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.

 aka_mythos wrote:
By the time the suit went before the jury it was estimated GW spent $6 million. Just as much time, but many more man hours and paper work was generated between then and by the time a settlement was reached bringing the defense's estimate of GW's litigation cost up to $12 million. This is GW's profits for a year and why GWs assertion at the end of trial that the $25,000 was all it ever wanted was clearly insincere.

I think that's way over the mark, actually. Probably seven figures, definitely not eight. I would be flabbergasted if GW spent 10 million on the litigation. I've worked on cases with a million dollar monthly burn rate, and the GW v CHS case wasn't in the same league.

After the verdict GW did...basically no work on the case. GW's post-judgement filings were crude hack jobs that literally had glaring copy/paste errors. The post-trial costs/fees could not have been a shadow of what the pre-trial costs/fees were. There was basically no motion practice, seemingly little in the way of meet and confers, clearly a few settlement hearings with accompanying document exchanges, but no depositions, little legal research, few court appearances, almost no travel, no experts. The entire appeal process would probably have only cost GW $250,000.00 or so, maybe less.

weeble1000 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
By the time the suit went before the jury it was estimated GW spent $6 million. Just as much time, but many more man hours and paper work was generated between then and by the time a settlement was reached bringing the defense's estimate of GW's litigation cost up to $12 million. This is GW's profits for a year and why GWs assertion at the end of trial that the $25,000 was all it ever wanted was clearly insincere.

I think that's way over the mark, actually. Probably seven figures, definitely not eight. I would be flabbergasted if GW spent 10 million on the litigation. I've worked on cases with a million dollar monthly burn rate, and the GW v CHS case wasn't in the same league.

After the verdict GW did...basically no work on the case. GW's post-judgement filings were crude hack jobs that literally had glaring copy/paste errors. The post-trial costs/fees could not have been a shadow of what the pre-trial costs/fees were. There was basically no motion practice, seemingly little in the way of meet and confers, clearly a few settlement hearings with accompanying document exchanges, but no depositions, little legal research, few court appearances, almost no travel, no experts. The entire appeal process would probably have only cost GW $250,000.00 or so, maybe less.

Maybe it is over the mark, but I know that it was the estimate the defense had made based on their own costs and how much larger GW's team was. Also consider that estimate is pre-trial costs and then trial and post trial costs together.

Another consideration is their personnel costs with bringing people over here, which wasn't part of that estimate.

weeble1000 wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Has GW divulged how much they've spent on legal fees yet?

Not explicitly, no. Not that I have seen. It is likely buried somewhere in the financial statements. I'm not terribly educated in reading and interpreting those things, so I have sort of been waiting to see if someone finds something about it. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice or something and there's public documents that disclose the fees.

I probably should have said "what GW has spent on the case all together" rather than just legal fees. I'm not exactly the best at accounting but as a public company don't they have to include the costs of the trial on their financial statements once the outcome is clear? I couldn't really find anything related to the case within the past few reports so that's why I was wondering if I was just missing it.

GW took a bigger loss than CHS? CHS was very worried about their ability to continue operations when assets froze. I'd say it at least scared the hell out of them, if it didn't permanently damage them.

That being said, I find it ridiculous that people are making GW out to be some huge nasty bad terrible evil entity. Did they overstep? Yes. Did CHS overstep? Hell yes! CHS was selling what were basically recasts of Death Company bits and just calling them something else, and I can't remember the other bits but I know there were more blatant rip offs. CHS has plenty of legit stuff, but they had quite a bit of stuff that was VERY blatantly copied as well.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Has GW divulged how much they've spent on legal fees yet?

Not explicitly, no. Not that I have seen. It is likely buried somewhere in the financial statements. I'm not terribly educated in reading and interpreting those things, so I have sort of been waiting to see if someone finds something about it. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice or something and there's public documents that disclose the fees.

I probably should have said "what GW has spent on the case all together" rather than just legal fees. I'm not exactly the best at accounting but as a public company don't they have to include the costs of the trial on their financial statements once the outcome is clear? I couldn't really find anything related to the case within the past few reports so that's why I was wondering if I was just missing it.

