Kanluwen wrote: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.

while the Pauldrons may not be in the line of products, it might be worth mentioning Kromlech here....

frozenwastes wrote: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.

Its actually a bit more involved than that. In Japan there were two different companies that claimed the rights to the Macross/Robotech mech designs... the animation studio that did the art claiming its rights derived from its preproduction art and animation for the show and the production company that distributed and marketed the show and all images contained. Under Japanese law both were entitled to sell these rights and posessing different sets of rights and licensing options. FASA bought the rights from animation studio and Harmony Gold bought the rights from the the distributor. Thus Battletechs designs are based on the "pre-production artwork" while Harmony Gold's rights are restricted to what appears within the original show. Simply the suit was never settled by a court decision, just by FASA deciding it wasn't worth any more money to fight.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

As far as I can tell the comparison to aftermarket car parts isn't applicable simply because you don't want it to be. It's almost exactly the same thing, just with way more expensive toys.

I don't really see why it matters if cars are all made "in-house" or not.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Relevant precedent relies on similar facts, not exactly the same facts. This is a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit. Many unexpected cases will be potentially relevant depending on what argument one is making at any particular time. Car parts examples are actually particularly relevant. The similar facts are that accused works are aftermarket accessories designed for use with the asserted works. The automotive industry also generates copyrights inherent in the aesthetics of the vehicles.

Who controls the copyright is what is relevant in a copyright infringement suit. The only reason GW's "in house" design/manufacture is relevant is because it relates to GW's alleged ownership of the asserted works. It has little to do with isolated questions of whether an accused work is a copy of an asserted work. Thus, touting that the automotive industry is structured differently than Games Workshop does little to undermine the applicability of comparisons between copyright infringement vis a vis automotive copyrights and the lawsuit in question.

Shepherd23 wrote:To continue to defend GW with no other reason than "I like them and hate the stuff CH makes so GW must be right." is just foolish. If you wish to actually mount a reasonable defense for GW on this site I think that instead of just knocking down everyone's reasons for believing that GW is wrong, you should instead start to actually state legitimate reasons for why you believe GW is correct.

It does make for an interesting analog to how GW has conducted themselves in this case, however. This whole 'We are right whatever the cost, and facts be damned!' point of view.

A question for all legal folk:
Isn't it quite odd for a case that the judge gives the plaintiff a full year to provide the necessary basic data for filing a formally correct suit? Shouldn't he just have said: "Come back when you actually HAVE a case!" I doubt that such a long case without a formally correct filing would be legal in Germany.

Sidstyler wrote:As far as I can tell the comparison to aftermarket car parts isn't applicable simply because you don't want it to be. It's almost exactly the same thing, just with way more expensive toys.

I don't really see why it matters if cars are all made "in-house" or not.

It should be noted though, that even in the car accessory market (and similarly, in firearms industry) not everything is allowed: major manufacturers can and do sue if they feel that the parts you are offering violate their IP.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

There is also the example of after market phone accessories, that he's conveniently forgotten. Both licensed and unlicensed companies produce perfectly legal "iPhone cases"... the only distinction being one allows your product to be sold in Apple's online store.

Going back to the car body kit example... The "not manufactured in house" kinda falls flat when you consider that most of those contracted companies are partially owned, often times split between several of the major automotive manufacturers. So its not as if their IP rights disappears just because the structure of their buisness is setup to shield different entities from liabilities.

aka_mythos wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

There is also the example of after market phone accessories, that he's conveniently forgotten. Both licensed and unlicensed companies produce perfectly legal "iPhone cases"... the only distinction being one allows your product to be sold in Apple's online store.

Actually, I haven't forgotten them. I just don't find them any more relevant than the car example.

Going back to the car body kit example... The "not manufactured in house" kinda falls flat when you consider that most of those contracted companies are partially owned, often times split between several of the major automotive manufacturers. So its not as if their IP rights disappears just because the structure of their buisness is setup to shield different entities from liabilities.

This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:To continue to defend GW with no other reason than "I like them and hate the stuff CH makes so GW must be right." is just foolish. If you wish to actually mount a reasonable defense for GW on this site I think that instead of just knocking down everyone's reasons for believing that GW is wrong, you should instead start to actually state legitimate reasons for why you believe GW is correct.

It does make for an interesting analog to how GW has conducted themselves in this case, however. This whole 'We are right whatever the cost, and facts be damned!' point of view.

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

And really, I don't "hate the stuff CH makes". I find it outdated and very 'retro'(in terms of it looking like something that was produced by GW proper when I first started in 1997), but I know some people like it so more power to them.
Me? I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole, but I won't touch Forge World's "retro" stuff either so it's not a fanboy thing.
I'm very curious as to where the hell this idea that I'm defending Games Workshop "because I hate Chapterhouse".

Let me put it this way... what has CH actually done that substantively manipulates GW copyright? Their original claim wasn't even a case of copyright, it was with the "unfair" use of their trademark. Copyright prevents CH from copying GW's books and prevents CH from making copies of GW's models. CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.

But we're not discussing patents we're discussing trademarks and copyright. Bodykits just like model pieces are predominantly aesthetic components and thus they wouldn't be covered by a patent for those aesthetics. A copyright you're looking at exact instances of reproduction or nearly identical reproduction, but when the nature of the design is specifically for compatibility neither interfacing geometry nor aethetic blending play a part indetermining if somethings a copy.

Let's say you look at a bit is it an armored arm or is it a "space marine arm"? Copyright and trademark only cares when its identical or so intrinsict to the design and identity of the whole model.

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.


And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

And really, I don't "hate the stuff CH makes". I find it outdated and very 'retro'(in terms of it looking like something that was produced by GW proper when I first started in 1997), but I know some people like it so more power to them.
Me? I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole, but I won't touch Forge World's "retro" stuff either so it's not a fanboy thing.
I'm very curious as to where the hell this idea that I'm defending Games Workshop "because I hate Chapterhouse".

Kindly stick to the subject. We are not discussing "patents", we are disussing GW's inability to define what (if any) copyright has been violated by CH.

As of yet, GW has not been able to define what copyright was violated. The Court has been gracious to allow them to get their "act together" in the hopes that GW can articulate what it is they find objectionable in Ch's product/existence (aside from "We dont want them to 'be' ").

This whole scenario reminds me of the fool dog that barks it's head off and chases every passing car. One day, the dog actually catches a bumper and the driver comes to a stop. The dog is then at a loss as to what to do next. GW's been "barking" about it's IP for years, chasing other companies out of existence with C&D threats. CH has stopped the car to confront the dog, but the dog hasnt got a clue as how to proceed.

Bad dog!

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Kroothawk wrote:A question for all legal folk:
Isn't it quite odd for a case that the judge gives the plaintiff a full year to provide the necessary basic data for filing a formally correct suit? Shouldn't he just have said: "Come back when you actually HAVE a case!" I doubt that such a long case without a formally correct filing would be legal in Germany.

That's one of the major differences between German & US civil proceedings. US law allows for so-called "notice pleading," where you file a bare-bones allegation that you believe someone has infringed some right of yours. You then gain access to an incredibly broad discovery process, which you can use to flesh out your allegations until you have a case that stands up. There are limits, but they are largely discretionary.

(This is why some companies file lawsuits in both the US and Germany - you can use the US court proceedings to build enough of a case to file in Germany, where you will get results faster.)

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

My problem with this is that you don't acknowledge the real possibility that GW's over reaching. IF GW's is overreaching, as many believe, they are doing an injustice; they're effectively stealling away other peoples rights. It would be no different than a private individual claiming ownership of your car just because it looks like theirs.

sourclams wrote:
Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Ok, not a lot makes me actually lol on the internet anymore--but that did. That's some analogy--well done.

sourclams wrote:

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Would you mind if I quoted you in my sig? That is just priceless

Certainly you can!

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

The only fallacy I see is in bringing up patent law in a discussion about copyright and trademark laws.

Trust the lawyer types in this one, Kanluwen. They've pointed out why the aftermarket auto parts industry might prove a valuable precedent in this case. Your opinion that it doesn't apply, especially when that opinion seems based upon irrelevant issues such as patent agreements, doesn't really matter.

I'll keep listening to the lawyers who post on this thread. Out of curiosity, are their any lawyers roaming this thread who agree with Kanluwen and think that the aftermarket auto parts industry has absolutely no bearing on the case in discussion?

sourclams wrote:Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, (...)

I am not anti-GW, spending too much time and money with GW products, but if GW management wants to crush obviously innocent (Paulson) or presumingly innocent (Chapterhouse) people by obviously unfair means, I don't want them to succeed.

