21358
Post by: Dysartes
nkelsch wrote:The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves... That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question. They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.
The bit people are questioning is "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" - while I believe access is a given, due to how widely spread/known GW stuff is, I'm fairly sure that at no point CH have admitted copying. If they had, I'm sure this case would be looking more in GW's favour than it is at the minute.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Dysartes wrote:nkelsch wrote:The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves... That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question. They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.
The bit people are questioning is "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" - while I believe access is a given, due to how widely spread/known GW stuff is, I'm fairly sure that at no point CH have admitted copying. If they had, I'm sure this case would be looking more in GW's favour than it is at the minute.
Go re-read some of the 2009 threads, some of the comments come damn close to admitting copying GW stuff and 'there is not a damn thing they can do about it'. Who knows how many other places that flamefest was fought on the internet and what else was said in the public record.
It may not meet the standard for the court, but I can totally see why GW would put forth the idea "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" when they were copyrighting sculpts using GW copyrighting parts as blanks (even if they never made it to production) and lots of the comments made out there on the internet.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.
Never going to happen. GW don't like other companies.
16689
Post by: notprop
Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.
What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.
I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
notprop wrote:Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.
What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.
I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.
Also, GW already has a company that makes upgrades, alternatives, and army-specific details (Forge World), so there's no niche to fill. It would also be similar to allowing other companies to produce GW-based video games (where THQ's licensing would be worth less to them, and implicitly GW's licensing would have lesser value. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
As far as I understand, basically, as soon as something is published (or the equivalent), it is implicitly legally copyrighted, and anything extra done to express the copyright is mostly to make it more difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of copyright if sued.
50903
Post by: Mjoellnir
Kanluwen wrote:What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?
At least two troops choices (Guardians, Dire Avengers or Rangers) for the Doomseer and a HQ, two troops choices and a squad of Striking Scorpions for the not-exarch.
Chapterhouse sells supplementary products, you still need tons of GW models and the appropriate codices. The problem is the law of supply and demand. There is lots of demand GW is unwilling to satisfy. For example for Thunderwolves or female models. That's where other suppliers come in (whose products afaik are illegal in GW-sponsored tournaments). The only thing that sets Chapterhouse apart here is that they openly say that their products are meant for 40k. If GW wanted the money they should do what others do. Look for what people want and produce it. I find it mind-boggling how much money they waste alone by not making products that accompany licensed works.
21196
Post by: agnosto
I recommend you read about derivative works: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.
16689
Post by: notprop
Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
But that is not the subject of this case. Messers Geiger, Moorcock et al that are often named at this point haven't raised any objections to date that I know of nor is there any sight of that on the horizon.
40919
Post by: spiralingcadaver
agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.
I'm not sure if that was directed to me, the poster between us, or the general forum, but, either way, thanks for the link.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.
You may want to read a little bit more. Creating/authorizing derivative works is a right reserved for the original copyright holder.
That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.
I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.
21196
Post by: agnosto
More information is never a bad thing. It was an interesting read but didn't answer all my questions. Automatically Appended Next Post: Janthkin wrote:agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.
You may want to read a little bit more. Creating/authorizing derivative works is a right reserved for the original copyright holder.
That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.
I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.
I saw that part but it wasn't conclusive in my mind; I was just thinking how much of the original work constitutes the need for auhtorization, the basic shape? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer and didn't want to take the time to read the actual law involved.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
nkelsch wrote:
The copyrighted image from CH shows GS sculpted on GW copyrighted parts. Just because CH has since realized they can't do that doesn't mean CH didn't start with illegal recasts... No one knows hence the lawsuit. The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves...That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question.
First GW's lawsuit initially didn't have anything to do with illegal recasts, at best its a new assertion made in escalation only in this most recent happenings; GW's original assertion were over trademark issues with the use of its product names.
Second, CH can own the copyright of the photo even if it contains a GW piece in it.
Third early test sculpts aren't the same as producing illegal recasts, and the simple fact is without that proof they can't make that type of specific allegation even if it deserves closer scrutiny. GW said CH "admits access and copying," but CH doesn't admit copying... even if CH were copying its a lie to say they admit it.
Fourth I have personal knowledge of when CH decided it needed blanks it could use; they had already commissioned digital blank models so they could have them produced for their own development when that specific test sculpt was done.
nkelsch wrote:They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.
The problem is they aren't leveling an accusation "we believe CH has admitted...." they are asserting factually a very specific point. Automatically Appended Next Post: Janthkin wrote:
That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.
I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.
And as you know at this point they're avoiding what's actually their duty as the claimed copyright holder. To put it a different GW avoidance on that aspect of their case, just means if the judge hypothetically decided to arbitrarily say GW was right, it'd be a big gaping hole and strong basis for appeal.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
spiralingcadaver wrote:notprop wrote:Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.
What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.
I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.
Also, GW already has a company that makes upgrades, alternatives, and army-specific details (Forge World), so there's no niche to fill. It would also be similar to allowing other companies to produce GW-based video games (where THQ's licensing would be worth less to them, and implicitly GW's licensing would have lesser value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
As far as I understand, basically, as soon as something is published (or the equivalent), it is implicitly legally copyrighted, and anything extra done to express the copyright is mostly to make it more difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of copyright if sued.
Things are only copyright if they are sufficiently original to be copyrightable. GW could not copyright an octagon. They arguably could not copyright a Rhino door of octagonal shape -- it's just an octagon with a bezel. They can and do claim a copyright in such parts but until tested in court it isn't proved. Hence the jeopardy for them.
25911
Post by: Norsehawk
aka_mythos wrote:
First GW's lawsuit initially didn't have anything to do with illegal recasts, at best its a new assertion made in escalation only in this most recent happenings; GW's original assertion were over trademark issues with the use of its product names.
Second, CH can own the copyright of the photo even if it contains a GW piece in it.
Third early test sculpts aren't the same as producing illegal recasts, and the simple fact is without that proof they can't make that type of specific allegation even if it deserves closer scrutiny. GW said CH "admits access and copying," but CH doesn't admit copying... even if CH were copying its a lie to say they admit it.
Fourth I have personal knowledge of when CH decided it needed blanks it could use; they had already commissioned digital blank models so they could have them produced for their own development when that specific test sculpt was done.
Looking at the 'early test sculpt' I must say that the snakes are to my eyes at least the exact snakes that appear on the final piece. to my eyes, that leads me to believe that they did the sculpting, but did not permanently attach them to the GW pieces, mainly only using those parts for scaling purposes.
Both snakes look exactly as they do on both of the pieces, which a rescuplt from scratch would not likely have the same odd looking bulges in the same exact places on both. so, I do not believe at any time any GW product was ever recast in this exact part.
IANAL of course. (I am not a lawyer if you don't understand the acronym, it's used on fark a lot, can't recall if I've ever seen it here)
19148
Post by: Aerethan
The final product snake doors are very much different than the GW "original" ones.
46094
Post by: KingmanHighborn
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.
So...what your saying is we need to bug a Dakka member who is actually a practicing lawyer, for info on this subject? And don't look at me, my only expertise is in Political Science and History.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.
11029
Post by: Ketara
KingmanHighborn wrote: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.
So...what your saying is we need to bug a Dakka member who is actually a practicing lawyer, for info on this subject? And don't look at me, my only expertise is in Political Science and History.
You've already had info from one in the last page who so. See if you can spot who it is.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them.
How about this idea: Every time you draw an arrow or Roman number or use the words human, elf or dwarf, you pay me 10$ and I promise not to sue you 
48235
Post by: Ogryn
So...what's the new info?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Ogryn wrote:So...what's the new info?
Not much, the meeting to reach a settlement didn't go anywhere. Later on GW say CHS aren't cooperating fully so want an extension to solve this, CHS say GW are talking rubbish and haven't got grounds for anything. So it's rolled over until next week.
40163
Post by: UNCLEBADTOUCH
A few bits regarding the photo showing chapter house sculpted snakes on GW doors.
1) the copyright (if it is suitable to have one for the piece in question) for the GW parts remains that of GW.
2) the copyright to the derivative work (it's new form with sculpted bits) belongs to chapterhouse, though cannot necessarily sell without breaching GWs copyright (see above).
3) the copyright for the photograph remains with the photographer, though they cannot necessarily use it to profit without infringing both the aforementioned parties claims to copyright.
This is why copyright is often decided in court, it is silly and complex. So in fact chapter house can stick "copyright of chapter house in it as depending on context it is correct.
However they simplified things by changing it for production.
Though a question for the more legal types is do some of GWs actions regarding restraint of use of third party parts, if it is proven those parts are kosher and not infringing, are there any implications regarding restraint of fair trade?
After all I can receive a phone call on my orange mobile phone in vodafone shop or can recommend to my friend a tv that isn't sonyin the Sony shop. However I cannot use my third party thunder wolves in a GW shop and cannot recommend alternative suppliers in a GW store. GWs actions are certainly unusually zealous in this regarding and will have definitely had an adverse effect on third party businesses.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Howard A Treesong wrote:The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.
The spears are different too.
If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
nkelsch wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.
The spears are different too.
If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.
GW has to say "these doors with shields on them are copies" before CH can say "no they aren't and here is why..." Its a problem that GW hasn't provided anything to show that anythings been copied. This is why CH can't really make a counter argument besides "show us what we've done wrong."
21358
Post by: Dysartes
aka_mythos wrote:nkelsch wrote:If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.
GW has to say "these doors with shields on them are copies" before CH can say "no they aren't and here is why..." Its a problem that GW hasn't provided anything to show that anythings been copied. This is why CH can't really make a counter argument besides "show us what we've done wrong."
That's my understanding too - GW appears to have claimed that everything CH have done is in breach of copyright/trademark/insert-correct-IP-term-here, but so far they're unwilling to state what it is that CH are copying. I gather this evidence should have shown up during the discovery phase of this case.
Once GW produces a list of " CH product A is a copy of GW product 13", then CH can start to disprove those claims on a part by part basis. Until they do that, it looks like the correct approach from CH is the one they're using - sit back, comply with what the judge requests/enforces, and wait for GW to be specific.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
The judge should finally put an end to this ridiculous lawsuit before making a fool of himself.
If GW is unwilling to make a proper accusation, there simply is no case.
50903
Post by: Mjoellnir
Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Mjoellnir wrote:Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?
Independent stockists already do this.
If you mean selling products that are not GW 40k (or copies of) but can be used to enhance GW produced 40k items; or be things that can be used in 40k, then yes. GW only has the ability to copyright that which it has produced. It cannot copyright an "essence" of a product. I really feel that this case will mirror the story "The Emperors New Clothes" in that GW has propped up the fallacy that all things are their copyright when in fact, it isnt, and that the reverse can be said of their obtaining "inspiration" from the works of others (Geiger's aliens, Japanese manga etc).
GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
3720
Post by: brettz123
Spacemanvic wrote:Mjoellnir wrote:Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?
Independent stockists already do this.
If you mean selling products that are not GW 40k (or copies of) but can be used to enhance GW produced 40k items; or be things that can be used in 40k, then yes. GW only has the ability to copyright that which it has produced. It cannot copyright an "essence" of a product. I really feel that this case will mirror the story "The Emperors New Clothes" in that GW has propped up the fallacy that all things are their copyright when in fact, it isnt, and that the reverse can be said of their obtaining "inspiration" from the works of others (Geiger's aliens, Japanese manga etc).
GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.
More secrecy.
Raise prices.
Rinse and repeat.
26
Post by: carmachu
Kilkrazy wrote:
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
To be honest, I think is going to expose that GW doesnt hold the intellectual property it thinks it holds on many terms and models and ideas.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Dysartes wrote:aka_mythos wrote:nkelsch wrote:If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.
GW has to say "these doors with shields on them are copies" before CH can say "no they aren't and here is why..." Its a problem that GW hasn't provided anything to show that anythings been copied. This is why CH can't really make a counter argument besides "show us what we've done wrong."
That's my understanding too - GW appears to have claimed that everything CH have done is in breach of copyright/trademark/insert-correct-IP-term-here, but so far they're unwilling to state what it is that CH are copying. I gather this evidence should have shown up during the discovery phase of this case. Once GW produces a list of " CH product A is a copy of GW product 13", then CH can start to disprove those claims on a part by part basis. Until they do that, it looks like the correct approach from CH is the one they're using - sit back, comply with what the judge requests/enforces, and wait for GW to be specific.
It seems GW's case is the equivalent to an ex-gf who, when asked why the couple broke up, replies "he knows what he did."
46636
Post by: English Assassin
brettz123 wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.
There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Howard A Treesong wrote:brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.
More secrecy.
Raise prices.
Rinse and repeat.
Then GW can stuff it as others surpass GW. Simple as. If they adopt the above strategy (as they've done somewhat), then they are just being self destructive.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
English Assassin wrote:There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
We'll see. But I think GW are in an ethically murky place if they have been bullying other companies through claiming copyrights on things they don't actually own. And bullying is the word for it IMO because GW send a nasty letter and the little guy backs down because they can't afford the fight. That's what happens in an industry with only one or a few big players and lots of little guys. I don't believe this is healthy for the hobby particularly in light of the spree of C&Ds GW sent out a few years ago.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
English Assassin wrote:brettz123 wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.
There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
GW and ethics havent met for a number of years.
As it is, I purchase product from other companies to supplement my standing armies/terrain (due in very large part to their bloated pricing), havent found the need to buy their advert WD in quite a while, and havent frequented a GW store in well over 5 years. GW does have some things produced in China already btw.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
English Assassin wrote:brettz123 wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.
There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
It has. Not everyone agrees on that point, and it's off-topic for this thread.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Howard A Treesong wrote:English Assassin wrote:There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
We'll see. But I think GW are in an ethically murky place if they have been bullying other companies through claiming copyrights on things they don't actually own. And bullying is the word for it IMO because GW send a nasty letter and the little guy backs down because they can't afford the fight. That's what happens in an industry with only one or a few big players and lots of little guys.
I don't believe this is healthy for the hobby particularly in light of the spree of C&Ds GW sent out a few years ago.
If GW loses the case against CH, I would hope that the results of the case give's GW pause the next time it excercises this tact of flooding C&D.
8922
Post by: ironicsilence
Spacemanvic wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.
More secrecy.
Raise prices.
Rinse and repeat.
Then GW can stuff it as others surpass GW. Simple as. If they adopt the above strategy (as they've done somewhat), then they are just being self destructive.
I think we've been waiting for some time for a company to surpass GW, but lets be honest...that day isnt coming. Yeah sure there are a lot of other really great games out there...but till those games get there own store with staff to bring people into the hobby.... GW will always be the 700lb donkey in the room
39004
Post by: biccat
Dysartes wrote: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS wrote:
Chapterhouse’s admits access and copying
Should this have repercussions?
I see what the issue is now, thanks. I don't think this is perjury because it appears to be a conclusion that GW has reached based on CH's comments. If this were a serious assertion, they should have made a reference to where and how CH admitted copying. Also, I don't think GW is trying to bury this and later claim that CH hasn't denied copying, because that strategy doesn't work in a regular motion. If they wanted CH to admit to copying, they could submit the proper discovery form (Request for Admission maybe?). spiralingcadaver wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
As far as I understand, basically, as soon as something is published (or the equivalent), it is implicitly legally copyrighted, and anything extra done to express the copyright is mostly to make it more difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of copyright if sued.
Yes, the basic assumption should be that something (everything) is copyrighted because copyright exists as soon as the work is published. If you see a copyright mark (c) then that is being done to provide notice to potential infringers. It helps you recover damages later. The issue here is that GW may not actually own the copyright of everything that they published. In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
biccat wrote:The issue here is that GW may not actually own the copyright of everything that they published. In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.
I think in earlier discussion myself or someone else suggested that GW have lost the relevant paperwork or done the equivalent. The early days of GW in which they created some of their most fundamental properties was their age of strife, so to speak. Stuff was done in a haphazard manner and the concept of securing and cataloguing copyrights may not have been given a priority, it is today, but back then maybe not.
I don't know how you prove ownership of copyright, but I understand that some years ago GW was careless enough to lose the original design material and electronic copies of Man o' War, so goes the rumour. So maybe they do have a problem with producing their own records.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
biccat wrote: If this were a serious assertion, they should have made a reference to where and how CH admitted copying.
(...) If they wanted CH to admit to copying, they could submit the proper discovery form (Request for Admission maybe?).
(...) In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.
This only is correct if you assume that GW and its lawyers actually know what they are doing and have a basic knowledge of IP law and GW's copyrights. Sadly, their behavior in court seems to indicate, this is not the case. They haven't even provided the necessary references for filing this case, they still refuse to do so after 11 months, they use every trick in the business to avoid filing a correct case, making winning this case impossible. So it is reasonable to assume that the " CH admits to copying" is just another case of "lost grip on reality" by the plaintiff. Losing this case can force GW to accept, that reality doesn't bow to their omnipotency fantasies.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.
The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)
50903
Post by: Mjoellnir
Kanluwen wrote:OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.
The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)
Praise be to the machine spirits of Wikipedia.
"To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[11] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[11] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable."
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Kanluwen wrote:OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.
The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)
Actually, MANY judges have misinterpreted the law, hence decisions being remanded upon appeal. The standard may very well be set that a company cannot enforce a copyright on a work that it in fact does not have copyright to. Hopefully the judge is very intelligent and puts GW in it's place.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Mjoellnir wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.
If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.
This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.
Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?
I mean that if GW try and fail to prove that Chapter House's products are infringements of GW copyrights, it will be easier for CH and other companies to produce such models without interference from GW.
Let's be clear. Anyone can sell copies of things as long as the thing copied is not original and cannot be copyrighted. If GW claim that the Doom Seer is infringing copyright, and the court finds that it isn't, then it will become much easier for other companies to produce similar models.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kroothawk wrote:This only is correct if you assume that GW and its lawyers actually know what they are doing and have a basic knowledge of IP law and GW's copyrights.
I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.
Kanluwen wrote:The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored)
I would assume he isn't, because the copyright standard is pretty well established (notwithstanding the previous discussion I had on this with Weeble about 2- and 3-D copyrights). To create a new standard would result in him being reversed on appeal. However, it's possible that GW is hoping that CH won't have the ability to appeal a bad decision.
However, the current stage of the litigation isn't this untried issue of copyright infringement. Currently it's about a discovery dispute and the proper form for a pleading. These are pretty well-worn areas of law, and the judge isn't likely to stray from existing law.