A successful defence if IP has the money spent turned into an intangible asset and written off over several years.

 troa wrote:
GW took a bigger loss than CHS? CHS was very worried about their ability to continue operations when assets froze. I'd say it at least scared the hell out of them, if it didn't permanently damage them.

That being said, I find it ridiculous that people are making GW out to be some huge nasty bad terrible evil entity. Did they overstep? Yes. Did CHS overstep? Hell yes! CHS was selling what were basically recasts of Death Company bits and just calling them something else, and I can't remember the other bits but I know there were more blatant rip offs. CHS has plenty of legit stuff, but they had quite a bit of stuff that was VERY blatantly copied as well.

I eagerly await Weeble's response to this

 troa wrote:
CHS was selling what were basically recasts of Death Company bits and just calling them something else

Do you have any proof? Because I don't remember that happening at all.

 troa wrote:
GW took a bigger loss than CHS? CHS was very worried about their ability to continue operations when assets froze. I'd say it at least scared the hell out of them, if it didn't permanently damage them.

That being said, I find it ridiculous that people are making GW out to be some huge nasty bad terrible evil entity. Did they overstep? Yes. Did CHS overstep? Hell yes! CHS was selling what were basically recasts of Death Company bits and just calling them something else, and I can't remember the other bits but I know there were more blatant rip offs. CHS has plenty of legit stuff, but they had quite a bit of stuff that was VERY blatantly copied as well.

Every few weeks when following the case a new person has joined the discussion, read nothing, and spouted complete rubbish. CHS didn't steal anything, and certainly did not recast. The whole point of the litigation proved that it isn't wrong to make something that looks like the product of another company as long as you don't attempt to pass it off (CHS never said they were official GW parts) abd don't use their intellectual property. Point on this, the basic shape of a shoulder pad and stuff like skills and flames do not quality for copyright even if GW think it should.

If you're not going to take any interest in the discussion then I don't think you should join the discussion. It just wastes people's time having to explain yet again why CHA weren't recasting or ripping off. Hell if they had then the court case would have been wrapped up very quickly in GW's favour, get a clue.

And as for evil companies, they went after an unrelated author for using the words space marine in the title of her book. GW didn't invent space marines, and they certainly can't copyright the concept of marines in space. If the shoe fits, wear it.

I made all of the blank shoulder pads for CHS and I can assure you those were not copies. Every other shoulder pad CHS produced was sculpted atop the blanks I produced for them, so those weren't copies. Besides shoulder pads I don't think there were any other Death Company-esque parts so I can't speak to that other than to say I know most of the other sculptors were sculpting because I saw greens as masters and not a single GW part.

 skyth wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Has GW divulged how much they've spent on legal fees yet?

Not explicitly, no. Not that I have seen. It is likely buried somewhere in the financial statements. I'm not terribly educated in reading and interpreting those things, so I have sort of been waiting to see if someone finds something about it. I doubt we'll ever know for sure unless GW sues Foley and Lardner for malpractice or something and there's public documents that disclose the fees.

I probably should have said "what GW has spent on the case all together" rather than just legal fees. I'm not exactly the best at accounting but as a public company don't they have to include the costs of the trial on their financial statements once the outcome is clear? I couldn't really find anything related to the case within the past few reports so that's why I was wondering if I was just missing it.

A successful defence if IP has the money spent turned into an intangible asset and written off over several years.

Thanks for the clarification.

 troa wrote:
GW took a bigger loss than CHS? CHS was very worried about their ability to continue operations when assets froze. I'd say it at least scared the hell out of them, if it didn't permanently damage them.

That being said, I find it ridiculous that people are making GW out to be some huge nasty bad terrible evil entity. Did they overstep? Yes. Did CHS overstep? Hell yes! CHS was selling what were basically recasts of Death Company bits and just calling them something else, and I can't remember the other bits but I know there were more blatant rip offs. CHS has plenty of legit stuff, but they had quite a bit of stuff that was VERY blatantly copied as well.

