made by third parties.
40741
Post by: Worglock
Ozymandias wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be...
Then stop talking about it.
lol zing!
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Worglock wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be...
Then stop talking about it.
lol zing!
Boy, aren't you clever. Like our very own Dakka Dennis Leary.
Or more like The Situation at Donald Trump's roast.
40741
Post by: Worglock
Buzzsaw wrote:
Sigh... you really should have stopped with the first underlined part.
He should have, but you know he never will. His trolling leash seems to be pretty long. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cadaver wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:terribletrygon wrote:And what GW fanboys and apologists? There is like, what, Kanluwen? So many people.
What about the 40% or so (given the last check I made on the thread) that voted hoping for GW to win? Seems amazing that so people want to see a company close up shop when it makes no real difference to GW at all, it's just denying the wider community of hobbyists a supplier of materials. Perhaps those offering support to GW have all been sucked in by this idea that CH have committed a criminal offence (they haven't) are stealing (they aren't) or the scaremongering that GW are at obvious risk if they lose, ie that their IP will all go up in smoke and it'll be recasting galore, GW will lose a heap of money and/or go bust if CH aren't stopped.
Actually if GW lose, or give up before taking the case all the way through then the result will likely be nothing at all. GW won't be at any more risk of damage than they were before the lawsuit, it might curb their enthusiasm to send out C&Ds to people on the flimsiest of excuses but that's probably hoping for a lot.
It seems amazing to me that so many people are willing to disregard CH's actions prior to and after the lawsuit was filed. Everybody is so quick to rally against the "evil empire" yet so many people forget CH had every opportunity to stay below the radar by simply not using GW names in their product descriptions. Notice how Scibor, Maxmini and others aren't in any legal trouble? because they do it in a responsible way, or at least aren't as blantant about it. Additionally, CH comes in the threads and has the gall to criticize another third party company for "copying" their jumppack design they copied from GW. It was wildly hypocritical and I have no respect for anyone who is willing to piggyback a successful company for their own gain and when someone turns around and does it them they get bent out of shape about it.
Regardless of the result, this isn't going to end 3rd party bits companies if CH loses and it's not going to spur on a ton of new companies if they win. People have way too high of expectations from the outcome here.
Scibor and (I believe) Maxmini are in Poland, which may have significantly different IP laws from the US and UK.
Not how GW has summarily ignored a certain eBay vendor that is out of China that has sculpted a number of models that a direct iterations of Codex/Army book art.
Where you are based has a distinct bearing in these situations. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:
Boy, aren't you clever. Like our very own Dakka Dennis Leary.
Or more like The Situation at Donald Trump's roast.
You'll get over it.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss
This thread is likely to get locked down at some point.
Would be nice if it was later rather than sooner please.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Xca|iber wrote:While I don't want any bitz sites to go down (variety is the spice of life, yes?), I can't help but feel like CH shot themselves in the foot by not playing the "it's a space-man upper arm protector shield, *hint hint*" game.
Most of the other bitz sites barely hide the intent of their products. It's obvious what is designed for what, and such details are often heavily hinted at in product descriptions. CH could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (perhaps not all the trouble, but they could have been much more secure) if they simply made all the product names/descriptions generic.
I realize it's silly to look at a thunder hammer and read "star-viking war god's smashy stick," but if it'll protect bitz sites from GWs zealous legal team, why not do it?
EDIT: Unless of course GW just hasn't gotten to all the more clever sites yet*
As far as I can tell, this is exactly what the case is about. Is there any reason why Scibor has to name is bits "Parts for Space Vikings?" As long as he's not copying exact designs, or claiming that he's making Games Workshop's Space Wolves, he shouldn't have to fake it.
It makes me think of Xbox or laptop stickers made by third parties. They always will tell you exactly what model they fit on. No one has any problem when people do this in other industries. Why should games be any different?
Taking a look at the bits I've seen, I don't think they've matched any insignias close enough to infringe. For example, the Salamander/Dragon shoulderpads do not look exactly like the Salamanders insignia from GW. And Games Workshop cannot copyright the idea of a dragon on a shoulderpad.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
terribletrygon wrote:Mad4Minis wrote:terribletrygon wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing Chapterhouse lose. The resulting threads would be hilarious.
I would like to see GW lose.
First, for the benefits of consumers in the hobby. It would open up the opportunity for some sweet products to come our way.
It wouldn't really benefit the hobby all that much. If it really changed anything at all, it would just mean the market would get clogged up with people making stuff designed for purely for GW. We'd benefit far more from people doing their own thing for once and actually expanding the hobby further. And besides; Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are already heavily supported by GW to a level far greater then that of most ranges. They are the last games in the world that need the extra support. Of course, it is not to say I don't mind the odd side company (I myself buy from MaxMini occasionally) I just do not think that Chapterhouse winning will automatically make the hobby better. Unless you are a Chapterhouse customer, that is.
I sympathized with the desire folks have to see talented sculptors making NEW and different stuff, but I have to disagree with your last two sentences.
Just by Chapterhouse and similar companies existing and making their stuff, my hobby is better. I have never yet bought any of their stuff, but I have the OPTION to buy a Tervigon conversion kit, or a Farseer on Jetbike conversion kit, which GW has thus far failed to provide me and which I am personally unable to sculpt to an acceptable (to me) level of attractiveness. Just by them putting out their near-Salamanders conversion kits, I've gotten to see more and more impressive Salamanders armies at tournaments. Having more options makes our hobby better.
GW shutting down these companies would only make things worse for everyone, IMO. It would deny the fans options to better enjoy GW's games and models, it would deny these little companies their small business, and it would deny GW the sales of models needed to actually USE the Jetbikeseer and Tervigon conversion kits.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Mannahnin wrote:
I sympathized with the desire folks have to see talented sculptors making NEW and different stuff, but I have to disagree with your last two sentences.
Just by Chapterhouse and similar companies existing and making their stuff, my hobby is better. I have never yet bought any of their stuff, but I have the OPTION to buy a Tervigon conversion kit, or a Farseer on Jetbike conversion kit, which GW has thus far failed to provide me and which I am personally unable to sculpt to an acceptable (to me) level of attractiveness. Just by them putting out their near-Salamanders conversion kits, I've gotten to see more and more impressive Salamanders armies at tournaments. Having more options makes our hobby better.
GW shutting down these companies would only make things worse for everyone, IMO. It would deny the fans options to better enjoy GW's games and models, it would deny these little companies their small business, and it would deny GW the sales of models needed to actually USE the Jetbikeseer and Tervigon conversion kits.
I can understand the desire to have the options, but to me it has always felt kind of like they cater to a slothful community, if that makes any sense.
We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion. Is Chapterhouse necessarily the cause of this with their pandering to the community when it comes to things like the Jet Bikeseer or the Salamander cloaks, etc? Is Games Workshop responsible because they don't give the players the framework to really do them? No, not really on both counts.
But they don't do anything to really help the situation. It's representative, in my opinion, of a kind of paradigm shift in the community from themed armies and heavy conversion work being the norm rather than the outlier like it is now. Everyone's forces really look the same.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
It makes sense.
Although not sure of the impact of aftermarket accessories either way. You may be correct in that some people who would otherwise have made their own conversions find it more expedient to buy from, say, CH.
Added to that there will be people that would not have had the confidence to convert, but now have the opportunity.
However, they will be converting choosing from various options, and against that you have to offset all the vanilla SM's that would otherwise be fielded if the conversions were not available. My turn to hope it makes sense.
My money is on there being more flavours with AM accessories. I counted 20 shoulder pad options by CH and there are possibly more.
Then there are Scribor et all to choose from, Pre-Heresy stuff that is out etc.
Then there are tight wad modellers like myself who will think it is still a good idea to scratch stuff for myself
Should be good times for SM modellers and gamers.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
raincity wrote:Kroothawk wrote:And for the record, those "far superior jump packs" were done by the same sculptor, who first sold them to Chapterhouse, then slightly modified to a competitor. And of couse, Goodyear should start making their own cars instead of leeching on other car manufacturers
Was that sculptor on a permanent contract? if he fulfills his work with chapterhouse they really shouldn't have any right to tell him what he can or cannot do.. To me the sculpt looked new, very similar yes but better imo.
I suggest you read up on works made for hire and how they interact with copyright law. Short version: if I pay you to sculpt something for me, and you do it as a "work for hire," then I own the copyright. If you turn around and sell that same sculpt (or a derivative work made from that same sculpt) to another party, you may incur liability, as may the party who buys it.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
And that power armour is not that GW specific at all:
It doesn't really look anything like a stormtrooper though.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Kanluwen wrote:We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion. Is Chapterhouse necessarily the cause of this with their pandering to the community when it comes to things like the Jet Bikeseer or the Salamander cloaks, etc? Is Games Workshop responsible because they don't give the players the framework to really do them? No, not really on both counts.
But they don't do anything to really help the situation. It's representative, in my opinion, of a kind of paradigm shift in the community from themed armies and heavy conversion work being the norm rather than the outlier like it is now. Everyone's forces really look the same.
See, I think you may have your rose tinted glasses on here. Kind of like when you look back at music you kind of forget about the vast quantities of cruddy music that clogged the 80's only to remember the great bands that "put today's music to shame". As far as I am concerned you see just as many great conversion armies out there today as you used to, certainly many, many more "head swap armies" etc.
33136
Post by: SpaceMonk
Will be very interesting to see how this plays out...
16689
Post by: notprop
SpaceMonk wrote:Will be very interesting to see how this plays out...
No it wont.
It will be a long drawn out bore, much like the last thread on this topic.
4271
Post by: Eisenhorn
Even if he wins,we lose if you want game legal models.
Don't be surprised when any conversion using bits not sold by gw or forgeworld is declared not game legal at offical events.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I can file ten motions out of my butt
Blimey Fraz
Not sure if I am more worried about the state of your bowels or amazed at their dexterity!
What can I say? When you're old you have super powers.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
The good news is that GW doesn't run many official events. Hell, I was in town yesterday talking to the manager (or one of them anyway) of my local GW telling him about the custom sculpted work I had been doing on my IG and how I was busy casting it up to apply it to the rest of my models and he asked me to bring it in so he could have a look at it.
He also sounded really interested to see what I was planning on doing regards sculpting and casting stuff to convert an SM army I am going to be doing in the future.
I'm also going in there to game today with my CSM army which is full of conversions from other model companies, GS work, etc.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Eisenhorn wrote:Even if he wins,we lose if you want game legal models.
Don't be surprised when any conversion using bits not sold by gw or forgeworld is declared not game legal at offical events.
Yeah, because pretty much everybody who plays 40K does it at official events, and not at home or at clubs with their friends.
10414
Post by: Big P
Kanluwen wrote:
We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion.
No you dont... Cos it too bloody expensive to buy all the bits you need from GW!
Someone take the GW-Dripfeed out of his arm... He is ODing.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think GW has been de-emphasizing conversions for quite some time. Part of that is due to increased quality of plastic kits that (usually) include all the options available, plus tons of decorative features.
Part is due to the elimination of bits (which I'm not saying is bad), which makes converting outside of the limited selection of bitz packs simply an exercise in buying tons of plastic sprues.
this isn't a bad thing. Armies today have more inherent variety and visual appeal out of the box than many conversions did 10 years ago.
However, and this is a big however, 10 years ago you had a deep catalogue of bits to choose from, so you could more easily veer from what's in the box.
If a company is willing to go to the time and hassle of making bitz, when GW figured it couldn't make money of them, I think that's a fine thing.
39004
Post by: biccat
Phayse wrote:With GW being a UK based company, where does authority lie? Is it US law, or EU?
The answer you're looking for is what's called personal jurisdiction. In order to act against a defendant, a court has to have jurisdiction over them. If Chapterhouse is a U.S. based company, it's easy to get personal jurisdiction over them in the U.S. GW probably could still have gotten personal jurisdiction over them in the U.K., but they likely made a business/tactical decision to sue in the U.S.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Sorry if this is a very niave thought, and am just thinking aloud, but with regard to this case and cash, GW stand to lose or gain not a lot either way I would have thought.
In UK Civil Law there is the principle of not being able to get blood out of a stone iirc.
If GW successfully sue CH for every cent they have, a small concern like CH isn't going to yield a massive sum of beans for the GW coffers, relatively speaking.
Probably even less likely but is there a possibility that the GW law team have been leading GW up the garden path with the outcome?
Just going by what was said earlier in the thread and having seen second hand that poor legal advice can lead to the client taking a case to court when there is little to no chance of success.
I am not suggesting that is the position, but it is possible.
You're confusing "chance of success" with "chance of recovery."
GW will (probably) be asking for two forms of relief here: monetary damages for past infringement and an injunction against creating future infringing works. If CH isn't able to pay the monetary damages, they are still prohibited from making future infringing works.
Another issue to consider is that GW probably has a strong enforcement arm because they like to have a strong IP. If they let small infringers slip by, then that weakens their IP. If you fail to enforce your IP against the little guys, it makes it harder to enforce the IP against larger actors later.
744
Post by: Anarchyman99
jmurph wrote:Yeah, the arm chair lawyering by those with no background gets old, but THIS IS THE INTERWEBZ! Where people aren't about to let the lack of having the slightest idea what they are talking about slow them down one bit! ;-)
And they'll get angry at others for disagreeing.
Chopped added to sig and QFT
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
What can I say? When you're old you have super powers.
lol
Mine only ever seems to hit the fan
Biccat
Thanks. Was forgetting stopping future infringement
In my defense it was very late 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
SilverMK2 wrote:Kanluwen wrote:We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion. Is Chapterhouse necessarily the cause of this with their pandering to the community when it comes to things like the Jet Bikeseer or the Salamander cloaks, etc? Is Games Workshop responsible because they don't give the players the framework to really do them? No, not really on both counts.
But they don't do anything to really help the situation. It's representative, in my opinion, of a kind of paradigm shift in the community from themed armies and heavy conversion work being the norm rather than the outlier like it is now. Everyone's forces really look the same.