Kilkrazy wrote:I mean that if GW try and fail to prove that Chapter House's products are infringements of GW copyrights, it will be easier for CH and other companies to produce such models without interference from GW.
It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright. I believe that there's a presumption of copyright validity (or at least that GW has done enough to support such a presumption), so the burden would shift to CH. It's a much easier (and a first hurdle that GW needs to meet) to challenge ownership of those copyrights.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
biccat wrote:I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.
... or any IP law, given their claim on owning the copyright on Roman numners, arrows, the words human, dwarf and elf,...
But filing a case without providing the basic requirements for 11 months makes the GW's lawyers look like bloody amateurs (maybe that's why the first GW lawyer quit).
biccat wrote:It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright.
AFAIK, GW first has to prove they own the copyright, before CHS has to prove they haven't infringed. And GW obviously is not willing to prove any copyright.
7942
Post by: nkelsch
Kroothawk wrote:biccat wrote:I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.
... or any IP law, given their claim on owning the copyright on Roman numners, arrows, the words human, dwarf and elf,...
But filing a case without providing the basic requirements for 11 months makes the GW's lawyers look like bloody amateurs (maybe that's why the first GW lawyer quit).
biccat wrote:It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright.
AFAIK, GW first has to prove they own the copyright, before CHS has to prove they haven't infringed. And GW obviously is not willing to prove any copyright.
You can't copyright words, you can trademark words... but you can very much copyright a piece of art that has words or symbols in it. You can very much copyright a shoulderpad with roman numerals. The only way GW's copyrights have been violated is if someone recast thier stuff. GW can never lose their copyrights to thier own models. They can't lose copyrights to Rhino Door. I can draw a stick figure and claim copyright and if you duplicate it you have violated my copyright. Making similar Imagery on the doors is an IP discussion. Selling them as official GW models is a Trademark discussion.
Unless CH recast GW parts, then it is a Copyright question. Considering there were images of GW parts used for blanks for shoulderpads and doors, I think it is reasonable for GW to ask CH to prove they didn't recast by disclosing thier entire process. Especially if that process involves using 3d renders (again, shown on the internet) which are exact copies of full GW vehicles which then can fall into violating copyrights.
443
Post by: skyth
Here's an interesting question. Assuming that GW loses and then appeals, will CHS still have pro-bono representation, or does the pro-bono representation end when the original case is decided?
Could this be part of GW's strategy?
686
Post by: aka_mythos
nkelsch wrote:
Considering there were images of GW parts used for blanks for shoulderpads and doors, I think it is reasonable for GW to ask CH to prove they didn't recast by disclosing thier entire process.
Except that isn't how the law works. You maybe "right" in every other possible way but the simple fact is, GW has made an accusation of copying with out showing what they believe CH has copied, and without that CH isn't legally obliged. This is to create a system that is fair under as many possible circumstances, because the flimsy standard you're applying might be used by a bigger company to strong arm a smaller company considered competition to reveal its trade secrets.
nkelsch wrote:
Especially if that process involves using 3d renders (again, shown on the internet) which are exact copies of full GW vehicles which then can fall into violating copyrights.
Not really... also CH hasn't made any full exact copies of any GW vehicle. Copyright protects a specific interpretation of a work, and not its basic geometry. The doors and shoulder pads etc. created by CH carry over their similarity to the degree of guaranteeing the interfacing of intended surfaces. Copyright doesn't protect that.
39004
Post by: biccat
skyth wrote:Here's an interesting question. Assuming that GW loses and then appeals, will CHS still have pro-bono representation, or does the pro-bono representation end when the original case is decided?
Could this be part of GW's strategy?
To some extent, but GW wouldn't automatically win on appeal. CH has a right to be heard on appeal, even if they have to represent themselves. Even if CH can't represent themselves, or doesn't show up, I don't think you can get a default judgment in appellate court.
TBH, I don't know how it would be handled if there was no one available to represent CH on appeal. However, I think someone would be willing to step up and handle it for them, even if it were pro bono.
28659
Post by: dbsamurai
Any updates? If the past is any indicator (sherman anti trust act anyone?) more competition typically forces companies to adapt and to lower prices. Thus if GW were to lose, and companies could produce compatible (not the same, just parts that could be used...like attaching an ork arm to a possessed space marine) bitz, it would force them to find a way to lower prices without damaging their infrastructure...provided they have the business accumen to realize that reducing the number of stores isn't the answer, its lower the prices of your products.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Why in the world are you bringing the Sherman Antitrust Act into this?
The Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prevent monopolies. Games Workshop is not a monopoly. If they were the only wargaming company out there or actively squashing/buying out the other companies producing wargames, then you might have a case that Games Workshop is a monopoly.
39004
Post by: biccat
dbsamurai wrote:Any updates?
No. See here.
In fact, you can bookmark that page and when new stuff shows up you can find it. Presumably you can also set up an RSS feed or get updates on the twitter. Damn kids and your technology.
dbsamurai wrote:If the past is any indicator (sherman anti trust act anyone?) more competition typically forces companies to adapt and to lower prices.
No, competition leads to lower prices, it doesn't necessarily mean that the companies who are currently in business will remain in business. If GW can't make money off of their IP, then they don't have an incentive to develop their IP further, for example making new sculpts and developing new fluff.
GW is a company selling art, not a production company.
Kanluwen wrote:Games Workshop is not a monopoly.
Sure they are, that's the entire point of intellectual property laws.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.
Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Kanluwen wrote:Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
You mean ... like ... with unfair C&D letters and lawsuits?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.
Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
This made me lol.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.
Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
A monopoly is a single seller of some product, it doesn't mean that they're using unfair practices or are doing something illegal, unethical, or immoral.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
So what you're saying is that per the Sherman Antitrust Act, Apple is in violation of anti-monopoly laws because they are the exclusive seller of legal iPods, iPhones, and iPads.
"Monopoly" and the "Sherman Antitrust Act" have a very specific connotation with the laymen of the Interwebs. It's not a good one, so I think I can safely say that this is not what was being referenced.
9922
Post by: The Grundel
mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Aerethan wrote:Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.
Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
This made me lol.
The distinction is that its perfectly arguable that they're crushing competition through fair practices... as much as I disagree with the sentiment.
The Grundel wrote:mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled
It isn't even just exclusive control, the Government also deems any company with a disproportionately significant market share that leverages that to gain benefits beyond what should be expected as being a monopoly. Basically if you act like you have a monopoly its a monopoly even if you don't control everything.
34242
Post by: -Loki-
The Grundel wrote:mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled
Nice dictionary quote. And when Games Workshop owns Privateer Press, Wyrd and everyone else, they will have a monopoly. Right now? They don't. Go read the dictionary more.
Right now, they have a monopoly on their own products. Just like a lot of other companies.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kroothawk wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.
You mean ... like ... with unfair C&D letters and lawsuits?
I didn't read this one originally, but here's a reply to it now.
"Unfair C&D letters and lawsuits" is currently what's under review. Does GW in fact own what they claim to own?
We do not know, under United States law.
The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.
Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that per the Sherman Antitrust Act, Apple is in violation of anti-monopoly laws because they are the exclusive seller of legal iPods, iPhones, and iPads.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Kanluwen wrote:"Monopoly" and the "Sherman Antitrust Act" have a very specific connotation with the laymen of the Interwebs. It's not a good one, so I think I can safely say that this is not what was being referenced.
Actually it appeared that the poster was making an analogy, not a direct allegation of GW being a monopoly.
But honestly, it doesn't matter, because there haven't been any allegations in the case to support this argument one way or the other.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.
Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.
Broad brush there Kan.
I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.
Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base. There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.
'Cause blank spaces in a post are cool (sorry, catching up on my Dr Who via Netflix) 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Spacemanvic wrote:Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.
Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.
Broad brush there Kan.
I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.
You must have missed my point.
There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.
Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base.
Difference is that Battlefront can't control production of WWII models. Technically, they could go into a weird scale I guess and create an artificial issue--but it's not the same.
There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.
I have. Less expensive does not mean "good" or "well made".
You'll notice though that I explicitly stated "in terms of monetary prices" though. Value is really in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a goofy lookin', Rogue Traderesque piece--that's their choice.
Me? If I want aftermarket parts which actually look good(in my opinion)--I'll stick with Forge World. I pay more--but at the same time, I know that if there's a problem with the product I can get it replaced without a hassle. I also know that this is a product which(in the case of aftermarket infantry parts, not vehicle parts) will require minimal effort.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Kanluwen wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.
Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.
Broad brush there Kan.
I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.
You must have missed my point.
There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.
Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base.
Difference is that Battlefront can't control production of WWII models. Technically, they could go into a weird scale I guess and create an artificial issue--but it's not the same.
There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.
I have. Less expensive does not mean "good" or "well made".
You'll notice though that I explicitly stated "in terms of monetary prices" though. Value is really in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a goofy lookin', Rogue Traderesque piece--that's their choice.
Me? If I want aftermarket parts which actually look good(in my opinion)--I'll stick with Forge World. I pay more--but at the same time, I know that if there's a problem with the product I can get it replaced without a hassle. I also know that this is a product which(in the case of aftermarket infantry parts, not vehicle parts) will require minimal effort.
No, didnt miss your point. The flaming crap is your perception though.
And generics dont need license. Only direct copies do.
CH's pads look great IMO, especially when making pre-heresy SM. As do Pig Iron masked Kolonial helmets on IG Cadian bodies.
I dont "need" to pay more for something in order to feel good about it. FW makes some really neat stuff, but they are way over priced as is their shipping rate, but that's just my opinion.
It's almost like guns. I love my Bravo Company AR-15, but some people insist on having ponies rolled on their lower receiver and only swear by their Colts. I'd put my BCM AR over their Colt's any day, and will come out on top despite having paid $3-400 less. I got way more gun for alot less.
21196
Post by: agnosto
And away we zoom, off topic.
Please take your argument or quality discussion to another thread so this one doesn't get locked.
Thanks.
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
agnosto wrote:And away we zoom, off topic.
Please take your argument or quality discussion to another thread so this one doesn't get locked.
Thanks.
Your right. So, what news from the CH/ GW front?
21196
Post by: agnosto
Nothing new. The parties met on 11/7 and were ordered to provide a revised discovery plan to the judge by 11/16. I don't expect we'll have any movement on the case until after the holidays.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kanluwen wrote:There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.
You assume they even need a licence, they probably don't.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Third party car parts companies don't need licenses for body kits and addons for very specific car models. Why should that be any different for models? You know why? Because those addons require the purchase of said vehicle to begin with. Which is EXACTLY the same as their shoulder pads, weapons, and vehicle doors/armor. You HAVE to buy GW's product in order to use 99% of CH's stuff. This reason is why this stupid lawsuit pisses me off. Heaven forbid GW make more money.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I know I wouldn't have bought a Storm Raven if not for CH's conversion kit.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Aerethan wrote:Third party car parts companies don't need licenses for body kits and addons for very specific car models. Why should that be any different for models? You know why? Because those addons require the purchase of said vehicle to begin with. Which is EXACTLY the same as their shoulder pads, weapons, and vehicle doors/armor. You HAVE to buy GW's product in order to use 99% of CH's stuff. This reason is why this stupid lawsuit pisses me off. Heaven forbid GW make more money.
Oh the ever-present "car parts companies" analogy.
This analogy pisses me off to no end.
Why? Because, without fail, it all comes down to people making a statement of "buying the addons requires the purchase of X to begin with".
That is irrelevant. Really, it is.
The comparison of "third party car parts" to "third party GW parts" is a fallacious one. A car company does not create all those parts in-house, for the most part. They take prebuilt parts from manufacturers whom they contract to build said parts and combine them into the finished product. In many cases though, modifying the car can potentially void your service warranty depending upon the modifications you've done.
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't. If you bought a Ford Mustang "kit", with all parts manufactured in house by Ford and all parts considered to be part of the "look and feel" of the Mustang it would be a very different situation if Dan's Car Shop started selling "Stallion" modification parts.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I see no difference between "build your own mustang" and building your own rhino. If at some stage in the process you decide to use 3rd party parts, good for you.
And the point stands that GW invariably profits from 99% of CH's sales. You cannot argue that, unless people are sculpting their own rhinos and space marines to use CH parts, which I highly doubt and would be less than 1% of users if at all.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Kanluwen wrote:
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't.
Uh... what? The vastest majority of CH's catalogue is swappable parts on a nearly fully built GW model. Rhino doors for rhinos, Shoulder pad and weapon swaps for Marines, conversion kits for Chimeras and Storm Ravens that all require you to actually buy a Chimera and Storm Raven.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.
Do you see the issue? Automatically Appended Next Post: sourclams wrote:Kanluwen wrote:
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't.
Uh... what? The vastest majority of CH's catalogue is swappable parts on a nearly fully built GW model. Rhino doors for rhinos, Shoulder pad and weapon swaps for Marines, conversion kits for Chimeras and Storm Ravens that all require you to actually buy a Chimera and Storm Raven.
Read the posting again. Games Workshop does not provide a fully built model.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Why does a shoulder pad that just so happens to fit a space marine, which contains NO GW ip on them require a license? If I design a shield to use on all my HE spearmen does that mean I need a GW license to produce my shields as well? What about the custom bases I made for my HE? Do I need a license for those?
Your argument is rather broad, as ANYTHING that can be used on GW parts must be licensed, which is just silly.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Aerethan wrote:Why does a shoulder pad that just so happens to fit a space marine, which contains NO GW ip on them require a license? If I design a shield to use on all my HE spearmen does that mean I need a GW license to produce my shields as well? What about the custom bases I made for my HE? Do I need a license for those?
Your argument is rather broad, as ANYTHING that can be used on GW parts must be licensed, which is just silly.
No, it's really not silly. What's the point of giving owners of an intellectual property rights if they can't redistribute those rights as they see fit?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
So you DO think I should have to have a license for my own sculpts that I use on GW pieces? So what is the point of making IP if I can't use it without a license from some corporation?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Aerethan wrote:So you DO think I should have to have a license for my own sculpts that I use on GW pieces? So what is the point of making IP if I can't use it without a license from some corporation?
Are you making the shields entirely from scratch or just putting a design on them? Are you reselling your sculpts to everyone who wants them as a money making endeavor?
These are kind of the important questions which your argument conveniently ignores.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
My shields are scratchbuilt, as are the bases, and yes I have sold some bases for money. I see no reason why GW should get a cut if people decide to use my products for GW games. Should Micro Art Studios need a license to make their bases? Should MaxMini need a license to make 28mm weapons and heads?
I agree that CH should have been vague in their wording on the website, but that is all I agree with.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
agnosto wrote:Nothing new. The parties met on 11/7 and were ordered to provide a revised discovery plan to the judge by 11/16. I don't expect we'll have any movement on the case until after the holidays.
I'm confused - if they have a deadline of 16/11 to meet, which passed a week ago, why would it take so long to get more news?
6872
Post by: sourclams
Kanluwen wrote:
These are kind of the important questions which your argument conveniently ignores.
Actually this assumes that GW can even show ownership of things like rhino doors and shoulderpads, which the lawyer-ly types in this thread (and, apparently, GW, CH, and the Court) have identified as something of a sticking point in all these copyright and trademark infringement proceedings.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Can the design of a shield that has been used for hundreds of years be copyrighted? I'm guessing no.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Kanluwen wrote:I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.
Why does someone like CHS need a license to produce shoulder pads compatible with GW models when companies like Cervini and Trufiber do not have a license agreement to make body panels designed to fit Ford Mustangs? In both cases, a third party manufacturer is designing a specific part who's purpose is to modify the appearance of an existing product manufactured by someone else, and is marketed as such. Does CME Auto Company, LTD need a license agreement to manufacture alternators for about 15 different automobiles and advertise that these alternators fit those vehicles? Assuming the stock alternator is manufactured by some other company, does CME need permission to make a replacement part?
And that's even ignoring the entire issue that GW has yet to even show that they have ownership of the IP and copyrights that they have claimed thus far in this case.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kanluwen wrote:I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.
Do you see the issue?
Do Scibor and others need a licence to produce? Going to get on their case soon?
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Kanluwen wrote:This analogy pisses me off to no end.
Why? Because, without fail, it all comes down to people making a statement of "buying the addons requires the purchase of X to begin with".
That is irrelevant. Really, it is.
The comparison of "third party car parts" to "third party GW parts" is a fallacious one. A car company does not create all those parts in-house, for the most part. They take prebuilt parts from manufacturers whom they contract to build said parts and combine them into the finished product. In many cases though, modifying the car can potentially void your service warranty depending upon the modifications you've done.
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't. If you bought a Ford Mustang "kit", with all parts manufactured in house by Ford and all parts considered to be part of the "look and feel" of the Mustang it would be a very different situation if Dan's Car Shop started selling "Stallion" modification parts.
However it is a very good one regardless of your feelings on the issue.
The issue of the 3rd party car pieces is that it is not illegal for them to be produced. Do they invalidate the warranty? Sometimes, I'll even give you a yes. Now look at the GW issue, does the use of 3rd party parts invalidate the 'warranty'? Yes it does, you are not allowed to use those converted figures in GW 'official' events or in GW shops. So there's your voiding. However, while all those car companies disavow their product after the modifications, they cannot legally stop the manufacture of the parts. GW are trying to do so, thats why this case is so interesting.
Now there is also a case to be considered over the use of 3rd party creations for the model market. Guess what, they're not illegal either. So which is it, is GW a model firm or a completed item firm?
Cheers
Andrew
123
Post by: Alpharius
There will always be a certain degree of latitude to discuss elements of this case in this thread, we're starting to wander a bit too far afield again.
Please keep everything on topic, and feel free to start a thread discussing particular theoretical minutiae elsewhere.
Thanks!
4374
Post by: Spacemanvic
Kanluwen wrote:Aerethan wrote:Third party car parts companies don't need licenses for body kits and addons for very specific car models. Why should that be any different for models? You know why? Because those addons require the purchase of said vehicle to begin with. Which is EXACTLY the same as their shoulder pads, weapons, and vehicle doors/armor. You HAVE to buy GW's product in order to use 99% of CH's stuff. This reason is why this stupid lawsuit pisses me off. Heaven forbid GW make more money.
Oh the ever-present "car parts companies" analogy.
This analogy pisses me off to no end.
Why? Because, without fail, it all comes down to people making a statement of "buying the addons requires the purchase of X to begin with".
That is irrelevant. Really, it is.