GW did not 'overstep'. GW engaged in wholesale legal bullying. The company made such spurious legal claims that it should have been a case of abuse of process. Who in their right mind tries to claim that they have an unregistered trademark on the phrase "grenade launcher?" Seriously...seriously...that's not overstepping, that's bull.

The company's counsel was sanctioned for hiding documents, GW withheld documents multiple times in discovery, GW tried to trick artists into retroactively giving up rights to their creations, GW tried to seize a man's personal assets to satisfy a debt it did not care about just to avoid having the case examined by a panel of appellate court judges, GW's witnesses testified under oath to things that we know are far less than true.

Three law firms and the Lawyers for Creative arts worked on the case pro-bono in a virtually unprecedented act of representing a profitable entity in civil litigation. They didn't do that because GW 'overstepped' a bit. They did that because there was a manifest injustice at work.

To be fair, CHS certainly overstepped. But as I have always said, if the lawsuit was just about the few areas in which CHS may have crossed the line, nobody would have come to the company's defense and the case would have been settled out of court within 3 months. Instead, GW claimed that every product CHS created and sold was infringing in some way unspecified at times until literally weeks before the trial. Despite making such claims, GW routinely dropped claims, often when CHS engaged in an extraordinary expense to uncover a piece of total bull.

For example, GW dropped the mantis warrior claim after CHS discovered that GW had been asking artists (who they claimed they didn't have contact info for) to retroactively assign rights, and Gary Chalk swore an affidavit to that effect. In another example, GW dropped a claim after it took CHS three years to figure out that CHS literally had no product that could possibly have been accused of infringing the asserted artwork. GW dropped claims against things like generic ammo belts after requiring CHS to conduct discovery on those claims, including depositions, motion practice, and legal research.

Alan Merrett testified that GW's claims "sounded crazy" and "weren't the strongest." GW knew it was slinging BS. The tragedy of the case was that Judge Kennelly allowed them to do it.

weeble1000 wrote:

 troa wrote:
not needed

...

The company's counsel was sanctioned for hiding documents, GW lied multiple times in discovery, GW tried to trick artists into retroactively giving up rights to their creations, GW tried to seize a man's personal assets to satisfy a debt it did not care about just to avoid having the case examined by a panel of appellate court judges, GW's witnesses testified under oath to things that we know are far less than true.

...

I was wondering if you are willing to answer this: In continental, Roman law heritage it is strictly forbidden for a witness to lie (although person which is accused or brought to court trial has a right to lie in his defense) and judges must warn witnesses that if they lie they will suffer prosecution under the misdemeanor law or tort law (I am not sure which translation would be correct). So in short if you are party in case you can lie to try to defend yourself but as a witness you HAVE to tell the truth or suffer consequences, how did they get away with it.
I presume case was ruled under Anglo-American law system.
P.S. Sorry if I am not clear enough but I am not a native English speaker (typer in this case )

I think I get what you mean.

There's "contempt of court" and similar for when people are caught lying under oath.

Perjury is the crime of lying under oath in court.

If deliberate lies can be proven (rather than simply being creative versions of the truth or misrememberings) then jail time may await.

Also, suborning perjury - a lawyer knowing someone is lying/will lie and allowing it to proceed - may have possible legal or professional consequences.

"lied" was perhaps a strong word for me to use. The words Judge Kennelly used were "Deliberately or at least recklessly."

Although, "deliberately" not producing documents responsive to an extant discovery request is, what, lying by omission? To lie requires intent, and when Judge Kennelly wrote the word "deliberate" he meant an intentional act.

Separately from that, GW responded to an interrogatory requesting the contact information for the artists of all asserted works. GW's response was that it did not have such contact information. GW's response to this interrogatory was, I believe, dated after the dates on which GW contacted one Gary Chalk, author of the asserted Mantis Warrior artwork, by both snail mail and email.