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Just because you can be sued doesn't automatically mean you've done something legally wrong.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Video games are not the same.
In order to make the expansion compatible, I presume you'd need access to their code and have to use that.
I'd also presume that said code is protected in some way (copyright, etc).

On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

If you can do that without utilizing any of their pre-written assets or directly copying (intentionally or unintentionally)... first I would say you could get a better job doing something else... second I would say congrats. Your analogy fails to grasp the reality of this case because 90% of the time compatibility for a video game requires decryption of the source files. That in itself without permission is illegal. The games that you can more easily mod are the ones where the game creator provided the mod making tools and those have end user agreements explicitly forbidding you from doing what your saying. Lets just for the sake of argument say a company has a game with no encryption and are using some publicly available open source game engine which doesn't have any restrictions or user agreements... and you made an expansion that ads on to that game... unless you're claiming intentionally or not to have created the original game what your doing would be perfectly legal.

derek wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Just because you can be sued doesn't automatically mean you've done something legally wrong.

I certainly hope someone has made this point before now...

MagickalMemories wrote:
On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Using their trademarks and flat out producing items labelled and represented as IP of GW is not. When you sell an alien spore pod, that's one thing. When you sell a "Mycetic Spore Pod", that's GW's IP you are intentionally reproducing and infringing on. When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors", that's flat out infringing on GW's IP. The differences are subtle, but clear, and Chapterhouse has very clearly crossed a line. When you make Combi-Meltas for Space Marines, yes sorry, that's not just little shapes that fit into others, you're intentionally using a label that is the IP of another party. These are all things Chapterhouse has done and can freely see on their website, and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement. It's not about the part itself, it's really about what you call it, though, there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I've got nothing against what Chapterhouse is trying to make or arguing that they aren't filling a market demand, but they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

Vaktathi wrote: When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors",

They're making "doors that can be used as salamander tank doors" and telling thats what they're for. What they are not doing is directly reproducing a sculpture someone else has already produced, and that's the only thing expressely forbiden by the law.

All they would have had to do was put "THIS PRODUCT NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR MODELING TOY ARMIES." and say it was a small scale sculpture

Vaktathi wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Using their trademarks and flat out producing items labelled and represented as IP of GW is not. When you sell an alien spore pod, that's one thing. When you sell a "Mycetic Spore Pod", that's GW's IP you are intentionally reproducing and infringing on. When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors", that's flat out infringing on GW's IP. The differences are subtle, but clear, and Chapterhouse has very clearly crossed a line. When you make Combi-Meltas for Space Marines, yes sorry, that's not just little shapes that fit into others, you're intentionally using a label that is the IP of another party. These are all things Chapterhouse has done and can freely see on their website, and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement. It's not about the part itself, it's really about what you call it, though, there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I've got nothing against what Chapterhouse is trying to make or arguing that they aren't filling a market demand, but they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

Pardon me if this seems confrontational. It's not meant to be, but I can't think of any clearer way to ask this question than directly:
Do you realize that simply claiming to own the IP on something does not mean that you do?

GW cannot own "spore pod" and just because they are the first (AFAIK) to use the word "Mycetic," that will not automatically give them 100% ownership over it. People invent words all the time.

GW did not create "Space Marines." That much has been covered. They also did not create the Salamander. Just because they put the two together, that will not automatically give them ownership over the entirety of the term. Simply CLAIMING ownership of something does not give it to you. If it did, I would have a MUCH larger house and FAR nicer cars.

and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement

Can you please cite your legal background that gives you the ability to say this with such confidence?

there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I have yet to see one based in legal precedent. The lawyers monitoring this thread (people far more qualified than I and, presumably, you) have repeatedly stated the legality of said actions.

they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

GW does not make the law. Remember that they can ASSERT any claims they want. They can make all sorts of claims on their website about what we can and cannot do "with their IP." Until it's backed up legally (which has not been done), however, it is simply not true.

I believe that there are a number of people whose beliefs are in line with your own who will be in for a BIG surprise at the end of this fiasco, should it ever see court. I'm more inclined to think there will be a number of "told ya so's" when the judge throws the case out because GW is full of it (obviously not a legal term).


Eric

Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Shepherd23 wrote:

I agree here completely. While I admire your devotion to the Cult of GW, it really seems that in this case you are just defending them because of your devotion. You know as well as everyone else that there is no other 100% exact comparison currently on the books.

Whether that is true of Kanluwen or not I cannot say. However it may be unfair to assume that an individuals opinions on this case are clouded by their opinions of GW in general, except in the case of those who make comments like the above. After all if it is unthinkable to some not to be biased then it is logical to first apply that measure first to those who assume so.

Now this Chapterhouse case has opened mixed feelings.

I for one enjoy a bit of GW shadenfreude when their rather viscious legal policy led them to bite before realising they could not swallow, I like how someone has stood up to the bully, I also like some resin on the side from an illegitimate manufacturer.

However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Kilkrazy wrote:Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Sorry, have to correct you:
Paulson never had anything to do with Chapterhouse. Every photo of the walker at that time clearly showed the name of the correct sculptor. So either by incompetence or ill will, GW lawyers dragged the wrong guy to court, making this the reason why the lawsuit takes place in Chicago and several states away from Chapterhouse. After a year and a lot of time and money expenses (I don't think that Paulson got a pro bono lawyer, at least not from the start), the judge finally accepted that he had nothing to do with the case.

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Doesn't matter, CHS hasn't copied anything that GW did, the CHS Farseer is a completely new model imagined by CHS's sculptors. GW does not own the IP for Elves, GW does not own the IP for space and GW certainly does not own the IP for space Elves...

If those things were true, wouldn't you think that GW would have sued the pants out of Avatars of War, Banelords and Warpath? They are clearly making minis that can be used in GW games!

No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

So you are saying that the Avatars of War heroes weren't produced with the intent to be used as WHFB heroes? That the Banelords Dark Elves standard bearer for example, wasn't made to be used in a WHFB Dark Elves army? Sorry, but I call that BS, put any of those miniatures in the middle of a "compatible" WHFB army and most people will think that they are made by the same company.

IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Paulson, who made the four-legged walker tank, has been released from the case (there must be a correct legal term) without prejudice.

Sorry, have to correct you:
Paulson never had anything to do with Chapterhouse. Every photo of the walker at that time clearly showed the name of the correct sculptor. So either by incompetence or ill will, GW lawyers dragged the wrong guy to court, making this the reason why the lawsuit takes place in Chicago and several states away from Chapterhouse. After a year and a lot of time and money expenses (I don't think that Paulson got a pro bono lawyer, at least not from the start), the judge finally accepted that he had nothing to do with the case.

How was the Walker a problem anyway? GW don't make anything like that, I thought it's been said that Tau don't do titans so GW won't be making anything like it in future.

Orlanth wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:

I agree here completely. While I admire your devotion to the Cult of GW, it really seems that in this case you are just defending them because of your devotion. You know as well as everyone else that there is no other 100% exact comparison currently on the books.

Whether that is true of Kanluwen or not I cannot say. However it may be unfair to assume that an individuals opinions on this case are clouded by their opinions of GW in general, except in the case of those who make comments like the above. After all if it is unthinkable to some not to be biased then it is logical to first apply that measure first to those who assume so.

Now this Chapterhouse case has opened mixed feelings.

I for one enjoy a bit of GW shadenfreude when their rather viscious legal policy led them to bite before realising they could not swallow, I like how someone has stood up to the bully, I also like some resin on the side from an illegitimate manufacturer.

However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

You are picking and choosing things that you think should be cause for suing without any basis in any legal argument except your opinion of GW and CHS. That is not how the real world works (fortunately).

If things worked out the way you wanted them to work, then GW would have been sued out of existence long ago by the owners of the Tolkien estate...

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes but Orlanth, every single manufacturer of wargames figures and model kits potentially "does GW out of a sale".

E.g. my entire IG army is going to be non-GW models.

Does that mean that GW should have the right to sue Tamiya, Revell, Italeri and Copplestone Castings?

No for the same reason why Hasbro owning Wizards owning TSR cannot sue GW for making Warhammer.

The same reason why Ford cannot sue Toyota/Honda/GM Mercedes etc etc for making mass production cars.

You making your IG army out of non GW models is like a customer putting a Mercedes icon on a Fiat. Its what a customer might do.

If Tamiya started making plastic Valhallans then they would likely get GW rightly upset. If Tamiya make 28mm Russians and you make a Valhallan army from them they have to cause to argue.

Chapterhouse Doomseer resembles a Farseer, if it only looked like 'some for of elf in a spacesuit' which is a broader category of which Farseer is a subcategory then it would be ok.