The comparison of "third party car parts" to "third party GW parts" is a fallacious one. A car company does not create all those parts in-house, for the most part. They take prebuilt parts from manufacturers whom they contract to build said parts and combine them into the finished product. In many cases though, modifying the car can potentially void your service warranty depending upon the modifications you've done.
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't. If you bought a Ford Mustang "kit", with all parts manufactured in house by Ford and all parts considered to be part of the "look and feel" of the Mustang it would be a very different situation if Dan's Car Shop started selling "Stallion" modification parts.
And yet, the car parts analogy fits in so well with the CH/ GW debacle.
Direct parts are made under license. These are generally parts that are DIRECT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL ITEM.*
After market add on parts do not need licensing as they ARE NOT DIRECT/EXACT COPIES OF AN ORIGINAL ITEM.*
*Emphasis added for those who dont quite get what everyone is trying to explain to them.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Well, let's just say: If not even GW lawyers can provide a formally correct accusation of Chapterhouse doings after almost a year, then it is far from obvious that Chapterhouse has done anything wrong. Guess you can't argue that away.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It's not hard to do so, actually. It's new territory for IP law.
We're starting to see it happen in modern military modeling where licensing is required for some things. It's not gone to court yet, but it started up with some things being no longer readily available as early as 2008ish. The only problem with the modern military modeling bit is that governments cannot, seemingly, claim IP on something they develop since the government is "of the people".
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.
Do you see the issue?
...
The point is that a manufacturer does not need to licence the design of a product to make legal, compatible parts. Thus, "XX makes parts that fit a GW kit" is not a valid accusation of chicanery.
The relevance of "You have to buy the GW kit to use the parts" is only that GW is in a sense cutting off its nose to spite its face.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Which makes it a fallacious argument. It has no actual relevancy to the case, it's just an example of GW being a corporation (i.e. making decisions which seem incredibly stupid to outside views, but might make sense to the bean counters and CEO).
41690
Post by: WarMill
I'm not a lawyer, but I do like reading and find this subject fascinating:
Taken from the IPO's site:
[url=http://www.ipo.gov. uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright/d-designright-qualify.htm]Are there any exceptions to Design Right?
Yes. Design features enabling one product to be functionally fitted or aesthetically matched (emphasis added) to another are excluded from protection. These so-called 'must-fit' and 'must-match' exceptions are influenced by the need to ensure that third party providers of spare parts should not be unfairly prevented from competing within the spare parts market.
Competitors cannot be stopped from copying any features of a protected design that enables their own design to be connected to or matched with existing equipment designed by someone else. However, competitors will infringe design right if they copy features of a protected design where there is no need to do so.[/url]
Under UK law Design Right covers 3-dimensional objects in part or in whole, and there's a specific exception which (I seem to recall reading) was made to let machine parts manufacturers make items that were the same as the original manufacturer's drawings without infringing the underlying copyright:
This is how you can buy a car door from someone besides the original car manufacturer that looks exactly the same as the original manufacturer's; if it didn't look the same, it wouldn't aesthetically match the car. According to the IPO, design right applies to unregistered designs. Search on the IPO's website and you'll find GW only has 5 or so actual registered designs, none of which are miniatures. On this basis, I'd argue shoulderpads and rhino doors are absolutely fair game in the UK. People are generally using the term copyright in this thread, but the copyright section of the IPO's site only discusses copyright in these terms :
Copyright can protect:
literary works, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles and some types of database
dramatic works, including dance or mime
musical works
artistic works, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
layouts or typographical arrangements used to publish a work, for a book for instance
recordings of a work, including sound and film
broadcasts of a work
and also:
Copyright does not protect ideas for a work. It is only when the work itself is fixed (emphasis added), for example in writing, that copyright automatically protects it. This means that you do not have to apply for copyright.
Based on all this, I think you would have a very tough time trying to stop someone making addons for GW stuff in the UK, as you'd only have to add the slightest extra bit to your blank space marine shoulderpad (which you'd have to successfully argue was an original design, and I'm pretty sure the that the plainer the item you're trying to argue is your design, in order to claim as many items as possible were infringing, the less likely you are to be able to defend it as an original design) and bang, it's not a copy of the fixed work. If you sold an absolutely plain shoulderpad, you're going to be more likely to find lots of pre-existing objects that were the same shape, then it's not an original design, then it's not protected.
I've highlighted the reference to sculpture as I believe sculpture in this instance refers to works of artistic merit, not artistic craftsmanship (this was very important in that case between Lucasarts and the guy making stormtrooper costumes from the original moulds). While I think most of us would argue for our plastic crack being art in a pub debate, most of GW's figures are playing pieces: they're sculpted from a design document to be mass produced and assembled to let you play the game: the WYSIWIG rule reinforces this. If the appearance of your model doesn't adhere to the rules, tourneys won't let you play with them. The rules inform the models, and the models exist to play the game. Whether the individual plays the game or just collects the models has no bearing on the intention of the manufacturer, and I reckon you'd be able to argue that while they're more detailed, ultimately they're no different from the boot in a game of monopoly: they're there as a functional item, and this is why I think the car parts analogy's accurate. There may be more room to argue when it comes to figures without rules, but with no incentive for people to buy 50 of them, why would you make addons for them?
Apologies for the massive wall of text, just my take on the matter from reading around the subject. I know it's UK law rather than US law, but I think it's still worth discussing. Feel free to disagree.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Dysartes wrote:agnosto wrote:Nothing new. The parties met on 11/7 and were ordered to provide a revised discovery plan to the judge by 11/16. I don't expect we'll have any movement on the case until after the holidays.
I'm confused - if they have a deadline of 16/11 to meet, which passed a week ago, why would it take so long to get more news?
Sorry to interrupt the wrangling for thread related topic matter... Such cases can typically last more than a year as the various parties manuever and slow up the process as much as possible in the hopes their opposite will make a mistake. The right to a speedy trial is for criminal cases and even those can last a while, look at the recent case with michael jackson's doctor. Also, keep in mind that pacer doesn't necessarily do real-time reporting of cases so we might not have the latest information.
7222
Post by: timd
WarMill, thank you much for the look at UK IP issues related to the case. Was getting the feeling that there were some larger distinct differences between UK and US copyright laws, but the UK and US laws regarding third parties making add-on parts seem fairly similar. I find it VERY interesting that GW has only five registered copyrights. I am am assuming that GW has far more registered trademarks given the long list of trademarked words in any of the rules books, but perhaps they were lax about registering their trademarks as well. It would be interesting to know how many of the words they claim as trademarked in the books are actually registered trademarks.
By the way the original owner of the Space Marines trademark was the maker of the game Princess Ryan's Space Marines in the USA. GW discovered the existence of the game after claiming trademark on Space Marines and I believe that a chunk of money changed hands so it could become GW's trademark.
Tim
WarMill wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I do like reading and find this subject fascinating:
Taken from the IPO's site:
[url=http://www.ipo.gov. uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright/d-designright-qualify.htm[/url]]Are there any exceptions to Design Right?
Yes. Design features enabling one product to be functionally fitted or aesthetically matched (emphasis added) to another are excluded from protection. These so-called 'must-fit' and 'must-match' exceptions are influenced by the need to ensure that third party providers of spare parts should not be unfairly prevented from competing within the spare parts market.
Competitors cannot be stopped from copying any features of a protected design that enables their own design to be connected to or matched with existing equipment designed by someone else. However, competitors will infringe design right if they copy features of a protected design where there is no need to do so.
This is how you can buy a car door from someone besides the original car manufacturer that looks exactly the same as the original manufacturer's; if it didn't look the same, it wouldn't aesthetically match the car. According to the IPO, design right applies to unregistered designs. Search on the IPO's website and you'll find GW only has 5 or so actual registered designs, none of which are miniatures. On this basis, I'd argue shoulderpads and rhino doors are absolutely fair game in the UK. People are generally using the term copyright in this thread, but the copyright section of the IPO's site only discusses copyright in these terms :
39004
Post by: biccat
agnosto wrote:Also, keep in mind that pacer doesn't necessarily do real-time reporting of cases so we might not have the latest information.
PACER is usually pretty good, it's usually what you use to look up information on pending litigation.
The free version, however, leaves something to be desired. You get what you pay for I suppose.
timd wrote:It would be interesting to know how many of the words they claim as trademarked in the books are actually registered trademarks.
1) You don't need to register a mark to have trademark protection (I'm sure you're aware of this, but just a reminder for those who may not be).
2) Find out for yourself! ( USPTO link in case the other doesn't work.)
There are substantial differences between design rights (which I understand are similar to design patents in the US) and copyright. US law used to have a concept known as "ornamental functionality" that applied to design patents, but I'm pretty sure that concept is now dead. That seems to correspond best with the "aesthetically matched" exemption you're referring to.
41690
Post by: WarMill
Patents in the UK (at least according to the IPO) are for the processes and functions that make your product work, copyright is for when your idea is'fixed', so written, recorded or drawn, but only applies to that fixed interpretation, and design rights protect the shape and appearance of your product in the marketplace. The intent I got was that patents are for the technical side, copyright covers art, and design rights are for products. The definition of design on the ipo site seems to be the most appropriate for GW's products, and is what the design right exception I mentioned comes under.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.
Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.
41690
Post by: WarMill
But they're not described as being part of the 40K universe, they're described as being compatible with their products. If that was what the suit was about, it would be over as soon as they changed the text wouldn't it? GW is accusing them of copying products, which is why the suit's dragging on: they won't say what those products are. The 40K universe as an idea can't be copyrighted: only the specific texts and characters described in enough detail to be considered 'fixed' can. This is why I would argue (if I was in trouble for that sort of thing) that the design rather than copyright (using UK definitions) rules applied, and therefore the design right exemption was valid as the parts were accessories to a product rather than a modification to a work of copyrighted art. I would also argue that design rules applied, as you'd be arguing over products that look similar (design) rather than are exact copies (copyright, again UK definitions as far as the IPO seems to make out). I really just think it's interesting to discuss how you'd play out the defense if CH was in the UK, I know US laws are a little bit different so consider it irrelevant if you want.
I'm not particular pro GW or CH, the suit just got me reading around the subject and I found it an interesting exercise.
3720
Post by: brettz123
English Assassin wrote:brettz123 wrote:Spacemanvic wrote:GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.
I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.
Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.
There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.
I respectfully disagree. Pretty much everything CH sells necessitates buying a GW product to use. The two "not" eldar models don't really but even then most people who buy them will stick them in an Eldar army. So to me I see this as bringing more variety / modelling possibilities to the hobby. To me this means that more people will have their imaginations fired up to start more projects and lead to not only more sales for GW but a larger number of overall customers as veterans gamers decide to buy "just one more army".
As far as ethical goes I acknowledge that you have a point but I don't really agree with it. At the end of the day the ethical consideration is a personal decision and if you feel they are unethical in what they are doing then I respect that decision even if I don't agree.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I don't think there is an ethical high ground there.
Business has always worked by some companies leading and others following.
If there is a high ground, GW have done more than their fair share of borrowing inspiration from prior sources and don't stand on it.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kilkrazy wrote:If there is a high ground, GW have done more than their fair share of borrowing inspiration from prior sources and don't stand on it.
Also there are a variety of means to settle disputes with other companies and I don't think GW take a particularly reasonable line given some of the tenuous C&Ds they've sent out which amounts to bullying over a number of years.
50903
Post by: Mjoellnir
Squigsquasher wrote:It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.
Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.
"The gods have always demanded worship and sacrifice but in return they grant their most zealous followers with supernatural strength and skills. Serqitet, goddess of the scorpion protects her followers through her warrior priestess.
Armed with sword and pistol, Armana'serq leads her fellow warrior-priest into close-combat through stealth and subterfuge."
"Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all seers, to see the path of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of an entire world-ship, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible."
"This is a sculpted 12 piece resin conversion kit that when combined with the Games Workshop Eldar Jetbike kit can form the model shown. It is meant to aid players in converting a regular jetbike kit into a farseer on jetbike model."
"This is a shoulder pad with a skull on it, the rest f the shoulder pad has armored studs. This shoulder pad works well with chaos or imperial marine models his could also be a chapter icon for the left shoulder."
Where do they say that their models belong into 40k? They say (where bits etc are concerned) on which GW models they fit, which is necessary information for their use.
31639
Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike
Squigsquasher wrote:It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.
Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.
Does playing in a GW store/ having turnament legal models meen so much to you? If you purchaced those parts why can't you make a display model? or why can't you play at your house/club with them? If you got the bits and you just didn't like them, that I could understand after all taste is a subjective one, hell some people thing GW makes the 'best toy solders in the world'. >.> <.<
I find this case just poposterious. It's the equivilent of GW saying' hey, I don't like you anymore, im taking my toys and going home'. This is just spiteful and I believe was filed in bad faith by GW. They had hoped that CH would just fold up and die like alot of other companys in the past have. I am glad that CH got pro-bono repersentation so they can fight this and we can finally find out if GW's claims can be backed up in court.
1478
Post by: warboss
They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
@ FabricatorGeneralMike
I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.
People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.
@ Warboss Your comment about GW and what they allow in their tournaments.
I have played in GW sponsored events with my custom armies with non standard items on my models. It really comes down to region and managers within that region. The manager at my GW store has never given me any problems nor I expect to have any problems. But I have seen in the past in other parts of the country were your comment has been valid.
Just depends on the situation I guess.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent.
If GW are found guilty, one of the possible punishments is that they will be barred from pursuing copyright claims in that jurisdiction until the judge deems they have "atoned" for their past misconduct. Since it was GW's choice to bring this to federal court, the ban would apply throughout the US - if they are found guilty, and if the judge chooses that means of punishment instead of, for example, hitting them with a multimillion dollar fine and just disbarring their attorneys.
(...)
I agree with you that its unlikely - it will be very hard for CHS to prove malicious intent (monumental arrogance and institutional incompetence are not, as far as I am aware, against the law in the US). But I think you are underestimating the impact it could have IF the copyright misuse claim stands up.
The problem is that GW have made a rod for their own back with the copyright misuse claim. By insisting that the case be tried in federal court they have ensured that any ban is going to apply nationwide. And by maintaining the falacious argument that CHS products violate the "copyright" of the 40K Universe (which they cannot own, since it is by definition an idea) they have opened the door for the judge to ban them from asserting any copyrights associated with the 40K Universe.
IMO, it is far more likely that they (or their lawyers) will be found to have been incompetent rather than malicious, and even if W&S proves anti-competetive practise it is far more likely that GW will be "let off" with a 7 figure fine rather than banned from asserting copyright (although I suppose they could be banned until such time as the fine is paid). But it IS a possibility, and it is interesting to speculate on the consequences (although not here - there is another thread for that).
(...)
You are unlikely to have encountered it in a study of copyright, because it is derived from case law rather than statute, and is usually considered to be a branch of antitrust not IP law.
And the total ban really is the doomsday scenario - possible, but incredibly unlikely. I suspect the claim was brought by W&S not out of any belief that they could prove it, but so that they could use exactly this kind of speculation to force GW to settle.
From what I have been told, the doomsday scenario would only apply if ALL of GW's copyright claims were dismissed as a matter of law by the judge (trademark issues would be considered separately) AND W&S could prove malicious intent AND Judge Kenelly had a bad round of golf the previous day. Even then, he would more likely impose heavy fines on GW and go after their lawyers for misconduct.
If even one of GWs copyright claims makes it into court to be decided as a matter of fact then malicious intent cannot be proven, since the case did have *some* merit even if the jury eventually decides no copying took place.
monkey_box wrote:Based on the Foleys size and rep, along with the amount of time that's allocated for filing, various court dates, etc GW is probably out at least half a million so far. (that's a very low estimate as well)
Which of course gets passed on to their loyal fans as increased "opperational costs" and supported through cost hikes.
(...)
I work as consultant for a legal firm while we don't specialize in intellectual properties I know what case time is generally billed at and I can aproximate the hours based on the paperwork that's been filed publically.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
warboss wrote:They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.
I find it somewhat daft that they won't allow a well modelled army using some non- GW parts at a tournament, but will allow hoards of unpainted and semi-assembled stuff on the table. Which do we suppose does the image of the hobby more of a disservice? Automatically Appended Next Post: Adam LongWalker wrote:@ FabricatorGeneralMike
I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.
People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.
Is this really a big deal outside Dakka and Warseer? Most of the world including a lot of GW customers don't know this is even going on.
31639
Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike
Howard A Treesong wrote:warboss wrote:They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.
I find it somewhat daft that they won't allow a well modelled army using some non- GW parts at a tournament, but will allow hoards of unpainted and semi-assembled stuff on the table. Which do we suppose does the image of the hobby more of a disservice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Adam LongWalker wrote:@ FabricatorGeneralMike
I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.
People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.
Is this really a big deal outside Dakka and Warseer? Most of the world including a lot of GW customers don't know this is even going on.
It would appear that Dakka ate my post... sighs...well it was a whity remark and I shall morn it.
Basically what it amounted to was that most kids are online these days so they do come to the forms. They might not participate but they do read what's going on in the wargamming world.
My granddaugher thinks I am 'messing' with her when I tell her that there was a time when not everyone was on the web. That there was a time when cell phones only made phone calls and you couldn't go surfing on them, or send texts or pics ..she really can't get her head around it. So I think most of GW's target demographic is online then just don't particiipate in the fourms like we do.
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
Beat me to the punch FabricatorGeneralMike. I do know that information does spread via word by mouth to others that do not go to these sites, at least that is what I see in my region.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Kroothawk wrote:rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent...
Thanks for posting this up, Kroothawk.
Also, Holy Crap. I mean, look at the evidence all around- you have the fact that GW's website claims that they have trademarked "all of the Warhammer races" which includes orcs, dwarves and elves, the chaos star and a large number of other things that they cannot own, in addition to any photographs that customers have taken of their miniatures.
On top of that, the C&D letters seem to be sent out to US companies exclusively (because in other nations, the laws don't favor larger companies as much). I really want to see the Raging Heroes guys called into court to testify with the C&D they received. I wonder what steps would need to be taken to include other companies in the lawsuit.
I wonder how altruistic CHS and W&S are feeling at the moment. I mean, they could settle (which would probably be best for CHS) but they haven't really been in a position where settling has been imperative for them.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
Squigsquasher wrote:The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.
The Hydra once again rears it's head.
I'm not trying to belittle you, but what you've written here is about as specific as saying, "CHS is going GW's thing."
First, define Intellectual Property. What form of intellectual property? There are many kinds: copyright, trademark, patent, etc.