See, I think you may have your rose tinted glasses on here. Kind of like when you look back at music you kind of forget about the vast quantities of cruddy music that clogged the 80's only to remember the great bands that "put today's music to shame". As far as I am concerned you see just as many great conversion armies out there today as you used to, certainly many, many more "head swap armies" etc.
Oh no, Silver.
I know that for every one of those gorgeous armies that we saw showcased(Remember this one?  )--there were another 15 or so that would be half-assed jobs that made me want to slam my head onto the table in frustration just from seeing it.
These days, I really don't see anywhere near as much effort put into people's armies. Look at the kinds of posts we continuously get in these threads that boil down to "I don't want to paint my army". There's a shift--and it's not a good one.
Big P wrote:
No you dont... Cos it too bloody expensive to buy all the bits you need from GW!
Someone take the GW-Dripfeed out of his arm... He is ODing.
Because it's not like there's any kind of..."bits" sites that sell individual parts from both plastic and metal kits, right?
I didn't realize Battlewagon Bits was GW operating on the downlow!
Polonius wrote:I think GW has been de-emphasizing conversions for quite some time. Part of that is due to increased quality of plastic kits that (usually) include all the options available, plus tons of decorative features.
Part is due to the elimination of bits (which I'm not saying is bad), which makes converting outside of the limited selection of bitz packs simply an exercise in buying tons of plastic sprues.
this isn't a bad thing. Armies today have more inherent variety and visual appeal out of the box than many conversions did 10 years ago.
Fair point Polonius. I don't necessarily agree about it being "simply an exercise in buying tons of plastic sprues", but it's a fair point.
However, and this is a big however, 10 years ago you had a deep catalogue of bits to choose from, so you could more easily veer from what's in the box.
This I don't agree with though. There's bits vendors, trading amongst other players for parts you want/need, and all manner of alternatives to simply having to buy the bits direct from GW.
If a company is willing to go to the time and hassle of making bitz, when GW figured it couldn't make money of them, I think that's a fine thing.
I wouldn't say they really went through too much of a hassle or took too much time in some cases. There's a local player with the Salamanders stuff from CH and it looks like, for want of a better descriptor, crap.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Well, no doubt, the hobby side of "The Hobby" is seriously de-emphasised. The website legal page states that all conversions are illegal in principle but generally not sued. The newer Codices only show the official GW models straight out of the box with the official painting scheme, no conversions, no inofficial paint schemes, no Golden Daemon models, nothing to inspire creativity beyond the official limits. Part of not supporting veterans I guess. Because of lawyers ruling, not gamers, designers or artists. I am certain, people like Rick Priestley would love a rich GW aftermarket enriching the hobby.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
The deemphasis started before the Lord of the Rings came out, Kroot. It wasn't "lawyers ruling" then.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Really Kankuwen? Not as much effort? Have you been to any larger events? Because these Adepticon armies look pretty involved:
http://www.gmmstudios.com/gallery/alpha/40k/CHAOS/index.php
And no lrules lawyering before LoTR! LOL!
Guess you don't remember 3rd edition....
But this is getting OT- Start a new thread if you want to lament "the decline of the hobby".
722
Post by: Kanluwen
And I'm saying that things like that have become the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that heavily converted and gorgeously painted armies don't exist anymore--because they do.
I'm saying that they've become rare, and you end up seeing more 'stock' armies than anything else. Automatically Appended Next Post: And no rules lawyering before LoTR! LOL!
"Lawyers ruling". Kroothawk was referring to the popular idea that Games Workshop is ruled by lawyers and corporate executive types now.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
Just as an FYI, the Motion to Dismiss was terminated by the judge.
Also, GW has filed an amended complaint.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Eldanar wrote:Just as an FYI, the Motion to Dismiss was terminated by the judge.
Also, GW has filed an amended complaint.
In your face! Frazzled drools all others rules!
Oh wait...
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
NAVARRO wrote:People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.
Marginally off topic, but the comment about the increased size of armies with regards to conversions is a good observation and pertinent imho.
The larger army sizes benefits GW and is hardly discouraged by them.
If people want a specific chapter there is increased pressure on hobby time. It is understandable that people are going to turn to AM products.
Especially if they have jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time.
It indicates to me how out of touch GW are. They really ought to be taking positive action and looking for ways of helping the gamer, rather than reacting to IP issues.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:NAVARRO wrote:People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.
Marginally off topic, but the comment about the increased size of armies with regards to conversions is a good observation and pertinent imho.
The larger army sizes benefits GW and is hardly discouraged by them.
If people want a specific chapter there is increased pressure on hobby time. It is understandable that people are going to turn to AM products.
How does "larger armies creating increased pressure on hobby time" make it "understandable that people are going to turn to AM products"? I'm not really seeing a correlation there. Navarro's point was that people do less converting and tend towards stock models with larger armies(which is a fair point).
Especially if they have jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time.
It indicates to me how out of touch GW are. They really ought to be taking positive action and looking for ways of helping the gamer, rather than reacting to IP issues.
In terms of customization: they've got a way to "help the gamer". It's Forge World. Is it expensive? Yeah.
As for the "jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time"--they've even come up with a pretty good way to deal with that factor too.
They're called "escalation leagues". Staggered points values, a decent period of time between games ends up meaning you have more time to paint and build up your forces. What's more? It even gives you a sort of framework to start working on a backstory for your force based on those escalation games.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Mr Hyena wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).
Its not the same though.
This is off topic, but LatD got first class treatment by Forge World IA5-8 with rules and fitting miniatures.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RHFAQ.pdf
On topic, AFAIK, several law firms were interested in defending Chapterhouse pro bono, because it is an interesting case with good chances of success (and a naive bully from old UK as opponent )
Sadly its not that good; as it lacks Mutants and Daemons; the uniqueness of the Heretical Guard and all.
Have you ever looked at the army list? It has all that...
It is a difficult; but interesting area.
Perhaps more contracts need to be done. People agreed with by GW can produce 40k stuff or whatever; so long as its not on GW's range they currently make...so long as a percentage of money per sale goes to GW?
CH would still get most the money; but some would go to GW so its not really as bad.
You realize that giving GW a small percentage, even if it was something extreme like 25%, would still only translate to a few hundred dollars, right? Its not WORTH licensing, because its not that large a sum of money. The only thing it would accomplish is to make the product bitz manufacturers unaffordable.
If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.
You're either incredibly young or incredibly naive. The lawsuit is more about trying to eliminate potential future competition, and to be the sole source provider of everything relating to its product line(what Chapterhouse is doing isn't all that dissimilar from how GW got its start. Rather than just producing bits though, GW produced whole models for other companies role playing games). GW goes after all manner of organizations, regardless of whether or not they actually sell anything that can be perceived as 'stealing money' from them. Most of the time, these frivolous lawsuits, scratch that, this bullying, does not go to court, and does not cost GW very much money at all, because they are targeting small mom and pop/basement operations that can't afford the legal fees, and thus they agree to GWs terms and settle out of court (usually this results in the company in question shutting down entirely). This time theiir target actually happened to be able to fight back, much to GWs surprise.
I'm hoping for a games workshop win out of this case, when you take away all the legal mumbo jumbo and the constantly used car part analogy and look at the basic facts, Chapterhouse Studios has been ripping off gws i.p blatantly for a long time, even when people have pointed out that they could avoid legal trouble if they just worded their product discriptions differently. They knew what they were doing could land them in legal hot water and chose to ignore the risks.
All analogies and slimey legal loopholes aside, can anyone honestly say that Chapterhouse aren't ripping off gws i.p? It doesn't seem right how Chs come online and arrogantly say they are all original designs of their own, it's insulting to our intellegence.
I think you're confusing some terms here. CH is not stealing GW's IP, they are (were) in violation of trademark violations as I understand it (not a lawyer).
As does CHS, a while back they chucked a tantrum over someone else making pre heresy jump packs and requested they stop as if those jump packs were a chapterhouse idea which seems pretty hypocritical considering their circumstance... And for the record those jump packs were far superior too.
Please inform yourself of what actually occurred. Those jump packs that CH got pissed about were made by the same sculptor that made the CH jump packs. It was basically an attempt by the sculptor to get double the money for half the work by selling a slightly modified version of his CH sculpt to another company. Part of the agreement a sculptor makes when they sign on to work with CH is that they can't do that (at least that is what the standard agreement for operations like this are, if CH doesn't have such a legal agreement in place with its sculptors then it deserves what it gets), as the original sculpt is no longer the sculptors sole property.
Was that sculptor on a permanent contract? if he fulfills his work with chapterhouse they really shouldn't have any right to tell him what he can or cannot do.. To me the sculpt looked new, very similar yes but better imo.
I refer you to the above, thats not the way it works.
Thats fine but then Chapterhouse should pay GW a royalty fee as well then because thats common place in the industry as well. Some car companies don't allow their parts to be made by third parties as well.
Its only commonplace in the industry if the company in question has a licensing program, which GW does not. Licensing allows you to directly use all iconography, etc. and the names directly associated with the companies IP. In effect, GW giving licensing rights to CH would allow them to produce almost anything, and they would be allowed to sell it as a "Warhammer 40k Blood Angels Space Marine shoulderpad" Rather than a "Space Vampire shoulderpad for use with Warhammer 40k Space Marines". Even with the companies that allow licensing, etc. there are plenty of companies that elect to forego the licensing fees, etc. and produce their works independently, with the stipulation that the can't use the copywritten/trademarked names and symbols of the parent company on their work (like Chapterhouse is doing/should be doing).
Mr Hyena wrote:And that power armour is not that GW specific at all:
It doesn't really look anything like a stormtrooper though.
Except it does. The only real difference is that the GW armor has exaggerated certain proportions (such as the size of the shoulders and legs). Hell, some of their helmets look like almost direct ripoffs:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html
Compare that helmet to the look of a stormtrooper helmet. Some of the curvature is a bit more extreme, and some features are slightly more angular, but its otherwise the same thing.
5256
Post by: NAVARRO
I cant really hold it against GW the fact that people will probably dodge converting heavy the hordes style of armies that we see on the tables today. It's really a player decision the amount of time he decides to invest on his army... my point was that the quantity of models in todays armies increased, so its probably safe to assume the quality of over the top convertions will have a compromise... the talent is there but the time of each one's is not elastic. One thing is painting converting a army of 100+ models and another is 50ish models.
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?
slippery slope.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
NoseGoblin wrote:
This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?
slippery slope.
Perhaps I could make a point here. I do not believe that even that Terminator helmet is close enough to a Storm Trooper's helmet to be an infringement on copyright.
I believe the same can be said about Chapterhouse's bits. Sure, they have dragons on shoulderpads, but dragons don't belong exclusively to anyone's IP. All of the Chapterhouse insignias are significantly different from the GW ones- different enough that I'm not sure GW can win this one.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.
But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.
So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.
But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.
So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?
Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Duh, Ketara... beacause the GW fabbois want it to be.
Thought that much was obvious.
Eric
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
39004
Post by: biccat
NoseGoblin wrote:This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?
The scope of your copyright extends to the additional creative elements (the derivative part). You don't re-copyright the original work.
Say I design a human figure and copyright it. You put a hat on him. Now you have a derivative work in the hat (on a human). Now I put a feather in the cap. Now I have a derivative work in the feather (in the hat, on a human).
You still can't infringe the original human (he's my copyright) even if you put a hat on him. I can't make a guy with a hat & feather without permission from you to use the hat.
Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
You can copyright or trademark geometric shapes (coca-cola bottle, ipod, fender guitars), but you can't get copyright or trademark protection in the functional elements of a product or design. So GW can't get a trademark in the overall shape of a sholderpad because it's designed to fit around the arm of a model. If the shoulderpad had come attached to the arm, they would have a better position.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.
Pulling from Wikipedia's entry on the "Distinctiveness":
Distinctiveness
To gain registration in the Principal Register or common law protection under the Lanham Act, a trade dress must be “distinctive.” This means that consumers perceive a particular trade dress as identifying a source of a product.[19] For example, when a consumer walks through an electronics store and sees an Apple iPod and immediately recognizes it in favor of other MP3 players, it could be said that the iPod has achieved a "trade dress."
Trade dress can no longer be “inherently distinctive,” it must acquire distinctiveness through “secondary meaning.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 120 S. Ct. 1339, 146 L. Ed. 182, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000). Distinctiveness through secondary meaning means that although a trade dress is not distinctive on its face, the use of the trade dress in the market (the “good will” of the trade dress) has created an association between that trade dress and a source in the mind of the consumer.
Although the law is evolving, as it stands now, product packaging (including packaging in very general terms, such as a building’s décor) may be inherently distinctive.[20] However, product design, that is the design or shape of the product itself, may not be inherently distinctive, and must acquire secondary meaning to be protected.
When I see that style of shoulderpad, I think Games Workshop and Space Marines. Automatically Appended Next Post: It's entirely possible I'm getting the wrong vibe from the way Trade Dress is described, but that's how it's seeming to me.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ketara wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.
And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Kanluwen wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.
Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.
Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.
So what exactly does Trade Dress cover or is it just kind of...there?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Kanluwen wrote:Ketara wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.
And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.
You'll note I'm not the one attempting to argue points of law. In that, you're correct, I know no more than you do (aka, nothing), that's why I'm not even trying.
All I did was state two simple facts, that
a) the design was different, which is clearly evident to anyone with a standard old Mk1 eyeball (no law degree required!), and
b) You cannot make a geometric shape into some sort of copyright. Otherwise I could do it for a circle and a square. This is what's known as common sense. (no law degree required here either!)
So if I continue to refrain from arguing legal points with a lawyer, will you?
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
Kanluwen wrote:Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.
But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.
So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?
Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
Agreed... They are classifying their work as "works of art" and trade dress is an appropriate grounds for this area. I.e. your work may confuse the common man.
Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
I think your mistaken.
biccat wrote:NoseGoblin wrote:This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?
The scope of your copyright extends to the additional creative elements (the derivative part). You don't re-copyright the original work.
Say I design a human figure and copyright it. You put a hat on him. Now you have a derivative work in the hat (on a human). Now I put a feather in the cap. Now I have a derivative work in the feather (in the hat, on a human).