The trouble is that Chapterhouse are finding as easy to be as facetious as you are being.

The GW Far Seers and the Chapter House Doom Seer look like a figure wearing plate armour, a tall helmet and robes.

I am not being facetious in suggesting that GW have not got a copyright on depicting a humanoid warrior in plate armour, a tall helmet and robes.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
To go back to the car analogy, conversion bits are like seat covers, you dont need a license to make and sell seat covers that fit various types of car and seat. Custom dashboards are different though, that's a whole component. Its ok to 'pimp' a daskboard as a one off without any license, kustom art etc, but if you manufacture a line of kustom dashboards, that ought to require a license.

Why should it require a license? Unless the dashboard is a direct copy of the original one, then no license is required (and there are several examples of this in the car industry).

Indeed so the dashboards will have to be fairly generic and able to fit onto a dashboard or cut to fit, or a license is required for official parts.

Interfacing geometry would have to be so "novel" as to deserve a patent to get any sort of protection and general aesthetic can't really be protected either. So what sort of protection does that dashboard really have?-Just protection from it being directly reproduced. This is the reality of GW's position in trying to assert its claim on the design of CH's miniatures. GW was more founded when it originally argued that CH was unfairly using its TM and falsely presenting its products as their own, but even that's a stretch since the way CH presented them is common practice and regarded as fair use.

There is a lot of argueing over who is right and who is wrong, but it comes down to this GW's position is only really actionable if it shows CH has directly copied anything GW's made and that's simply not going to happen because CH hasn't copied anything.

Everything else is irrelevent to the case. Intent, is something that comes into this arguement, but that only speaks to damages and not to the validity of the claim somethings been copied.

Orlanth wrote:
No sorry. Though using that false analogy might be the sort of smokescreen relied upon. You can have your own space elves and GW cant do much about it, but the intent here is to mimic a GW product, Warpath doesnt claim to do that, its an independent gaming system.

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Stuff like this goes on in business all the time. Take a look at the toy industry which is notorious for its knock offs. There is Planet of the Apes, and then there is Apes Attacks. The latter competes with Planet of the Apes, and is probably derived from it. (Another example is Transformers and Go Bots.) However, in the toy industry relatively few lawsuits are filed about this sort of thing. They are either sporting about it, or know that they do not have a case.

The TV and Movie industries also have their fair share of knock offs. Again, relatively few lawsuits.

spaceelf wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

Stuff like this goes on in business all the time. Take a look at the toy industry which is notorious for its knock offs. There is Planet of the Apes, and then there is Apes Attacks. The latter competes with Planet of the Apes, and is probably derived from it. (Another example is Transformers and Go Bots.) However, in the toy industry relatively few lawsuits are filed about this sort of thing. They are either sporting about it, or know that they do not have a case.

The TV and Movie industries also have their fair share of knock offs. Again, relatively few lawsuits.

GW was used to issuing a C&D, or the threat of a suit to get third parties to cower to them, thus avoiding an actual lawsuit AND getting the result they desired. Unfortunately for them, CH was able to secure effective pro bono representation which basically took GW's assertions to task. In the light of scrutiny, these assertions are beginning to look hollow. It would seem the emperor has no clothes.

PhantomViper wrote:
So you are saying that the Avatars of War heroes weren't produced with the intent to be used as WHFB heroes? That the Banelords Dark Elves standard bearer for example, wasn't made to be used in a WHFB Dark Elves army? Sorry, but I call that BS, put any of those miniatures in the middle of a "compatible" WHFB army and most people will think that they are made by the same company.

I didnt adress Avatar's of War, they are in the same place as Chapterhouse, however Avatars at least by producing fantasy heroes can say they have a generic product. GW have no IP leg to stand on regarding Vampires, but do with regards to Eldar Farseers

PhantomViper wrote:
IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.....

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Well if it's that clear cut then GW should have no problem proving they own these copyrights and can press home a case. Shame they seem a bit vague about all this after a year.

Orlanth wrote:
Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Me buying an entire Imperial Guard army from Pig Iron and Wargames Factory also denies them a sale, doesn't mean that they have a basis for a legal lawsuit.

In fact, taking your argument to its "logical" conclusion, me buying a Warmahordes Legion army will also deny GW a sale, since I could have used that money to buy GW minis instead.

Did CHS copy any miniature made by GW in their "Doomseer"? No.
Does GW own the Elf in Space IP? No.
Does GW own the Elf in Space wearing armour IP? No.
Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.
Does GW own the term "Farseer"? Maybe, that is why CHS called theirs "Doomseer".

Again, you're basing your arguments in your opinions of the companies involved, they have absolutelly no basis on how things actually work on the real world.

weeble1000 wrote:

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Thanks, So we won't know if he is dismissed until Dec 2012? Is that the next court date?

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992 along with Space Marines in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Also, their list of UK TRADEMARKS (lets be specific) is actually quite short and some have actually expired.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-adp?propnum=0671428001

DARK FUTURE WO 25.08.1988 Registered 16 28
CITADEL DW 25.08.1988 Registered 16 28
GAMES WORKSHOP. SW 25.08.1988 Registered 09 16 28
WHITE DWARF DW 25.08.1988 Registered 16
ARMAGEDDON WO 13.04.1991 Registered 28
SPACE MARINE WO 18.04.1991 Registered 28
CITADEL WO 15.11.1991 Registered 16
CITADEL WO 15.11.1991 Registered 28
GAMES WORKSHOP WO 15.11.1991 Registered 09 16 28
ELDAR WO 24.04.1992 Registered 28
WARMASTER WO 16.07.1992 Registered 28
TYRANID WO 16.01.1993 Registered 09 28
GAMES WORKSHOP SW 16.01.1993 Registered 16
DARK ANGEL WO 16.01.1993 Expired 28
DUNGEONQUEST WO 25.03.1993 Expired 28
HEAVY METAL WO 27.04.1994 Expired 16
HEAVY METAL WO 27.04.1994 Expired 28
INQUISITOR WO 16.03.2001 Registered 09 16 28
WARHAMMERONLINE WO 04.04.2001 Registered 09 16 28 35 41
WARHAMMERONLINE.COM WO 04.04.2001 Expired 09 16 28 35 41


For context, their Tradmarks typically apply to class 28 (toys) or 16(paper products, books etc)

Howard A Treesong wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Just had a poke around the web and stumbled upon this:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

Edit:

Found this on Wiki as well:

Eldar is both a Hebrew first/last name meaning "god resides" and a rare Norse first name meaning "Warrior who fights with fire"(Eld+ar(ar=Harjar)) Eld=fire. It is also a Muslim name meaning 'ruler' in the Persian language. Its also the word for 'fires' in the Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian language. It is also a common first name among the Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, the Azeris, the Georgians and the Bashkirs.

Can they claim such a word?

No.

A company can trademark any term for use in trade unless the term (e.g. Sony) is itself a copyright term.

Wolfstan wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:Does GW own the term "Eldar"? No.

I think they do actually.

Oddly though, they only applied for it in 1992.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/domestic?domesticnum=1498855

Just had a poke around the web and stumbled upon this:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

Edit:

Found this on Wiki as well:

Eldar is both a Hebrew first/last name meaning "god resides" and a rare Norse first name meaning "Warrior who fights with fire"(Eld+ar(ar=Harjar)) Eld=fire. It is also a Muslim name meaning 'ruler' in the Persian language. Its also the word for 'fires' in the Icelandic, Swedish and Norwegian language. It is also a common first name among the Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, the Azeris, the Georgians and the Bashkirs.

Can they claim such a word?

Maybe in regards to applying "Eldar" to space elves (elves in soace etc).

Wolfstan wrote:

Eldar is a word of the Iberian language, a language of the Iberian about 2,500 years ago, but going back to the past of the megalithic culture. Eldar in this language means "Epidemic"

Would that make their claim invalid?

No. Be fair, the Trademark has been issued to them.

The context is important, if applies to toys and stationary, if you search for "Eldar" other people have the term for other uses.

Orlanth wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
IP law doesn't work on "intent", if it isn't a direct copy of something then it is perfectly legal.....

CHS aren't claiming that they make "official" anything, they just said that their kits are compatible with certain GW miniatures and you don't need a license for that.

Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

Orlanth, GW doesn't have a right to a sale. Copyright is actually pretty specific - it protects the expression of an idea, which is to say that it protects a specific sculpture of an Eldar Farseer. There is a little looseness around the edges (i.e., if I took GW's Farseer model, and modified it to be kneeling, it would likely still fall under the concept of a derivative work, something that only the copyright holder has the right to create), but if I make my own sculpture in the same general aesthetic as a copyrighted work, copyright law doesn't prevent me from selling it.