Second, define "Warhammer 40,000 universe." What is this so-called intellectual property? How is it defined? How is it protectible? What are its boundaries? As Biccat has succinctly stated some pages ago, intellectual property laws typically create monopolies. There must of necessity be boundaries that define what the holder of any particular intellectual property right is and is not allowed to monopolize.
Do you want to take a crack at defining the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," or shall I? Let's start with a little brain teaser:
Earth (as in the planet) - part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, right? Is that GW's invention? If I write a story that takes place on Earth, am I infringing GW's "intellectual property." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll agree with me that the answer is a firm, "not necessarily." But what does this seemingly painfully obvious conclusion demonstrate?
It demonstrates that one must define what precisely Games Workshop did "invent" which implicitly forces you to exclude things that are not within the boundaries of so-called "intellectual property," even if they are indeed part of what you might call the "Warhammer 40,000 universe."
I'll invite another exercise: "Space Marine." That's pretty iconic. Is "Space Marine" the "Warhammer 40,000 universe?"
I'll invite one more: My Dark Heresy character is an Gunmetallican Arbites named Livius Pavo. He's a former undercover operative of the Divisio Immoralis with a severe demeanor and rigid adherence to duty. He leads a rag-tag band of acolytes seeking to rescue an inquisitor that was lost while attempting to navigate the Webway. Is Livius Pavo part of the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," which is of course, as you say, invented by Games Workshop.
Boy, isn't that a hefty issue. Go ahead and take a crack at dissecting that. For fun, imagine that I write a web comic about dear Livius and his companions executed in nothing but abstract whirls of color and binary dialog that is wildly popular among a large fan-base and represents my only significant source of income drawn from add revenue and merchandise.
38250
Post by: poda_t
Kroothawk wrote:To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.
you have got to be joking right? A preliminary search for manticore yields more than substantial evidence that this is an old folk concept... (i am assuming it's because of the manticore) I didn't think my respect for GW could have sunk any lower. I hope and pray I'm done with buying anything from them. (and don't any of you get started about me trashing GW and being a hate-monger, my dislike of GW has long roots, beginning with their local staff) weeble1000 wrote:
The Hydra once again rears it's head.
I'm not trying to belittle you, but what you've written here is about as specific as saying, "CHS is going GW's thing."
First, define Intellectual Property. What form of intellectual property? There are many kinds: copyright, trademark, patent, etc.
Second, define "Warhammer 40,000 universe." What is this so-called intellectual property? How is it defined? How is it protectible? What are its boundaries? As Biccat has succinctly stated some pages ago, intellectual property laws typically create monopolies. There must of necessity be boundaries that define what the holder of any particular intellectual property right is and is not allowed to monopolize.
Do you want to take a crack at defining the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," or shall I? Let's start with a little brain teaser:
Earth (as in the planet) - part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, right? Is that GW's invention? If I write a story that takes place on Earth, am I infringing GW's "intellectual property." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll agree with me that the answer is a firm, "not necessarily." But what does this seemingly painfully obvious conclusion demonstrate?
It demonstrates that one must define what precisely Games Workshop did "invent" which implicitly forces you to exclude things that are not within the boundaries of so-called "intellectual property," even if they are indeed part of what you might call the "Warhammer 40,000 universe."
I'll invite another exercise: "Space Marine." That's pretty iconic. Is "Space Marine" the "Warhammer 40,000 universe?"
I'll invite one more: My Dark Heresy character is an Gunmetallican Arbites named Livius Pavo. He's a former undercover operative of the Divisio Immoralis with a severe demeanor and rigid adherence to duty. He leads a rag-tag band of acolytes seeking to rescue an inquisitor that was lost while attempting to navigate the Webway. Is Livius Pavo part of the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," which is of course, as you say, invented by Games Workshop.
Boy, isn't that a hefty issue. Go ahead and take a crack at dissecting that. For fun, imagine that I write a web comic about dear Livius and his companions executed in nothing but abstract whirls of color and binary dialog that is wildly popular among a large fan-base and represents my only significant source of income drawn from add revenue and merchandise.
I can add to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine. GW has no right to patent/claim the name just because they've become the biggest. They didn't invent the idea of the space marine, he's existed since the dawn of science fiction. It's clear that GW hijaced them right out of the pages written in history, and simply reworked the idea. Imperial guard? Do I even NEED to try to explain where they are all pulled from? Eldar are just space elves, and elves again come right out of historical fiction... GW is really stretching itself hard, and its the big-boy "I invented it" attitude that is eroding my respect for GW. The only thing GW has any rightful claim to are any models it produces, and any fiction it generates. Yes, CHS has produced characters compatible with the 40k universe; now show me where in the 40k universe they actually exist? Nothing as been produced by CHS that directly competes with official GW product. (well, the malantai kafuffle, but CHS yielded and that's been removed.) At no point in time did CHS assert their product is part of the 40k universe, they said it was compatible with the 40k universe. That's a huge difference. On the one hand GW encourages people to make their own stuff, and to convert, etc, but on the next they ban companies that make compatible products for people to convert with. I won't lie, im terrible with putty, so if someone creates another part that i can use, whose aesthetics I either prefer to GW's, or GW does not produce, then I will go and purchase the part from said third party. This doesn't just have to do with CHS, but this has to do with every single person or company that is in the business of building and painting armies for the GW universe. As soon as a company makes a conversion, they are profiting off of GW's IP, even if it's the only conversion and its made entirely from GW parts. As soon as they paint an Ultramarines army and put it up for sale, they are profiting off of GW's IP. Even if they just paint an Eldar army according to non- GW designs, they would still be profiting off of GW's work, as the Eldar and models are trademarks of GW. (And cool it Squigsquasher, in case you are flaming mad right now, im not ripping into you, or, at least not trying to) I don't see this case as decisive because of it's deciding on how after-market or compatible companies fare, but because of all the other stuff in between like army builder/painting services that are technically also in violation. In any case, i think it might be well worth it to sit back and let this case roll on for a bit longer before saying anything further. I see no new arguments or new developments in the case so far. I don't think anyone else should be posting for the next bit, it's starting to get annoying to keep coming back to this thread to see the same arguments hashed out. The only one I think I haven't seen thoroughly discussed is the effect on Army Assembly/Painting services, but the point may well just be moot.
6806
Post by: Gavin Thorne
poda_t wrote:Kroothawk wrote:To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.
you have got to be joking right? A preliminary search for manticore yields more than substantial evidence that this is an old folk concept... (i am assuming it's because of the manticore) I didn't think my respect for GW could have sunk any lower. I hope and pray I'm done with buying anything from them. (and don't any of you get started about me trashing GW and being a hate-monger, my dislike of GW has long roots, beginning with their local staff)
No, not kidding. It floored me when I heard about it too. The model that Raging Heroes made was far and away better than GW's effort, compounding matters. This kind of heavy-handed bullying is typical for GW's legal team, though. I love the product they make and the ideas they present in fiction, but their business practices and legal attack dogs leaves something to be desired. I've done business with both GW and CH and really like the products they both make. I sincerely hope that something good comes out of this mess.
13512
Post by: Jon Garrett
http://www.ragingheroes.com/blogs/news/3241852-no-more-lamassu-heads
Not the Manticore, but the Lamassu that GW put out of production. And it was a swappable head situation. Still, not a cool move on there part. Since I believe the Lamassu is a Mesopotamian protective spirit. I don't think GW can sue ancient civilizations, though, so they're probably safe.
EDIT: To compare...
19148
Post by: Aerethan
GW was just mad that someone made a Lamassu that didn't look like crap. >.>
123
Post by: Alpharius
One last time - stay on topic.
Do not spam this thread.
Failure to adhere to these warnings will result in suspensions.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Kroothawk wrote:rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent.
Thanks for the developments Kroothawk, but this has left me slightly confused so if some of the more legal oriented minds in Dakka could shed some light on this matter I would appreciate it.
If CHS got their legal representation pro-bono, then how and why are they filling this counter suit?
Is this just a normal litigation tactics to force a settlement or did CHSs lawyers smelled blood in the water and are now going after GW for a bigger pay check?
1523
Post by: Saldiven
PhantomViper wrote:
Thanks for the developments Kroothawk, but this has left me slightly confused so if some of the more legal oriented minds in Dakka could shed some light on this matter I would appreciate it.
If CHS got their legal representation pro-bono, then how and why are they filling this counter suit?
Is this just a normal litigation tactics to force a settlement or did CHSs lawyers smelled blood in the water and are now going after GW for a bigger pay check?
Just because the attorney has decided to represent the defendant without charging the defendant for the service doesn't mean that the attorney cannot pursue the other party for attorney's fees if they feel it is warranted.
It's hard to tell at this point what the motivation might be for the move. It might be because the attorneys actually believe they could win such a counter-suit. It might be nothing more than something else thrown into the mix for when negotiations for a settlement come up. It might be something of a scare tactic designed to encourage the plaintiff to go to the negotiating table in the first place. Or it could be a bunch of other things I haven't even thought of.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Pro bono costs them money because they aren't being paid. If it drags on for an age they may well seek a means to recover their costs.
39004
Post by: biccat
PhantomViper wrote:If CHS got their legal representation pro-bono, then how and why are they filling this counter suit?
The counter suit is (presumably) part of the original suit, it doesn't require a new trial. The argument that CH will make is that there are facts common to GW's case (copyright infringement) and their case (copyright abuse) against GW. This is a pretty low threshold, and it's not much of a stretch.
I'm not sure how CH has standing on this issue, although I could probably look if up if you're really interested.
Short answer: you're allowed (and sometimes required) to file a counterclaim in a case if it has common issues because it would be easier to deal with both cases at once. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, there was a new status hearing, here's the important dates:
12/7/11 - GW's deadline to respond to discovery requests
12/19/11 - Oral argument on motion
1/6/12 - Deadline for GW's amended pleading
1/19/12 - Amended complaint
3/15/12 - Close of Discovery
5/1/12 - Rule 26(a)(2) (presentation of rebuttal evidence)
6/15/12 - Rebuttal to Rule 26(a)(2)
7/13/12 - Expert discovery closes
8/14/12 - Dispositive motions
10/19/12 - Final pretrial order
11/20/12 - Final pretrial conference
12/3/12 - Trial date
Looks like this one is going to the buzzer.
1963
Post by: Aduro
biccat wrote:12/3/12 - Trial date
That's kind of depressing...
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I thought it was March. Then I realised these were US datea.
fething December!!!!!!!
Oh look ninja'd by myself a couple of months back
Howard A Treesong wrote:Civil cases can roll on as long as the lawyers wrangle while running up a large bill. Some legal battles can go on years and years. We could be having this conversation next year.
By the way, if that's right then GW will have had to fight this case for almost two solid years which must look healthy on their balance sheet.
1963
Post by: Aduro
I looked at the Trial date first. Thought aw crud that's a long ways away. Wait, maybe it's those freakish foreign dates and it's actually in March! Looked at the other dates, saw they wouldn't work out as actual foreign dates and thought aw crud that's a long ways away.
9230
Post by: Trasvi
As an aside: GW on their Space Marine trademark.
GW owns the trademark on 'Space Marine' because of the *game* "Space Marine" which they made, not necessarily because they feel like they invented the term. Similar to how other games companies would have a trademark on Battleship or Mousetrap.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Trasvi wrote:As an aside: GW on their Space Marine trademark.
GW owns the trademark on 'Space Marine' because of the *game* "Space Marine" which they made, not necessarily because they feel like they invented the term. Similar to how other games companies would have a trademark on Battleship or Mousetrap.
They own it within its own context, you probably can't release boardgame called 'Mousetrap', but the term itself is generic and free to use.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Aduro wrote:I looked at the Trial date first. Thought aw crud that's a long ways away. Wait, maybe it's those freakish foreign dates and it's actually in March! Looked at the other dates, saw they wouldn't work out as actual foreign dates and thought aw crud that's a long ways away.
Yeah, I did the same thing.
Well, here's to another year of this thread.
Although it might be settled before that. I can't imagine that any settlement happening that isn't very favorable to CHS.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Only one year for GW to file a formally correct case? That is though
3081
Post by: chaplaingrabthar
Maybe I'm wrong (It has been known to happen, but isn't two years a perfectly reasonable time for a case of this nature? Particularly one that's liable to set some precedents in the field of IP law?
I'm not going to express an opinion on who I believe is in the right or wrong here, and just wish the best of look that the trials (if there is to be one) has the fairest and most beneficial outcome to us gamers as a whole.
35671
Post by: weeble1000
chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe I'm wrong (It has been known to happen, but isn't two years a perfectly reasonable time for a case of this nature? Particularly one that's liable to set some precedents in the field of IP law?
I'm not going to express an opinion on who I believe is in the right or wrong here, and just wish the best of look that the trials (if there is to be one) has the fairest and most beneficial outcome to us gamers as a whole.
Two years is pretty fast. A trial like this could take three years or more from initial filing to a trial date, depending on the venue. As a trial consultant, I generally prefer to be engaged a year out from a trial date, for example. It doesn't always happen like that, of course, but litigation is a long, involved process. Even cases in so-called "rocket dockets" can take more than a year if they progress to a trial date. Some of the fastest dockets, like Western Wisconsin and Eastern Virginia have been, could crank out a patent case in less than 12 months.
The Northern District of Illinois has had a reputation for being a reasonably fast docket with regard to patent litigation, which is what I have the most experience with. In the past several years, patent cases there could go to trial in 24 months or so.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Is it normal for the plaintiff to take a year to file a proper complaint?
6872
Post by: sourclams
Does GW keep lawyers on their pay-roll, or is this going to represent significant additional cost in fees and retainer?
686
Post by: aka_mythos
GW does keep their own lawyers, but this case is being handled by an outside firm.
31639
Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike
aka_mythos wrote:GW does keep their own lawyers, but this case is being handled by an outside firm.
Mr Kirby next june speaking about the annual GW price hike: " And due to us vigerously protecting our IP from immitators we have to increast the price on all of our stuff so that you can be safe in the knowledge that when you buy our stuff it's not mistaken for some 3rd party imitator."
Of course the cost is going to get passed onto the consumer, as Kroothawk has said before, fire the manager and keep the flawed outdated business plan in place, it's the GW way. =o]
I guess this case is moving foward. Two years is not a long time for a trial date in this kind of lawsuit. Although I am shure they are going to settle out of court before it goes to trial. GW just has to much to loose if they don't.
16689
Post by: notprop
I would suggest that GW has far more to loose by not going to trial and settling. A settlement would maintain the status quo which has been undermined by this case just being brought.
Win or loose at trial, this would at least establish the actual law of the situation and allow GW to trade/act accordingly in the future.
The costs of the case are a one off and GW has plenty on cash set aside for contingency. I dont see how the duration would be of great concern to GW versus the possibility of not testing their IP ascertions in court.
As I say knowing whether you are trading in a sustainable way i.e. C&D confetti knowing you on good founding, is far more preferable to spamming C&Ds out on the assumption you are right. Risk management the corner stone of any good/evil bureaucracy!
1478
Post by: warboss
notprop wrote:I would suggest that GW has far more to loose by not going to trial and settling. A settlement would maintain the status quo which has been undermined by this case just being brought.
Win or loose at trial, this would at least establish the actual law of the situation and allow GW to trade/act accordingly in the future.
The costs of the case are a one off and GW has plenty on cash set aside for contingency. I dont see how the duration would be of great concern to GW versus the possibility of not testing their IP ascertions in court.
As I say knowing whether you are trading in a sustainable way i.e. C&D confetti knowing you on good founding, is far more preferable to spamming C&Ds out on the assumption you are right. Risk management the corner stone of any good/evil bureaucracy!
A sealed settlement that neither party can discuss leaves GW in the same situation it was prior to the lawsuit. The fact that they've made a private deal with another company (which is effectively what a settlement is) doesn't establish any precedent officially. Will it make some companies bolder? Possible.. I can see others making the assumption that what Chapterhouse does after the settlement is fine with GW. If they do make that assumption, they open themselves up to another possible lawsuit by GW and those companies will probably not be lucky enough to get pro bono representation from a large firm. GW has been fortunate in that no one has stood up to them on the playground and that their bullying has gone on without reprecussion till now. A settlement means that they just stop picking on one kid who pushed back whereas a verdict at trial means that the principal stepped in to straighten things out.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
So here's a question for the lawyery types who frequent this thread - if you were CH, given what you've seen in the court documents thus far, would you prefer to take the case to trial or settle? If settle, what would you be needed to see from GW to make you prefer that option?
25911
Post by: Norsehawk
PhantomViper wrote:Kroothawk wrote:rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent.
Thanks for the developments Kroothawk, but this has left me slightly confused so if some of the more legal oriented minds in Dakka could shed some light on this matter I would appreciate it.
If CHS got their legal representation pro-bono, then how and why are they filling this counter suit?
Is this just a normal litigation tactics to force a settlement or did CHSs lawyers smelled blood in the water and are now going after GW for a bigger pay check?
I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't a countersuit for copyright misuse also be a very good tactic to make sure that the case does not get dismissed with no prejudice? Wouldn't that somehow force it to keep going even if GW wants to throw up their hands, call the whole thing off and then re-sue when CHS may not have pro-bono representation in the future, or to judge-shop to get a magistrate that would be more friendly to GW's somewhat vague claims (at least as they stand now)?
7222
Post by: timd
Even though there is a trial "schedule", discussion of going to trial seems a little premature, since GW has yet to present a case. Until GW produces a detailed list of items that they think have been infringed, there is no case. From the posted schedule it would appear that they have until December 7th to produce such a list. If no list is produced, I would imagine that the "motion to dismiss" comes back into play.
Once GW produces a list of copyrighted items, they will also have to prove that they own those copyrights under US law and you can bet that CH's lawyers will be challenging every single item on that list. I do not know at what stage these challenges will happen, but all of this has to be dealt with before there can be any determination of guilt or innocence on infringement issues.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Llew wrote:It's not so much legal understanding, but just plowing through the text.
GW is saying the following things:
2.a) CHS is claiming to have independently created these items, even though they've conceded that they've had access to everything GW has ever produced. Therefore, if they want to use "Independent Creation", they need to provide information that proves this: e-mails, concept sketches, anything that might go towards building that defense, but they haven't done this.
2.b.) There's a bunch of other stuff we've asked for, but we're still trying to work out how to resolve getting it with CHS.