You still can't infringe the original human (he's my copyright) even if you put a hat on him. I can't make a guy with a hat & feather without permission from you to use the hat.
Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
You can copyright or trademark geometric shapes (coca-cola bottle, ipod, fender guitars), but you can't get copyright or trademark protection in the functional elements of a product or design. So GW can't get a trademark in the overall shape of a sholderpad because it's designed to fit around the arm of a model. If the shoulderpad had come attached to the arm, they would have a better position.
You are correct, but the crux of my question, is who holds the original rights? if GW made a "derivative of a Lucas Arts IP, would not Lucas Arts actually own the IP? And if so, what rights does GW have to sue over something that is not their IP?
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Kanluwen wrote:So what exactly does Trade Dress cover or is it just kind of...there?
If you're really curious, and want an in-depth examination, read the link in my previous post. Alternatively, here is what the Patent & Trademark Office considers when examining trade dress; please don't assume this to be a complete summary of the law around trade dress (there's a reason they are citing cases in there). Basically, a single piece of an overall design isn't going to be subject to trade dress protection, unless it would be protectable in and of itself. NoseGoblin wrote:Agreed... They are classifying their work as "works of art" and trade dress is an appropriate grounds for this area. I.e. your work may confuse the common man.
Nope, trade dress is not appropriate. "Works of art" are the subject of copyright law. NoseGoblin wrote:Janthkin wrote:It doesn't.
I think your mistaken.
That's nice.
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.
Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.
The bottom line of Trade Dress is that "what you make may be confused with what we make" It may not be a copy, but it may cause "the average person" to be confused as to who makes the item. Trade Dress is a subjective portion of IP that needs to be argued before a judge or jury to make the distinction as to the veracity of the claim.
2855
Post by: asmith
to ask a personal question which you can answer or not- is this why you had to quit making your original "titans".
1406
Post by: Janthkin
NoseGoblin wrote:The bottom line of Trade Dress is that "what you make may be confused with what we make" It may not be a copy, but it may cause "the average person" to be confused as to who makes the item. Trade Dress is a subjective portion of IP that needs to be argued before a judge or jury to make the distinction as to the veracity of the claim.
The basic principle to trade mark law is, indeed, to prevent customer confusion as to the source of goods and/or services. Trade dress is a specific subset of trade mark law, having (generally) to do with packaging and overall presentation of a product or service. It's a "totality of the circumstances" issue - while individual pieces of the whole may not be protectable separately, the aggregate whole is distinctive (which is what the Two Pesos case I linked to earlier is about). A single shoulderpad is not going to fall within the scope of trade dress law.
20085
Post by: NoseGoblin
asmith wrote:to ask a personal question which you can answer or not- is this why you had to quit making your original "titans".
That is correct, they filed under Trade Dress as the models did not infringe on copyright. If they would have had a copyright case, they would have filed it as they can seek damages for copyright. They cannot seek damages for Trade Dress.
The way my Attorney put it "this is what big companies use to shut down little companies, because it has to be argued in court and costs $$$$"
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:Ketara wrote:Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.
But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.
So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?
Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't because it isn't in the suit.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Kilkrazy wrote:It doesn't because it isn't in the suit.
Oh sure, take the EASY way out.
39004
Post by: biccat
NoseGoblin wrote:You are correct, but the crux of my question, is who holds the original rights? if GW made a "derivative of a Lucas Arts IP, would not Lucas Arts actually own the IP? And if so, what rights does GW have to sue over something that is not their IP?
I'm not sure what your question is that hasn't been answered.
GW has created original works different from the Stormtrooper, even if only in part. Therefore, they have a copyright in those original works. Lucas Arts has no claim to GW's derivative works.
See here:
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
12893
Post by: evilsponge
Where does Lucas Arts have anything to do with the upcoming court battle between Games Workshop and Chapterhouse Studios?
40741
Post by: Worglock
Kanluwen wrote:Mannahnin wrote:
I sympathized with the desire folks have to see talented sculptors making NEW and different stuff, but I have to disagree with your last two sentences.
Just by Chapterhouse and similar companies existing and making their stuff, my hobby is better. I have never yet bought any of their stuff, but I have the OPTION to buy a Tervigon conversion kit, or a Farseer on Jetbike conversion kit, which GW has thus far failed to provide me and which I am personally unable to sculpt to an acceptable (to me) level of attractiveness. Just by them putting out their near-Salamanders conversion kits, I've gotten to see more and more impressive Salamanders armies at tournaments. Having more options makes our hobby better.
GW shutting down these companies would only make things worse for everyone, IMO. It would deny the fans options to better enjoy GW's games and models, it would deny these little companies their small business, and it would deny GW the sales of models needed to actually USE the Jetbikeseer and Tervigon conversion kits.
I can understand the desire to have the options, but to me it has always felt kind of like they cater to a slothful community, if that makes any sense.
We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion. Is Chapterhouse necessarily the cause of this with their pandering to the community when it comes to things like the Jet Bikeseer or the Salamander cloaks, etc? Is Games Workshop responsible because they don't give the players the framework to really do them? No, not really on both counts.
But they don't do anything to really help the situation. It's representative, in my opinion, of a kind of paradigm shift in the community from themed armies and heavy conversion work being the norm rather than the outlier like it is now. Everyone's forces really look the same.
That's because GW shut down their bits service/archive. But you knew that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Big P wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
We just don't see the kinds of epic conversions or themed armies we used to, in my opinion.
No you dont... Cos it too bloody expensive to buy all the bits you need from GW!
Someone take the GW-Dripfeed out of his arm... He is ODing.
No, he's just trolling. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:
And I'm saying that things like that have become the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that heavily converted and gorgeously painted armies don't exist anymore--because they do.
I'm saying that they've become rare, and you end up seeing more 'stock' armies than anything else.
so what WERE you saying then? Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:Ketara wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.
And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.
So, if you don't know what you're talking about, why are you talking?
2855
Post by: asmith
NoseGoblin wrote:asmith wrote:to ask a personal question which you can answer or not- is this why you had to quit making your original "titans".
That is correct, they filed under Trade Dress as the models did not infringe on copyright. If they would have had a copyright case, they would have filed it as they can seek damages for copyright. They cannot seek damages for Trade Dress.
The way my Attorney put it "this is what big companies use to shut down little companies, because it has to be argued in court and costs $$$$"
Thanks for the information. Stories like yours are why I hope GW gets smacked down in this case. Not that it will do you any good. Maybe you could sell Chapterhouse your old designs. They were beautiful. (There needs to be an ork smiley with a single tear)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:Ketara wrote:Janthkin wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".
But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.
It doesn't.
Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.
And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.
I SUGGEST EVERYONE PIPE DOWN OR THE BANHAMMER KOMT!
A reminder. Dakka Rule #1 applies here. Everyone will calm the  down and be polite or I will pull the banhammer, along with 10 or so motions to dismiss, out of my butt and start swinging in an apparently random fashion. I kid you not.
24442
Post by: lindsay40k
If I were to, say, produce a computer with an RF output, which had a pre-installed SNES emulator, and a web browser with a ROM download site as a homepage, and was sold as a 'Super Nintendo - compatible gaming console', and had this logo on it (except for the yellow oval coming as a separate sticker the customer 'can choose to put anywhere'):
I would not be surprised to encounter legal objections by NCL.
I'm not saying I agree with GW. I'm not saying I know IP law and similar like the back of my hand. I'm not even saying that the hypothetical I present is comparable to, say, using the terms ' Terminator Shoulder Pads for Flesh Tearers' and ' Sawblade Shoulder Pad & seperate Jewel - great for Fleshtearers' to describe products clearly designed to resemble with close fidelity a ' race insignia' clearly ' associated' with ' Chapter Master Gabriel Seth'.
What I am saying is that I occasionally cast my own original bits of alien monsters with which Carnifexes can be converted into Tyrannofexes, and Chapter House are stepping way closer to GW's domain than I'd ever be prepared to do.
And as an aside, I'm going to further say that Chapterhouse could have used a lot vaguer terminology to tread safer waters whilst losing hardly any trade from the kind of people who will find their website and recognise what they're selling, and agree with the point that GW really could do a lot more to support hobbyists who want to exchange money for shoulder pads with particular geometric shapes on them.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
lindsay40k wrote:And as an aside, I'm going to further say that Chapterhouse could have used a lot vaguer terminology to tread safer waters whilst losing hardly any trade from the kind of people who will find their website and recognise what they're selling, and agree with the point that GW really could do a lot more to support hobbyists who want to exchange money for shoulder pads with particular geometric shapes on them.
And that's part of the reason this is so much more complicated than "I hope [ CH| GW] wins, 'cause [ GW| CH] is evil!" There are quite a few issues in play here - some are copyright (which has to do with the items being molded), and some are trademark (which has to do with what CH called the items when they offered them for sale). Added together, there are hundreds of legal questions raised by the complaint to be addressed.
752
Post by: Polonius
And, if my limited research and understanding of Janthkin's prior posts are correct, there is very little "on point" case law here.
Meaning, it's not just that nobody knows exactly how this case should go down. It's that there is actually some unanswered questions of law that could wildly swing this case.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Polonius wrote:And, if my limited research and understanding of Janthkin's prior posts are correct, there is very little "on point" case law here.
Meaning, it's not just that nobody knows exactly how this case should go down. It's that there is actually some unanswered questions of law that could wildly swing this case.
Well, some of the copyright stuff anyway. The trademark stuff is just nominative fair use questions, and there's plenty of caselaw on-point there.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
How does "larger armies creating increased pressure on hobby time" make it "understandable that people are going to turn to AM products"? I'm not really seeing a correlation there. Navarro's point was that people do less converting and tend towards stock models with larger armies(which is a fair point).
Surely ten models to convert it is a lot easier to do than 50 models. And less time consuming.
The larger the numbers amount, then AM becomes a more attractive prospect if you can afford it, and especially for people with jobs families and sundry other lifestuff that happens,
AM offers possibiliies of someone wanting a more personalised army. It is easier if conversion parts are available than scratching and mould making.
But surely you cannot expect me to believe there is no one that sees potential in conversions with AM products who otherwise would not have bothered?
AM opens up possibilities for gamers. Of course people may opt for AM with smaller armies, but past a certain size it is for most people wishing to convert going to be the only viable option.
Sorry if you cannot see anything other than OOB
Oo you are just so vanilla Kanners, try sticking a flake* in it sometime mate
*not sure you will know what I mean by that
It's an ice cream cone with a type of chocolate bar
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Eldanar wrote:Just as an FYI, the Motion to Dismiss was terminated by the judge.
Also, GW has filed an amended complaint.
So its going to court fully then (as far as my limited understanding of law is)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Moving forward anyway. A good legal team could draw this out quite a while.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Polonius wrote:And, if my limited research and understanding of Janthkin's prior posts are correct, there is very little "on point" case law here.
Meaning, it's not just that nobody knows exactly how this case should go down. It's that there is actually some unanswered questions of law that could wildly swing this case.
It does say something that there was a lot of discussion based on the aftermarket car parts industry, that's pretty tenuous link. Little toy men are not something typically fought over in the court room. GW might want to argue they are pieces of art, but they just look like toys to other people, especially as their core market is kids. Any precedents and case law brought into it might be quite diverse.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Some more details on the new legal documents posted at Warseer:
Eldanar wrote:I was going to try to do a brief summary of it later. In general though, GW listed some of its registered items, stated that a lot of items were UK items and not required to be registered, and reiterated its claim that it owns the entire fantasy and futuristic settings along with all derivative works; and that CHS products were inferior, created confusion with customers, resulted in dillution of its brand, and that CHS illegally held itself out as somehow producing accepted products for GW. It also still maintains that CHS and Paulson had some sort of agreement or collusion on the Heavy Walker thingie.
(...)
CHS's motion was for either a dismissal or for a more definite statement on a cause of action by GW. GW submitted the amended complaint, identifying several trademarks and copyrights it holds (which IIRC it did not do in the first complaint), and has basically started to streamline its different arguments. It met the alternative motion made by CHS, and so the judge dropped the motion from consideration.
I'm still not sure the "we own this fictional universe and everything derived from it" argument has a lot of legal legs to stand on. But this has been GW's stated position from time in memorial, and is nothing new.
The dillution and obfuscation type claims might gain some traction though.
The really interesting thing coming up is there is a status conference scheduled to be held by the parties attorneys. I have no idea if this will discuss substantive issues or merely go over a timeline for when the judge wants things done. This really depends on this judge and his particular style.
weeble1000 wrote:The amended complaint isn't substantively different. There are a few paragraphs added, which I'll copy here. Otherwise it is by and large the same complaint. Eldanar has a pretty good handle on it.
This is what I expected to happen. GW would file some cursory amendment and Chapterhouse would renew its motion to dismiss. I think Chapterhouse will renew its motion to dismiss fairly soon. The fight to get Games Workshop to define its claims is ongoing in my opinion.
Here's paragraph 30 from the complaint. The copy/paste is awkward coming as it does from a .pdf.
30. Because many of the characteristics of the many armies used in Games
Workshop’s WARHAMMER and WARHAMMER 40,000 games, such as their language, culture, major worlds, weapons, methods of waging war, heraldry and iconography, and their appearances, behaviors and functions can be found in or derived from numerous Games Workshop books and other publications, as alleged above, only defendants know for certain which of these books and other publications they accessed and relied upon in creating the works at issue herein. However, by way of example, the following exemplify some of the ways in which Chapterhouse infringes Games Workshop’s copyrighted works:
a. Chapterhouse produces and sells a kit to convert a Games Workshop “Carnifex” into a “Tervigon” (both of which terms are original and proprietary to Games Workshop). Games Workshop’s Tyranid Codex describes the Tervigon and provides a representation of it, and Defendant’s conversion kit will create a Tervigon having unique expressions proprietary to Games Workshop, including having the same number of spine pieces and in the same configuration; the same number, type and configuration of limbs; and similar abdomen sacs; all of which are as depicted and described in Games Workshop’s Warhammer 40,000 Tyranids, Fourth Edition, January 2010. However, Chapterhouse may also have referred to and relied upon other Games Workshop publications, including the Tyranid Codexes for 1995, 2001 and 2004
b. Chapterhouse is producing shoulder pads for “Space Marines” that very clearly derive from many of the background works published by Games Workshop for its Space Marine Chapters. Games Workshop’s Space Marine units are classified by specific shapes and icons on their shoulder pads, the features of which are clearly and uniquely defined in Games Workshop’s background works, such as an arrow for the Tactical Squad, the use of Roman numerals, inverted “V” icons and other iconography and heraldry specific to
the Chapter and squad to which a soldier belongs.