All that's left after that is the risk for customer confusion (unfair competition law), which can be challenging to prove.

Orlanth wrote:However GW do have a point, this case is dangerous. Chapterhouse are now making stuff that directly does GW out of a sale, you can buy a Farseer from them and not GW if you like, and no matter how much it is reworded, its still obvious its a farseer. resin conversion bits is one thing, GW make the sale Chapterhouse provide an after product service. Chapterhouse are making complete kits and new units, that is treading on GW's toes directly.

You've always been able to do that. GW is not the only miniature maker out there. I have multiple models made by a variety of different manufacturers that I have used in GW games because I like the competitor's model better. GW can only control that if I wanna play in a GW store; they can't prevent me from buying Reaper or other minis and using them instead of whatever GW produced model that I don't like as much. The only reason this CHS instance crossed the line was when they advertised it by using GW names; once they changed that, GW no longer had a valid reason to attack that issue. That's why the case has moved into different issues from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:Only they dont stop there. No GW parts go into a Doomseer, so it denies them a sale.

So what? Competitors deny other competitors sales all the time. That's a fact of doing business. As long as CH is not marketing their Doomseer as a GW produced Farseer, they're not breaking any laws, unless it can be shown that the Doomseer is a direct copy of a GW product (which it's not).

Bex wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Bex wrote:Quick question, I thought the next court date was set for December 2012, how did the other guy involved with this case get dismissed by the judge in the mean time?

The Plaintiff submitted a stipulation of dismissal - with prejudice, by the way. This is still subject to approval by the Court, although I don't think there's any reason for the Court to not grant the dismissal. If you look at the docket, you'll notice that the case against Paulson has not actually been dismissed yet.

Thanks, So we won't know if he is dismissed until Dec 2012? Is that the next court date?

The date you have in mind is the trial date (December 3rd, 2012). This is the date that the actual trial begins, therefore indicating voir dire, jury selection, and subsequent events leading up to a verdict. The Court will rule on the stipulation much sooner than that. And at this point, for all practical purposes, Paulson is out of the case.

In the Northern District of Illinois, the parties will appear before the Judge on essentially a weekly basis.

GW needs to wake up here.



And HIRE these guys. Obviously they are talented and could add their talents to GW's existing talent.

IronSnake wrote:GW needs to wake up here.



And HIRE these guys. Obviously they are talented and could add their talents to GW's existing talent.

Apparently GW take a pretty meh view if they see their products come up when searching for sculpters. They like seeing original stuff.

Of course what is a GW like product will be subject for change when this case is finished!

If this bounces CHS way would it be possible for them to sue others if they are first to market, as an example, with a standard Jetbike suitable for Space Marines. What if sculpted a female farseer and sold copies? Could CHS then sue me since aesthetically I would sculpt it to be like GW Eldar/CHS Doomseer?

Mr. Burning wrote:If this bounces CHS way would it be possible for them to sue others if they are first to market?

Anyone can sue for pretty much any reason. It still costs money though and I don't see CHS doing very much litigation. Winning this case would not mean that CHS could claim copyright on SM shoulderpads. CHS's position as litigants against other parties would likely be the same as GW's is currently so I'd expect trash talk > litigation.

The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.


Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

Kroothawk wrote:The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.


Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

It looks like the sharks smell blood in the water and are starting to circle....Hopefully he can get this case back on track.

What makes this person special or indicates an more aggressive approach against GW?

25+ years of practice, Practice Areas: Intellectual Property Litigation (70%), and being official "Super-lawyer":
http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/lawyer/Dean-A-Morehous-Jr/02f99403-3a91-48b6-b977-30e64a46aec1.html

...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

I know I would!

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

Even if that type of case existed, it wouldn't necessarily be controlling.

However, if you want to discuss the broader issue of copyright infringement, particularly with respect to derivative works, we can discuss that.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

You're right that those cases aren't applicable, but you're wrong on why. They aren't applicable because those products are usually lacking the creative step required for copyright protection. And even if they have the required creativity, failing to manufacture products "in house" wouldn't destroy their copyright protection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:A question for all legal folk:
Isn't it quite odd for a case that the judge gives the plaintiff a full year to provide the necessary basic data for filing a formally correct suit? Shouldn't he just have said: "Come back when you actually HAVE a case!" I doubt that such a long case without a formally correct filing would be legal in Germany.

That's one of the major differences between German & US civil proceedings. US law allows for so-called "notice pleading," where you file a bare-bones allegation that you believe someone has infringed some right of yours.

Also, pleading requirements for copyright are pretty clear. I think a good case can be made that even the minimum requirements of notice pleading haven't been met here.

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Does he wear a cape?

Looks like my panic buys from CH were premature! Good to see their law firm is bringing out the big guns...

I wonder if this means that CHS legal team will point out to the judge that GW hasn't claimed anything specific in their suit so far, and I wouldn't be surprised if they called for the suit to be thrown out entirely on that basis(not sure if they can).

I'd hate for this to get dragged out another year, but if it goes the way it looks now, it will be worth the wait.

I would absolutely love to see this conclude in an actual decision--and have it decided on the merits of the case v. whom has the most funds/amount of legal representation.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would absolutely love to see this conclude in an actual decision--and have it decided on the merits of the case v. whom has the most funds/amount of legal representation.

You and me both. Chicago is only a couple of hours drive for me. I would totally take a few days off work to go down and actually watch this case. Law and Order live!!

Kroothawk wrote:The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.


Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

This pleases me. Everything is going according to the plan.

The way I see it is that both sides are guilty in this case. Games Workshop (or rather the people in charge of GW) for playing the 800 pound gorilla with their Cease and Desist orders, and Chapterhouse Studios for pushing a bit too close to the line of infringement (with their "Doom of Malan'tai" for example) . I really just want to see this case reach its conclusion, no matter what the outcome is.

Fat_Little_Ripper wrote:The way I see it is that both sides are guilty in this case. Games Workshop (or rather the people in charge of GW) for playing the 800 pound gorilla with their Cease and Desist orders, and Chapterhouse Studios for pushing a bit too close to the line of infringement (with their "Doom of Malan'tai" for example) . I really just want to see this case reach its conclusion, no matter what the outcome is.

Unless you have ever been sued before or have be the one that is bringing on the litigation you have no idea on how long these things can take.

I have been on both sides of the fence in this situation. 4 1/2 years it took me to successfully sue a corporation. The delays and changes to the docket are a normal thing now.

This case is going to take some time. Be patient. It will work itself out. But the sharks do smell blood. I have stated that Games Workshop picked on the wrong person.

And as I have stated in my previous post.

This pleases me. Everything is going according to the plan

Arander wrote:You and me both. Chicago is only a couple of hours drive for me. I would totally take a few days off work to go down and actually watch this case. Law and Order live!!

Having been there it's really boring.

Each time I went I wasted a couple hours riding the train downtown and waiting around the courthouse. When the case gets called it's up in front of the judge for about ten minutes, probably less. Unless you are in the very front row you can barely even make out what's being said as the entire room is designed to absorb sound. It's a total waste of a day for 5 minutes of nonsense.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Does he wear a cape?

No capes, although I believe this is the established super lawyer dress code.



HAHA!

Howard A Treesong wrote:What makes this person special or indicates an more aggressive approach against GW?

I only have passing familiarity with the civil side of the law as a police officer, but it kinda strikes me as a big deal that they drafted an experienced IP lawyer from halfway across the country for a freaking pro-bono defense seems like it might be a pretty big deal, as it was my understanding that often a lot of the pro-bono stuff at big firms is usually relegated to newer lawyers.

This is assuming of course they just aren't consulting him on some details.

This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

Or it could mean the newbs initially assigned to the case got out of their depth not a lot of info for us laymen to go on really lol.

I do know enough to know it's likely pretty significant what ever the hell it means though, I'd be real curious to hear Biccat's thoughts on the new layer.

Don't know if it was Biccat or Weeble or someone else, but in the earlier stages of the case when CH had just gotten pro bono representation it was suggested that the representing firm might want to take this case in order to set precedent for a much bigger case (and paycheck) down the line.

sourclams wrote:Don't know if it was Biccat or Weeble or someone else, but in the earlier stages of the case when CH had just gotten pro bono representation it was suggested that the representing firm might want to take this case in order to set precedent for a much bigger case (and paycheck) down the line.

That's not a bad idea. If they can win the case, then they become the best bet for anyone else who has this kind of problem again - even, perhaps, GW?

biccat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

You're right that those cases aren't applicable, but you're wrong on why. They aren't applicable because those products are usually lacking the creative step required for copyright protection. And even if they have the required creativity, failing to manufacture products "in house" wouldn't destroy their copyright protection.