2.c.) We wanted to know who worked on the products that we claimed infringed our IP, so if need be we could go after them as well. CHS had these ruled as a proprietary secret so we couldn't get access to the names. However, GW isn't trying to hire these people away from CHS, but we're looking to see if anyone else is liable to be sued or called as a witness, so we think we should have access to this information. We didn't argue about it at the time since we were focused on a settlement, but we need this information now, so we're bringing it up.
CHS is saying:
3) All of their complaints aren't really relevant, since we've either given them the info allready, or we've agreed to get the information for them, we're just trying to work out the details.
4) GW still hasn't met what we've requested of them, and on top of that, they won't even agree to discuss it with us.
4.a.) GW hasn't produced examples of the works they claim are infringed. If they think CHS has violated their copyright, then it's up to them to show which works - specifically - have been infringed, and provide like-for-like examples so we can work on defending the case. Or, if they're claiming CHS was inspired by artwork, they're not providing relevant artwork, in a way that any meaningful examination can be made of it. What little they have provided often doesn't even appear to be related to items they're saying were infringed. We can't mount an effective defense if they won't tell us and show us what they're basing their claims on.
4.b.) They still haven't proven they have copyright on the materials in question. Step 1 in suing for copyright infringement is proving you own the copyright. They've admitted they really don't have any U.S. copyrights to speak of, so they need to do more groundwork to prove they own copyrights. For example, they need to provide names of who created specific items, artwork or text for them, and then prove that that person was an employee at the time of creation so they can make a basic claim to copyright. They haven't done it despite multiple requests by us, and have ignored a court order to do so.
4.c.) We want the same kinds of information about creation of their products that GW is asking from CHS to defend Independent Creation. Any of the items or concepts that are "public domain" can't be used to defend their copyright claims, or if GW lifted ideas from someone else. So we want to them to specify what source materials they've used to create their items in order to establish exactly what we have to defend, and which of their claims are undefendable because GW based their work on someone else's.
4.d.) GW is claiming that they don't have to have a U.S. copyright because their things were made in England. However, our law says that if you offered something for sale in the U.S. first, or at the same time as it was offered in other countries, then in order to enforce a U.S. copyright claim, you have to have filed for a U.S. copyright. GW hasn't produced any documentation proving that items were first offered for sale outside of the U.S. Therefore, a lot of their copyright claims are going to be completely invalid, since they never applied for copyright protection. They either need to prove things were offered for sale outside of the U.S. first, or they don't have a valid claim.
4.e.) GW has claimed trademark infringement, but they haven't provided any documentation that proves this, or that proves when they started using the trademarks in the U.S. to sell things. They've even admitted that some of the trademarks weren't actually used to sell product.
4.f.) We asked for all of their emails regarding CHS, and they provided 4, none of which were actually in-house at GW. So we're expected to believe that they launched a lawsuit with absolutely no internal written communication. GW is trying to say they can't search for the emails, since we've sealed some of the information, but it should actually be easy for them to find it. GW won't let us question the people in charge of finding these emails to determine if they've actually made a good attempt to find things.
GW says that:
5) Everything CHS is saying is a lie. We've done everything they've ever asked us, but they're the ones who are ignoring our requests. CHS already said they had access to everything we ever made, so why should we have to provide examples? (Although, we have. I don't know why they say we haven't.) Plus, CHS has admitted that if people work for a company and make something, UK law gives copyright to the company that employed them. There's only one instance where the item wasn't produced by an employee, and we're working on getting something to address the copyright issues with that one. AND CHS admitted on their own website that they thought we had copyright on all the stuff we said we did. We don't know what most of that other stuff is about because we've done everything we've been asked. And we don't know how we're supposed to search our email if they won't tell us what terms to search for.
My take on it:
CHS is continuing to mount an aggressive, specific attack on GW's claims. GW's claims mostly involve feigning helplessness in the face of an obstructive defendant. Others seem just...weird. For instance the, "Well, they *thought* we had copyright to the items, so whether or not we provide documentation proving our copyright claims, the very fact that they thought we had it gives us grounds to sue over it."
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
So the question is as before; Is GW's case that weak--or are their attorneys that incompetent?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
GW's case is Finecast: Full of holes and the base is missing
6872
Post by: sourclams
I admit, I had a good snort/laugh at that one Kroothawk.
Edit: I think the main difference being that Finecast improved considerably after 6 months of botched attempts.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Reinholt wrote:paddyalexander wrote:When you register a copyright you have to register each format that the work is going to appear in seperatly. So in this case if gwPLC had copyrighted art work or concept designs of a creature then that does not automaticly give them copyrights of that creature in different formats.
This is simply not true to the extent that you are stating it. Copyright is not purely a format-driven event; another company cannot go producing Space Marine t-shirts or action figures or video games without acquiring the rights from GW first simply because GW did not register a "space marine t-shirt" copyright. This is factually incorrect. This is ignoring the trademark issues, which are a separate issue.
paddyalexander wrote:The example in this case is the varient of the Carnifax that spawns smaller Tyranid models. gwPLC released rules & artwork in a book but failed to register the name for future use & so failed to copyright it. Under US copyright law game rules books & their contents are not copyrightable so publishing the rules & art work in a rules book gave them no protection. If they had registered the name of the product for future use it would have given them a period of time where they had ownership of the name without having to release a product.
The model was released by CHS using the name from the book before gwPLC did and because CHS was the first to release a model they now have a very strong claim to ownership of the copyright to models released under that name.
This is an opinion, not settled fact. Cite me a case where this is going to be clearly laid out and go against GW if you disagree. What you are making here is an argument that CH's lawyers will probably also make some variety of, but there are counter-arguments. We'll see how it shakes out.
One thing I can state is that CH will almost certainly not end up with the copyright to the tervigon model and a model using that name. At worst both GW and CH would be able to produce their own versions of it. The fact that GW independently created the concept, game rules, and artwork for the Tervigon, and the nature of their business will allow them to create the model, full stop. At question is if CH can do it. Your legal understanding is flawed to believe that CH will be able to front-run GW on this one.
I mean, consider: the worst case scenario for GW would be that CH somehow wins on a very narrow and specific interpretation (which, again, I think is extremely unlikely), and GW immediately republishes the Tyranid book with the new creature being a Coranax or some other name, changes the art, keeps the rules very similar, and produces a model. Guess what CH? You're <expletive deleted>ed.
Ignoring both the GW and CH hate in this thread, if you look at the filing it is relatively clear a few things are going on:
1 - Both parties are trying to push the discovery phase in their favor to set a frame for the later case that is to their benefit. CH wants things to be as narrow as possible, and GW wants them to be as broad as possible.
2 - CH is trying to protect their sources to avoid a settlement, as multiple smaller individuals would either all need to acquire pro-bono counsel as well (or be accepted by CH's), or they are going to have a strong incentive to settle with GW to avoid a protracted fight (which is probably the real reason behind the proprietary claim).
3 - Neither side wants to settle. I can assure you the lawyers GW are using are not a bunch of incompetent retards. This is not their in-house counsel unfamiliar with the ins and outs of US law. If their counsel thought GW had absolutely no case, they would have strongly advised a settlement by now (and it would be settled).
The fact that neither side is willing to settle at this juncture tells you that both sides probably have at least some claims they think have a high probability of sticking, or one side will suffer such catastrophic consequences from settling that there is no incentive to do so (one could argue this is the case for CH, as if they accede to most of GW's asks, they might have no business left).
Don't take this as GW boosting. I am just saying that if you pay attention the legal maneuvering in the filings that is clear both sides are jockeying for advantage here, not that one is screwed and the other is going to table them, to use some gaming speak.
42646
Post by: Korraz
AgeOfEgos wrote:So the question is as before; Is GW's case that weak--or are their attorneys that incompetent?
We have no idea about the case, as GW has yet to produce one.
As for the lawyers... the actually seem to be competent. The problem seems to be meddling from people that have no idea whatsoever about laws. Or how to run a company, for that matter.
The base for that claim is that no lawyers acting that incompetent on their own would stay in business for long.
You know, for some reason I've got the feeling that the summary of this case would make a great Stupid Statement Dance Mix.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?
Oh good.
That's justice for you.
21196
Post by: agnosto
No, that's not what they're saying.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
If I invented 40k and a company started making stuff for the sole use of the game that I invented, then damn straight I want a cut if they make $500,000 on the back of MY idea, and this is coming from the bloke that bought a bunch of magnetic combi weapons and 5 Spartan Style heads off CH.
If you wrote a book about Space Pigs and some bloke next door started selling Space Pig action figures, that guys has shown some admirable initiative, but he is still making cash off the back of your idea. The thing you thought of in the first place. In that case, Id say he should toss me something. Not all of his cash, but there is a middle ground surely?
And the fact of the matter is, we all use their gak to play 40k, not some other game that CH invented. If they sell me 50$ worth of stuff that I use for 40k, they have made 50$ because GW and Warhammer 40k exist.
I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.
At least I hope so, because I hate the child like mewling of the "I hate Games Workshop" crowd, and their whines and shrieks will be as silk and honey upon my eardrums.
752
Post by: Polonius
That's an understandable moral position. Legally, it's virutally indefensible.
The market place is full of products that only have value because of name-brand products. Ipod skins, Gun Cases, Car add-on kits, and even third party ultra-detail resin components or decals for model kits all rely on another, specific product.
6872
Post by: sourclams
mattyrm wrote: I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.
GW has yet to prove that they even own the concepts that they claim CH infringed.
A bloke in the UK made all/alot of the stormtrooper armor used in the Star Wars movies back in the 70s.
He kept doing so, and selling it as replica stormtrooper armor for his own profit. LucasArts sued and demanded he cease production as it was quite obvious whose IP he was duplicating for his own profit (even though there is no 'official' outlet for life-sized replica/functional stormtrooper armor).
Long story short, under UK law he can keep producing and selling it, but he can't sell it to anybody in the US.
Who-owns-what and What-laws-where DO seem to matter in the real world, and us non-lawyerly types simply don't understand the intricacies involved. I think/I feel statements are nice, but clearly this matters enough that paid professionals are putting real time/money on the line to continue with the case.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?
GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
warboss wrote:A sealed settlement that neither party can discuss leaves GW in the same situation it was prior to the lawsuit....
tbh I don't think that CHS will accept a sealed settlement, simply on the basis of how he has been treated by GW. Besides which, as some others have already said, it wouldn't settle anything for us wargamers.
Cheers
Andrew
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
sourclams wrote:mattyrm wrote: I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.
GW has yet to prove that they even own the concepts that they claim CH infringed.
Yeah, that's just weird.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kroothawk wrote:Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?
GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.
GW has international copyright for its IP. The US has signed up for international copyright standards (and uses that alot) so GW's IP claims are valid. All GW need to do is be specific, and there lies the rub.
38250
Post by: poda_t
mattyrm wrote: If I invented 40k and a company started making stuff for the sole use of the game that I invented, then damn straight I want a cut if they make $500,000 on the back of MY idea, and this is coming from the bloke that bought a bunch of magnetic combi weapons and 5 Spartan Style heads off CH.
If you wrote a book about Space Pigs and some bloke next door started selling Space Pig action figures, that guys has shown some admirable initiative, but he is still making cash off the back of your idea. The thing you thought of in the first place. In that case, Id say he should toss me something. Not all of his cash, but there is a middle ground surely?
And the fact of the matter is, we all use their gak to play 40k, not some other game that CH invented. If they sell me 50$ worth of stuff that I use for 40k, they have made 50$ because GW and Warhammer 40k exist.
I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.
At least I hope so, because I hate the child like mewling of the "I hate Games Workshop" crowd, and their whines and shrieks will be as silk and honey upon my eardrums.
As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.
The trouble comes with where the line is drawn. What does GW expect to be fair and what does CHS expect to be fair, and then what we expect to be fair. Remember, if its percentage based, then CHS is likely going to bump the price up to make up for the difference in losses, if its going to be a license, then.... dear gods that is expensive and everything is going to have to be GW approved, in addition to the percentage claim. It's all in where the numbers lie. Ideally, since GW already produces spare parts, GW woudl rather be the sole producer of spare parts for its own game. You can already get packs of virtually anything, including pads, weapons, upgrades etc.
And the argument you pointed out can also be used to extreme. The universe DOES belong to GW. At the root, it can be reduced to the fact that if you owned a business, would you suffer someone else making a profit off of your product? Sure, you could give them a license and claim a cut off of their sales, but it would be less than if you actually owned everything and just paid the person a wage to produce the stuff.
As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)
3725
Post by: derek
poda_t wrote:
As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.
I think you're off, and you'll find that many people do not agree with that at all. While CHS wouldn't exist without the GW IP, neither would a mess of other unlicensed products in many mediums. I don't want GW having any kind of control over what a third party can produce as an add on. The fact of it is, with very very few exceptions (3 that I can think of at the time I write this), GW still makes money off of sales of CHS products.
As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)
It remains to be seen whether that claim is legitimate (and it also depends on them actually making one that will pass the requirements for the court). You can say it is, but that is purely based on your opinion at this time, and has no law to back it up.
39004
Post by: biccat
mattyrm wrote:I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.
That's great, but that's your own opinion. In the legal world, the lines need to be clearly drawn so that companies like CH can produce products that don't infringe but are still compatable.
Do you think someone making terrain that fits standard GW base sizes owes GW some form of competition? How about 25mm bases? Where the line is drawn is important.
poda_t wrote:As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.
To some extent, but like you said, it depends on where the line is drawn. In order to determine the line, the first thing we need to know is what CH is alleged to infringe.
poda_t wrote:As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)
What's the legitimate claim that was infringed? What copyright did CH infringe? So far GW has been pretty evasive on that point.
Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?
No, that's not what CH is claiming at all. What CH is asking for is a clear statement of what they did wrong. GW hasn't been willing to answer that.
Dysartes wrote:So here's a question for the lawyery types who frequent this thread - if you were CH, given what you've seen in the court documents thus far, would you prefer to take the case to trial or settle? If settle, what would you be needed to see from GW to make you prefer that option?
Settling is always a better option because trials are costly, time-consuming, and difficult. As for what I'd like to see, at a minimum would be a covenant not to sue. Probably something that covered CH's products that are in-production as well.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Orlanth wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?
GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.
GW has international copyright for its IP. The US has signed up for international copyright standards (and uses that alot) so GW's IP claims are valid. All GW need to do is be specific, and there lies the rub.
Exactly. GW has copyright on the things for which they have copyright. The question is what things do they have copyright on?
They haven't made a clear claim of copyright in the past year. That suggests that they are finding it difficult to establish their claimed properties, or to show how CH have violated any.
31097
Post by: Holdenstein
A bit of movement, although this is proposed..
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.
That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.
38067
Post by: spaceelf
Holdenstein wrote:A bit of movement, although this is proposed..
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.
That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.
I did not see this text on recap the law. I assume that this is the text of GWs motion to compel. I also assume that the judge did not grant the motion.
It also looks like Chaperhouse also filed motions to compel GW to answer questions. From my limited knowledge of the case this seems like the same stuff they were doing six months ago.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Holdenstein wrote:A bit of movement, although this is proposed..
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.
That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.
So, what does this mean, precisely?
Since it's "proposed," does that mean it was submitted by GW for court approval, or did the court generate this?
Eric
35671
Post by: weeble1000
poda_t wrote:And the argument you pointed out can also be used to extreme. The universe DOES belong to GW. At the root, it can be reduced to the fact that if you owned a business, would you suffer someone else making a profit off of your product? Sure, you could give them a license and claim a cut off of their sales, but it would be less than if you actually owned everything and just paid the person a wage to produce the stuff.
Licensing intellectual property rights has the strong potential to be a very high yield, low risk venture. It depends a great deal on what you are licensing, for how much, to how many entities, and what you invested in ownership of said rights. Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:Settling is always a better option because trials are costly, time-consuming, and difficult. As for what I'd like to see, at a minimum would be a covenant not to sue. Probably something that covered CH's products that are in-production as well.
Jurors are also a wild card, especially in a case with laws that are open to such a great deal of subjective interpretation (comparatively speaking). It is difficult to tell what a group of jurors will do in a case like this, which is one reason why so few copyright cases go to trial. You're putting complicated issues into the hands of a group of people that actually showed up for jury duty, and who in all likelihood have little idea about the context of the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: MagickalMemories wrote:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.
So, what does this mean, precisely?
Since it's "proposed," does that mean it was submitted by GW for court approval, or did the court generate this?
Eric
That's a proposed order. It has absolutely not been issued by the Court. There will be a separate docket entry when the Court rules on motions. It may be for "reasons stated in open court" if the Judge rules on the motion(s) at the time of oral argument, or the Court may issue a written opinion about its ruling(s). However it happens, it will be obvious that the Court has issued a ruling.
The deadline to respond to the motions isn't until next week, and the Court will hear oral argument on the 19th. Clearly, the Court will not issue a ruling until that date at the very least.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
Okay... So, that's something GW proposed, then?
Thanks!
Eric
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
So this is basically GW's wishlist for the judge.
They really shouldn't be able to write words for the mouth of the judge like "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED." I think "The plaintiff humbly requests" would be better there.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
frozenwastes wrote:So this is basically GW's wishlist for the judge.
They really shouldn't be able to write words for the mouth of the judge like "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED." I think "The plaintiff humbly requests" would be better there.
It's not unusual for both sides to provide draft orders to go with their motions; it speeds things up if the judge grants your motion.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
GW humble?...some day, hopefully sooner rather than later.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Can you claim fees from the opposing party in US courts? I know you can in the UK but I was informed that US law was different.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
Orlanth wrote:Can you claim fees from the opposing party in US courts? I know you can in the UK but I was informed that US law was different.
The person filing the suit can attempt to include reasonable legal expenses as part of the judgment, should they win.
Additionally, a defendant can counter-sue. If they counter-sue, they can make the request that their legal expenses be paid as part of the judgement, should the counter-suit win out.
But, that being said, the legal expenses do not automatically get paid by the loser like they do in some other legal systems.
46248
Post by: CorvidMP
A part of the reason the US can be a bit litigous compared to other countries.
41596
Post by: Zakiriel
Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?
39004
Post by: biccat
Zakiriel wrote:Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?
That's a tremendously loaded question which raises a variety of new questions, opinions, and debatable topics.
You could pose this question in the Off Topic section, or research it yourself.
1523
Post by: Saldiven
@Zakiirel:
Here's a link to get started on the issues facing a loser pays system if we wanted to implement that in the US:
http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/8_3/JLPP_8-3_Gryphon.pdf?test=1
26
Post by: carmachu
Zakiriel wrote:Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?
