Lone Wolf's Explanation Regarding Message to Privateer Press

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**George Spiggott**

Reprised for a bickering free discussion.

Rob Bowes wrote:As the result of some illuminating discussions, I believe I now understand the crux of why some people have taken offense at our message to Privateer Press. I'd like to publicly address what appears to have happened – due to the complexities involved, a bit of explanation is called for.

First of all, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even pretend to play one on TV. I'm a software developer that also has to deal with business matters for a tiny company. Like many others, I don't always consult our attorneys on the text of every message before it is sent. The message to Privateer was not vetted by our attorney, and I didn't recognize a critical language issue in the message, which led to a major problem.

Last week, we sent a message to Privateer Press, in which we sought their assistance in addressing both abuse and misuse of our Army Builder trademark on their forum. Since Privateer owns the forum, contacting Privateer was the proper course of action. Specifically, there were two issues concerning the use of our trademark on the forum that we sought to address.

First, there were multiple references to tools that used our trademark in their official name. For example, one such tool was officially named the "Warmachine/Hordes Army Builder". Such tools represent an infringement on our registered trademark, and we're within our rights to seek help from a forum's owner in addressing such cases.

Second, there were instances where our trademark was used in a generic manner on Privateer's forum, such as "I'm looking for an army builder to do X". These posts represent an improper use of our trademark, but they are not an infringement. As such, we cannot reasonably expect assistance in addressing these uses, and we did not expect to have Privateer alter or remove them from the forum. We sought to educate the public as to the fact that "Army Builder" is a trademark, i.e., a proper adjective which modifies a noun, as in the "Army Builder® roster construction tool".

Referring to roster construction tools generally as "army builders" is improper, and if we fail to speak up about it, our trademark could become generic. Perhaps worse, we could potentially have to seek a future injunction against someone for unwittingly infringing upon our trademark. More importantly to Privateer players, awareness of the trademark would hopefully avoid its future use in fan-created tools, which would in turn avoid the need for us to seek removal of such tools.

The core problem was that, in the message to Privateer, I used the term "improper" in a few places where I should have been using the term "infringing". This transformed a perfectly acceptable request for Privateer to address the few infringing uses of our trademark (i.e. people using the name Army Builder in their own tool names) into a wildly unreasonable request to address merely improper use of our trademark. Not being a lawyer, I didn't catch that pivotal distinction when writing the message.

So why wasn't this problem recognized more quickly after there was public reaction? The intent had been for infringing uses of our mark to be addressed, and that's what I believed we had actually done. I even posted as much in a number of places discussing this issue, including on Privateer's own forum (prior to the thread being deleted). Consequently, I didn't notice the terminology error until now.

There were a few additional errors in the message due to misunderstandings on my part, for example, using the term "dilute" to refer to a loss of trademark distinctiveness, never meaning to imply a cause for action under the Trademark Dilution Act, and citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act directly, when what was appropriate was to simply make an analogy to it. I also believe, in retrospect, that the language I used was unnecessarily stern. However, the core problem was using the term "improper" instead of "infringing".

Unfortunately, the interpretation that was clearly visible to others just didn't register in my brain, since I was stuck on what I thought I'd written and not what I actually wrote.

So, to everyone who took offense at the message, I sincerely apologize for this gaffe. It was an honest mistake, which turned a reasonable request into a very unreasonable one. I truly hope that this clears these matters up for anyone who took offense and that from here on we can keep any fighting confined to our respective gaming tables. I also hope that this explanation enables Privateer to understand that what we sought was a significantly more measured response than what they perceived as required.

Sincerely,
Rob Bowes
Lone Wolf Development

**Little lord Fauntleroy**

Well, at least he's being upfront about it. Fair play to you lone wolf.

**Eilif**

Wow! A games company says "I made a mistake"
Well done Lone Wolf!

**solkan**

To be fair to all parties, Lone Wolf isn't a game company but rather a mere software company. Game developers are required by oath to never back down in public.

**RiTides**

I was impressed by this admission / apology. Good job Lone Wolf!

**warboss**

George Spiggott wrote:Reprised for a bickering free discussion.

sigh... maybe the third time's the charm. i'm satisfied with the apology and i was vocal in how i thought their original actions were a big mistake.

**Da Boss**

Fair play to him for recognising his mistake and admitting to it.

**insaniak**

[Friendly reminder]
This thread will be watched. Please keep it civil folks.

Also: 'In before lock' posts are considered spam, and will be dealt with.
[/friendly reminder]

**Clthomps**

So did this come out before or after the C&D letter to Forward Kommander?

If it is after I would wonder why that was not mentioned, if its before, I guess its just another underhanded trick from an already questionable company.

**Dysartes**

AS far as I am aware, Clthomps - and I admit I haven't been following this closely - Forward Kommander received their C&D before PP got their less-than-official letter from Rob at Lone Wolf (I say less-than-official, given that he ain't a lawyer, and the communication from him to PP wasn't a C&D).

PP took their action on the Monday, triggering discussions here and on the PP forum, before closing their thread on either Tues or Weds. I think it was on Friday that the origanl version of the above post was made in News & Rumours, though the thread snowballed and was locked later the same day.