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers,
Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.
d. Chapterhouse’s conversion and armor kits reproduce all or substantial distinctive features of the vehicles and miniatures upon which they are based, as they are specifically configured to fit to Games Workshop’s products, including: (i) the surface decoration of defendant’s Salamander Drop Pod overlays, which is derived from and reproduces Games Workshop’s Salamander iconography; and (ii) defendant’s Rhino Tank Conversion Kits for Space Marine® Dragon or Salamander, the doors, front panels and armor sections of which, in Defendant’s own words, have been specifically designed to “…accessorize the current space marine® rhino model kit. Themed in a dragon or salamander style also good for alpha legion…”
Llew wrote:I can see where GW is arguing, but I think they're going to have a tough fight of it if roman numerals are part of their "unique iconography".
weeble1000 wrote:Llew, don't forget arrows. Arrows are very unique. And who puts markings or iconography on armor besides Games Workshop? And we shouldn't forget the genetically enhanced super soldiers wearing the armor.
Not only is Chapterhouse not going to allow Games Workshop to rest on these "defined" claims, but Games Workshop is moving in the right direction towards summary judgement if it persists in making claims like this.
I expected Games Workshop to do little more than give a nod towards defining its claims, but much of paragraph 30 is frankly surprising. I also like the arrogance of Games Workshop's statement that, "...only defendants know for certain which of these books and other publications they accessed and relied upon in creating the works at issue herein."
Games Workshop must specify what it is accusing Chapterhouse of doing wrong. You can't just accuse someone of causing you harm and then say that they have a better idea of how its happening than you do. If Games Workshop's copyrights were defined and defensible, it could explicitly state which work is infringed by which product.
The above statement demonstrates that even Games Workshop has little idea how the infringement is happening, or that it is unwilling to fulfill its duty of fair notice to the defendant. "Well, we have so many copyrights that the Tervigon conversion kit could be infringing any of them." Well pick one, pick a few of them, pick all of them; but you have to say what work is infringed and how.
It is not a defendant's responsibility to build the plaintiff's case, and it is not right for a plaintiff to make unspecific claims in order to unfairly widen the scope of discovery. Games Workshop is making the accusations and it must be able to state them clearly.
13363
Post by: raincity
.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Actually, CHS's motion was "either dismiss the case or let GW give a more precise statement of what they accuse CHS of". So the motion was accepted because GW reacted.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
raincity wrote:I'm glad the motion to dismiss was terminated, I think it shows that gws's claim isn't as far fetched as some people claim it to be. I still find it amazing people are still trying to say chs's work is original.
*sigh* (again) Before you make statement like this, you need to understand what a Motion to Dismiss is, and what this particular Motion to Dismiss said. In this instance, the Motion alleged that GW had not filed a complaint that was adequately specific to let CH know what trademarks and/or copyrights were allegedly infringed. GW then filed a more specific complaint. As such, since the Motion to Dismiss addressed the old (now withdrawn) complaint, it was no longer relevant, and the judge dismissed it. There may (and likely will) be additional Motions to Dismiss filed at a later date, addressing the new complaint. NONE of this can be interpreted to mean that " gw's claim isn't as far fetched as some people claim it to be." Nothing of substance was decided yet; none of the facts have been addressed.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
raincity wrote:I'm glad the motion to dismiss was terminated, I think it shows that gws's claim isn't as far fetched as some people claim it to be.
I still find it amazing people are still trying to say chs's work is original.
Who says it's original, it not about claiming originality, it's about the status of making derivative works and the reasonable use of other people's IP.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
With reasonable in this case being questionable.
I still prefer the idea of just saying 'Conversion Kit for such-and-such size miniatures.' Thats it. But CH don't seem to want to do that.
This won't be solved for a long time I think.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Amazing. Are they seriously trying to claim that shoulderpads with studs and arrows infringe their copyright? I could be wrong since its in legalese, but that's what it looks like.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
GW via Kroothawk wrote:
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers, Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.
I believe the word they are looking for here is chevron.
3725
Post by: derek
George Spiggott wrote:GW via Kroothawk wrote:
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers, Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.
I believe the word they are looking for here is chevron.
Using the actual term that has existed for hundreds of years would require them to admit that they didn't invent it.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
"Carnifex, public executioner in ancient Rome. This office was considered so disgraceful that he was not allowed to reside within the city walls."
The term then originates somewhat earlier than an issue of WD, methinks. The big choppy monster called a Carnifex might be a GW original, but the "term" certainly isn't. For a company that might actually have a case, they aren't very good at presenting it in a solid fashion.
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
derek wrote:George Spiggott wrote:GW via Kroothawk wrote:
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers, Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.
I believe the word they are looking for here is chevron.
Using the actual term that has existed for hundreds of years would require them to admit that they didn't invent it.
Oh the irony
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Fun fact: CHS has the permission by Michael Moorcock to use the Chaos Star, GW doesn't
31272
Post by: Battle Brother Lucifer
Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: CHS has the permission by Michael Moorcock to use the Chaos Star, GW doesn't
The irony in here is getting delicious...
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?
Normally yes. GW are very fond of the 'let's see who runs out of money first' legal game. This appears to be a new area for GW.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Ketara wrote:Amazing. Are they seriously trying to claim that shoulderpads with studs and arrows infringe their copyright? I could be wrong since its in legalese, but that's what it looks like.
When did GW start using studded shoulderpads? I can think of a few examples of studded armor from scifi/fantasy works, like Cloud from FF7.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Back in Rogue Trader, back when 80s metal and studded leather jackets were popular.
2711
Post by: boyd
odinsgrandson wrote:Xca|iber wrote:While I don't want any bitz sites to go down (variety is the spice of life, yes?), I can't help but feel like CH shot themselves in the foot by not playing the "it's a space-man upper arm protector shield, *hint hint*" game.
Most of the other bitz sites barely hide the intent of their products. It's obvious what is designed for what, and such details are often heavily hinted at in product descriptions. CH could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (perhaps not all the trouble, but they could have been much more secure) if they simply made all the product names/descriptions generic.
I realize it's silly to look at a thunder hammer and read "star-viking war god's smashy stick," but if it'll protect bitz sites from GWs zealous legal team, why not do it?
EDIT: Unless of course GW just hasn't gotten to all the more clever sites yet*
As far as I can tell, this is exactly what the case is about. Is there any reason why Scibor has to name is bits "Parts for Space Vikings?" As long as he's not copying exact designs, or claiming that he's making Games Workshop's Space Wolves, he shouldn't have to fake it.
It makes me think of Xbox or laptop stickers made by third parties. They always will tell you exactly what model they fit on. No one has any problem when people do this in other industries. Why should games be any different?
Taking a look at the bits I've seen, I don't think they've matched any insignias close enough to infringe. For example, the Salamander/Dragon shoulderpads do not look exactly like the Salamanders insignia from GW. And Games Workshop cannot copyright the idea of a dragon on a shoulderpad.
The key thing here is that its different here is that you can't use these parts interchangeably between PP, GW, or other models. The game was developed and marketed by GW. Its not like PP makes warhammer models. Thats what they are fighting. If you develope a set of games and someone else wants to profit off of your expense, then they should be paying a royalty or licensing fee. Thats how it works in other industries. It wouldn't be unreasonable for GW to tell them if you make parts for our product, you will be required to pay a 10-25% royalty fee. Its a niche business - Chapterhouse wouldn't exist if GW didn't make models and customers wouldn't buy chapterhouse if GW made something comparable they could force chapterhouse to cease and desist selling it if they made something comparable ( GW could tell chapterhouse to stop selling rhino replacement parts and termie shoulder pads as they are in direct competition). Automatically Appended Next Post: Howard A Treesong wrote:Polonius wrote:And, if my limited research and understanding of Janthkin's prior posts are correct, there is very little "on point" case law here.
Meaning, it's not just that nobody knows exactly how this case should go down. It's that there is actually some unanswered questions of law that could wildly swing this case.
It does say something that there was a lot of discussion based on the aftermarket car parts industry, that's pretty tenuous link. Little toy men are not something typically fought over in the court room. GW might want to argue they are pieces of art, but they just look like toys to other people, especially as their core market is kids. Any precedents and case law brought into it might be quite diverse.
Thats my point - the product has a specific purpose and there are no competitors with the specific purpose of using the model to play warhammer. Automatically Appended Next Post: chaos0xomega wrote:
You're either incredibly young or incredibly naive. The lawsuit is more about trying to eliminate potential future competition, and to be the sole source provider of everything relating to its product line(what Chapterhouse is doing isn't all that dissimilar from how GW got its start. Rather than just producing bits though, GW produced whole models for other companies role playing games). GW goes after all manner of organizations, regardless of whether or not they actually sell anything that can be perceived as 'stealing money' from them. Most of the time, these frivolous lawsuits, scratch that, this bullying, does not go to court, and does not cost GW very much money at all, because they are targeting small mom and pop/basement operations that can't afford the legal fees, and thus they agree to GWs terms and settle out of court (usually this results in the company in question shutting down entirely). This time theiir target actually happened to be able to fight back, much to GWs surprise.
Just so I understand you correctly, GW shouldn't be the only producer for the bitz and miniatures it makes for the game they developed? Personally, I don't see it as a problem. The way I see it as if you make money off of my work, you should pay me. If I develop something that you are going to change it slightly and then profit off of my marketing and sales then yes I would be upset. As it stands now, I would be upset that Chapterhouse made parts for a rhino - that is in direct competition to what I make and sell as an upgrade bit. Its my IP, I wouldn't want someone stealing a sale from me. I would demand they pay me a royalty or at the very least a licensing fee. I can see where GW is coming from on this.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
derek wrote:George Spiggott wrote:GW via Kroothawk wrote:
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers, Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.
I believe the word they are looking for here is chevron.
Using the actual term that has existed for hundreds of years would require them to admit that they didn't invent it.
I can't believe they cite things like studs, arrows and roman numerals as well. No wonder they are under a bit of pressure to be more specific, it's just ridiculous. Most of the Space Marine chapters are derivative in some nature, it's probably a hand-down from the rogue trader days when everything was a spoof or parody of something. The distinguishing crosses on Black Templars, first on their list, of are Maltese crosses and a good bit older than GW and rather in the public domain. Same with chevrons, or tear drops on blood angels. As for 'studs', well I guess space marines first had studs because they first appeared in the 80s when everything had studs so they weren't exactly original.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: CHS has the permission by Michael Moorcock to use the Chaos Star, GW doesn't
Haha thats great..
Does anyone with knowledge of this situation know how long this is likely to take?
And also, how much it will be costing GW?
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
So, armour with chaos stars on was probably invented by Michael Moorcock in the 60s (he certainly had chaos warriors, and invented the symbol... it's been a while since I last read Elric and Corum et al though).
Armour with studs on was invented by bikers and punk rockers and New Wave Of British Heavy Metal fans in the 60s and 70s and 80s, or earlier. D&D had studded armour in the 70s too.
The Ancient Romans invented Roman numerals, and even had armour with chevrons on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newstead_Helmet
GW's lawyers will be in touch with August Caesar about those things and about the word "Emperor" shortly, apparently...
Arrows, chevrons, and Roman numerals have all been used in heraldry well before GW's use, too, in medieval times and in more modern regimental symbolism. Likewise, though the D&D "studded leather armour" is a Victorian invention, it's based on studded brigandines and maybe even studded jacks, which really did exist.
Edit -- found some historical studded shoulder armour -- Mongolian, I believe:
http://image57.webshots.com/457/5/28/60/2346528600100599642KJNzxn_ph.jpg
722
Post by: Kanluwen
So, armour with chaos stars on was probably invented by Michael Moorcock in the 60s (he certainly had chaos warriors, and invented the symbol... it's been a while since I last read Elric and Corum et al though)
The funny thing is: it actually looks like Moorcock didn't invent the symbol, he just popularized it and associated it with the idea of Chaos.
Just sayin'. Google Alestair Crowley's "Thoth Tarot Eight of Wands" and see what comes up as an image
13192
Post by: Ian Sturrock
Ha, true enough! I'm prepared to see Moorcock's use of it as independently arrived-at, though, personally, since Crowley didn't associate it with Chaos per se AFAIK (he did have Chaos as a concept in his cosmology -- Chaos was the original mate of the Scarlet Woman, Babalon, later supplanted by Crowley / The Great Beast).
Of course, Moorcock's symbol of Law was a single arrow, pointing upwards, as though to signify the enemies of Chaos personified as a... Tactical Space Marine.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Big P wrote:Someone take the GW-Dripfeed out of his arm... He is ODing.
OD'ing? Dude, that thing sustains him. Taking out would likely cause damage, and I don't want any harm coming to The Kan. He's far too entertaining.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?
My layman's opinion would think not.
I mean, THEY are paying their lawyers, while CHS is getting their lawyer's time for free. In that circustance, it's CHS with the deeper pockets.
Not to mention the ill will they're generating within the online gaming community. Those disenfranchised among us are getting even more restless with every new development.
Eric
28238
Post by: Warboss Gubbinz
Kilkrazy wrote:
My layman's opinion would think not.
They keep a person or team on retainer like any good corp. Also, this has probably already been said but it may totally depend on how much time they are willing to devote to the case.
If i were GW i would hope Chapterhouse to fold like a lawn chair and use this a landmark. The last thing i would want is to drag this out to the point where i have to prove losses to a court.
My personal opinion? Competition is good, i hope GW walks into this gets their knuckles rapped and realizes they can't leave people hanging on a limb for models and not expect someone else to fill the gap. A third party market is a sign of a healthy game system (How many people do you see making things for fantasy, amirite???)
