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.

Mannahnin wrote:

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.

Thats funny because I remember using public domain software in the late 80s that called themselves army building programs for games like battlesystem and battletech. Pretty sure that was before Lone Wolf came around. But I could be wrong!

If copying codex information, and publishing it on forums is IP infringment.
How can software that relies on copyed IP to work not be.

LittleLeadMen wrote: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.

Forums and websites are not liable under "common carrier" doctrine, provided they comply with an IP takedown notice. If LWD asserts IP, then PP must comply. Failure to do so causes PP to become liable for IP.

Merely providing indexed links isn't infringement. If it were, then Google would be hugely liable for indexing MP3s and other content.

If GW, PP and other companies were to try to turn the tables on LWD and attempt a takedown of LWD's links, that would be amusing.


And for the umpteenth time, referring to something as "Army Builder for WM/H" infringes on LWD's trademark. As the most visible site, PP forums should respect that tm, so LWD is fine to do as they've done.


And with that, I'm out. Enjoy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

And for the umpteenth time, referring to something as "Army Builder for WM/H" infringes on LWD's trademark. As the most visible site, PP forums should respect that tm, so LWD is fine to do as they've done.


And with that, I'm out. Enjoy.

http://privateerpress.com/company/ibodger-available-for-iphone

1. They didn't make it.
2. They called it an "army building" app.

iBodger is a free WARMACHINE and HORDES army building app for the iPhone and iPod touch. Designed by Wendell Hicken, Ibodger contains the point cost for every WARMACHINE and HORDES model and makes creating an army list fast and easy. Download it now on the iTunes App store (links to iTunes) and Play Like You’ve Got a Pair!

So there you go.

I want something like that for 40k

Keep sending LWD email about it. Maybe they'll develop such an app someday.

I feel like throwing up, IP issues are always stupid.

LittleLeadMen wrote: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.

Just a point here... The datafiles are not actually hosted on the Lone Wolf server. Army Builder and the Army Builder website link to the datafiles, but they're hosted by someone else.

If I remember correctly, that was actually the result of some legal wrangling with GW a few years back...

Personal thoughts a side, I think it was very brave of him to come back and say this.

I don't think we could see this sort of humbleness from many companies...especially not after how the majority of forums have reacted.

IMHO, this is just another example of how the trademark laws are ridiculous. "Army Builder" should never have been granted a trademark in the first place. No pairing of generic words like this should ever get trademark protection. One should have to devise a totally unique word or series of words to get trademark protection.

Cairnius wrote:IMHO, this is just another example of how the trademark laws are ridiculous. "Army Builder" should never have been granted a trademark in the first place. No pairing of generic words like this should ever get trademark protection. One should have to devise a totally unique word or series of words to get trademark protection.

The main thing is, was 'Army Builder' a term in use before Lone Wolf's product, or did they popularize it. The only other reference to the term I'm aware of was the use of the term 'army builder' for generic action figures and such (I.E. Star Wars Stormtroopers) some collectors sought out so they could have an impressive diorama of bad guys and similar.

Balance wrote:

Cairnius wrote:IMHO, this is just another example of how the trademark laws are ridiculous. "Army Builder" should never have been granted a trademark in the first place. No pairing of generic words like this should ever get trademark protection. One should have to devise a totally unique word or series of words to get trademark protection.

The main thing is, was 'Army Builder' a term in use before Lone Wolf's product, or did they popularize it. The only other reference to the term I'm aware of was the use of the term 'army builder' for generic action figures and such (I.E. Star Wars Stormtroopers) some collectors sought out so they could have an impressive diorama of bad guys and similar.

Army building and army builder in regards to shareware programs have been around for a lot longer then LWD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:IMHO, this is just another example of how the trademark laws are ridiculous. "Army Builder" should never have been granted a trademark in the first place. No pairing of generic words like this should ever get trademark protection. One should have to devise a totally unique word or series of words to get trademark protection.