What are you talking about? The clay and digital models created by the OEM in designing the door is copyright protected, precisely for the creative energies that go into them; the physical door is derivative of that work. A new door designed solely to interface in the absence of the original part and blend in with the rest of the vehicle independent of those models however isn't derivative, its based on function.

Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

Just read the last few pages for the recent news.

The fact that CH has pro-bono representation from a major law firm is in fact true, and is also really, really OLD 'news'...

chaos0xomega wrote:Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

Summary: GW is trying to file its first formally correct IP lawsuit, they failed to meet the minimum standard requirements for a year now but were given even more time for their attempt. The person they accused on obviously false accounts (with or without intent) is out of the case with prejudice. The behavior of GW's lawyers is odd and not helpful to win the case, observers are discussing the reasons for that, with incompetence being one of the possible reasons.

chaos0xomega wrote:Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

GW files a complaint, CH moves to dismiss, GW gets a chance to revise claims.

GW fails to revise claims, asks for early discovery, we enter early discovery (basically both sides ask for information from the other).

GW and CH answer some requests, refuse to answer others, court orders settlement negotiation.

This negotiation has the expected result, both sides offer opposing objections, GW moves for more time to revise claims.

Court sets a trial date.

aka_mythos wrote:What are you talking about? The clay and digital models created by the OEM in designing the door is copyright protected, precisely for the creative energies that go into them; the physical door is derivative of that work. A new door designed solely to interface in the absence of the original part and blend in with the rest of the vehicle independent of those models however isn't derivative, its based on function.

OK, it depends on what types of car parts we're talking about. I assumed we were discussing things like car seats, alternators, engine components and the like. These wouldn't be copyrighted because they're functional.

If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

Personally, I think they're simply bringing in an experienced litigator to handle the actual trial. But there could be any number of reasons.

Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

But if they're all copyrighted and protected then why do sites/companies exist that sell body kits? In some cases you can even buy replacements that are made to look exactly like stock parts, namely spoilers.

chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse".

Kroothawk wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse".

That is a very apt metaphor for this case so far. Love it.

It is notable that Dean Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind. The phrase generally refers to someone who, while not an associate or partner in the firm, nonetheless has a relationship with the firm. From there, specific uses may vary, but it commonly refers to a retired partner that is available for consultation or assistance.

Morehous was with Thelen LLP until the firm dissolved in '08, at which point he joined W&S as Of Counsel, along with 19 other attorneys that W&S was pleased to bring into the fold.

weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind.

What does that mean?

It means exactly what I said it means AgeOfEgos. Morehous is Of Counsel at W&S, meaning he's probably semi-retired and available for consultation and assistance. Read into that whatever you'd like, I just thought I'd point it out in case folks didn't know what Of Counsel meant.

weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired...

Nice to know that that even in the afterlife, you can still obtain gainful employment.

Andrew

Sorry OT I know. It appealed to me.....

Kroothawk wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.


Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse"

Thanks, I have been confused as hell too for the last 50 pages.

Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

Ratius wrote:Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

Ask your local GW if they can order the Chapterhouse conversion kit then

Kroothawk wrote:

Ratius wrote:Guess no Tervi kit any time soon then

Ask your local GW if they can order the Chapterhouse conversion kit then

The problem with your suggestion Kroothawk is the fact that the Chapterhouse conversion kit is that it doesn't really look right. It simply makes a fat Carnifex, not really a Tervigon in many peoples eyes.

Speaking of unreleased Tyranid models, anyone know of a current Tyranid rumors thread? It would be great if there was one...

So off topic that it borders on the sublime.

Back on track everyone!

Sorry for the off topic there..
On topic, for the last year we have seen mud slinging, finger pointing, name calling and stalling for more time. I have to wonder what the next year will hold in this case. And if we'll all be having similar discussions then.

I predict either more of the same or dramatic change as everyone involved gets tired of having the morons at GW waste their time.

Well, assuming the aforementioned timeline is held to, things should be more interesting by this time next year - the trial should have stared, after all...

Fat_Little_Ripper wrote: And if we'll all be having similar discussions then.

Of course we will.

Constantly repeating arguments that state the exact same thing every time is the life blood of Dakka.

...Only because some people either don't want to follow a thread as people keep posting to it or don't want to look back through so many pages and yet believe their opinions are either important or novel enough not to have been represented previously in the discussion when in fact they have.

Okay, I understand that this Morehous guy that's been hired in an 'Of Counsel' capacity is kind of a big deal in the matters of IP law.

Would this lead the more knowledgeable legal eagles of Dakka to believe that this case is now significantly less likely to result in a pre-trial settlement than before he was hired?

And can anyone explain some of the cases he's been involved with in layman's terms for idiots like chaplaingrabthar? Or at least provide some links

Mr. Morehous was involved in the Visto v Seven Networks litigation down in Ed TX before Judge T. John Ward. He was at Thelen at the time, and was on the case representing Seven Networks from 2003 to 2007. Visto is basically a patent troll. The Seven Networks case was Visto's lead case in enforcing its patents. It was relatively successful at trial regarding Seven Networks. The jury awarded something like 3.6 million as well as a finding of willfulness. T. John subsequently hit Seven with an injunction, which was big, and scared the bejeezus out of subsequent defendants like RIM.

Ultimately though, as with most Ed TX patent cases, it has been cleaned up a bit post district court. The USPTO, if you can believe this, subsequently found several of the claims that were enforced against Seven Networks invalid. We're starting to call this the Texas two step: do the best you can at trial, fight what you can fight, and lay good groundwork for your appeal. If you get totally screwed by the Court, appeal and watch it all get flipped. You just have to have the cojones to stay the course and shell out for the appeal. It worked out well for Abbott, for example. I'll admit, a 1.67 billion jury award is freaking scary, but not so much when you have the Texas two step in mind: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-23/business/ct-biz-0224-abbott-humira-20110224_1_humira-rheumatoid-arthritis-drug-knoll-pharmaceuticals-abbott-laboratories

That's way off topic, but the Visto v Seven Networks case is the only case I'm familiar with off hand that Mr. Morehous was involved with. You can't really take the Seven Networks jury verdict as indicative of Morehous's skill as an attorney though, which is why I discussed the case. I did a casual search and I didn't turn up any other cases with which Morehous was involved that I am familiar with.

Sidstyler wrote:

If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

But if they're all copyrighted and protected then why do sites/companies exist that sell body kits? In some cases you can even buy replacements that are made to look exactly like stock parts, namely spoilers.

Possibly because spoilers are functional (at some level), also because spoilers and other body parts are sold as useful for repairing or fixing a vehicle, they're not a replacement for the original (vehicle).

AgeOfEgos wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:It is notable that Dead Morehous is listed as "Of Counsel." That basically means he is semi-retired, so if you're thinking about what it means that he was brought into the case, keep that in mind.

What does that mean?

Of Counsel means a lot of things. A person who is too experienced to be an "associate" but not ready for partnership may be listed as "of counsel." Or a person may only be loosely affiliated with a firm and be "of counsel", either parter-level or not. Some firms require partners to divest their partnership after a certain age (e.g. 65), and if they stay on after that they will be listed as "Of Counsel." This may be either a full or part-time basis.

With all due respect to weeble1000, being listed as "Of Counsel" isn't notable. Check out Mr. Morehous' CV for a better idea of what he brings to the table.

It certainly is notable Biccat. If you're wondering why a certain individual was brought into a case, that individual's relationship with the firm is, in fact, significant. If all you're interested in is what caliber of lawyer he is, by all means confine yourself to reading his CV, although that can often be very misleading.

There's more going on at a law office than a bunch of curriculums vitae wandering around the hallways.

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Funny you should mention that. Every morning when I drive into work I see multiple billboards from a PI firm in the city where I live. One of them references one of the attorneys at the firm being named as a "Super Lawyer...," whatever that means.

On the whole Of Counsel thing, that probably has little or no relevance. I've worked at firms where it was exactly as described as both Weeble and Biccat have pointed out (which is kind of funny when you think about it because they are somewhat disagreeing with each other; but then again, that is a legal practice for you ). It is really only relevant within the context of that particulr firm and how they choose to describe it, and in representations to the court and opposing counsel that this person is somehow affiliated with this firm. Depending on the firm, it might mean a semi-retired former partner; it might be someone with too much experience to be an associate, but with no equity stake as a partner; or it might be a hired big gun brought in to trouble shoot.

The Court has ruled on the motions to compel.

weeble1000 wrote:The Court has ruled on the motions to compel.