**Howlingmoon**

Eilif wrote:Wow! A games company says "I made a mistake"
Well done Lone Wolf!

yes, and he'll get some toys thrown at him for it.

**Arschbombe**

Is the war over now? Is Zion saved?

**MagickalMemories**

ib4l
What?
I'm kidding.
Don't ban me.

On topic, however... I'm very impressed.

Although it would NOT have changed my decision to continue using AB (which I'm a big fan of), I was quite disappointed at that letter. It came across as quite heavy-handed.

That being said... the whole thing COULD be a lie, and he could be trying to backtrack & cover his butt.

Regardless, though, he's falling on his sword over the decision and admitting that he/they made mistakes. Kudos for that. It's not everyone who has the... internal fortitude... to man up and say, "I F*ed up."

Eric

**JohnHwangDD**

IMO, LWD didn't have anything to apologize for.

PP chose to call their program "Army Builder for WM/H", and that is a deliberate challenge of LWD's trademark.

LWD had no choice but to demand PP cease and desist.

In any court of law, LWD would win hands down:
- the PP program is essentially similar in function (a replacement, actually),
- PP deliberately used the "Army Builder" name (in caps, no less)
In the customer's eyes, this clearly implies a link between LWD and PP, where none exists.

LWD was 100% correct to demand that PP not trade upon their good name.

PP trying to confuse the issue still doesn't change the fact that they were infringing LWDs trademarked IP.

To the fanboiz defending PP, consider a new "Mega Mac: a Whopper for McDonalds" burger, and explain how that isn't an infringement of Burger King's trademarked IP.

To the fanboiz claiming LWD infringes, explain how come MP3 players, DVD players and VCRs aren't illegal. Newsflash: AB is just a generic tool that people can load with legitimate content. The fact that some people may infringe does not change the fact that the devices have legitimate uses. Further, nothing stops GW from producing and selling an official AB datafile in the same way that others sell MP3, DVD, and VCR content.

**brettz123**

Seems a little ridiculous to me. To actually say that I can not use the term army builder in regards to some other program. I am pretty sure the term was around before the program. Just another company acting poorly it seems. Would have been better to not do it in the first place.

**lord_blackfang**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
PP chose to call their program "Army Builder for WM/H", and that is a deliberate challenge of LWD's trademark.

Still making things up I see.

**disdainful**

I was a little surprised by Privateer's response, it reminded me of when someone takes something potentially minor between employees straight to the bosses and ends up making a huge mess and causing everyone grief.

What I would have hoped to have happen:
Privateer gets the C&D, contacts LWD, opens a dialogue to get some clarification before taking action, the syntax discrepancies explained in the open apology get discovered and addressed, mutually agreeable conclusion is reached.

I'm a big fan of PP, but I'm with LWD all the way here. You have to enforce your IP; there's a fast-food joint out here in SoCal called Tommy's, which started in downtown LA on Rampart and became locally famous for the best chili burger and fries around in the 60s, then over the course of the 70s and 80s didn't bother to police the use of the name one bit, which resulted in every burger stand across the basin calling itself Tom's, Tommi's, Tommy's, etc. Before they knew it, no one had any idea what it meant to be 'the original Tommy's' anymore and they almost faded back into obscurity until they went on a massive PR campaign, opening a slew of new locations and really hammering their IP home.

LWD's product isn't a burger joint, but it's definitely a cautionary tale of the consequences of letting your guard down.

I hope we can all get past this, and get those Tyranid updates online already! I've have to write like 3 or 4 lists by hand and I'm about to give up the ghost over here!

-Dis.

**Mannahnin**

brettz123 wrote:Seems a little ridiculous to me. To actually say that I can not use the term army builder in regards to some other program. I am pretty sure the term was around before the program.

I’m pretty sure you’re incorrect.

I remember when it was new. Before LWD’s Army Builder, there was no widely-available software tool like it. People made lists by hand or used Word or Excel.

“Army Builder” has become a fairly generic term because LWD’s AB is so handy and popular, and they do have a legitimate right to defend the brand name they made popular.

**Swordbreaker**

I am tempted to write up a quick program called "Roster Builder" and trademark it. Oh and maybe "Army Maker", "List Maker", "Army Creator", "List Builder",...

**Spacemanvic**

Swordbreaker wrote:I am tempted to write up a quick program called "Roster Builder" and trademark it. Oh and maybe "Army Maker", "List Maker", "Army Creator", "List Builder",...

Let's see you do it.

**insaniak**

If you've got the cash to burn, go for your life...

**legionaires**

Personally, I have not been a fan of LWD since they tried to set up AB to be a yearly license product (Whether or not they still do this is not important). At that time I already felt I paid too much for GW products, why would I use software that I had to buy every year.

While I completely understand the need to protect copyrights, trademarks and patents, the heavy handed wording of all the C&D letters I have seen, whether rightfully or not, really stokes the fires of nerdrage. All this has done is continue my state of mind that I have no interest in anything made by LWD.

And that's even before I start thinking about how PP was involved in this.