Depends. In the current system, anyone and everyone can sue for whatever reasons, which leads to more lawsuits. Which has its good points(easy to bring lawsuits) and downsides(easy to bring suits, however silly).
Loser pays, has its good poinst and bad points- good being it possiblely weeds out the silly suits(because then you have to pay when you lose), but the downside is that it will make legitimate suits hesitate, because you have to pay(stiffles possible legitimate suits).
123
Post by: Alpharius
While interesting, this is getting off topic - Everyone please stay on point in here.
Thanks!
11311
Post by: MasticatorDeelux
If memory serves, they should have had their latest court date today--did anything new come of it?
34242
Post by: -Loki-
It's a waste of time following this. This is going to drag out for years. Expecting something significant in every court appearance is a recipe for constant disappointment.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
According to the docket, the court date is through.
Okay its December 2012 so you're right it is years, but it's always fun to see how many times GW can submit the same motion.....
Cheers
Andrew
115
Post by: Azazelx
H.B.M.C. wrote:I know I wouldn't have bought a Storm Raven if not for CH's conversion kit.
Me too. Well, with intent.. I intend to buy so me Stormravens, and I also intend to buy some CH kits. Though I wouldn't intend to buy the SRs if not for the CH kit.. 
37325
Post by: Adam LongWalker
You know this is costing GW in lawyer fees. The more it lags on the more it will hurt their bottom line, though minor in a monetary manner.
It was only time when they would lock horns with a determined opponent.
1478
Post by: warboss
Adam LongWalker wrote:You know this is costing GW in lawyer fees. The more it lags on the more it will hurt their bottom line, though minor in a monetary manner.
You'd think so but their profits were only in the single digit millions just a year or two ago. Even a bill of a few hundred thousand dollars could take a chunk out of that.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
Also, GW will never collect a dime in damages from this even if everything goes their way in court. The first thing CHS' lawyers probably did was make sure any personal assets will be untouchable (or already spent) in the event of a ruling that goes GW's way
I hope what happens is a nice clear demonstration of ruling of just how unprotectably derivative most of GW's stuff is..
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I imagine that Chapter House is set up as a limited liability company.
Its directors' assets would be untouchable except if it were proved they had committed a malfeasance.
CH have always followed legal advice regarding the course of their business, so that is very unlikely.
514
Post by: Orlanth
frozenwastes wrote:Also, GW will never collect a dime in damages from this even if everything goes their way in court. The first thing CHS' lawyers probably did was make sure any personal assets will be untouchable (or already spent) in the event of a ruling that goes GW's way
I hope what happens is a nice clear demonstration of ruling of just how unprotectably derivative most of GW's stuff is..
The idea was to bleed Chapterhouse dry, not to win on damages.
It isnt working though, Chapterhouse has lawyers on pro bono and GW is feeling the pinch. A comment from an industry insider stated that GW were getting fatigued over this, they hadnt budgeted for this level of legal expenditure. This suit has really hit them hard. This is a fairly reliable source, it comes from someone I know who knows someone very well who has been eying a takeover for some time now.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
Yes, the problems they are having with this lawsuit make me cringe at what might happen to them if the rumour of using a model derived from one of the 'unseen' battlemechs comes out.
The reason those are called The Unseen is that there has been a couple of nasty lawsuits surrounding them already. The result was that the Battletech folks wound up not legally having the rights to the design. There are 2 different companies with rights to the design depending on if you are looking at North America or the Rest of the World. Unless GW can settle with both companies, one or both is more or less guaranteed to take a run at them.
45990
Post by: gilljoy
Orlanth wrote:frozenwastes wrote:Also, GW will never collect a dime in damages from this even if everything goes their way in court. The first thing CHS' lawyers probably did was make sure any personal assets will be untouchable (or already spent) in the event of a ruling that goes GW's way
I hope what happens is a nice clear demonstration of ruling of just how unprotectably derivative most of GW's stuff is..
The idea was to bleed Chapterhouse dry, not to win on damages.
It isnt working though, Chapterhouse has lawyers on pro bono and GW is feeling the pinch. A comment from an industry insider stated that GW were getting fatigued over this, they hadnt budgeted for this level of legal expenditure. This suit has really hit them hard. This is a fairly reliable source, it comes from someone I know who knows someone very well who has been eying a takeover for some time now.
A take over of GW??
514
Post by: Orlanth
A number of people are eyeing up the company. I know of one and kn ow there are others.
These things take time. There is years of prep before a move and in that time a move can be aborted.
GW is a company with a lot of potential which can be achieved easily enough by replacing key decision makers with competent people. As a take over and boost project it was a lot more going for it than a company that is better run.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Orlanth wrote:A number of people are eyeing up the company. I know of one and kn ow there are others.
These things take time. There is years of prep before a move and in that time a move can be aborted.
GW is a company with a lot of potential which can be achieved easily enough by replacing key decision makers with competent people. As a take over and boost project it was a lot more going for it than a company that is better run.
This would likely end well for us, the customers. I think a takeover is just what GW could use at this point. Some people need to be fired, others need to be hired.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Aerethan wrote:Orlanth wrote:A number of people are eyeing up the company. I know of one and kn ow there are others.
These things take time. There is years of prep before a move and in that time a move can be aborted.
GW is a company with a lot of potential which can be achieved easily enough by replacing key decision makers with competent people. As a take over and boost project it was a lot more going for it than a company that is better run.
This would likely end well for us, the customers. I think a takeover is just what GW could use at this point. Some people need to be fired, others need to be hired.
Indeed, if the Fees are really eating up at GW that much, I could see this. As long as they keep most of the Design studio, and got rid of most of the upper management, We (The Customer) would win in the long run.
Will we see the Court fees reflected in the next financial report? I'm rather curious how much this is costing GW so far, and they have another year to go at least.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Orlanth wrote:A number of people are eyeing up the company. I know of one and kn ow there are others.
These things take time. There is years of prep before a move and in that time a move can be aborted.
GW is a company with a lot of potential which can be achieved easily enough by replacing key decision makers with competent people. As a take over and boost project it was a lot more going for it than a company that is better run.
That would be interesting.
I have thought for a long time that GW's main purpose is to be big in order to justify a big salary for the top management.
I reckon it could be a lot more profitable for shareholders if the retail chain was slimmed down and more promotion was done through other channels.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sasori wrote:... ... ...
Will we see the Court fees reflected in the next financial report? I'm rather curious how much this is costing GW so far, and they have another year to go at least.
I doubt they will list them separately.
Obviously if it has cost GW more than $100,000 to sustain the case so far, it will start to affect overall profits, however it is still just another business expense, and won't be distinguishable in the overall pattern.
16689
Post by: notprop
GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.
The Orlanth idea that GW want to bleed a one man band dry of money seems massively OTT to me.
I see GWs ultimate goal in this to set precidence on what is and isn't acceptable in terms of other companies producing similar modals to GW IP. If this thread alone proves anything it is what a mess/grey area this whole area of Law as it touches on this little hobby is.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
notprop wrote:GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.
The Orlanth idea that GW want to bleed a one man band dry of money seems massively OTT to me.
...
GW's originally suggested remedy for their complaint against Chapter House was to shut the company down.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
notprop wrote:GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.
The Orlanth idea that GW want to bleed a one man band dry of money seems massively OTT to me.
I see GWs ultimate goal in this to set precidence on what is and isn't acceptable in terms of other companies producing similar modals to GW IP. If this thread alone proves anything it is what a mess/grey area this whole area of Law as it touches on this little hobby is.
How can they have substantial cash reserves if they are taking on loans to issue dividends?
GW's goal wasn't to set a precedent because GW never really meant to go to court with this case (as can be amply demonstrated by GWs inability to actually present a case so far), that the case even reached this point was just a reflection on CHS getting competent and FREE legal representation. GW was just expecting CHS to fold to its C&D demands like every other small business that they have bullied along in its history!
Unless this case goes entirely in GWs favour (which at least from a laymen point of view seems highly unlikely so far), I highly doubt that a legal precedent is in GWs best interests...
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kilkrazy wrote:notprop wrote:GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.
The Orlanth idea that GW want to bleed a one man band dry of money seems massively OTT to me.
...
GW's originally suggested remedy for their complaint against Chapter House was to shut the company down.
Besides look at Warzone. GW closed that down by bleeding the company dry over slottabases. After their victory, or more accurately dragging the case out long enough that the smaller company ran out of funds GW then took on Rackham. Rackhams lawyers successfully argued that a slottabase was essentially a 'peg and hole', the judge agreed quickly enough that Rackham didnt lose money.
GW's modus operandi has always been to do maximum damage by the lawsuit timing, either indirectly to send a message or directly by keeping a case in court long enough to fees to acrue faster than a small company can afford.
Examples of GW lawsuit timing are the Dreamforge Titans, which GW allowed to get to production before dropping a C&D order. They could have acted sooner when Dreamforge brought the titans to their attention, but a late C&D cost Dreamforge by eliminating a project after setup costs were expended but before any material return was made. Damnatus suffered the same way, though no profits were intended GW sat on a reply to Damnatus until the film was completed when they could have said 'no' at an early stage in production. Doing so would have saved Spaerentor money and time, but not doing so sends a stronger message. We will defend our IP and make the procedure costly to you.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
PhantomViper wrote:How can they have substantial cash reserves if they are taking on loans to issue dividends?
Cash reserves just means they have money on hand that hasn't been budgeted into any projects or expenses. Taking short term loans is one thing many companies can do to temporarily boost their cash reserve.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Orlanth wrote:Damnatus suffered the same way, though no profits were intended GW sat on a reply to Damnatus until the film was completed when they could have said 'no' at an early stage in production. Doing so would have saved Spaerentor money and time, but not doing so sends a stronger message. We will defend our IP and make the procedure costly to you.
That contradicts everything I've seen/read. Everything I've seen makes it fairly clear that Spaerentor approached GW and was told not to do it because of copyright issues in Germany.
Now, Blood Quest you might be right on.
16689
Post by: notprop
@ KK - Their no harm in getting the other guy to back down at point one and maintain the illusion of complete rigts over what they assert. However I don't beleive that GW are so naive as to the implications of proceeding with the legal route once their bluff was called.
Phantom Viper - Its all in the report, GW list over £17M in cash and cash equivilents in their report, though this does include overdrafts and the like.
If this wasn't meant to go to court then why did it? If as many opine CHS's activities did not impinge on GWs business did they take the drastic step of engaging lawyer to persue the case. The has to be more than just getting the assets of a very minor american company that would never (I guess) recoup even a small proportion of the fee expenditure.
I opine (I find this interesting but am not invested in one outcome or the other btw) that GWs goal may be to ultimately set the legal standpoint of CHS and the likes activities once and for all.
At the moment GWs production process and method of IP protection (issuing C&D letters to all and sundry) has/had inherent risks. I.e. by indicating a Tervigon but not producing a model, if GW release a Tervigon model now they may well be legally at risk from CHS who git a Tervigon model to market first.
Any business will seek to avoid or at least minimise risks to their activities, I suggest that this legal action could be a means to doing this.
Right or wrong/Win or Loose, GW will know what is enforcable by Law at the end of this case. At the moment it is unclear especially so since CHS appearantly called their bluff. GW can then change their operating activities to suit this set legal standpoint.
Obviously it would be great from GWs PoV to win hands down, but loosing the case might not be the disaster some would suggest.
Orlanth - I'm not sure why you are putting the onus on GW to step in at the best time for a 3rd party for the 3rd party to avoid costs? As with all endevours you proceed at yor own risk, you can not rely on someone else to indemnify you against your own activites.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
notprop wrote:@ KK - Their no harm in getting the other guy to back down at point one and maintain the illusion of complete rigts over what they assert. ...
...
.
There is for the "other guy", and for consumers as a whole.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
notprop wrote:
If this wasn't meant to go to court then why did it? If as many opine CHS's activities did not impinge on GWs business did they take the drastic step of engaging lawyer to persue the case. The has to be more than just getting the assets of a very minor american company that would never (I guess) recoup even a small proportion of the fee expenditure.
Because if they didn't sue CHS after they disregarded their C&Ds, then THAT would send the message to everyone that all those C&Ds where just bluffs and that GW never intended to carry through with their threats of legal action. The main weight of the C&Ds as always been that small companies can't afford the costs of an actual legal action of this type, doesn't matter if GW is right in the C&D or not (look at the Lammasu for an obvious example of this)...
The lack of preparation on GWs part on all of this legal process has been obvious even to an outsider. They can't even present proof to the court that they own any of the IP that they claim, how is that for being prepared?
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kanluwen wrote:Orlanth wrote:Damnatus suffered the same way, though no profits were intended GW sat on a reply to Damnatus until the film was completed when they could have said 'no' at an early stage in production. Doing so would have saved Spaerentor money and time, but not doing so sends a stronger message. We will defend our IP and make the procedure costly to you.
That contradicts everything I've seen/read.
Does it?
Kanluwen wrote:
Everything I've seen makes it fairly clear that Spaerentor approached GW and was told not to do it because of copyright issues in Germany.
Now, Blood Quest you might be right on.
Spaerentor approached GW years before they gave an answer telling them not to distribute the film. For a long while GW said nothing, and even advertised the project in the German edition of White Dwarf. Only when it neared completion did GW raise any objection, however to GW's partial credit as it was not a commercial project they did look into how to effect a release, normally its a case of no way no how, with a C&D. However GW was losing a lot of face by refusing Damnatus at such a late stage and was seen as being petty, so negotiations were entered into to try and sort out the problems regarding to German copyright law. However this PR disaster which would have been avoided had GW adopted a policy of answering questions regarding large scale projects including their IP in a more timely manner.
Spaerentor was possibly a victim of GW's policy of leave a response to the last minute which in this case may have been habit, but in Dreamforges case and that of many others was almost certainly not.
958
Post by: mikhaila
Orlanth wrote:Besides look at Warzone. GW closed that down by bleeding the company dry over slottabases. After their victory, or more accurately dragging the case out long enough that the smaller company ran out of funds GW then took on Rackham
Are you talking about Warzone the game, with models produced by Heartbreaker Hobbies? They weren't at all shut down by GW over slotta bases. I feel pretty confident in saying that since their manufacturing and offices were 10 minutes down the road, I hung out there a lot when picking up orders, know Bob Watts pretty well, and Chris Bledsoe was one of my best friends for a decade. They had many other problems affecting them in their end, especially from the parent company, Target Games, not really from slotta bases.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Be careful with what you say about cash/ equiv’s on hand. That is a snapshot of only one part of constant moving equation. There are liabilities and forecasted future commitments that cannot be unwound that are not reflected in it.
To put it into context, it is like looking at you bank balance on 12/31/2011 and saying whoo hooo got $2k in it and spending it @ FW whilst ignoring the fact you have a $1.8k mortgage interest payment to make on the 10th of January. Your year end books would say you have cash equivalents of $2k but the reality is you have already spent it on a 2012 expense.
Also, depending on how the GW auditors feel about the case depends on how it is disclosed in the accounts.
The rules for contingent liabilities (i.e expense that may happen in the future) are relatively straight forward. I expect this to be disclosed at bear minimum as a note. If the GW auditors feel that the chances are it will have a significant cost implication in relation to net income throughout 2012 they will force GW to recognize the costs in this year’s results.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
<stay on topic!>
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Janthkin wrote:<stay on topic!>
This is all on-topic. This case impacts a lot of things. Take up management time and too much money and vulnerable to a take-over. Happened before with other companies. Impact on the future because of cost - very relevant to many of us. How will it be presented to the public will impact share price - again very relevant. A case of over-moderating?
1406
Post by: Janthkin
fullheadofhair wrote:Janthkin wrote:<stay on topic!>
This is all on-topic. This case impacts a lot of things. Take up management time and too much money and vulnerable to a take-over. Happened before with other companies. Impact on the future because of cost - very relevant to many of us. How will it be presented to the public will impact share price - again very relevant. A case of over-moderating?
Nope. Many people are following this thread specifically for updates on what is happening in the case, right now. While the related topics of "what will this case do to GW" are interesting, I'd ask you to take them out of the thread. We've made it to 50+ pages mostly by keeping the conversation focused.
539
Post by: cygnnus
Don't forget GW suing RAFM over the latter's "Reaction Marines" back in (IIRC) the early 1990's...
Dunno if a different story's come out, but back in the day the story was that they didn't care about winning so much as bleeding RAFM dry...
Valete,
JohnS
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
cygnnus wrote:Don't forget GW suing RAFM over the latter's "Reaction Marines" back in (IIRC) the early 1990's...
Dunno if a different story's come out, but back in the day the story was that they didn't care about winning so much as bleeding RAFM dry...
Valete,
JohnS
I think that is what is so great about what is going to come out of this case if it goes the full length. This will clearly lay out what GW can command others do and what they cannot. It will allow other companies to plan effectively without always looking over their shoulder wondering if a big C&D is about to hit them.
On of the biggest costs of these type of cases for the small business man is not the money - it is the time, the distraction away from running the business, the potential to ruin a business because cannot afford to defend it and the impact it may have on his family.
443
Post by: skyth
warboss wrote:Adam LongWalker wrote:You know this is costing GW in lawyer fees. The more it lags on the more it will hurt their bottom line, though minor in a monetary manner.
You'd think so but their profits were only in the single digit millions just a year or two ago. Even a bill of a few hundred thousand dollars could take a chunk out of that.
Not neccessarily. If GW successfully defends the copyright, the legal costs are an asset that goes towards copyright that is ammoritized.
In other words, if GW wins the case and spends $200,000 on it, and they ammortize copyright for 20 years, they would only recognize a $10,000 expense each year.
Granted, this assumes that GW wins the case...
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
notprop wrote:GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.
It will be interesting to see if they continue to boast about their 'fortress wall'.
16689
Post by: notprop
And thats the point I was trying to make. Said fortress wall is no more substantial a defence than its imaginary blocks if it is not tested and found to be true at some point.
If it crumbles GW will have a new basis for its position and change its operation accordingly. It might be beneficial to hobbyists (all oin one release with all kits available), negative (fewer units/options and a slower turnover or codicies) or a combimation of both.
The new secrecy policy would seem to be first step in that direction?
Definitely interesting Howard, it fuels my interest in this topic as it has such far reaching implications for both GW and the greater hobby.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
notprop wrote:
Definitely interesting Howard, it fuels my interest in this topic as it has such far reaching implications for both GW and the greater hobby.