? explain please

Nothing on RECAP yet...

I'm losing track of who wants what, who has what, who get to keep secrets what designers are now going to be sued and who killed Mr Black with what and where, oh sorry wrong game....

It will satisfy my curiosity to see what steps/letters/settlements were presented/agreed with Paulson Games. Lack of substance may support the excuse/conspiracy for the venue move to Chicago.

Cheers

Andrew

I think it's this:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.139.0.pdf

Plaintiff’s motion to compel:
(1) The Court was unable to address in full interrogatory 2 and document requests 7, 9, and 10 because
defense counsel was unaware of what documents are in the process of being produced. (2) Defendant is not
obligated to produce documents in the hands of its independent contractors / designers. (3) Defendant is to
comply in full with document request 9. (4) Document request 4 is overly broad as currently worded. (5)
The Court finds that defendant’s responses to the requests to admit were timely. Defendant must answer
interrogatory 15. (6) Defendant has failed to show that its list of outside contractors / designers is
appropriately designated as “attorney’s eyes only” under the protective order. (7) The Court declines to
enforce interrogatory 12. (8) The Court declines to enforce interrogatory 5. (9) The Court declines to order a
further response to document requests 14 and 17 based on defendant’s representation that it has responded in
full to these requests. (10) The Court directs defendant to produce documents pursuant to document request
15 as narrowed in plaintiff’s motion to compel. (11) Documents responsive to document requests 16, 18 and
19 are to be produced by 12/28/11. (12) Request 20 is overly broad as currently worded and must be
narrowed by plaintiff, as described at the hearing, to be enforceable. (13) Regarding document request 21,
defendant is to conduct further due diligence to determine whether it has responsive documents, and if so it
must produce them. (14) The Court declines to enforce document request 25.

Defendant’s motion to compel:
(1) Plaintiff must produce the best available exemplar of the works in question. (2) Plaintiff is to respond i
full to interrogatory 9 and document request 2. The Court declines to enforce document request 36. (3)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to interrogatory 16 to the extent its current response is less than complete. (4)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to document requests 8 and 11. The Court declines to enforce interrogatories 6
and 7 and document request 12. (5) Plaintiff has agreed to produce the documents referenced in paragraph 15
of its response and prelitigation correspondence with Jon Paulson as referenced in paragraph 16. Plaintiff is
directed to produce for in camera inspection by 12/29/11 its settlement correspondence and settlement
agreement with Paulson. Plaintiff is directed to respond in full to document request 28 now that the Court
has removed the attorney’s eyes only designation regarding the identities of defendant’s independent
designer

Anyone care to decipher this? Is there a list of these 'interrogatories'? We can then match them up with these rulings.

Without looking at what the actual interrogatoires were, looks like GW got put in their place. (Most of their demands were denied, most of CHS's were accepted).

Recent acion made it over to PACER:

The Court grants in part and denies in part plaintiff’s motion to compel [# 117] and defendant’s motion to
compel [# 121] as stated in open court on 12/19/11 and as memorialized below. The Court also grants
plaintiff’s motion to seal [# 119]. The case is set for a status hearing on 2/8/11 at 9:30 a.m.

In addition to the previous post. Note the next status hearing, 2/8/11 by which time both parties will need to produce some items.
Looks like CH came out ahead on this one as the court upheld quite a bit of what their counsel put forward. I got the feeling that the court might be getting tired of GW's counsel claiming their clients own the entire universe and everyone in the world owes them obeisance [/hyperbole] as it was recognized that many of their demands were overly broad. Looks like CH must tell everybody who their designers are and GW has to acually pin down what they claim CH did wrong.

Is that date supposed to be 2/8/12?

I assume 2/8/12 in US order, i.e. 8th Feb 2012.

Well yeah, that's what I mean. Unless that post was about something that happened February this year.

16. Plaintiff is
directed to produce for in camera inspection by 12/29/11 its settlement correspondence and settlement
agreement with Paulson.

That sounds interesting

Well, just got done reading about 50 pages of emails going back and forth between the lawyers, and I have to say it reads a lot like half the threads in the OT section of Dakka, must be a special lawyer skill to say so much and yet so little.

George Spiggott wrote:I think it's this:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.139.0.pdf

Plaintiff’s motion to compel:
(1) The Court was unable to address in full interrogatory 2 and document requests 7, 9, and 10 because
defense counsel was unaware of what documents are in the process of being produced. (2) Defendant is not
obligated to produce documents in the hands of its independent contractors / designers. (3) Defendant is to
comply in full with document request 9. (4) Document request 4 is overly broad as currently worded. (5)
The Court finds that defendant’s responses to the requests to admit were timely. Defendant must answer
interrogatory 15. (6) Defendant has failed to show that its list of outside contractors / designers is
appropriately designated as “attorney’s eyes only” under the protective order. (7) The Court declines to
enforce interrogatory 12. (8) The Court declines to enforce interrogatory 5. (9) The Court declines to order a
further response to document requests 14 and 17 based on defendant’s representation that it has responded in
full to these requests. (10) The Court directs defendant to produce documents pursuant to document request
15 as narrowed in plaintiff’s motion to compel. (11) Documents responsive to document requests 16, 18 and
19 are to be produced by 12/28/11. (12) Request 20 is overly broad as currently worded and must be
narrowed by plaintiff, as described at the hearing, to be enforceable. (13) Regarding document request 21,
defendant is to conduct further due diligence to determine whether it has responsive documents, and if so it
must produce them. (14) The Court declines to enforce document request 25.

Defendant’s motion to compel:
(1) Plaintiff must produce the best available exemplar of the works in question. (2) Plaintiff is to respond i
full to interrogatory 9 and document request 2. The Court declines to enforce document request 36. (3)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to interrogatory 16 to the extent its current response is less than complete. (4)
Plaintiff is to respond in full to document requests 8 and 11. The Court declines to enforce interrogatories 6
and 7 and document request 12. (5) Plaintiff has agreed to produce the documents referenced in paragraph 15
of its response and prelitigation correspondence with Jon Paulson as referenced in paragraph 16. Plaintiff is
directed to produce for in camera inspection by 12/29/11 its settlement correspondence and settlement
agreement with Paulson. Plaintiff is directed to respond in full to document request 28 now that the Court
has removed the attorney’s eyes only designation regarding the identities of defendant’s independent
designer

Anyone care to decipher this? Is there a list of these 'interrogatories'? We can then match them up with these rulings.

I am not a lawyer, so this is more a restatement of what is in other documents relating to the case. Some of these may be found at
http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

Docket number 121 summarises the defendants requests.

Document request 2: Documents concerning design, creation, or authorship of
alleged works.
GW must respond in full.

Interrogatory 9: Summary of Discovery Sought Sources consulted, used, reviewed or relied on in
creating alleged works.
GW must respond in full.

Document request 36: Instructions, guidelines, advice given to creators of
Warhammer 40,000 works.
Not enforced.

Interrogatory 16: Identify first publication of alleged works
GW must respond in full

Document request 36: Documents concerning trademark research
GW must respond in full

Document request 11: Specimens of first use in U.S. commerce
GW must respond in full

Interrogatory 6: Sources relied on re trademarks and names
Not enforced

Interrogatory? 7: Exemplar of use in U.S. commerce
Not enforced

Document request 12: Use of marks by others
Not enforced.


Docket number 117.x summarsies the plaintiff's requests.

Interrogatory request 2: Identify any and all sources consulted, used, review, or relied upon by Chapterhouse in creating each of the Accused Works.

Document request 7: Concerns communication between CH and Paulson games.

Document request 9: Separately for each of the Accused Works, any and all documents or
things in Chapterhouse’s possession, custody or control, setting forth or
referring to any sources consulted, used, reviewed or relied on by
Chapterhouse other than works of Games Workshop in creating each of
the said Accused Works.
Defendant must respond in full.

Document request 10: requests production of all mock-ups, drafts, drawing briefs or the like:
Separately for each of the Accused Works, any and all documents or
things in Chapterhouse’s possession, custody or control, setting forth or
reflecting any mock-ups, drafts, drawing briefs or the like concerning the
conception, development or creation of each of the said Accused Works.

Document request 4: Any and all documents and things in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control referring to Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000.
Overly broad.

Interrogatory 15: Separately for each admission request in Games Workshop’s First Set of
Requests For Admission, if the answer is anything but an unequivocal
admission, identify each third party work on which Chapterhouse relies
in support thereof, and set forth the date on which and source from which
Chapterhouse originally located or acquired the same.
Defendant must respond.