My argument for Chapterhouse:
If GW wasn't willing to invest the opex into the budget to provide models in a manner fitting their current release schedule then there is no loss to their bottom line. They simply have chosen not to enter into the market with said models.
Even with everything i know or can theorize i haven't a clue on how GW can prove they have been impacted by these sales.
34906
Post by: Pacific
Ian Sturrock wrote:Ha, true enough! I'm prepared to see Moorcock's use of it as independently arrived-at, though, personally, since Crowley didn't associate it with Chaos per se AFAIK (he did have Chaos as a concept in his cosmology -- Chaos was the original mate of the Scarlet Woman, Babalon, later supplanted by Crowley / The Great Beast).
Of course, Moorcock's symbol of Law was a single arrow, pointing upwards, as though to signify the enemies of Chaos personified as a... Tactical Space Marine.
Wow yes, your last point is an interesting observation!
I always got the impression that Moorcock believed he was writing something which already existed, in the same way that two groups of scientists operating on different sides of the world can come to the same conclusion about something, or make the same development even though they have no contact with each other. As in, it is a construct which already exists, and could be reached through logical thought.
Although to be honest, modern GW's concept of 'Chaos' has so little similarity with the original idea that really it is only the design of the 8-pointed star that connects them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?
Normally yes, its most of the strategy. Bleed them to death.
Pro bono by a major firm (I don't know who is representing them) could be problematic in that area.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Boyd- It doesn't really matter how you "feel". The law doesn't protect feelings :-) The question is one of infringement. If you make little toy men and I make little toy guns that work with your little toy men, you do not automatically get my sales money. Please do not pile on more soapbox arguments that have no basis in the law.
As to the development, LOL. So GW clarifies their claim by giving examples of blatantly unprotectable insignia and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....
39004
Post by: biccat
jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....
Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.
2548
Post by: jmurph
biccat wrote:jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....
Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.
Oh, I am well aware. But the language stating that D knew more about it than we can really state was humorous since is Plaintiff's burden to establish the infringement and the link between the protected work and the derivative.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?
Normally yes, its most of the strategy. Bleed them to death.
Pro bono by a major firm (I don't know who is representing them) could be problematic in that area.
That is what I had been thinking -- glad to have it confirmed by a lawyer.
39004
Post by: biccat
jmurph wrote:biccat wrote:jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....
Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.
Oh, I am well aware. But the language stating that D knew more about it than we can really state was humorous since is Plaintiff's burden to establish the infringement and the link between the protected work and the derivative.
I just read it as standard pleading language. "We don't know where you took it from, but we know you had access to some of our materials and you copied our work." I'm sure it will all be addressed during discovery.
Frazzled: Winston & Strawn are representing Chapterhouse.
7637
Post by: Sasori
I'm watching this progress with quite a bit of curiosity. I'm really hoping GW losses this one. I think small companies like Chapterhouse do far more good for the hobby, than Harm.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Interesting. I wonder if its a Jr. Flunkey or they are putting strength behind it...and why.
Do we know who's representing GW?
21196
Post by: agnosto
If nothing else, GW looking the part of an overbearing bully beating on a little kid in the playground is providing ample advertising for Chapter House. I'm not saying that they shouldn't defend what they consider their IP (though I have my doubts they invented Roman Numerals or various other things they've listed).
Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.
752
Post by: Polonius
agnosto wrote:Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.
Except GW can sue any new bitz makers. They can even sue CHS for any new works they consider infringing on their IP.
It's not like this case wil stop GW from being to either harrass small bitz makers with law suits, or even win.
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. I wonder if its a Jr. Flunkey or they are putting strength behind it...and why.
Do we know who's representing GW?
Not sure about GW. Presumably if you have a PACER account you could look up who is signing the filings (assuming GW isn't filtering everything through their general counsel).
On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Polonius wrote:agnosto wrote:Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.
Except GW can sue any new bitz makers. They can even sue CHS for any new works they consider infringing on their IP.
It's not like this case wil stop GW from being to either harrass small bitz makers with law suits, or even win.
I was thinking along the lines of risk vs. reward; if they spent all their resources filing lawsuits in other countries, and even losing one or two, they would be paying more in legal fees/ court costs than would be returnable in fines if they even won.
As I'm sure you're aware, it's all fine and good to say that an attorney is on retainer but retainer doesn't usually include all the court costs, travel expenses, hourly rates in excess of the retainer and other contingent fees. Lose one lawsuit and GW would be looking at a big tab, especially if someone wins a counter claim that resulted in GW paying the defendant's court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
Wow...I got quoted from another web site...
IIRC, CHS has 4 attorneys with Notices of Appearance, and GW has 3. They are all from big time law firms.
I could check Pacer, but I'm actually trying to be productive today...
21196
Post by: agnosto
biccat wrote:
On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.
http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemid=13554
"Ms. Golinveaux also has significant experience managing international trademark portfolios, and providing trademark and copyright counseling. She has litigated a number of matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and handled a number of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings."
Seems like she specializes in digital copyright, specifically cyber-squatting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
agnosto wrote:If nothing else, GW looking the part of an overbearing bully beating on a little kid in the playground is providing ample advertising for Chapter House. I'm not saying that they shouldn't defend what they consider their IP (though I have my doubts they invented Roman Numerals or various other things they've listed).
Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion. Automatically Appended Next Post: agnosto wrote:biccat wrote:
On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.
http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemid=13554
"Ms. Golinveaux also has significant experience managing international trademark portfolios, and providing trademark and copyright counseling. She has litigated a number of matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and handled a number of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings."
Seems like she specializes in digital copyright, specifically cyber-squatting.
Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!
21196
Post by: agnosto
Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.
I wouldn't even dream of making it understood as anything but my humble opinion. I was simply thinking along the lines that lawsuits aren't free and GW isn't the richest firm in the world and if they are spending a larger than anticipated amount on legal fees that's less development of their product which is bad for us.
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!
Don't say that; I own GW stock.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
agnosto wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.
I wouldn't even dream of making it understood as anything but my humble opinion. I was simply thinking along the lines that lawsuits aren't free and GW isn't the richest firm in the world and if they are spending a larger than anticipated amount on legal fees that's less development of their product which is bad for us.
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!
Don't say that; I own GW stock.
You have an interesting point there. Relative to Chapterhouse, Games Workshop is a mammoth of a company, but in the larger world they're not all that huge (really because nothing in gaming is).
I wonder what a good outcome for them is?
752
Post by: Polonius
agnosto wrote:I was thinking along the lines of risk vs. reward; if they spent all their resources filing lawsuits in other countries, and even losing one or two, they would be paying more in legal fees/ court costs than would be returnable in fines if they even won.
As I'm sure you're aware, it's all fine and good to say that an attorney is on retainer but retainer doesn't usually include all the court costs, travel expenses, hourly rates in excess of the retainer and other contingent fees. Lose one lawsuit and GW would be looking at a big tab, especially if someone wins a counter claim that resulted in GW paying the defendant's court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Well, they're not filing these suits about money. The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.
These aren't about money, they're about turf. And if you assume most sellers will roll over...
1406
Post by: Janthkin
agnosto wrote:http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemid=13554
"Ms. Golinveaux also has significant experience managing international trademark portfolios, and providing trademark and copyright counseling. She has litigated a number of matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and handled a number of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings."
Seems like she specializes in digital copyright, specifically cyber-squatting.
Note that TTAB practice is mostly trademark registration and/or opposition. Heavy emphasis on potential customer confusion issues, which is certainly relevant to the current case.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Polonius wrote:
Well, they're not filing these suits about money. The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.
These aren't about money, they're about turf. And if you assume most sellers will roll over...
I completely understand your point. I know GW must defend their IP, as they see it, and that's what this suit is all about. I don't know CH's financials but I can't imagine that they are costing GW all that much in lost revenue, if any at all.
I simply thought to myself what the result would be if GW lost or if they won and followed my reasoning down that avenue. By no means should my random mumbling be construed as anything other than just a personal opinion based upon what little I know or guess about the doings of companies and the intricacies of IP law.
It's very interesting.
@Janthkin,
I must have missed that when I skimmed it earlier. I suppose they chose a well qualified associate to defend CH; interesting considering the pro-bono nature of the representation.
39004
Post by: biccat
Polonius wrote:The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.
GW can recover actual damages + any profits by the infringer. Also, if they had registered within the proper period of time, they would be able to get statutory damages, and possibly attorneys fees.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.
Of course, that makes the most sense. But my point was that GW doesn't have to show lost profits, just that CH profitted.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
odinsgrandson wrote:agnosto wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.
I wouldn't even dream of making it understood as anything but my humble opinion. I was simply thinking along the lines that lawsuits aren't free and GW isn't the richest firm in the world and if they are spending a larger than anticipated amount on legal fees that's less development of their product which is bad for us.
Frazzled wrote:Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!
Don't say that; I own GW stock.
You have an interesting point there. Relative to Chapterhouse, Games Workshop is a mammoth of a company, but in the larger world they're not all that huge (really because nothing in gaming is).
I wonder what a good outcome for them is?
A good outcome would have been Chapter House folding straight away, like the fan run web sites.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
One thing I don't understand. Why don't bitz companies just make their conversion kits for their units only? Wouldn't that help diversity anyway? Or are they just trying to cash in on GW's Universe?
752
Post by: Polonius
biccat wrote:Frazzled wrote:Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.
Of course, that makes the most sense. But my point was that GW doesn't have to show lost profits, just that CH profitted.
Yeah, I know that. I also know that GW ain't gonna collect that judgment.
2515
Post by: augustus5
Mr Hyena wrote:One thing I don't understand. Why don't bitz companies just make their conversion kits for their units only? Wouldn't that help diversity anyway? Or are they just trying to cash in on GW's Universe?
Many of these bitz companies provide a great service to the miniature consumer by providing parts for models that GW doesn't bother putting into their kits. There are many hobbyists like myself who do not want to bother with sculpting putty or conversions beyond simple head/arm/weapon swaps. Bitz companies allow hobbyists like myself to still be able to put minis on the table that GW doesn't bother producing. Need boneswords on those warriors? Go to the bitz store. Need a decent farseer jetbike conversion without hacking a metal farseer in half? Go to a bitz store. Until GW provides miniatures or accessories for every codex entry, then hobbyists need a bitz store.
I don't see how GW is being hurt in here. In most cases people are still buying GW figures and then converting them with parts from bitz stores.
171
Post by: Lorek
I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
Frazzled wrote: Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!
That is the only stock I own that is actually in the black...
34605
Post by: spireland
Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.
Can I second it?
28238
Post by: Warboss Gubbinz
Its still proof that a third party market is a sign of a healthy business line. I couldn't agree with augustus5 more.
28659
Post by: dbsamurai
Mr Hyena wrote:Polonius wrote:Mr Hyena wrote:But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear) .
This is simply not true. I'm not even sure what would make you think that.
But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.
Nobody wants that to happen.
I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.
But other companies aren't any better.
This is a flame war waiting to happen. your quote of "other companies aren't any better" is purely opinionated and, like the OT gw claim, is far to broad to be reasonably supported. Furthermore, speaking as someone who started the game new to it (like, oh, the rest of us) the first place I got my things was a GW store. So from a simple logistical stand point, the only reason someone would buy shoddy gear is if they were completely unaware of how warhammer worked (which is typical of most new comers) but also had a reason NOT to go to the GW store or other FLGS, such as, say, high prices. thus it makes it more likely that GW will be forced to reconsider it's marketing strategies if it loses. As it stands it holds a monopoly on the warhammer industry (logically since it is their IP in name) however, like the aftermarket body kits, an introduction of alternative kit bashers would weaken the GW monopoly holdings, though most likely only on those who search for deals. Thus GW would most likely be forced to lower prices (this is an economics assumption now, so yes it is Off Topic and I apologize) given that supply has increased,but would still gain income from new comers and hard core " GW'ers" who support the company and buy "only GW". After all, drawing once again on the ford aftermarket example, those kits are sold (as they must have a demand or they wouldn't be...) yet somehow Ford still sells cars (ignoring the economic downturn, yes they still sold cars this year and last).
Back on topic, it is quite fascinating to see how those of you who have passed the bar (at least I hope those of you lambasting the ignorant have passed the bar...) theorize this will play out. On an intillectual note as to the sliding scale mentioned earlier, how can it be that a company not ford can manufacture ford's logo on their aftermarket parts? not to mention using the exact names for aftermarket body kits...I would think tthat would fall under the "optimus prime" side of the scale wouldn't it?
21499
Post by: Mr. Burning
dbsamurai wrote:....On an intillectual note as to the sliding scale mentioned earlier, how can it be that a company not ford can manufacture ford's logo on their aftermarket parts? not to mention using the exact names for aftermarket body kits...I would think tthat would fall under the "optimus prime" side of the scale wouldn't it?
A lot of after market stuff is licensed.
I assume that standard manufacturer caveats regarding warranties, liability and suitability come into place even when using Licensed products.
Ford et all would probably pursue any major violators of their branding if a true hazard were caused or their name was being truly misappropriated and misused. Though they have pursued Ferrari over the use of the F150 designation.
Also you make can make conversions of autos to make them look like another manufacturers, Celicas and other bits into Lancia Deltas etc. AFAIK This isn't illegal or considered suspect, road worthiness is determined by other parameters such as MOT passes etc.
Passing such a vehicle off as something different would be fraudulent.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.
Normally I would second, but barring a few individuals there is actually some interesting info in here.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Frazzled wrote:Do we know who's representing GW?
I posted the answer on the first page:
Kroothawk wrote:Some interesting tidbits:
The original filing representative of GW stepped down and left the law firm, that firm will continue to represent GW though:
MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF HEIDI L. BELONGIA AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED
I, Heidi L. Belongia, hereby move this Court to withdraw my appearance as counsel for
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited on the basis that I will no longer be associated with the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP. Aside from my withdrawal, Foley & Lardner LLP will continue to represent Games Workshop in this matter.
http://www.foley.com/services/service_detail.aspx?deptid=32
CHS is represented by Winston & Strawn http://winstonandstrawn.com/ and attorney Jennifer A. Golinveaux http://winstonandstrawn.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=13554
Summary: Both sides send attorneys specialized in IP issues.