**JohnHwangDD**

lord_blackfang wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
PP chose to call their program "Army Builder for WM/H", and that is a deliberate challenge of LWD's trademark.

Still making things up I see.

Really?

**Grot 6**

I don't understand the need for public displays such as the C and D craze, spastic confrontations over someones apology, nor the drama that it brings out.

I honestly have no real use for it, seeing as it doesn't affect my armies in the least, aside from giving me something to point at and laugh.

Good feelings, all around I guess? I don't know.

I do know that some of you are getting a little more rise out of this then is really honestly needed, though.

To the Army builder guy?
You should let this stuff just ride, give them a call and go out to lunch with them or something. Taking it public doesn't really always need to be done.

Nothin but love for your stuff, but let it ride, its honestly its all good.

**chaplaingrabthar**

Is Forward Kommander a PP program then, John? Or is it something separate from Privateer done by a random dutch guy calling himself Freek Punt?

*hint: it's not a PP product*

**BluntmanDC**

The reason people were 'infringing', using ''I'm looking for an army builder to do X" as an example, is that when you have a trade make that isn't a name but a description of your product it causes problems.

But the rebranding of someone elses work for your own gain is however wrong, this is the bit that gets lone wolf support. Its not hard to fix, so it hopefully will be alright in the end

**JohnHwangDD**

@chaplaing: I dunno, but it could be - I'm not a PP fanboi, so I'm not that close to it. Regardless, it's still trading on LWD's trademark, and LWD is obliged to respond with a C&D.

**LittleLeadMen**

JohnHwangDD wrote:To the fanboiz claiming LWD infringes, explain how come MP3 players, DVD players and VCRs aren't illegal. Newsflash: AB is just a generic tool that people can load with legitimate content. The fact that some people may infringe does not change the fact that the devices have legitimate uses. Further, nothing stops GW from producing and selling an official AB datafile in the same way that others sell MP3, DVD, and VCR content.

First of all, I'm not a fan of Lone Wolf or Privateer Press. I do dislike copyright infringement. As for how Lone Wolf infringes, here's a copy and paste from a similar conversation made in the PM system:

Yes, Army Builder facilitates in the downloads. First, by virtue of hosting the IP alone, AB is out of line and overstepping their legal rights without an explicit license to do so. The army builder program allows you to look up the latest lists, all of which is done through the program and the main Lone Wolf server. Then, a user can choose which lists they want to download from the Lone Wolf AB server, and simply clicks on them. They are then downloaded directly to the user.

You are correct, that if AB simply stopped hosting the data, they would be ok. The issue, of course, is that they have other people (users) develop the army lists, then AB checks them and hosts them, makes them available for download to its program. The infringement occurs because they act as a distribution mechanism/point for unlicensed content.

That GW or PP haven't shut them down (yet) doesn't actually change the fact that Lone Wolf distributes unlicensed content. It only means that, for whatever reasons, action hasn't been taken against them. Unless Lone Wolf starts posting that it has licenses for these products (like it does with Hero Builder), then they don't have the legal rights to distribute the content via their software system

As for the loud complaints against them, my objections were to them asking that PP "educate" their users. United States Courts have consistently been of the opinion that owners of websites are not liable for the comments of forum users. As such, unless there are new landmark cases that lone Wolf can cite, it was over the top for Lone Wolf to threaten PP to police its forums over how third parties refer to their product. My point of contention has always been that, for a business that makes money over it's infringement, it's more than hypocritical to threaten the very people you infringe upon, regardless of the basis.

On a related note, while it's nice to have some clarification from Lone Wolf, it's very much a "non apology" apology. Also, that was a pretty dumb move to send any sort of legal-ish correspondence without actually having a lawyer draft it.

**George Spiggott**

JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, LWD didn't have anything to apologize for.

PP chose to call their program "Army Builder for WM/H", and that is a deliberate challenge of LWD's trademark.

For the umpteenth time JH, PP do not publish an army builder (or whatever you want to call it) program, nor have they ever done so.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@chaplaing: I dunno, but it could be - I'm not a PP fanboi, so I'm not that close to it. Regardless, it's still trading on LWD's trademark, and LWD is obliged to respond with a C&D.

What a fantastic excuse for not knowing the facts. LWD did send a C&D to Freek Punt owner of Forward Kommander, an entirely separate one to the one sent to PP.

**CT GAMER**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
PP chose to call their program "Army Builder for WM/H", and that is a deliberate challenge of LWD's trademark.

Still making things up I see.

Really?

Yes really.

I'll speak real loud and slow so maybe you can follow along: PRIVATEER PRESS DOES NOT OWN, MAINTAIN, DISTRIBUTE, OR OFICIALLY ENDORSE "FORWARD KOMMANDER".

Forward Kommander is fan based software creatd by someone called "Freek Punt". It is NOT a privateer Product. They don't promote it, nor do they state any endorsement/connection with it.

I know this is complicated and hard to comphrehende but seriously try to follow along.

This has been stated at least ten times in variosu threads yet you insist on continuing to state otherwise.

I know we have a lot of GW fanbois here that hold the reigns and enjoy seeig people slag any company that isnt GW, but seriously...