Interrogatory 12: Instances in which consumers have referred to Games Workshop's products
Declined to enforce

Interrogatory 5: Methods or plans used by Chapterhouse in selecting new products.
Declined to enforce

Document request 14: Documents sufficient to identify and and all websites or other business or venues where any of the accused works has ever been offered for sale or sold.
No further response required from defendant

Document request 17: Documents sufficient to identify and and all websites or other business or venues where any of the accused works has ever been advertised or promoted.
No further response required from defendant

Document request 15: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control concerning the sales of Chapterhouse's products on eBay or in any other secondary market.
Defendant must produce documents.

Document request 16: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control showing any advertising or promotion of any or all of the accused works.
Defendant must produce documents.

Document request 18: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control concerning the creation of the disclaimer of affiliation with Games Workshop that now appears on CH website etc... (paraphrased)
Defendant must produce documents.

Document request 19: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control concerning the creation of the banner at the top of CH website (paraphrased)
Defendant must produce documents.

Document request 20: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control concerning changes in CH website since Dec 22, 2010 (paraphrased)
Overly broad

Document request 21: (paraphrased) metrics of CH website
Defendant must see if they have such documents, and if so produce them.

Document request 25: Any and all documents in Chapterhouse's possession, custody, or control concerning consumer perception of CH or any of its products.
Declined to be enforced.

Awesome. I''m glad CH came out ahead so far. I'm really hoping they win.

On a personal level, I own GW stock so I have a vested interest in their continually being able to successfully bully smaller competitors since the more money they have, the more in dividends I'll see. Nothing good will come of this if CH wins, GW will just stop adding extra units in armies or doing what they did with the Ogre Kingdoms release and have everything ready in one shot; however, this doesn't detract from the belief I hold that what they are doing is legal. I won't purchase any of their products unless they produce something of higher quality than they currently do and that is how I vote, with my wallet. I don't run my mouth/fingers and do the usual internet tough-guy act and state a belief that someone should go out of business just because I don't like what they do. GW does a number of things I don't like so I bought stock and voted with my wallet; I have access to communicate my displeasure with those in charge and a more real chance to affect change than mouthing off. To each his own I suppose but I just believe it's wrong to wish others ill, the courts will decide what is legal and what isn't.

Xelkireth wrote:Awesome. I''m glad CH came out ahead so far. I'm really hoping they win.

I am no legal eagle, but it is not my impression that CH got the better side of the current ruling.

I assume that GW has no documents that state such things as we are basing Space Marines off of Starship Troopers and that GW are not going to say that they did so. Thus, I assume that document request 2 and interrogatory 9 are not of great importance. (There may be other sources of such information, but I assume that GW will not provide such ammo.) Requests pertaining to first use and sale in USA are easily obtained from other sources. The documents pertaining to the trademark research may be very useful to CH and are their big win in this ruling.

On the GW side, document request 10 is very important in establishing that CH stuff is derived from GWs. I think I recall there being mock ups involving the use of GW parts. Those parts were later resculpted, or worse recast, and then integrated into the CH product. GW will still need to prove that such derivation is a violation of IP. I assume that document requests 18 and 20 lay the foundation for showing that CH violated GWs IP on CH's site. All three of these rulings are very good for GW.

"(1) Plaintiff must produce the best available exemplar of the works in question."

There's your big win spaceelf

This case still has a long way to go.

LOTS of OT stuff deleted. The topic is pretty focused here, folks ,and doesn't include ethics, morals, or words like "parasite." This is a business dispute involving complex legal issues between two corporate entities; that's what's under discussion

Janthkin wrote:LOTS of OT stuff deleted. The topic is pretty focused here, folks ,and doesn't include ethics, morals, or words like "parasite." This is a business dispute involving complex legal issues between two corporate entities; that's what's under discussion

That being said, is there, in fact, a difference between what CH is doing and what many other companies in many other industries are doing regarding making parts that are compatible with said "1st" party producers? As has been mentioned before you have the auto industry with upgrade and replacement parts, the cell phone industry with cases and "bling" and many other industries as well that basically do what CH is doing. I am not referencing the individual models that they have now produced and neither is this case really. It was started well before either of these models had been produced. So is there really a legal difference in what so many others are already doing?

Shepherd23 wrote: So is there really a legal difference in what so many others are already doing?

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice but I'd spent a lot of time on this subject to say the least.

Yes there is a significant legal differance, stuff like car parts and cell phone cases are functional items, they are protected by design patents which do not include coverage for acessories. A company could also patent a cell phone carrier for instance, but only that highly specific design would be covered, all a 3rd party would have to do is change some basic measurements and their compatible design wouldn't violate that protected design. The only way they could protect their acessiories market would be to have a mounting system with a unique feature that only their products could make use of. (it'd also require a design patent for that mounting device) specialized prongs or screws for instance

Gaming models depending on how it's spun are considered sculptural artistic works which are protected by an entirely seperate set of laws.

Laws dealing with art are in their own category, and design patents don't apply. You can take an exsisting piece or art and legally modify it, but it has to meet the criteria of it "substantially transforming" the original work. As most conversion parts for gaming only modify one aspect of the design it likely wouldn't qualify as being substantially differant and therefore be considered derivative of the orginal design.

For example if you have landraider and switch out the doors is it no longer reconizable as a landraider? In most cases I doubt anyone would see it as anything other than a modified landraider, thus why it'd be labeled as a derivative work.

If you swap out just a marine heads for does it still look like a marine, or has it been transformed into a galactic jousting man from mars and is unreconizeable from a marine?

If you can defend it as a new and unique work (and get the jury to believe that) then you have a chance, but that will likely be tough if your product only grants the user minor superfical modifications.


For various reasons that may be difficult and another option to defend a design is to prove that the sueing company does not actually have a right to that design as they themselves derived it from another source. If a design pre-exsists theirs they cannot legally claim any ownership.

For example if I make a funky alien model and a company comes after me for some design they have that's a couple years older, if I can prove that the design closely mirrors one from a 50 year old star trek episode then the plantifs claims may be found to be void. The danger is of course you are on public record stating that you based your design on star trek, and if paramount found out they could sue you for deriving from their design and they'd have a pretty striong case as it's from a legal record not just speculation.

So I take it that model aircraft and vehicle manufacturers just do not have the same sense of "MINE!" that GW displays? I know that some stuff has been pursued in the past, but I also know that there are A LOT of 3rd party companies producing everything from interior kits and brass etched detail sheets to entirely new guns and turrets that are more detailed than the originals. It is fairly standard practice in the military model hobby to replace bits of kit with better detailed 3rd party bits and no one freaks out like I have seen in this case. So what is the difference in this situation?

Tanks and planes are representations of real world functional items so they cannot be protected as a sculptural work.

It'd be legal for a company to make parts compatible with a Tamiya german tiger tank for instance as Tamiya doens't own the design. (even berlin motorworks who owns the patents cannot own the image of that tank as images of funtional items cannot generally be protected) Likewise any modelling company can sell their own versions of german or american infantry, ford trucks or whatever else that you could find in the real world.

However stuff like a Mobile Gundam model is protected as it is a fictional work and exsists only in drawings and sculptural works, so any renditions of it can be protected; provide the design is found to be unique enough.

Make better sense?



.

paulson games wrote:Tanks and planes are representations of real world functional items so they cannot be protected as a sculptural work.

It'd be legal for a company to make parts compatible with a Tamiya german tiger tank for instance as Tamiya doens't own the design. (even berlin motorworks who owns the patents cannot own the image of that tank as images of funtional items cannot generally be protected) Likewise any modelling company can sell their own versions of german or american infantry, ford trucks or whatever else that you could find in the real world.

However stuff like a Mobile Gundam model is protected as it is a fictional work and exsists only in drawings and sculptural works, so any renditions of it can be protected; provide the design is found to be unique enough.

Make better sense?



.

And yet, there is a thriving market for 3rd party Gundam parts as well. http://mechacatalogue.com/2011/11/21/0003-third-party-products/

There exists two fronts when talking about the general response to the third-party scene — the franchise-holders and the fandom/community — each having a different take on the matter. Ideally, this should be big NO for the companies owning the rights to these huge franchises. But surprisingly, there hasn’t been any serious legal action taken against these third-party groups. Whether its Transformers or Gundam, these third-party products are good at sticking in the gray area of the spectrum, minimizing any possibilities of instigating direct competition to the major companies. This is because third-party products often cater to the other half of the market base as mentioned previously — the collectors (the niche market). Take for instance most of third-party Transformers products, upgrade kits usually cost more than $20 and full-on transforming figures are often at the $50 to $100 price range. Looking at this perspective, a typical mainstream consumer can already purchase a Voyager Class figure for $20, which is a tad more in the value-price sense than a small upgrade kit, the same sense that parents use when children ask them to buy a figure.