My greatest concern is that a win for GW would be unhealthy for the hobby. I see CHS and others as healthy for the hobby and good for hobbyists. Some say their work is mediocre, whatever, but it gives the hobbyist choice and diversity is a good thing. No one has to buy their stuff. I don't think CHS pose much of a threat to GW in any fashion and don't deprive them of sales, they may well encourage sales and this is very much the thinking from other model manufacturers. Do you think Tamiya care that someone makes resin stuff specifically for their kits? While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...." Tamiya must just laugh, because modellers will buy more of their kits to make every variant that is now available. And best of all, if Tamiya decide to make that variant themselves, the modeller will go out and buy it again because it's easier than working with resin! And that's why modeller's attics and cupboards are full of multiple copies of kits and conversion kits.
GW should simply pretend people like CHS don't exist. Don't make it known that you have chosen not to make a point of defending your IP because that carries risk, but simply ignore them because they are a tiny company in comparison to your own. But it's far too late for that, it was too late once they sent the C&D because that was a public declaration they had identified them. To then not press ahead with a case could then backfire, the initial claim can appear malicious, or that you are unwilling to defend your IP, are not desirable outcomes.
As I said, CHS aren't really doing any harm to GW they never were. Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Howard A Treesong wrote: Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.
This, incidentally, speaks a lot to why I no longer purchase or, to a large extent, play GW products.
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Howard A Treesong wrote:
...While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...."
I wonder if that's true. I mean, it isn't illegal for another company to acknowledge the existence of your corporation, and the evidence seems to be that CHS said "For use with GW products" and GW has yet to provide a legal argument that this isn't ok.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
As I said, CHS aren't really doing any harm to GW they never were. Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.
Too true. GW really could have handled this better. And it is a little too demonstrable that GW claims a lot of copyright that they don't own.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
odinsgrandson wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:
...While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...."
I wonder if that's true. I mean, it isn't illegal for another company to acknowledge the existence of your corporation, and the evidence seems to be that CHS said "For use with GW products" and GW has yet to provide a legal argument that this isn't ok.
I'm more thinking that they could say that someone describing their resin turret as "designed to fit a Tamiya 1/35th ....." it could appear as though it is endorsed by them when it isn't. Even CHS have stepped back a bit from how they describe their stuff making descriptions a bit less specific now. The reason companies like Tamiya probably don't ask people not to use their name in conjunction with their products is because they just don't see it as a problem, and they know that customers buying aftermarket parts are fully aware of their non-official status. And, though I'm sure you are aware, the reason that aftermarket producers will specify a manufacturer is because plastic kit companies design their kits differently and things like the diameter of the turret ring is different between models of the same vehicle so a conversion set is better suited to some kits more than others. That's why it is done, not to steal their sales.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Platuan4th wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote: Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.
This, incidentally, speaks a lot to why I no longer purchase or, to a large extent, play GW products.
They simply are not a company that is good at providing sourcing to their customers. Why is there still no plastic Thunderwulf kit? How come there is no bits service for all common, high-demand items like missile launchers, combi weapons, and Terminator special weapons?
GW could utterly crush all of the after-market parts dealers like Chapterhouse if it simply eliminated the market that these 3rd party producers are catering to; stuff GW is too lazy to make.
18375
Post by: AndrewC
Don't know if I'm the first to spot it, but the case against Paulson has been dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court,
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action is dismissed as against Jon Paulson, with prejudice
and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. Nothing herein shall limit or affect plaintiff’s
pending claims against Chapterhouse Studios LLC. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
the parties’ settlement
Cheers
Andrew
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Well that'll be a relief to him seeing as he's got nothing to do with it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I wonder how much it cost him to extricate himself from a case that he had nothing to do with.
31639
Post by: FabricatorGeneralMike
Howard A Treesong wrote:Well that'll be a relief to him seeing as he's got nothing to do with it.
No doubt I am shure that he is relieved. One thing though it said;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court,
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action is dismissed as against Jon Paulson, with prejudice
and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. Nothing herein shall limit or affect plaintiff’s
pending claims against Chapterhouse Studios LLC. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
the parties’ settlement
and without costs or attorneys fees to either party. So does that mean that he's one the hook for his own attorneys fees even though he had nothing to do with it anyways? That doesn't sound like a win to me personally. It would be like GW sueing me because my name was mistakenly attached to a model that I never built then say that 'we are sorry but you're on the hook for all the legal expences we mistakenly filed againsted you, Have a nice day (although secretely we wish you would get hit by a car while crossing the street). GW upper management
OR does it mean that you get the money back that you have spend on your own lawyer? or that your attorney gets paid by the court?
I just don't understand that -and without costs or attorneys fees to either party- line.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
Basically means legal fees have not been awarded. Both parties are on the hook for their own costs.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I'm fairly certain that Paulson had pro-bono representation, so it's basically saying that his counsel cannot seek reimbursement.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Really? So he's left out of pocket because GW don't know what they are doing and just roped him in with their legal action?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Howard A Treesong wrote:Really? So he's left out of pocket because GW don't know what they are doing and just roped him in with their legal action?
"Pro Bono" means they worked for free...
****Edit note***
Correction. It means they worked at no cost OR at a reduced fee.
In most cases, what it means is they'll work at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee. They might get the option to have their fees reimbursed, however, through the decision of the courts.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Sorry, I thought he hadn't got that, it still leaves the lawyers at a loss. GW's actions just look stupid. At least target the right people with legal action.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
SOP on a lawsuit. It is better to hit innocent bystanders than it is to let someone who might end up paying you money get away.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
If I were the lawyer doing Pro Bono and found that the lawsuit had nothing to do with my client, I'd counter sue for fees since it was a waste of both mine and my clients time.
GW should have had a fething clue as to what they were doing, and it should be illegal to just sue people willy nilly and then drop the suit when they find out the defendant had nothing to do with said suit. I'd be pissed as hell. What if it hadn't been pro bono? GW should have to compensate those that it drags into this when those people had nothing to do with the case to begin with.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
Now there Aerethan, you're making the classic mistake of believing the legal system has anything to do with justice.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
Jefffar wrote:Now there Aerethan, you're making the classic mistake of believing the legal system has anything to do with justice.
true. And don't get me wrong, I don't think GW is the devil and all that. But to force someone into legal fees and then later admit that said person is not involved with the suit should result in those fees being covered by the plaintiff. I wish I was a judge sometimes.
21196
Post by: agnosto
All the order means is that there's no "above the table" money changing hands. It might be that his lawyers were able to wrangle something behind the scenes on condition of silence and a promise of no counter suit. You'll note the "with prejudice" part which means GW can't turn around and sue him again later over the same issue.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Howard A Treesong wrote:Sorry, I thought he hadn't got that, it still leaves the lawyers at a loss. GW's actions just look stupid. At least target the right people with legal action.
It is traditional for law firms in the USA and UK to take on a certain amount of Pro Bono work each year, so the lawyers for Paulson have fulfilled their duty and will not be worried about the lack of remuneration for this case.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
agnosto wrote:You'll note the "with prejudice" part which means GW can't turn around and sue him again later over the same issue.
Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware in this case that'll just mean GW can't turn around and sue him again over something he has no connection with. Rather a cold comfort, all things considered...
Of course, if any of our legal (b)eagles wish to expand on what the "with prejudice" element in this case would mean, that'd be cool. The above is merely my opinion based on what has been said earlier in this case history.
39004
Post by: biccat
Dysartes wrote:Of course, if any of our legal (b)eagles wish to expand on what the "with prejudice" element in this case would mean, that'd be cool. The above is merely my opinion based on what has been said earlier in this case history.
There's a legal doctrine called "claim preclusion." It basically means that once an issue has been decided between two parties they can't re-litigate the case. So if I sue you and lose, I can't sue you again and hope for a different result from a new jury.
Often cases get dismissed before a final verdict is rendered, either by settlement or because there isn't a valid case for some reason. The question then is when claim preclusion attaches so as to prevent a new case from being brought on that issue.
When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it means that preclusion has attached and the determination of the issue is final. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, then the plaintiff could sue the defendant on the same cause of action again.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
biccat wrote:When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it means that preclusion has attached and the determination of the issue is final. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, then the plaintiff could sue the defendant on the same cause of action again.
Thanks biccat - given the motion earlier up the page dismissing the Paulson Games bit with prejudice, then, would that be specific to the model they claimed Paulson were involved with (despite the fact that they had nowt to do with it in the first place)?
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
I am not sure whether Paulson had a pro bono lawyer, even if he kept close to Chapterhouse lawyer positions.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
The prejudice thing is very important. It basically means that GW can't bring the case against him again.
This is good news.
I wonder if W&S lawyers are now going to try to push for a change in venue/jurisdiction now that the only tenuous connection to Chicago has been severed.
39004
Post by: biccat
Dysartes wrote:Thanks biccat - given the motion earlier up the page dismissing the Paulson Games bit with prejudice, then, would that be specific to the model they claimed Paulson were involved with (despite the fact that they had nowt to do with it in the first place)?
It means they can't bring the same cause of action (whatever that was) against Paulson.
So if they had accused him of trademark infringement of "Space Marine" on their shoulder pads (I'm just making this up), then they couldn't again sue Paulson for trademark infringement of "Space Marine" on their shoulder pads. That doesn't necessarily preclude them from bringing, for example, a copyright infringement case based on the same works (it's a more detailed analysis).
21196
Post by: agnosto
I just had a read through recent court documents on pacer. They've put up CH's response to GWs petition to order to compell; a good read with more than the usual giggles. I especially like the copies of e-mails that CH's attorneys included with their response; ah the vitriol and hyperbole going back and forth...it warms the cockles of my heart.  I especially like this bit:
Far from deserving half of its fees for bringing this motion, Plaintiff should compensate Defendant’s having to respond to this meritless motion.
And this is an absolute gem:
Plaintiff has resorted to litigation to vindicate its belief that the entire fictional world of Warhammer 40,000, which is inhabited by thousands of hobbyists and their imaginative
endeavors, is its intellectual property. It apparently believes that this extends even to accessories and other decorations that fit on its own sculptural works to enhance the gaming experience for devoted hobbyists, including creative works it has never dreamed of.
Love it!
Rather than pointing to any actionable copying, Plaintiff complains that Chapterhouse develops products “that can be used with Games Workshop’s popular Warhammer 40,000 game,” products that are “tied to the specific names, characters, imagery created by Games Workshop” (emphases added).1 Plaintiff complains that even the name “Chapterhouse” is too close for comfort, because Plaintiff has organized its Space Marines into “Chapters.” Mot. at 2. None of these claims is a legitimate basis for an infringement lawsuit.2 Plaintiff insists that Chapterhouse has conceded access to and copying of Plaintiff’s works3, and claims that a boilerplate statement on Chapterhouse’s website operates as an admission that Plaintiff owns copyrights in all the works at issue.
I give you credit and it's an admission that I copied something even though you can't point out anything that I copied?!? I'm not a lawyer and even I think that's funny.
The Conclusion:
Plaintiff has concocted issues to put before this Court where none exist. In the few casesin which a genuine disagreement exists, Plaintiff seeks discovery that is overbroad, unduly burdensome, duplicative and irrelevant to any claim. With respect to Chapterhouse’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Plaintiff has simply miscalculated the deadline, compounding its error with its failure to meet and confer on the issue. Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
Oh the lolz!
http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/
19148
Post by: Aerethan
That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
21196
Post by: agnosto
Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
To be fair, the defense is insinuating that GW is insinuating that they own everything that has been made, is made and ever will be made that even remotely relates to the 40k universe, regardless of source.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
I dug up this from the same source:
"Regarding Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 8, it asked for the meaning of Chapterhouse and the
sources Chapterhouse used in selecting this name. Chapterhouse provided both. It is
unclear what else Plaintiff seeks and why."
What? GW want to own the word Chapterhouse now? The late Frank Herbert is going to do his nut! (Not a suggestion that he invented the word)
God (Emperor) only knows what would happen if Chapterhouse start releasing space nuns! Or any of a couple of dozen ideas that they could possibly lift from Dune and put into a Sci-fi miniatures game.
Although for the record, anyone releasing a (not) Miles Teg miniature could make a few friends.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
So GW claims to own IP that they don't even come up with? Ballsy move. Soon they'll be claiming that they own copyright on the idea of games in general that have anything to do with science fiction or fantasy.
39004
Post by: biccat
agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:
That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.
Awesome.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Aerethan wrote:So GW claims to own IP that they don't even come up with? Ballsy move. Soon they'll be claiming that they own copyright on the idea of games in general that have anything to do with science fiction or fantasy.
No, they claim that you're creating a derivative work by you creating a work based off their setting.
Background
Background text is a major part of the hobby and writing your own is almost as much fun as reading it. Please remember to use the correct trademark disclaimer somewhere on your site, zip file and/or document. We would also ask that at the top of the material you state something equivalent to the following: "Death Ravine" an unofficial story by K. Roundtree derived, without permission, upon the Warhammer intellectual property owned by Games Workshop Ltd." Please note that we consider any background material you write to be a work which is derivative of our intellectual property. As such, you should refrain from putting any notice claiming that anyone other than Games Workshop Ltd has any right over Games Workshop-owned intellectual property or derivatives thereof.
There's their statement. I don't think they'd claim that they wrote it, just that they can do with it as they please. They have the same thing up in regards to submitting photos of your painted models to them.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
biccat wrote:agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:
That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.
Awesome.
Where was that bit? Is it somewhere in the emails from '132.1 Exhibit' in which they go back and forth bitching at each other?
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
"INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Separately for each work that YOU claim Chapterhouse infringes, state on an annual basis for the past ten (10) years (a) YOUR gross revenues generated from sales of the work; and (b) YOUR gross and net profit generated from sales of the work and how such profit was calculated."
Source: http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.122.0.pdf
I wonder if this juicy nugget will ever see the light of day on Recap? 
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kanluwen wrote:There's their statement. I don't think they'd claim that they wrote it, just that they can do with it as they please. They have the same thing up in regards to submitting photos of your painted models to them.
See, that's not clear. If you submit pictures on their site they take ownership of them. That's not uncommon, but what could they use them for? Could they appear in a magazine or book produced by them? It would be interesting if someone submitted pictures of someone else's work because then they would publish something online they were never legitimately given.
49775
Post by: DIDM
intellectual property
read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
DIDM wrote:intellectual property
read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law
What's your point?
18375
Post by: AndrewC
DIDM wrote:intellectual property
read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law
As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.
IP may be law, but what is the law? That's what this case is about. If GWs reading of IP law, as designated on their website, is true then this case would never have reached the stage it has. However we are a year down the line with a further year to go, so what GW claims as their IP rights is far from accepted and/or proven.
So far we have seen a complete lack of cooperation between the two parties, and I'm not blind (before Kan chimes in) both parties have played 'silly buggers' here. GW has yet to quantify what exactly has been copied.
Lets take one of my favorites, 'Chapterhouse'. It has a multitude of uses that relates to many different sources. As far as I am aware, 'Chapterhouse' or Chapter House, does not appear as a GW trademark name yet GW claims its use is infringing on it's IP? On the basis the SMs are grouped in chapters? What next, sue the book industry because words are grouped in chapters and so are SMs? (I know that's pedantic of me but it illustrates to me the level to which GW has sunk.)
Cheers
Andrew
21196
Post by: agnosto
biccat wrote:agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:
That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.
Awesome.
I just took that in stride as part of the hyperbole between parties.
42342
Post by: Smacks
AndrewC wrote:Howard A Treesong wrote:DIDM wrote:intellectual property
read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law
What's your point?
As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.
And why does it suck? It protects people from having their work plagiarised and drives innovation.
Also what is your point? Stating that "intellectual property is the law" in a topic about a legal (law) battle over ownership of IP (Intellectual Property)... is about as insightful as walking into a glass door. Especially since Intellectual Property is not 'the law'. The law is the law. Intellectual Property is Intellectual Property. There are a number of laws 'pertaining to' Intellectual Property. But those laws can only be invoked in cases, where someone is first able to prove that they actually own Intellectual Property, that their property is of a type protected by the law, and that said property is being infringed. Games Workshop don't even seem to be sure what it is they think they own. Let alone proved that they own it. Chapter House seem to believe Games Workshop's IP claims are unsubstantiated. That is what the whole case is about. This 59 page topic is about the case, and has already discussed IP law in great depth, with legal professionals providing input.
But yeah thanks for the pro tip, otherwise we might not have known that IP has something to do with the law... 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Kanluwen wrote:Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.
The bit about "You can't combine our IP with anyone else's" (my paraphrase.)
6209
Post by: odinsgrandson
Yeah, I think we're mostly in favor of having intellectual property laws here. It is just that it looks like GW has overstepped the law by quite a bit- or else they've got lawyers who are unable to demonstrate GW's intellectual property claims before a court.
Intellectual Property laws are complex, but the troubles that GW is having look really basic. I mean, I have thought that CHS was acting within their rights from the beginning, but I also think that I could put forward an argument of some kind.
Kanluwen wrote:Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.
Yeah, it is largely about covering their rears. Then again, they've had a really overreaching version of copyright posted on their site for a long time now, and they've stated them in the broadest ways possible- claiming more rights than they have under law. Like Tolkien's races and Moorcock's chaos star.
I guess I can see how a company can decide to use overstatements like that as a policy, but I think it is coming back to bite them now (with the counter-suit and all). I wonder exactly how this is going to play out, since the counter-suit in part is about GW claiming copyright that they do not own. That could be a rough one for them to justify.
Keep an eye out for them changing the legalese on the official GW website.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
odinsgrandson wrote:Keep an eye out for them changing the legalese on the official GW website.
GW legal page wrote:It would be helpful if you could check this policy document every so often (perhaps once a month or so) to see if there have been any changes to it.
E.g. they reformulated the bit where all conversions are illegal but not sued. But they still claim trademark for Moorcock's Chaos star.
Also, with no mentioning GW products
Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.
But then again, they now have a tool to stop all those badly painted GW models on ebay
Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.
1941
Post by: Wolfstan
AndrewC wrote:DIDM wrote:intellectual property
read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law
As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.
IP may be law, but what is the law? That's what this case is about. If GWs reading of IP law, as designated on their website, is true then this case would never have reached the stage it has. However we are a year down the line with a further year to go, so what GW claims as their IP rights is far from accepted and/or proven.
So far we have seen a complete lack of cooperation between the two parties, and I'm not blind (before Kan chimes in) both parties have played 'silly buggers' here. GW has yet to quantify what exactly has been copied.