When someone asks for any contact information that you possess for an individual, and your response is that you don't have any such contact info even though you have recently contacted that person by two means of communication, what would you call that? Bear in mind that these communications came both from GW general counsel Gil Stevenson and Alan Merrett.

We also know that GW sent out these requests for retroactive assignments to authors other than Gary Chalk. The court record includes a few more of them, but I have also had conversations with various recipients. I heard, for example, that Ronnie Renton received such a request, laughed about it, and put it in his desk drawer. In other words, GW sent out lots of such requests, and yet produced a paucity of actual contact info.

GW also responded to an interrogatory requesting any and all communications regarding Chapterhouse Studios, and GW's response was that there were none. Not a single company email saying the word "Chapterhouse." Now, the only way to prove that false would have required court-ordered third party email searching, etc. But it frankly defies credulity on its face.

GW was also sanctioned with an adverse inference for spoliation of evidence.

And then there's the stuff GW's witnesses testified to that us wargamers know is bullgack, such as Alan Merrett testifying that GW's works do not reference anything aside from other GW works. This, of course, is total BS. Even Judge Kennelly said in a hearing that "there's nothing new under the sun," and that therefore CHapterhouse Studios was entitled to know the sources of inspiration for GW's asserted works of art. Which, of course, GW responded to with its mantra: there are none.

So perhaps "lie" was a strong word to use, but it was used in the interest of brevity.

weeble1000 wrote:
So perhaps "lie" was a strong word to use, but it was used in the interest of brevity.

I ain't no fancy big city lawyer, and I am not familiar with the legal terms and what would fit the definition of 'lie' in technical terms there, but everything you just said sure as hell sounds like blatant lying to me. If anything it seems like "lie" is not a strong enough word...

OK thank you very much for clarification.
How mighty have fallen, one would think that corporation like GW would have better attorneys who would advice against this charade, but hey they tried bluff and it didnt worked but they were so deep in it they couldnt just walk out anymore.

 Torga_DW wrote:
And as for evil companies, they went after an unrelated author for using the words space marine in the title of her book. GW didn't invent space marines, and they certainly can't copyright the concept of marines in space. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Wasn't Spots more along the lines of "We have the copyright for the Space Marine title in video games - does it also apply to eBooks"?

beast_gts wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
And as for evil companies, they went after an unrelated author for using the words space marine in the title of her book. GW didn't invent space marines, and they certainly can't copyright the concept of marines in space. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Wasn't Spots more along the lines of "We have the copyright for the Space Marine title in video games - does it also apply to eBooks"?

The Spots thing was total BS from the start. It was , 'doesn't DMCA apply to eBooks?' The dispute was resolved when the EFF pointed out that you can't issue a DMCA takedown notification for alleged trademark infringement.

The "C" in DMCA stands for "Copyright." Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Also, trademarks apply to specific categories of goods, and GW's marks are not famous marks.

Also, book titles are not the subject of a trademark unless they are explicitly used to mark a series of books, e.g Harry Potter and XYZ; XYZ, A Novel of the Dresden Files.

weeble1000 wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
And as for evil companies, they went after an unrelated author for using the words space marine in the title of her book. GW didn't invent space marines, and they certainly can't copyright the concept of marines in space. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Wasn't Spots more along the lines of "We have the copyright for the Space Marine title in video games - does it also apply to eBooks"?

The Spots thing was total BS from the start. It was , 'doesn't DMCA apply to eBooks?' The dispute was resolved when the EFF pointed out that you can't issue a DMCA takedown notification for alleged trademark infringement.

The "C" in DMCA stands for "Copyright." Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Also, trademarks apply to specific categories of goods, and GW's marks are not famous marks.

Also, book titles are not the subject of a trademark unless they are explicitly used to mark a series of books, e.g Harry Potter and XYZ; XYZ, A Novel of the Dresden Files.

Didn't it also turn out that they didn't have an 'implied trademark' on Space Marine, in any event? (I believe that was the term that they tried to use.)