The judge has his own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Kennelly
BTW nice tidbit posted by weeble1000 over at Warseer on Star Wars copyright:
This is from a recent article that I pulled up with a quick google search. It is in British court, but it is interesting nonetheless. It is dated March 7th, 2011.
"BRITAIN’S most senior judges yesterday considered a question which has perhaps only ever troubled die-hard Star Wars fans.
Namely, whether or not the Imperial stormtrooper helmet is a work of art.
Darth Vader’s foot soldiers – from the 1977 film – are instantly recognisable thanks to their white plastic armour and faceless helmets.
And yesterday the legal dispute over the right of British designer Andrew Ainsworth – who made the original props – to sell replicas from his shop in West London reached the Supreme Court.
Star Wars creator George Lucas claims Mr Ainsworth is breaching copyright. He is appealing a High Court decision which allowed Mr Ainsworth to sell copies of the costume for £1,800.
Previous court hearings have determined that the stormtrooper costumes are functional rather than artistic works – the position adopted by Mr Ainsworth’s legal team."
Apparently, the lower courts of Britain have already ruled that the stormtrooper costume is functional and therefore not protectable by a copyright.
752
Post by: Polonius
Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Brilliant. Hope Cooperdog gets em by the scr....
erm ...scruff of the neck!
3725
Post by: derek
Polonius wrote:
Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.
You should always be kind to lawyers, they likely know where the bodies are buried...
19640
Post by: Tantras
Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.
I've read all nine pages of this thread (correct at time of posting) without interruption today, most interesting thread I've read in months! We're a mention of the Southern States away from a Grisham drama in here - hold on though... If Grisham did write a novel about this, would we all be trying to get our share of the IP?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
biccat wrote:Polonius wrote:The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.
GW can recover actual damages + any profits by the infringer. Also, if they had registered within the proper period of time, they would be able to get statutory damages, and possibly attorneys fees.
Well whatever they are entitled to and what they can actually recover are quite different things. If the legal costs are colossal CH would just fold and GW would get a pittance.
24442
Post by: lindsay40k
Tantras wrote:Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.
I've read all nine pages of this thread (correct at time of posting) without interruption today, most interesting thread I've read in months! We're a mention of the Southern States away from a Grisham drama in here - hold on though... If Grisham did write a novel about this, would we all be trying to get our share of the IP?
I'm just surprised nobody's posted a Phoenix Wright macro yet.
13937
Post by: BrassScorpion
I've read all nine pages of this thread...
Wow, we have some masochists on the forum. Either that or some people really do have a lot of frivolous time to waste pointlessly. Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.
Excellent? That's open to debate. This is the first time I've been to this thread since posting in it early on about where this would lead, pointing out back then how spurious the usual "legal" and "business" arguments were and that it would inevitably be locked by MODs for stupidity and bad behavior like all threads on this topic eventually are. Today I jumped right to this last page out of morbid curiosity to see how bad it had gotten. Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.
I'll second that motion. And, let me add, "I told you so".
19640
Post by: Tantras
BrassScorpion wrote:I've read all nine pages of this thread...
Wow, we have some masochists on the forum. Either that or some people really do have a lot of frivolous time to waste pointlessly.
Absolutely true, and the best thing is I'm getting paid to waste time frivolously!
Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.
BrassScorpion wrote:Excellent? That's open to debate. This is the first time I've been to this thread since posting in it early on about where this would lead, pointing out back then how spurious the usual "legal" and "business" arguments were and that it would inevitably be locked by MODs for stupidity and bad behavior like all threads on this topic eventually are. Today I jumped right to this last page out of morbid curiosity to see how bad it had gotten.
I just think for people that don't usually consider the legal implications of actions taken by GW (I.e. Me) it has been an interesting glimpse into the legal world. Sure there have been some knee-jerk reaction posts, but there have been a lot of mature questions asked and educated responses given. I don't see the benefit of locking the thread; surely if you're not interested you can just not look 
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
I don't agree with what is being said on a thread that is not being abusive and argumentative or in anyway breaking the Dakka rules so let's shut it down please.
As you say old thing, what is "excellent" is open to debate and while you are entitled to think the thread tosh, others are equally entitled to find it enlightening.
We are not all High Court Barristers, so some of the posts have been informative.
If you wish to argue the merits or otherwise of allowing the thread to continue please do so elsewhere, rather than filibuster this thread into closure, which imho would be the equivalent of trolling.
Please can we get back to the matter in hand now.
And if the mods are to do anything I hope it will be to ensure this.
958
Post by: mikhaila
derek wrote:Polonius wrote:
Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.
You should always be kind to lawyers, they likely know where the bodies are buried...
Remember though, Marvel is owned by Disney, and DC by Time/Warner. Who do you think has the biggest, scariest lawyers?
There's a reason people say "Don't #$% with the Mouse!" Disney has always had teams of detectives and lawyers devoted to their copyrights, going way back over many decades.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I didn't know that two separate companies could share a trademark. It would seem to go against the core idea of trademarks.
That aside, trademarks are a pretty specific type of IP. When you apply for a trademark, you do it within an area of industry, and the trademark doesn't exist outside that area. (There are also geographical restrictions.)
For example, let's say I trademarked the term Mega Hero for games relating to fictional characters. That would not stop a mining tool company from calling itself Mega Hero Mining Tools.
I imagine that the legal firm checked if the term Super Hero(tm) had been trademarked in the arena of legal services, found it hadn't been, and decided to use it. If they didn't, and it is, then they will surely lose the case.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
Although these threads tend to devolve into bombasity, there is no need to lock the thread yet. IIRC, the status conference is coming up on the 30th, and there might possibly be some orders or rulings issued by the judge following it.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
@ Mods...
Rather than locking every thread that comes up regarding the "Bits Wars," wouldn't it be better instead to edit the thread and start throwing suspensions (eventually leading to bannings for the worst offenders) at the people disrupting it?
I mean, if it's THEIR intent to get the thread locked, they're succeeding. If they're just trying to disrupt the thread and argue, they're violating Dakka rules, anyway.
I know that it makes it more work for the Mod team, but that's why you guys get the glamorous offices and huge paychecks. Right?
And that's not even to mention the concubine secretaries.
Seriously, though, in the end it'll make for better threads as those same ones who do the disrupting every time start seeing themselves approaching the banishment precepice.
Eric
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
I agree: People not interested in the topic should just stay off instead of posting off topic stuff or interrupt our discussion.
On topic, here another clarification on trademakr issues by weeble1000:
First, there's a whole world of IP beyond trademark infringement cases. I'd be willing to bet that there are far more patent infringement suits than there are trademark infringement suits, but I have nothing substantial on which to base that claim.
I've said this before, but you've raised the issue so here's my response:
Almost no trademark infringement suits go to court. This is because A) there's usually no money in them, and B) the remedy is very, very easy. To say it another way, it's hard to show monetary damages that mean anything, and the typical result is equitable relief anyway, i.e. you change the words. Trademarks are pretty cut and dry, at least compared to copyrights and patents.
The trademark infringement claims aren't an important part of the GW v CHS lawsuit. The facts are clear, and the only issue is moderation of trademark use. If the trademark infringement claims are really what Games Workshop cared about, all it would have had to do is either work it out with CHS out of court, or sue purely on that basis and get CHS to moderate its use of the marks. It would have been simple, cheap, and relatively quick. And I guarantee Winston and Strawn wouldn't be involved.
In fact, as Scammel has pointed out, Chapterhouse has already moderated its use of Games Workshop's marks, in effect rendering the trademark infringement claims moot.
Here's a pretend dialog:
GW: "Judge, stop them from using those words, please."
Judge: "They already stopped, why are you still asking me?"
GW: "But they caused irreparable harm!"
Judge: "Really? That little company? Stop wasting my time."
Fugazi, the possibility of confusion doesn't get you anywhere. The plaintiff has to show that confusion has already occurred, usually with expensive market research. This is civil court, not criminal court. Civil court is only about money. Without harm, there's no damages, without damages, there's no case.
But where's the confusion in the case of Chapterhouse Studios? What harm has it caused? Games Workshop has made plenty of allegations, but most of those allegations rely on confusion in the marketplace; actual, demonstrable, damage-causing confusion within the market for the products. The law says that you can't confuse people as to the source of your products by making true statements about them. "This kit is compatible with the Games Workshop Rhino tank." If that's true, there's no problem. You haven't misrepresented the product. You haven't attempted to confuse the customer. You haven't capitalized on the goodwill of the other company. You are selling a product that is designed to be compatible with another company's product and marketing it as such to the consumer. If it is illegal to market a product as it is designed and intended to be used, then it is illegal to make and sell that product, and we know that it is not so in the case of an aftermarket accessory. It doesn't matter if it is a car, a coffee maker, a sex toy, or a sculpture of a super soldier. They are all commercial products that fall under the same laws regarding fair business practices. If you argue that it is illegal to market a Rhino accessory kit as a Rhino accessory kit, you are arguing that it is illegal to market a replacement grille for a Dodge Charger as a replacement grill for a Dodge Charger, and we know that's not the case.
# EG-1350-0102-11 - Dodge Charger 2011 & UP, 5 Pcs. Stainless Steel Fine Mesh Style Grille (Upper and Lower set) by E&G CLASSICS®. This part overlays your factory grilles.
Fine mesh. It is the design that invites class, sophistication, and a customized aura to your ride. And there is nothing like the E&G Classics® Classic Fine Mesh Style Grille gleaming with elegance from the front of your model. The stainless steel chrome bezel in the center of it all is what sets the tone for the dramatic look that undoubtedly takes control. It is not your run-of-the-mill grille. Instead, the Classic Fine Mesh Style Grille does what the factory version never could-make a lasting impression. Just remove the existing stock grille and mount the Classic Fine Mesh Style Grille in its place and take a deep breath. True satisfaction is just a moment away!
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Chapterhouse has renewed their motion to dismiss this case, BTW yesterday was the last possible day to do this:
weeble1000 wrote:The motion to dismiss was renewed. I'll read it tomorrow. It's bed time here in the states.
I read it anyway...I just can't help myself. Here's an interesting excerpt (FAC is First Amened Complaint):
2. Plaintiff Concedes It Cannot Meet Its Burden of Identifying the Works Allegedly Infringed.
Astonishingly, Games Workshop concedes that it cannot identify its own works that have supposedly been infringed by Chapterhouse Studios’s products. FAC ¶ 30 (“only defendants know for certain which . . . books and other publications they accessed and relied upon in creating [their] works”) (emphasis added). But if Games Workshop cannot identify any works it believes have been infringed, it cannot possibly show substantial similarity, the sine qua non of infringement.7
(footnote 7: At a minimum, Games Workshop is attempting impermissibly to shift the burden of identifying its own works to defendants.)
Tellingly, although the FAC now purports to “exemplify some of the ways in which Chapterhouse infringes Games Workshop’s copyrighted works,” it still fails to specifically identify which works are supposedly infringed. Instead, the handful of new allegations in the FAC repeat the flaws for which the Court faulted the original Complaint, by alluding vaguely to “other . . . publications” (FAC ¶ 30.a), “many . . . background works” (FAC ¶ 30.b), “a number of . . . Space Marine unit types” (FAC ¶ 30.c), and “vehicles and miniatures” (FAC ¶ 30.d). For example, Plaintiff now alleges that one of Chapterhouse Studios’s products (a conversion kit) infringes an unidentified description and “representation” of a “Tervigon” in one of Games Workshop’s publications—but also insists that “Chapterhouse may also have referred to and relied upon other Games Workshop publications. . . .” FAC ¶ 30.a. Even if alluding vaguely to a “representation” in a multi-page volume as the supposedly infringed source of a single Chapterhouse Studios product did give adequate notice as to that product—and it does not— Plaintiff’s resolute refusal to limit the works it claims have been infringed by that product means that Chapterhouse Studios does not have adequate notice of Plaintiff’s actual or potential claims.8
(footnote 8: If the Court disagrees and finds that paragraph 30.a of the FAC does give Chapterhouse Studios adequate notice of the basis for that particular alleged infringement, despite the vague and unspecified manner in which it is pleaded, it should either dismiss that claim as non-actionable on its face or Plaintiff’s copyright claim should be limited to that alleged infringement.) - In other words, "We'd be happy to answer those claims in 30(a)(b)(c)(d) if that's all you want to specify."
Chapterhouse also added a citation of the recent court ruling in Peters v West:
Similarly, the court in Peters v. West, No. 10-CV-3951, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 831137 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2011) (Kendall, J.) recently dismissed a copyright claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the similarities alleged were based on common and public-domain elements unprotected by copyright law. In that case, a rapper brought a copyright claim against a rival; in ruling on whether plaintiff had shown substantial similarity of the works sufficient to make out a prima facie case of infringement, the court first filtered out the elements of plaintiff’s work “lack[ing] the requisite originality to warrant protection,” such as elements that “enjoy[ed] a robust existence in the public domain long before being employed” by plaintiff. Id. at *4. Because the only elements plaintiff could point to as evidence of infringement were unprotectable, the court dismissed the complaint. Id. at *6.
Here's another interesting bit:
The FAC also now claims copyright protection for unspecified and commonplace elements such “an arrow,” “Roman Numerals,” and various unspecified “studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted ‘V’ and Roman numeral icons.” FAC ¶30.b, c. But all of those elements “enjoyed a robust existence in the public domain long before being employed” by Games Workshop, and as such are not protected by copyright. Peters, 2011 WL 831137 at *4. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims are based on such general, unprotectable themes and public-domain elements, they should be dismissed.
A nice summary by iamfanboy:
For the tl;dr types, what that boils down to is CHS and their lawyers saying, "If they can't tell us what we're infringing of theirs, how can we change it? By the way judge, we're perfectly willing to compromise here; they're the ones who decided to go straight to court and waste everyone's time and money. Oh, and these other lawyers already hashed out some of the precedent here, saying you can't copyright common images like arrows or serpents and that sort of thing..."