I could not agree more. Common words should not be granted a trademark.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@chaplaing: I dunno, but it could be - I'm not a PP fanboi, so I'm not that close to it.

Perhaps it might behoove you to do a little research before making blanket statements then? I'm also not a PP 'fanboi' (I'm interested in starting WM, but that's it), but I decided to at least check the details of who wons or claims what before commenting on these IP threads. IANAL either, so I don't claim my opinion is legally accurate.

Good points all round. Good form from Lone Wolf for admitting a mistake and continuing on from it, but also some bizarre discussion about the nature of registering copyrights.

If the copyright office deem a potential registered copyright to be "too generic", they will deny the copyright. It's great to say "people were using the term Army Builder before Lone Wolf registered it". Doesn't matter.

Due to the dilution of copyright act, it's pretty much up to Lone Wolf to police the use of the term "Army Builder". As in, you use it when you refer to the product Army Builder by Lone Wolf Development, and not at any other time. If at such a time the term becomes too generic, the registered trademark will be revoked.

Such things are seen to have happened with the names of certain Autobots from Transformers. Ratchet, Swerve, Skids and many others used to have registered copyrights, but you'll notice that Toys'R'Us currently stock Autobot Skids, or Autobot Ratchet.

Bit of a bad example, granted, but you can see why LWD are so keen to keep a hold on this.

Balance wrote:The main thing is, was 'Army Builder' a term in use before Lone Wolf's product, or did they popularize it. The only other reference to the term I'm aware of was the use of the term 'army builder' for generic action figures and such (I.E. Star Wars Stormtroopers) some collectors sought out so they could have an impressive diorama of bad guys and similar.

This is exactly it. I'm sure I was using the concept of 'building' an army before I was aware of the software. I built armies on paper, I built armies on excel. An army builder would seem to be a generic name for any piece of software that builds armies. It shouldn't be trademarked.

I build armies. Therefore I'm an Army Builder. Can i be sued?

ArbitorIan wrote:
This is exactly it. I'm sure I was using the concept of 'building' an army before I was aware of the software. I built armies on paper, I built armies on excel. An army builder would seem to be a generic name for any piece of software that builds armies. It shouldn't be trademarked.

I build armies. Therefore I'm an Army Builder. Can i be sued?

This is the point that I made in the locked thread too but was shouted down and I freely admit I know nothing about copyright/trademark law so cannot defend myself.

Personally, I'm not surprised or upset by the actions taken by LW. It may seem silly to address people on a forum saying the words "army builder", but part of trademark law (in the very vague sense that I understand it) is that you must actively defend your registered trademark, or lose the right to make claims to it later on. This is to prevent companies discriminating against certain groups using their trademark while leaving others alone. If a lawyer can show you have not actively defended your trademark against generic use by certain groups, you can't then defend it later on if other groups use it as well.

brettz123 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

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.

Thats funny because I remember using public domain software in the late 80s that called themselves army building programs for games like battlesystem and battletech. Pretty sure that was before Lone Wolf came around. But I could be wrong!

I'd be interesting in seeing it! I used a fair amount of Shareware in the late 80s and early 90s, but don't recall seeing an "army builder" for any wargame at the time. It'd be a cool blast from the past if you could find one or a reference to one. I did have a couple of AD&D character generators, and a mech-builder software for Battletech, though I can't remember what it was called.

All that said, I do tend to agree with LittleLeadMen that LWD's letter was heavy-handed and stupid, especially the entire concept of sending anyone a C&D letter without having your lawyer review it first.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@chaplaing: I dunno, but it could be - I'm not a PP fanboi, so I'm not that close to it.

IANAL either, so I don't claim my opinion is legally accurate.

Hehehe, he said he's anal.