That case was when I gave up on GW entirely - I used to hope that they would pull their heads out of their nether regions. After that... my only concern about GW going under was what would happen to third party companies. I would be more upset if Victoria Miniatures or Kromlech went under than if GW sank into a swamp.

Mind you, that case also got GW international attention as being IP bullies, making it harder for them to try that crap again. (It even showed up in The Christian Science Monitor....)

The Auld Grump

Thanks. A bit of rose-tinted glasses there I think. :-)

Space Marine is a registered GW trademark, although it is eminently contestable.

At the end of the day, you don't get to send a DMCA takedown over a trademark dispute. GW was pissing into the wind on that one.

In theory, GW could have gone after MCA Hogarth anyway, even after Amazon put the eBook back up, but the EFF wasn't fething around and GW was already neck deep in the CHS lawsuit.

The EFF would have completely trashed the "SPACE MARINE" mark. In a case where it was the only mark at issue, GW would likely have lost the mark.

weeble1000 wrote:
Space Marine is a registered GW trademark, although it is eminently contestable.

At the end of the day, you don't get to send a DMCA takedown over a trademark dispute. GW was pissing into the wind on that one.

In theory, GW could have gone after MCA Hogarth anyway, even after Amazon put the eBook back up, but the EFF wasn't fething around and GW was already neck deep in the CHS lawsuit.

The EFF would have completely trashed the "SPACE MARINE" mark. In a case where it was the only mark at issue, GW would likely have lost the mark.

Yeah... the EFF has deep backing.

Thank you for the clarification.

Have they bothered sending Merrett to school to find out how IP works yet?

It seems that if you are going to run around suing folks then it would be a good idea to find out what you are suing them for, first.

And, Lords and Ladies... the testimony about WWI tanks and Landraiders in the Chapterhouse case....

I am still annoyed with that damned judge. He just wanted the case out of his courtroom.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I would have donated money to Chapterhouse if they had continued the appeals....

 aka_mythos wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
By the time the suit went before the jury it was estimated GW spent $6 million. Just as much time, but many more man hours and paper work was generated between then and by the time a settlement was reached bringing the defense's estimate of GW's litigation cost up to $12 million. This is GW's profits for a year and why GWs assertion at the end of trial that the $25,000 was all it ever wanted was clearly insincere.

I think that's way over the mark, actually. Probably seven figures, definitely not eight. I would be flabbergasted if GW spent 10 million on the litigation. I've worked on cases with a million dollar monthly burn rate, and the GW v CHS case wasn't in the same league.

After the verdict GW did...basically no work on the case. GW's post-judgement filings were crude hack jobs that literally had glaring copy/paste errors. The post-trial costs/fees could not have been a shadow of what the pre-trial costs/fees were. There was basically no motion practice, seemingly little in the way of meet and confers, clearly a few settlement hearings with accompanying document exchanges, but no depositions, little legal research, few court appearances, almost no travel, no experts. The entire appeal process would probably have only cost GW $250,000.00 or so, maybe less.

Maybe it is over the mark, but I know that it was the estimate the defense had made based on their own costs and how much larger GW's team was. Also consider that estimate is pre-trial costs and then trial and post trial costs together.

Another consideration is their personnel costs with bringing people over here, which wasn't part of that estimate.

Don't forget that Chapter House had several of the best IP specialist law firms in the USA on their side while GW had a relatively junior who appears to have had to lied and cheated his way through some key parts of the evidence.

So maybe the costs do not scale up correctnly.

Jonathan Moskin is senior counsel at Foley and Lardner. He is no trial lawyer, to be sure, but he is experienced.

That also means he should know how to follow the rules of evidence. That sanction he got was a personal section, by the way, because it was his email communications with the copyright office that were withheld, communications from his F&L email address.

So it was never an issue of the client not telling the attorney the truth, at least not that particular sanction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
By the time the suit went before the jury it was estimated GW spent $6 million. Just as much time, but many more man hours and paper work was generated between then and by the time a settlement was reached bringing the defense's estimate of GW's litigation cost up to $12 million. This is GW's profits for a year and why GWs assertion at the end of trial that the $25,000 was all it ever wanted was clearly insincere.