Lets take one of my favorites, 'Chapterhouse'. It has a multitude of uses that relates to many different sources. As far as I am aware, 'Chapterhouse' or Chapter House, does not appear as a GW trademark name yet GW claims its use is infringing on it's IP? On the basis the SMs are grouped in chapters? What next, sue the book industry because words are grouped in chapters and so are SMs? (I know that's pedantic of me but it illustrates to me the level to which GW has sunk.)
Cheers
Andrew
Is that true, the "Chapterhouse" bit? Sheesh, if it is I'm gobsmacked that even they could try and claim that as theirs. You've got to give them 10 out 10 for cheek at least
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Wolfstan wrote:Is that true, the "Chapterhouse" bit? Sheesh, if it is I'm gobsmacked that even they could try and claim that as theirs. You've got to give them 10 out 10 for cheek at least
It certainly is. Although I don't recall GW ever using the term 'chapterhouse', they claim that it is too close to their use of the term 'chapters' in describing space marines.
It's quite a stretch.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
The more I read these documents the more I think it becomes apparent that GW is about to learn a valuable lesson in business administration.
It really does sound like they have issued this lawsuit thinking they were obviously right and would win or CHS would back down.
When the case continued it became apparent that GW doesn't seem to have the basic admin procedures surrounding IP/ copyrights and trademarks it needs to support its case. Companies I have worked for have a dept that does that and with only a slight exaggeration all that info is to hand with a click of mouse and a push of a photocopier button.
While I understand a lot of the legal exchanges are similar to the opening turn and placement of WHFB (v.7 not 8) to determine victory, many of the issues of simple what is copyrighted/ trademarked and how those were given should be a 2 minute photocopy job.
I find the GW strategy ... strange ... surely this should be a simple case of "this is what we own, this is why we own it and this is what you have infringed now gives us your profits and quit it". This case doesn't even have this after a year. Surely that isn't normal?
21196
Post by: agnosto
Most of what I am perceiving from GW's legal reps are delay tactics and, to use CHs lawyer's phrase, a smokescreen. There seems to be intentional misunderstandings, wild allegations and very little of substance. My inexpert opinion is that GW's counsel got involved in the case without thoroughly examining the merits, or lack thereof, of the case and are now attempting a number of maneuvers in an attempt to stall and create something from nothing. Well played game in CH's counsel in deftly avoiding damaging their defense.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
I am getting the impression that Chapterhouse's lawyers are beginning to enjoy this "case", GW's lawyers not so much.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Kilkrazy wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!
So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...
They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.
The bit about "You can't combine our IP with anyone else's" (my paraphrase.)
Oh No! What about the ponies in Space Marine armour?
Well thank god they don't believe in the internet and so should never find these things.
16689
Post by: notprop
You should sued for bringing that to my attention.
If any of the lawyers that say they are on this thread actually are, I want a restraining order on the last poster preventing him/her/it from being within 50 meters of the Internet ever again on pain of waterboarding.
No one should have to see that gak!
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Why are ponies in Space Marine armor? 
Anyway, is it even possible to start feeling sorry for GW at this point? Because I kinda do. They're losing a lot of money over this and making themselves look really foolish while Chapterhouse, a company who was so "obviously" infringing according to a lot of people on this site, just sits back and laughs at them while being out no or very little money of their own. This case should have ended fairly quickly if GW knew what the hell it was doing.
I don't know what else to say, I'm still in awe over this. Almost a year on and GW hasn't been able to provide basic stuff that you would think they'd have access to at the click of a mouse, considering that they take their IP so seriously and give out C&D notices like candy. Are they really that incompetent, or is this all some great strategy that us laymans just wouldn't understand? Because I'll be dumbfounded if GW somehow turn this around and come out the victor, there's no way.
notprop wrote: You should sued for bringing that to my attention.
If any of the lawyers that say they are on this thread actually are, I want a restraining order on the last poster preventing him/her/it from being within 50 meters of the Internet ever again on pain of waterboarding.
No one should have to see that gak!
lol, quite the overreaction there, buddy, over a fairly harmless image. Got something you want to tell us? Closet pony fan maybe?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Kroothawk wrote:I am getting the impression that Chapterhouse's lawyers are beginning to enjoy this "case", GW's lawyers not so much.
Their mail exchanges sure read like someone schooling a n00b in a forum flame war at least... 
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Sidstyler wrote:
...
I don't know what else to say, I'm still in awe over this. Almost a year on and GW hasn't been able to provide basic stuff that you would think they'd have access to at the click of a mouse, considering that they take their IP so seriously and give out C&D notices like candy. Are they really that incompetent, or is this all some great strategy that us laymans just wouldn't understand? ...
...
There is an adage that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.
PS: My Little Ponies are in SM armour to slow them down and make the game more fair.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Sidstyler wrote:Anyway, is it even possible to start feeling sorry for GW at this point? Because I kinda do. They're losing a lot of money over this (...)
Better feel sorry for us who will have to pay the "bills of incompetence"™
Sidstyler wrote:Why are ponies in Space Marine armor?
Because the Emperor promised it to his little daughter 
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an adage that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.
But the people familiar with the US legal "metagame" have stated in this very thread that GWs legal representatives are a highly regarded and competent law firm in the US, how can they be running a case in this manner?
GW can't back down now because they would just prove to everyone that their IP protection policy is a joke, but surely they would by now, be trying to find a way out of this, an under the table deal with CHS or something like that, because to a laymen's eyes at least, if this case goes all the way, GW is going to lose BIG which will have the same effect but with allot more risk of CHS's counter suit taking hold as well...
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Kroothawk wrote:Sidstyler wrote:Anyway, is it even possible to start feeling sorry for GW at this point? Because I kinda do. They're losing a lot of money over this (...)
Better feel sorry for us who will have to pay the "bills of incompetence"™
I'm glad I've already acquired the bulk of my DE army so far, then. I imagine adding to it later will be hard since you're right, we'll probably be paying for GW's legal fees somehow.
PhantomViper wrote:But the people familiar with the US legal "metagame" have stated in this very thread that GWs legal representatives are a highly regarded and competent law firm in the US, how can they be running a case in this manner?
Hmm, is it possible that in their never-ending quest to cut costs and save money wherever possible (while not passing a dime of the savings onto us of course) that they kinda cheaped out on their legal representation, too? Maybe the lawyers are just doing the job appropriately for the level of pay they're receiving.
Yeah I know, it doesn't work that way. It's gotta be one of two things then: either this law firm isn't as good as they say and GW blew a lot of money on them for nothing (unlikely), or they're trying to do the best they can with moronic GW suits who think they own the world screaming and stomping their feet and making really stupid and unrealistic demands (most likely). Either that or ponies, I dunno.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
notprop wrote: You should sued for bringing that to my attention.
If any of the lawyers that say they are on this thread actually are, I want a restraining order on the last poster preventing him/her/it from being within 50 meters of the Internet ever again on pain of waterboarding.
No one should have to see that gak!
I did put it in spoiler thingies. You had to click on it to show it and it did have the words "Ponies in space marine armour" immediately preceding it. I cannot be held responsible for your own curiosity 
Also, what do you expect young Sisters of Battle to watch? Of course it's going to be My Little Pony Marine: Friendship is a Warm Boltgun.
And look at it this way, you could bombard Mat Ward with pictures of ponies in Ultramarine armour as revenge for him ruining your favourite armies fluff (if/when he gets round to it). It'd be a kind of "how do you like it?" statement.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Please, stop. The ponies are very much off topic.
16689
Post by: notprop
A Town Called Malus wrote:pony stuff.....
Pleasing to see that irony is only lost on Sid.
Nonetheless you should still consider yourself a very naught pony Malus.
Still back on Topic, tsk that GW eh!
The inclusion of emails in a submission seems like a very good way to introduce the petty back and forth that wouldn't usually be tollerated in court?
Also are emails recognised with any great weight by the court or is that only contract law?
19148
Post by: Aerethan
I don't see a situation where GW can quietly back out of this. Why on earth would CHS, who is getting free legal work, agree to a confidential settlement? Precedent needs to be set here, and it seems that CHS is determined to see that happen, whether it goes their way or not, which is a good thing.
Like I said before, GW won't gain anything positive(in their own perspective) from this lawsuit. CHS would be fools to settle when the case so far is quite on their side. And if GW settle, it means they admit they are wrong, and other companies will follow CHS's example and won't fear anything from GW.
So, GW can't really settle, CHS shouldn't settle, and GW won't likely win at trial with the case as it stands.
My two copper.
686
Post by: aka_mythos
Aerethan wrote:
So, GW can't really settle, CHS shouldn't settle, and GW won't likely win at trial with the case as it stands.
So it should end, as any case that is meritless should end; the person who brought it to court loses.
19148
Post by: Aerethan
aka_mythos wrote:Aerethan wrote:
So, GW can't really settle, CHS shouldn't settle, and GW won't likely win at trial with the case as it stands.
So it should end, as any case that is meritless should end; the person who brought it to court loses.
GW took a bat to a hornets nest that they thought was empty and it wasn't; they will deal with the consequences of it.
And with how they behave in regards to this suit, GW makes it very difficult to be on their side about it. I wonder how Kanluwen manages...
686
Post by: aka_mythos
I think for Kanluwen, he feels GW is ethically justified in its stance even if it isn't legally justified as they've presented their case.
123
Post by: Alpharius
aka_mythos wrote:I think for Kanluwen, he feels GW is ethically justified in its stance even if it isn't legally justified as they've presented their case.
Thankfully for the rest of us, that isn't how the system works!
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
Thankfully for the rest of us, that isn't how the system works!
Its a shame theres nothing ethical about the legal system.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
aka_mythos wrote:I think for Kanluwen, he feels GW is ethically justified in its stance even if it isn't legally justified as they've presented their case.
That's certainly part of it.
Another part is simply that (in my opinion, specifically) case law in regards to this kind of issue does not exist. The closest is FASA and Harmony Gold/Playmates and the allegations against FASA--which really boils down to licensing shenanigans and "unlawfully benefiting from the use of copywritten subjects".
123
Post by: Alpharius
Mr Hyena wrote:
Thankfully for the rest of us, that isn't how the system works!
Its a shame theres nothing ethical about the legal system.
Hello hyperbole! 
I was leaning more towards the system should be without personal bias, but, whatever!
24251
Post by: Dracheous
So my argument for the excuse of GW charging so much is now getting overly complicated.
I've always said, that its not just the model you're paying for, but the license to build and paint it as YOU see fit for YOUR gaming pleasures. Now I see they've been givin' it to us even harder in the rear.
GW is not "selling" models; they're "leasing" them. See they still OWN it, you just get to do all the work.
Could you imagine if George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry tried pulling this with fan-art? I am seriously curious now exactly HOW much stuff GW has released has been fan based in its origins. Ie. things over heard from fans by staff ((would likely have to be UK)) and then made it to print.
Kanluwen wrote:aka_mythos wrote:I think for Kanluwen, he feels GW is ethically justified in its stance even if it isn't legally justified as they've presented their case.
That's certainly part of it.
Another part is simply that (in my opinion, specifically) case law in regards to this kind of issue does not exist. The closest is FASA and Harmony Gold/Playmates and the allegations against FASA--which really boils down to licensing shenanigans and "unlawfully benefiting from the use of copywritten subjects".
With the Harmony Gold case it was very black and white plagiarism though. Where the waters got muddy for some is in how Harmony Gold got into contact with other companies that had their IP stolen as well and brought them in on the case (( HG had the resources where these smaller companies did not)). HG did this because it created an even stronger case for them, but some saw it as an attempt by HG to steal IP from others. What I still find ridiculously funny; is the Battletech fans that still claim HG stole said mech designs yet FASA released BT in '84 when Robotech was produced/released in Japan '82. The North American release was '85, but the difference between Japan-American release was mostly dubbing.
Anyway, the HG/FASA case is entirely different from this one. In this one GW is claiming infringement by saying "Your product works WITH ours for you to make coin." With the HG/FASA case it was "Hey, you stole our drawing, we want it back." And it really was a theft of line for line exact copy. The only way Chapterhouse could have done this was to cast and sell exact duplicates of Marines.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
PhantomViper wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an adage that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.
But the people familiar with the US legal "metagame" have stated in this very thread that GWs legal representatives are a highly regarded and competent law firm in the US, how can they be running a case in this manner?
I'm not saying the lawyers are at fault. It's more likely that GW management just don't have the info required to close the case.
40581
Post by: TzeentchNet
Dracheous wrote:
With the Harmony Gold case it was very black and white plagiarism though.
-- No. It wasn't. Like, at all. According to the Battletech Line Developer they voluntarily stopped using their licensed images (and yes, they were licensed), partly because Studio Nue (the guys who actually created Macross) badly mangled licensing rights - which in retrospect was a good thing as even the Japanese courts did not clear up who owned what distribution rights until 2002. Almost everything people "know" about the Unseen situation is entirely invented by fans.
Where the waters got muddy for some is in how Harmony Gold got into contact with other companies that had their IP stolen as well and brought them in on the case ((HG had the resources where these smaller companies did not)). HG did this because it created an even stronger case for them, but some saw it as an attempt by HG to steal IP from others. What I still find ridiculously funny; is the Battletech fans that still claim HG stole said mech designs yet FASA released BT in '84 when Robotech was produced/released in Japan '82. The North American release was '85, but the difference between Japan-American release was mostly dubbing.
-- Provide a cite or stop repeating this garbage. The "inside story" was told by Randall Bills in 2007 when the big hullabaloo about the "return of the Unseen Mechs" stuff was going on. Harmony Gold didn't create a thing, they were just a licensee.
23979
Post by: frozenwastes
basically the Japanese company that owned the designs did a poor job of licensing out their rights in the US. FASA acted in good faith and believed they had the rights to the designs, but the people who gave them the rights turned out to not have them to give. So FASA withdrew their products based on their designs.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
Yup.
Now rumours are spinning that GW may use one of the same designs for a new Tau model.
Ugh.
8907
Post by: cadbren
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I see CHS and others as healthy for the hobby and good for hobbyists. Some say their work is mediocre,
Most of these secondary companies do produce mediocre work in comparison to GW but that's not the point of course. The point is that their work well exceeds the level that the average modeller can achieve (or wants to achieve) and provides a uniformity of form that meshes in well with the existing universe. Over time these companies will improve just like GW did. In the meantime they produce unique bits and units that keep people interested in the hobby.
....modellers will buy more of their kits to make every variant that is now available. And best of all, if Tamiya decide to make that variant themselves, the modeller will go out and buy it again because it's easier than working with resin! And that's why modeller's attics and cupboards are full of multiple copies of kits and conversion kits.
Definitely true, though perhaps GW is worried that their core market of newbies wont purchase their product if they are made aware of cheaper versions. The more I think about it the less it makes sense but I assume GW has its reasons for being so protective. Maybe it's a simple case of their bureaucratic staff being tossers or maybe this is a good chance to firm out what secondary producers can and can't do.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Jefffar wrote:Yup.
Now rumours are spinning that GW may use one of the same designs for a new Tau model.
Ugh.
Well, not exactly - I think the rumor was that there was going to be an 'extra large battlesuit resembling a Battlemech that has a weapon for it's name'.
I swear, if it's a Warhammer-ripoff, there's going to be hell to pay.
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Kilkrazy wrote:It's more likely that GW management just don't have the info required to close the case.
Actually, GW management doesn't have the info required to file the suit
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kroothawk wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It's more likely that GW management just don't have the info required to close the case.
Actually, GW management doesn't have the info required to file the suit
The fact the suit was filed and is currently being heard by a judge says otherwise.
47877
Post by: Jefffar
infinite_array wrote:Jefffar wrote:Yup.
Now rumours are spinning that GW may use one of the same designs for a new Tau model.
Ugh.
Well, not exactly - I think the rumor was that there was going to be an 'extra large battlesuit resembling a Battlemech that has a weapon for it's name'.
I swear, if it's a Warhammer-ripoff, there's going to be hell to pay.
That's the one most commonly mentioned.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
<back on topic, folks - GW's plans for Tau can be discussed elsewhere>
24567
Post by: Kroothawk
Kanluwen wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It's more likely that GW management just don't have the info required to close the case.
Actually, GW management doesn't have the info required to file the suit
The fact the suit was filed and is currently being heard by a judge says otherwise.
GW still hasn't met the standard requirements for filing the suit (indicating copyright infringments, proving copyright), they were just given one year to complete this procedure.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Kroothawk wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Kroothawk wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:It's more likely that GW management just don't have the info required to close the case.
Actually, GW management doesn't have the info required to file the suit
The fact the suit was filed and is currently being heard by a judge says otherwise.
GW still hasn't met the standard requirements for filing the suit (indicating copyright infringments, proving copyright), they were just given one year to complete this procedure.
So what you're saying is that a judge feels that there's enough merit to the case to have given leeway to a company to have a year to get its act together.
Man. They clearly don't have enough evidence to do anything right!
39004
Post by: biccat
PhantomViper wrote:But the people familiar with the US legal "metagame" have stated in this very thread that GWs legal representatives are a highly regarded and competent law firm in the US, how can they be running a case in this manner?
There's a number of reasons. Maybe the lawyer heading this up isn't doing his job very well. Maybe GW is pulling on the strings too hard. Maybe they're trying to make the best of a poor situation.
Mr Hyena wrote:Its a shame theres nothing ethical about the legal system.
The legal system is pretty ethical, all things considered. The amount of money my firm spends on keeping us on the straight and narrow is surprising.
Dracheous wrote:I've always said, that its not just the model you're paying for, but the license to build and paint it as YOU see fit for YOUR gaming pleasures. Now I see they've been givin' it to us even harder in the rear.
GW is not "selling" models; they're "leasing" them. See they still OWN it, you just get to do all the work.
You're buying the expression of the copyright (that is, the physical model), not the intellectual property.
In contrast, video games, movies, music, and all digital media include a license to use the software (sort of a lease). There are a number of reasons, for both legal and technical reasons, why they do so.
Dracheous wrote:Could you imagine if George Lucas or Gene Roddenberry tried pulling this with fan-art?
Star Trek and Star Wars are even more draconian, from my experience. They crack down pretty hard on third-parties who try to make money off of their intellectual party.
Lucas just happens to be a cheap date, IYKWIMAITYD.
Kanluwen wrote:Another part is simply that (in my opinion, specifically) case law in regards to this kind of issue does not exist.
Yes it does. We had a pretty good discussion of it early in the thread.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.
The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.
443
Post by: skyth
And it's just as applicable. Doesn't matter if it's all done in house or not.
|
|