Sorry, couldn't help myself

ArbitorIan wrote:

Balance wrote:The main thing is, was 'Army Builder' a term in use before Lone Wolf's product, or did they popularize it. The only other reference to the term I'm aware of was the use of the term 'army builder' for generic action figures and such (I.E. Star Wars Stormtroopers) some collectors sought out so they could have an impressive diorama of bad guys and similar.

This is exactly it. I'm sure I was using the concept of 'building' an army before I was aware of the software. I built armies on paper, I built armies on excel. An army builder would seem to be a generic name for any piece of software that builds armies. It shouldn't be trademarked.

I build armies. Therefore I'm an Army Builder. Can i be sued?

The concept is one thing, the name is another... Is there evidence of "Let's go build an army" being common parlance before Army Builder popularized it? Not that people did an act which we now think of as 'Army Building' but that people actually used the phrase "Army Builder".

I don't think you can be sued for building armies, but you might be at risk if you wanted to open an army painting service called Army Builder. It would depend on the court's definition of niche: You'd want to say that 'software for miniatures gaming' is a separate niche from 'wargaming painting services' while the other side would push that it all be considered the 'Wargaming products and services' niche.

Of course, I'm playing junior lawyer like most people here.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Balance wrote:The main thing is, was 'Army Builder' a term in use before Lone Wolf's product, or did they popularize it. The only other reference to the term I'm aware of was the use of the term 'army builder' for generic action figures and such (I.E. Star Wars Stormtroopers) some collectors sought out so they could have an impressive diorama of bad guys and similar.

This is exactly it. I'm sure I was using the concept of 'building' an army before I was aware of the software. I built armies on paper, I built armies on excel. An army builder would seem to be a generic name for any piece of software that builds armies. It shouldn't be trademarked.

Did you? I wrote lists. I still do - "How many points?" "I've got lists for 1500 and 1850." As it happens, my lists are often generated via LWD's Army Builder program.

Fun fact: while made-up words make for stronger trademarks (i.e., trademarks that are harder to challenge), normal words are perfectly valid.
Additional fun fact: LWD's registered trademark has been valid for over 5 years, and their first use date was in 1998.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Balance wrote:I don't think you can be sued for building armies, but you might be at risk if you wanted to open an army painting service called Army Builder. It would depend on the court's definition of niche: You'd want to say that 'software for miniatures gaming' is a separate niche from 'wargaming painting services' while the other side would push that it all be considered the 'Wargaming products and services' niche.

LWD's trademark is registered for

COMPUTER SOFTWARE, NAMELY COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED TO FACILITATE THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ARMY ROSTERS AND ASSIST WITH RECORD KEEPING TASKS COMMON TO MOST MINIATURES WAR GAMES

That's not to say something outside the scope of computer programs used to facilitate the design of army rosters couldn't infringe on their trademark, but I, personally, wouldn't be too troubled by a painting service. (Disclaimer: This isn't legal advice; I'm a lawyer, but not YOUR lawyer. Go pay someone in your jurisdiction for legal advice.)

Of course, I'm playing junior lawyer like most people here.

<.<
>.>

I will defer to Janthkin who, while in no way offering a professional opinion, seems to be more knowledgeable about this particular subject than the rest of us!

This whole thing really sounds like a 'tempest in a teapot' that shouldn't have ever been a big deal but, well, it's the internet and we like to argue.

If Janthkin proffers an opinion about IP law, generally speaking, don't bother arguing. There's a reason he knows a lot about it, if you catch my drift.

As a junior lawyer I'd like to collect my hourly rate for merely thinking about this problem.

malfred wrote:As a junior lawyer I'd like to collect my hourly rate for merely thinking about this problem.

Sadly I think the going rate for internet Junior Lawyers is a half hour of looking at LOLCats per hour of work.

Enjoy.

Balance wrote:

malfred wrote:As a junior lawyer I'd like to collect my hourly rate for merely thinking about this problem.

Sadly I think the going rate for internet Junior Lawyers is a half hour of looking at LOLCats per hour of work.

Enjoy.

Ah, the sweet pics of success!