I think that's way over the mark, actually. Probably seven figures, definitely not eight. I would be flabbergasted if GW spent 10 million on the litigation. I've worked on cases with a million dollar monthly burn rate, and the GW v CHS case wasn't in the same league.

After the verdict GW did...basically no work on the case. GW's post-judgement filings were crude hack jobs that literally had glaring copy/paste errors. The post-trial costs/fees could not have been a shadow of what the pre-trial costs/fees were. There was basically no motion practice, seemingly little in the way of meet and confers, clearly a few settlement hearings with accompanying document exchanges, but no depositions, little legal research, few court appearances, almost no travel, no experts. The entire appeal process would probably have only cost GW $250,000.00 or so, maybe less.

Maybe it is over the mark, but I know that it was the estimate the defense had made based on their own costs and how much larger GW's team was. Also consider that estimate is pre-trial costs and then trial and post trial costs together.

Another consideration is their personnel costs with bringing people over here, which wasn't part of that estimate.

Don't forget that Chapter House had several of the best IP specialist law firms in the USA on their side while GW had a relatively junior who appears to have had to lied and cheated his way through some key parts of the evidence.

So maybe the costs do not scale up correctnly.

The firm representing GW' was the number 1 firm for this sort of litigation. CHS had the number 2 firm, joined by another one in the top 5. GW had at least 2 senior partners working at all points of this with a third that was involved on paper but never present. CHS had one, that switched out with another, and then an additional senior partner came in from that other firm for the trial phase.GW had about 10 other people working on this suit, CHS had about 7 others.

No, Mythos, I'm going to really have to stop you there.

Foley and Lardner is a good IP firm, but it is not the number one IP litigation law firm, by really any conceivable metric. And I don't know where you got that impression.

F&L is a well-rated US firm, for sure, but by no means the most highly acclaimed, rated, reviewed, paid, or successful firm in the IP litigation practice area. It isn't even among the top 40 or 50 firms in IP litigation when it comes to most trusted industry review publications.

If you look at Legal 500, for example, F&L does not appear on the list for Trademark Litigation, it does not appear on the list for Copyright practice, and it does not appear on the list for full coverage patent practice (which includes contentious litigation).

Winston and Strawn, on the other hand, appears on both the Copyright and the Patent lists, in the number three grouping in both respects.

And when it comes to Foley and Lardner itself, Jonathan Moskin is a terrible trial lawyer. But for Jason Keener, an assocaite at the time, Chapterhouse Studios may well have run the table whilst Mr. Moskin was busy texting on his cell phone in front of the jury and letting his key witness run roughshod over him in cross examination. I'm not sure Mr. Moskin even tried a substantive case before GW v CHS, and if he did, it sure didn't show.

F&L only had a single partner on the case (Moskin) and only ever a single associate on the case at any given time. The first two associates on the case were taken off the case when they left the firm. There was doubtless more work going on behind the scenes with paralegals and maybe some other associates, but GW's team was tiny. I also wouldn't be surprised if Keener was brought on to help clean up the case, because even GW's filings got a lot better once Keener was involved.

GW got extremely favorable rulings from the trial judge, CHS had some wretched documents to contend with, and the case was a weeks long, highly complicated mess of ill-defined claims. GW got some things to stick because the jury figured CHS did something wrong. And if the case had been appealed, it very well might have completely evaporated GW's successes at trial, such as they were.

Given that the product was taken down around the time the lawsuits started up and I never took screen captures or ordered it, no I cannot show the specific pieces. The ones that remain up of course were ruled to be fine.

 troa wrote:
Given that the product was taken down around the time the lawsuits started up and I never took screen captures or ordered it, no I cannot show the specific pieces. The ones that remain up of course were ruled to be fine.

Are these the products? They're Blood Angel'ish and no longer on the Chapterhouse site.

http://chapterhousestudios.com/image/data/product%20images/May%20Releases/02orgnl.jpg