Some earlier comment on GW's dilemma:
weeble1000 wrote:The way I see it rodmillard is that Games Workshop has placed itself in a sticky position.
It can't drop the case because it would look bad, potentially make it harder to enforce similar copyright claims, and expose the company to a malicious litigation suit. I'm not convinced such a suit would get very far, but I think it's fair to say that Games Workshop isn't considering dropping the suit to be a viable option at this point.
On the other hand, to continue with the litigation Games Workshop is facing a well-argued motion to dismiss that raises legitimate concerns. Games Workshop therefore has to define its claims, but this is problematic because the company doesn't want to expose any claimed copyrights to summary judgement or voluntarily limit them. I expect that it also doesn't want to undermine its derivative works theory. Without this derivative works theory, the fortress wall doesn't keep competitors out of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 and therefore isn't much of a barrier at all.
Given this, it doesn't surprise me that the company's response was to give a cursory nod to claim definition and try to deflect the motion. But what we'll likely see in the next few days is a renewed motion to dismiss from the Defendant. This puts Games Workshop right back in the same position. Mr. Moskin has a tough job in that he has to walk a fine line between making a complaint that will satisfy the Court and/or the Defendant and protecting his client's interests.
Chapterhouse could, and maybe will, argue to the court that it would be happy to defend the specific allegations in 30(a)(b)(c)(d) of the amended complaint. This isn't something Games Workshop would agree to, but I think we, and Judge Kennelly for that matter, can see where this is going. To continue the wargaming analogy, Chapterhouse is so far forcing Games Workshop to react and play Chapterhouse's game. Can Games Workshop take over the initiative? Maybe, but I don't know how Moskin plans to do that. We'll have to wait and see.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
To my mind, GW's overall position seems to be this.
They have assembled a game background which contains public domain elements such as oblate hemi-ogives, arrows, Termagant, and Roman numerals. It also contains their own original inventions such as meltagun and Tervigon.
Because the assembled "fluff" as a whole is copyright of GW, they think that this grants them a copyright to all the individual elements within it, regardless of whether they are invented or taken from the public domain.
Automatically Appended Next Post: MagickalMemories wrote:@ Mods...
Rather than locking every thread that comes up regarding the "Bits Wars," wouldn't it be better instead to edit the thread and start throwing suspensions (eventually leading to bannings for the worst offenders) at the people disrupting it?
I mean, if it's THEIR intent to get the thread locked, they're succeeding. If they're just trying to disrupt the thread and argue, they're violating Dakka rules, anyway.
I know that it makes it more work for the Mod team, but that's why you guys get the glamorous offices and huge paychecks. Right?
And that's not even to mention the concubine secretaries.
Seriously, though, in the end it'll make for better threads as those same ones who do the disrupting every time start seeing themselves approaching the banishment precepice.
Eric
This thread is on to the tenth page and hasn't been locked.
People should report posts they think are infringing the rules. (One of which is to stay on topic.)
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I've been saying it for some time... noting it two threads ago... GW is too broad in its claim. Its trying to use the reach of a broad assertion of ownership of "their" distinct aesthetic to claim individual components made by CH violate its design, despite those components at best being small elements relative to the greater design. It would be as absurd as if Disney insisted any three circles oriented similarly to Mickey Mouse just because three circles are used to draw the character. With TM claims, product confusion has to take the form of something thats a specific copy or something that is broadly similar. Conversion parts are too small a subcomponent relative to GW's design to be broadly similar and so GW's being forced to claim a more specific part to part confusion.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kilkrazy wrote:To my mind, GW's overall position seems to be this.
They have assembled a game background which contains public domain elements such as oblate hemi-ogives, arrows, Termagant, and Roman numerals. It also contains their own original inventions such as meltagun and Tervigon.
Because the assembled "fluff" as a whole is copyright of GW, they think that this grants them a copyright to all the individual elements within it, regardless of whether they are invented or taken from the public domain.
That would appear to be it, they seem to think they can reach much further than that actually can.
I didn't know that two separate companies could share a trademark. It would seem to go against the core idea of trademarks.
There's a bizarre situation with Forbidden Planet as the company split and both halves use the name on their store, though more precisely one is 'Forbidden Planet' and the other 'Forbidden Planet International'
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MagickalMemories wrote:@ Mods...
Rather than locking every thread that comes up regarding the "Bits Wars," wouldn't it be better instead to edit the thread and start throwing suspensions (eventually leading to bannings for the worst offenders) at the people disrupting it?
I mean, if it's THEIR intent to get the thread locked, they're succeeding. If they're just trying to disrupt the thread and argue, they're violating Dakka rules, anyway.
I know that it makes it more work for the Mod team, but that's why you guys get the glamorous offices and huge paychecks. Right?
And that's not even to mention the concubine secretaries.
Seriously, though, in the end it'll make for better threads as those same ones who do the disrupting every time start seeing themselves approaching the banishment precepice.
Eric
This thread is on to the tenth page and hasn't been locked.
People should report posts they think are infringing the rules. (One of which is to stay on topic.)
You say that as if MM's post came out of the blue with no basis in events. On the previous page, a fellow mod suggesting locking the thread for No Discernible Reason©. I agree with MM - I've seen several threads, maybe most threads regarding IP issues, consistently get threadjacked by nee'r-do-wells who essentially have made adult discussions on any IP related topic impossible on this forum. Every time the mods lock the thread rather then slam the banhammer, it rewards and emboldens them. The irony, of course, is that all my comments in this post are only marginally on-topic, thus making me part of the problem
16689
Post by: notprop
@KK - presaumably GW is not claiming copyright to the individual elements, arrow, roman numeral etc; but is instead addressing the specific use of these items with its wholey created Universe.
So the various SM squad markings (generic symbols) upon a SM shoulder pad (surely a recognisable GW specific item) and sold as "Space Marine Squad Shoulder pads", something that GW already sells should be grounds enough for action? (or at least a valid test of the proposition).
Re the chapter pads, GW also make these, with a few exceptions of those sold by CH.
Another point that I can't quite get my head around is the " GW don't make it therefore ANother can". I would have thought that this stand point could not be reliably used in court for CH's defence. Designing avenues for further expansion would presumably be weighted in the designers favour to exploit. Not making one is not tacit approval for others to do so, or at least I would assume.
Just a few points to discuss.
I recant my previous page 5 statement, this thread is not a drawn out bore. Only drawn out.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kroothawk wrote:A nice summary by iamfanboy:
For the tl;dr types, what that boils down to is CHS and their lawyers saying, "If they can't tell us what we're infringing of theirs, how can we change it? By the way judge, we're perfectly willing to compromise here; they're the ones who decided to go straight to court and waste everyone's time and money. Oh, and these other lawyers already hashed out some of the precedent here, saying you can't copyright common images like arrows or serpents and that sort of thing..."
This whole thing looks to be a great example of terrible pleading. GW must not have an experienced IP litigator reviewing these pleadings before submission.
Pleading a copyright case is fairly straightforward:
This is our copyright (X). We own it and registered it (Y). Defendant infringed it by making and selling Z.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Not sure I follow Notprop.
How do GW claim such specific usage of symbols, when military organisations have been doing so for for yonks.
cf my earlier post for illustrations.
To say that it is context specific to marine chapters is saying that a fictional future army uses the same symbols that have historically been serving the same function, and nobody other than GW could possibly think that would happen.
I don't see how you can claim IP in this instance.
34087
Post by: Requia
biccat wrote:Kroothawk wrote:A nice summary by iamfanboy:
For the tl;dr types, what that boils down to is CHS and their lawyers saying, "If they can't tell us what we're infringing of theirs, how can we change it? By the way judge, we're perfectly willing to compromise here; they're the ones who decided to go straight to court and waste everyone's time and money. Oh, and these other lawyers already hashed out some of the precedent here, saying you can't copyright common images like arrows or serpents and that sort of thing..."
This whole thing looks to be a great example of terrible pleading. GW must not have an experienced IP litigator reviewing these pleadings before submission.
Pleading a copyright case is fairly straightforward:
This is our copyright (X). We own it and registered it (Y). Defendant infringed it by making and selling Z.
Not nearly so simple, (nor is registered relevant, except to prove dates and when you talk about how much money the other guy owes you) but GW is probably basing the claim on trademark instead of or in addition too copyright, which makes it more complicated regardless. IE, you get to ask happy funtime questions like 'does this count as trade dress' (unlike copyright, you don't get trademark simply for being the first to do it) and 'would a customer mistake this for a GW product'. Or best of all, the bizarre claims around the watering down of trademarks. IE, it can be found that CHs actions in no way harm GW directly, but that they'd create a situation where future companies would think its ok to do things that do harm GW.
I'll also give out a defense here in favor of GW. Even if Chapterhouse is 169% in the right here, you can lose a trademark for failing to sue people who are sortof infringing on it (IE, a third party could in the future claim GW has no trademark and produce things that really do screw up GW, using longstanding precedent that CH produces similar things to defend themselves in court).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The basis of GW's action is that consumers do not understand that the Chapter House products are not GW products, so that when people buy the Chapter House products, these sales replace sales of official products that GW rightfully expected to gain.
notprop wrote:So the various SM squad markings (generic symbols) upon a SM shoulder pad (surely a recognisable GW specific item) and sold as "Space Marine Squad Shoulder pads", something that GW already sells should be grounds enough for action? (or at least a valid test of the proposition).
This depends on two issues.
1. Do GW hold copyright in an oblate hemi-ogive decorated on the convex face with a Roman numeral (etc.)?
2. Can Chapter House make such an item and describe it as “Shoulder Pad for Space Marine".
To address point 2 first, Chapter House have stopped calling their stuff “Shoulder Pad for Space Marine”.
Point 1 is up for grabs, because arguably the solid form plus public domain deco is completely generic.
GW’s claim seems to be that all these things like shoulder pads are part of the game background they invented, and therefore, because they have copyright in the background as a whole, they also have copyright in the individual parts.
That is disputable.
If GW do not hold a copyright, then anyone can make similar parts and, if it dents GW's sales, that is just hard cheese.
notprop wrote:Re the chapter pads, GW also make these, with a few exceptions of those sold by CH.
Another point that I can't quite get my head around is the "GW don't make it therefore ANother can". I would have thought that this stand point could not be reliably used in court for CH's defence. Designing avenues for further expansion would presumably be weighted in the designers favour to exploit. Not making one is not tacit approval for others to do so, or at least I would assume.
Company A can make something and the only thing that would stop Company B from making something similar is the issue of copyright as mentioned in my answer above.
The point about Chapter House making stuff that GW don't make, is that part of this case is about business damages. In other words, kits that GW have failed to sell because Chapter House are selling one.
There are two sides to this.
1. GW don’t sell a Tervigon, so they can’t be possibly be losing sales from someone else selling a kit to convert a Tervigon. So, no business damages, no claim.
2. If GW don’t hold copyright in the Tervigon design, they can’t stop someone else from selling a similar kit, except by claiming passing off (in other words, the other company is presenting itself as GW and its products as GW products.) All they can do is to stop someone selling it as a Tervigon, because that is a GW trademark.
Personally I think GW have a good claim to copyright in the Tervigon design, so they may be on good grounds to complain about that specific item, however ultimately the court will decide on that specific issue, and it cannot be conflated with the issue of shoulder pads or octagonal panels decorated with a lizard’s head. (Rhino door.)
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Based on the court document summary, posted previously GW's trying to claim specific usage within the context of their setting.... but that these symbols are independently not protected because they're public domain.
GW wants to say:
(unprotected design)+( a small part of a larger design)= Trade Marked IP.
That tends not to work, especially given the volume of common symbols that would suddenly belong to GW. Components of larger designs are rarely covered as well; they have to be indepedently identifiable in the absence of the rest. A skull or a roman numeral on a shoulder pad is too generic. This is one of many reasons CH's lawyers are demanding greater specificity from GW.
I think CH's lawyer is correct in saying " at a minimum, Games Workshop is attempting impermissibly to shift the burden of identifying its own works to defendants." That because GW took the broad based approach... as to say a shoulder pads a shoulder pad, and thus ours... they can not currently point to specific instances where their TM is being irreparably used.
39004
Post by: biccat
Requia wrote:biccat wrote:This whole thing looks to be a great example of terrible pleading. GW must not have an experienced IP litigator reviewing these pleadings before submission.
Pleading a copyright case is fairly straightforward:
This is our copyright (X). We own it and registered it (Y). Defendant infringed it by making and selling Z.
Not nearly so simple, (nor is registered relevant, except to prove dates and when you talk about how much money the other guy owes you) but GW is probably basing the claim on trademark instead of or in addition too copyright, which makes it more complicated regardless.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Registration is not only relevant, it's a requirement for suit.
The current motion to dismiss addresses GW's copyright claim, not their trademark claim (even assuming they've made a trademark or trade dress claim). I haven't seen GW's complaint, but assuming they made TM claims, they haven't been addressed by the user posting the information. Further, GW's copyright claims can be dismissed without prejudicing their trademark claims.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
biccat wrote:Kroothawk wrote:A nice summary by iamfanboy:
For the tl;dr types, what that boils down to is CHS and their lawyers saying, "If they can't tell us what we're infringing of theirs, how can we change it? By the way judge, we're perfectly willing to compromise here; they're the ones who decided to go straight to court and waste everyone's time and money. Oh, and these other lawyers already hashed out some of the precedent here, saying you can't copyright common images like arrows or serpents and that sort of thing..."
This whole thing looks to be a great example of terrible pleading. GW must not have an experienced IP litigator reviewing these pleadings before submission.
Pleading a copyright case is fairly straightforward:
This is our copyright (X). We own it and registered it (Y). Defendant infringed it by making and selling Z.
To be fair to GW's attorneys...I don't think they expected it to get this far. CHS getting a highly respected law firm to represent them is the equivalent of the proverbial arrow from the sun striking Achilles in the heel. Now they are merely scrambling trying to save face and put forward something. And too, they are probably circumscribed by some of the more expansive and somewhat irrational claims that GW has made concerning its IP over the years. Like many whores...er...attorneys, they appear willing to give the client what it wants as long as it is willing to pay.
And to most non-gamers, the distinctions on gaming products are probably so insignificant so as to be indistinguishable to the non-gamer. (And apparently to GW corporate types as well ).
I have a feeling that GW's attorneys are placing a large amount of the meat of their case in the various IL state business infringement claims, all while placating GW's desire to continue to assert its broader, "We own everything" types of claims. It would be nice to have an IL attorney comment. Ulitmately, if GW continues to pursue this, it might actually be successful in some of these lesser IL state claims, all while having its fortress wall of IP shattered. That is not a good result from GW's perspective either.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Eldanar wrote:
To be fair to GW's attorneys...I don't think they expected it to get this far. CHS getting a highly respected law firm to represent them is the equivalent of the proverbial arrow from the sun striking Achilles in the heel. Now they are merely scrambling trying to save face and put forward something. And too, they are probably circumscribed by some of the more expansive and somewhat irrational claims that GW has made concerning its IP over the years.
That sounds about right, actually!
16689
Post by: notprop
Sorry Eldanar but where is there evidence of this?
In defence of lawyers I would suggest that they will advise thier client when it is best to seek an alternative settlement or to drop the case if necessary if it would be counter intuitive to carry on. I would suggest both professional ethics and whatever governs legal matters in the US would pretty much insure this. It is simply not good business to waste the time of a Client on something that they will ultimately recognise as futile. Assuming that the Client is not so wrapped up in things as to keep going for the jugular for personal reasons? GW is a PLC so I would suggest that there are enough checks and balances to prevent this.
Allot of posters are indicating money as GWs reason for this suit and I can't see it, since CH will not have it. This just seems to be GWs continued IP protection regime in action (on a larger stage though). If it was Mattel GW was suing then yes money would be a goal as well but here, I can't see it.
@ KK - I agree with you on the Tervigon issue and this is an example of the many small claims that this case is made up of. I think that there is sufficient grounds to at least here this case fully assuming no party backs down
Going back to oblate hemi-ogive decorated on the convex face with a Roman numeral (etc.) the fact that CH has altered its website in response to the case "can" be seen as acknowledgement of some over stepping of the mark.
Further its is not just the production of oblate hemi-ogive decorated on the convex face with a Roman numeral (etc.) it is the sale of oblate hemi-ogive decorated on the convex face with a Roman numeral (etc.) for the use of wargaming with grimdark space men. It is this later part that will define any case I would have thought and also what caught the attention of GW.
Finally to go back on previous topics again (sorry) but I thought that copyright was not necessarily required to be registered, but could be used if you can prove previous usage. I may not be remembering one of the Lawyer types previously quite correctly, but if this is the case then 20 odd years of SM would also give GW grounds for complaint.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Notprop, I fully agree with what you say, but I would quote an old saying to you;
He who pays the fiddler names the tune.
If GW wants to go ahead with this action, then no matter what the lawyers think, they will go ahead with it.
Previous usage is an iffy one. Even if you have used it, it doesn't automatically give you the right to own it. Afterall you may not have had the right to use it in the first place. To protect it I think they would have to prove they own it, which they may, but there are a few on here that have cast enough doubt on the issue that GW will have to prove the ownership in court.
On a lighter note, did GW take a Panic Test when CHS got a lawyer?
Cheers
Andrew
16689
Post by: notprop
Hmm LD7 unless comissar Kirby was nearby to shoot anyone floundering?
39004
Post by: biccat
notprop wrote:Finally to go back on previous topics again (sorry) but I thought that copyright was not necessarily required to be registered, but could be used if you can prove previous usage. I may not be remembering one of the Lawyer types previously quite correctly, but if this is the case then 20 odd years of SM would also give GW grounds for complaint.
Sorry, I probably should have been more clear.
You don't need to register a copyright to have protections in the copyright. However, copyright registration is a prerequisite for filing suit.
You don't have to register before the infringement starts to have an actionable claim.
You do have to register (exceptions omitted) before you file your complaint/sue.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
That is only for works of US origin. The GW works are of course of UK origin.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
I'm glad to see CHS has been able to manage such a robust defense. It's obvious that their lawyers know what they're doing, and is "calling GW out" on all of the loopholes (and more!) that lawyers of the real and armchair varieties have been hashing out on their own in the various forums and threads.
Kilkrazy wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:@ Mods...
Rather than locking every thread that comes up regarding the "Bits Wars," wouldn't it be better instead to edit the thread and start throwing suspensions (eventually leading to bannings for the worst offenders) at the people disrupting it?
I mean, if it's THEIR intent to get the thread locked, they're succeeding. If they're just trying to disrupt the thread and argue, they're violating Dakka rules, anyway.
I know that it makes it more work for the Mod team, but that's why you guys get the glamorous offices and huge paychecks. Right?
And that's not even to mention the concubine secretaries.
Seriously, though, in the end it'll make for better threads as those same ones who do the disrupting every time start seeing themselves approaching the banishment precepice.
Eric
This thread is on to the tenth page and hasn't been locked.
People should report posts they think are infringing the rules. (One of which is to stay on topic.)
Hope I wasn't misunderstood. My post was in response to the many people asking that this thread be locked. Since the arguers managed to get every other one locked, I was hoping we could avoid the same fate for this one.
Thanks.
Eric
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Plaintiff Concedes It Cannot Meet Its Burden of Identifying the Works Allegedly Infringed.
Astonishingly, Games Workshop concedes that it cannot identify its own works that have supposedly been infringed by Chapterhouse Studios’s products. FAC ¶ 30 (“only defendants know for certain which . . . books and other publications they accessed and relied upon in creating [their] works”) (emphasis added). But if Games Workshop cannot identify any works it believes have been infringed, it cannot possibly show substantial similarity, the sine qua non of infringement.7
(footnote 7: At a minimum, Games Workshop is attempting impermissibly to shift the burden of identifying its own works to defendants.)
Wow. Just wow.
I don't see how GW could possibly have a case now. I mean, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the plaintiff's head, and there's no way to actually win an infringement case if you aren't being specific.
Ok, so Chapterhouse renews the motion to dismiss on the last day that they are allowed to do so (which seems like the thing to do, really).
Can they possibly go to trial without identifying which specific items have infringed upon which specific copyrighted/trademarked properties?
I mean, at this point, I don't know what the GW lawyers are thinking.
Kilkrazy wrote:
This thread is on to the tenth page and hasn't been locked.
People should report posts they think are infringing the rules. (One of which is to stay on topic.)
Amen to that. I'm rather impressed with this thread's posters.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kilkrazy wrote:That is only for works of US origin. The GW works are of course of UK origin.
I'll admit, I haven't read the Berne Convention that thoroughly. I assumed that since GW had not included a registration number (they do have US copyrights), they didn't need one for some reason.
However, my post was a slight tangent to respond to notprop's question about copyright registration, and not specifically about this case.
The point about pleading standard remains. GW should simply have laid out it's copyrighted material (e.g. title and publication date), then asserted ownership and infringement.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Yes, indeed.
I think the problem is that a lot of their material is of dubious provenance for copyright. For example, they didn't invent the name "termagant" though they did invent "Tervigon".
They could trademark termagant, which is not the same thing, of course.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
This is from the US Copyright Office Website ( www.copyright.gov)
Copyright in General
What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."
How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.
I’ve heard about a “poor man’s copyright.” What is it?
The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.
Is my copyright good in other countries?
The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. For a listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States, see Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.
5442
Post by: Eldanar
notprop wrote:Sorry Eldanar but where is there evidence of this?
In defence of lawyers I would suggest that they will advise thier client when it is best to seek an alternative settlement or to drop the case if necessary if it would be counter intuitive to carry on. I would suggest both professional ethics and whatever governs legal matters in the US would pretty much insure this. It is simply not good business to waste the time of a Client on something that they will ultimately recognise as futile. Assuming that the Client is not so wrapped up in things as to keep going for the jugular for personal reasons? GW is a PLC so I would suggest that there are enough checks and balances to prevent this.
If you will notice, I couched my language in terms of what I thought had/has occurred; not what had/has actually occurred.
I agree with you that there are ethical duties to advise a client on what is the best course of action. Having done so, and then the client decides to proceed against your counsel, do you then discharge the client? It is easy to do with no legal proceedings ongoing, but mid-trial its not likely going to happen. Also, this could potentially damage any standing relationship you have with the client, as well as potentially raise a bar complaint and/or malpractice claim. Ethical duties aside, the legal practice is still a business, and sometimes business decisions trump legal practicalities.
There are plenty of attorneys willing to advise a client, write a CYA letter knowing the client will not go along with the advice, and then proceed with the client's wishes.
Short of this, how then would you characterize the continued overly broad and non-specific arguments proposed by GW concerning the copyright claims? Hell, CHS's counsel even submitted a "redlined" document demonstrating that GW's first compaint and amended complaint were virtually the same document.
And too, I understand the concept that sometimes you just don't have a good argument and you just go with whatever you have...
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
biccat wrote:Pleading a copyright case is fairly straightforward:
This is our copyright (X). We own it and registered it (Y). Defendant infringed it by making and selling Z.
I agree with Eldanar.
Pleading a copyright case would be fairly simple ... if the case is justified.
My impression is that
1.) GW has omnipotent and totally unrealistic views on copyright (as documented on their legal page on the GW store where they claim copyright for the Warhammer world and all races including dwarfs, Orcs, High/Wood/Dark Elves, the Chaos Star), they seem to think that they invented tabletop gaming and everyone else should stop selling in that market.
2.) Previously it was enough to threaten small companies with C&D letters to make them stop. No need to have legal competence for that.
3.) This time it didn't work and GW must prove their point. GW can't but is not aware of that. Their lawyers in USA are aware of that (and not at all familiar with toy soldiers obviously), so they can't proceed as usual but have to make a big smoke screen, hoping the CHS lawyers are incompetent and get irritated. Openly saying that GW doesn't have a justified claim is no option for GW's lawyers, making a standard claim that stands trial in court neither.
Chances for dismissal seem good. If the world doesn't adapt to GW's legal claims, maybe GW has to adapt to the world. Always tough when your dream castle breaks down. But happens when your company doesn't allow for internal criticism and feedback.
BTW here another comment by weeble1000:
My suspicion is that you can refer to discrete parts of a work in certain instances, as prior rulings and treatises on copyright law have stated a requirement to specify which part of which works have been infringed, but you are still running into the problem of medium. A drawing is different from a sculpture, and both are different from a story. If you draw a picture and call it a Tervigon, and I design a sculpture that is very similar to the drawing and call it a Tervigon, my impression from the precedent I am aware of is that these would be considered different works and that the sculpture does not infringe the drawing. The labeling of the works is also irrelevant.
If you drew a "Tervigon" and I drew a "Tervigon" that was very similar, one could argue that my drawing is a distinct work. Almost any difference is significant, and all I have to do to create an original work is to have contributed more than a "mere trivial" variation. As Chapterhouse argued in its motion to dismiss, "Even if it were assumed, for the sake of argument, that Chapterhouse Studios’s products were “inspired by” Plaintiff’s alleged works, inspiration is not infringement."
Now, to the extent that the idea of the "Tervigon" is itself unique, this might raise the standard for what is considered a "mere trivial" variation a slight bit as opposed to a drawing of a very common object like flowers or a skull. However, ideas are not protectable. Only expressions of ideas are protectable. This means that the concept of a "Tervigon" is entirely unprotectable, but a drawing of a "Tervigon" is protectable. Even so, my drawing of a "Tervigon" is also protectable so long as I have made a meaningful variation.
For example, if your drawing depicted a "Tervigon" eating a Space Marine and mine depicted a "Tervigon" destroying a building, the subject matter of the works would be different, even if the concept of the "Tervigon" is the same. This is because the idea of the "Tervigon" is not protectable. Games Workshop can say that a "Tervigon" would destroy a building as much as eat a Space Marine, but if Games Workshop has not expressed the idea of a "Tervigon" destroying a building, there's little or no protection.
Now, with Chapterhouse's alleged "Tervigon" conversion kit, you have some additional factors to consider. First, even insofar as Games Workshop has expressed the idea of a "Tervigon" in words and pictures, it has not produced a sculpture of a "Tervigon." This necessarily requires Games Workshop to accuse a sculpture of copying a drawing or a description. Given that it would be difficult to prove copyright infringement even with a substantially similar drawing, accusing a sculpture is going far out on a limb. Additionally, the accused Chapterhouse product is a conversion kit, meaning that it is not a "whole" "Tervigon." This means that the work of art is of necessity extremely different from any expressions of a "Tervigon" because it isn't even the whole creature as conceptualized by Games Workshop. Bear in mind that the use to which the product is intended to be put has no bearing here. That is in the realm of fair business practices, not copyrights.
Games Workshop has attempted to circumvent this deficiency in its claims by arguing that the 106 Chapterhouse products are derivative works. Games Workshop is attempting to get around the more than "mere trivial" variation standard of originality by arguing that the works are "recast, adapted from, or transformed" versions of its underlying copyrights. However, as has been argued by the Defendant, this argument is itself deficient.
"But “[a] work is not derivative . . . simply because it is ‘based upon’ . . . preexisting works.” Warner Bros. Ent. Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513, 538 (S.D.N.Y 2008). Indeed, “[a] work is not derivative unless it has been substantially copied from the prior copyrighted work.” Houlihan v. McCourt, No. 00 C 3390, 2002 WL 1769822, at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2002); Harris Custom Builders, Inc. v. Hoffmeyer, 92 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 1996)." (CHS Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss 2(c) page 9)
And further (page 10): "Sculptural works are not among the examples of derivative works listed in the statute, and it not plausible that a sculptural work could recast, transform, or adapt a novel. Plaintiff fails to plead facts that would raise its claim to the level of plausibility, as required by Twombly. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570."
This is why Games Workshop is making a derivative work argument; direct, side by side comparisons of the accused works with the Plaintiff's works would fail to demonstrate copyright infringement. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, the derivative works theory is inherently flawed.
I also don't believe rules are protectable in almost any sense, and citing the rulebook as a technical manual that implicitly identifies an intention to produce products described therein is a trademark/trade dress issue, not a copyright issue.
|
|