Surviving in the grey area, filling in gaps in the product lines that the manufacturers do not, catering to collectors... Sounds familiar.

Indeed it does. Thank you for the input. Despite the opinions of others, I still believe there is room in the industry for 3rd party producers. GW has a history of rules without models and armies without accessory representation. FW does little to actually support this as well and this is why the 3rd party market has grown so fast. I have always felt that what you and others do is great for the "hobby". This is something that GW fostered themselves for decades and only recently stiffled into non existence within their own company. It was only natural that enthusiastic hobbyist would take this up and run with it. GW has created this monster themselves and now want it dead. This is really the biggest crime being commuted here as I see it. I hope that you (Paulson) and the rest are able to continue producing the items you produce as I lI've the variety that I now see on the tabletop and it is only because of people like you that we are seeing it.

While Bandai is the largest producer of Gundam products they are not an exclusive liscense holder for the Gundam line. There are a number of smaller companies that also produce items under lisc, several companies also legally produce convention only kits.

There are also a staggering number of hong kong based pirate companies producing 3rd party items of questionable legallity.

Remember what is legall or illegal in one country may not apply in another, even if it does the enforement of those laws may differ as well.

Bandai has been involved in a huge number of lawsuits, and won th majority of them. They are a HUGE company and what they've dropped on a few cases going after companies in China could fund GW's entire yearly opperating budget. Just because there are 3rd party parts out there doesn't mean they are legit or that Bandai isn't doing their letter best to corn hole knock off companies.


Even the largest companies can't afford to go after everybody, hiring lawyers and filing suits is a huge drain on a company even when they have a massive bankroll. The grey area exsists because it's not affordable to go after everybody. Some companies also see fan created works as a boon for free product promotion and it helps fosters the fan communities. They will go after the largest and most damaging knock off companies to use as examples and to protect their line as best as possible, but chances are they won't go after the small guy who puts together a half dozen fans kits a year as it's just not a target that has a proper level of pay off.

Every companies attitude is differant, some might turn a blind eye to a 3rd party market, some might actually promote it, other companies will do their best to shut it down. The smart ones IMO use it to promote their products and grow their business. Companies that foster a closer relationship with their customer base tend to do surprisingly well. that why there's been such a huge upswing in independant companies promoting on forums and facebook it gives them a loyalty connection and product attunement that dinosaur companies lack. It's one of the reasons Privateer Press has grown so rapidly, they embrace the customer relationbship that GW does it's best to kill.

paulson games wrote:While Bandai is the largest producer of Gundam products they are not an exclusive liscense holder for the Gundam line. There are a number of smaller companies that also produce items under lisc, several companies also legally produce convention only kits.

There are also a staggering number of hong kong based pirate companies producing 3rd party parts as well of questionable legallity.

Remember what is legall or illegal in one contry may not apply in another, even if it does the enforement of those laws may differ as well.

Bandai has been involved in a huge number of lawsuits, and won th majority of them. They are a HUGE company and what they've dropped on a few cases going after companies in China could fund GW's entire yearly opperating budget. Just because there are 3rd party parts out there doesn't mean they are legit or that Bandai isn't doing their letter best to corn hole knock off companies.


Even the largest companies can't afford to go after everybody, hiring lawyers and filing suits is a huge drain on a company even when they have a massive bankroll. The grey area exsists because it's not affordable to go after everybody. Some companies also see fan created works as a boon for free product promotion and it helps fosters the fan communities. They will go after the largest and most damaging knock off companies to use as examples and to protect their line as best as possible, but chances are they won't go after the guy who puts togetehr a half dozen fans kits a year as it's just not a target that has a proper level of pay off.

I am not versed on the Gundam lawsuits, but with some google searching, I only found the case where Bandai sued Chinese/Hong Kong companies 2 times who were making direct copies of Bandai models. My google-fu does not come up with any examples of Bandai suing anyone making their own models either in different scale, accessory bits that go on a Gundam model, or filling in gaps that Bandai does not produce themselves.

Years ago, I almost got into collecting Japanese figures/Gundam kits, instead I started buying more armies for 40k. Bringing up the Gundam kits, which are sculptural works, and third party manufacturers/hobbyists making parts for sale for those kits, or making entire new kits where there was none before has a lot of similarity with third party manufacturers/hobbyists making models and add on/replacement parts for model kits for GW products.

The Gundam line is solely owned by Sunrise, which is a subsidiary of Bandai. Much like Black Library and Forgeworld are subsidiaries of GW. This is an interesting line of thought, and I look forward to this being hashed out by people more knowledgeable about it than myself.

(I seem to remember seeing a $50 model kit for a Gundam that had a really neat $150 upgrade kit that did a peel away of the internal structure as being one of the reasons I got into GW instead)

The TT Hongli mecha do have some differances, I have no clue how Chinese/Japanese international law handles their definitions. (the court decided in favor of Bandai)




]


Personally I can see a few areas where the design was copied/inspired, but then it was covered pretty heavily in pure crap. ugh

It looks like they took an original model as a base, awkwardly covered some areas with new details.... almost like a 3rd party conversion.






Not really on topic but there's a video of that design which I can only summerize as robot seeks topical ointment after back-door encounter. (best watched with sound off as it's really annoying)

http://youtu.be/NJ1Fqi3Cf4M
.

Paulson, CH and other 3rd parties, in your opinion, is there a middle ground to be had here as GW sees things? Can there be a world were GW is happy and we are still getting 3rd party products to add variety to our armies?

I cannot see how a company that is producing items that require you to purchase GW models to use is damaging to the GW bottom line. Despite what others have said, I see the quality of most of these items as just as good or in some cases better than what GW currently produces so diluting the market is not really a valid concern. I understand that items that replace a GW model/kit is potentially an issue, but GW has also brought that upon themselves with their poor release history.

I want to see the variety that I currently get. I would hate if every army out there was a duplicate of every other one. Again, GW made this mentality in the hobby. They need to stop fighting it and start looking for ways to make it work for them. Can that happen?

paulson games wrote:Laws dealing with art are in their own category, and design patents don't apply. You can take an exsisting piece or art and legally modify it, but it has to meet the criteria of it "substantially transforming" the original work. As most conversion parts for gaming only modify one aspect of the design it likely wouldn't qualify as being substantially differant and therefore be considered derivative of the orginal design.

For example if you have landraider and switch out the doors is it no longer reconizable as a landraider? In most cases I doubt anyone would see it as anything other than a modified landraider, thus why it'd be labeled as a derivative work.

If you swap out just a marine heads for does it still look like a marine, or has it been transformed into a galactic jousting man from mars and is unreconizeable from a marine?

The problem I see with that though is that I am not selling a landraider (to use your example) I am selling a door designed to fit it. In the exact same way I can design a head to swap out.

If I am not selling the complete item, then how can you be considered to be selling a deriviative work? I am selling a functional part to be swapped.

Cheers

Andrew

The third party producers that aren't getting bothered are the like of Maxmini and Kromlec etc who don't just take GW artwork and slap it on a door/pad/whatever. Whether its legal or not we'll find out, but you would be very surprised to see how many GW staff aound have 3rd party products that are original in nature and not essensially plaguristic in style. There always have and will be 3rd party manufacturers (thank the lord because I have some peculiar armies built that I couln't have without them), but the issue curently is how close to the sun you can get before the wax on your wings melts!

paulson games wrote:
Gaming models depending on how it's spun are considered sculptural artistic works which are protected by an entirely seperate set of laws.

I would assume that the lawyers for CH are trying to spin gaming models in another light. One may be able to argue that they are functional pieces in a game.

We should also ask ourselves why this is ending up in court. Many other industries have more than their fair share of similar works. Take a look at TV shows, comics, and toys. There are tons of them. Thundarr the Barbarian and He-man. Aquaman and Namor the Submariner. Stone Protectors and Battle Trolls. I think that GW is simply being a bully. They are already by far the biggest player in the miniature market. They are just picking on the little guys. If GW spent their time listening to customers and making models then CH would not have beat GW to the punch with producing the Tervigon.

paulson games wrote:Laws dealing with art are in their own category, and design patents don't apply. You can take an exsisting piece or art and legally modify it, but it has to meet the criteria of it "substantially transforming" the original work. As most conversion parts for gaming only modify one aspect of the design it likely wouldn't qualify as being substantially differant and therefore be considered derivative of the orginal design.

For example if you have landraider and switch out the doors is it no longer reconizable as a landraider? In most cases I doubt anyone would see it as anything other than a modified landraider, thus why it'd be labeled as a derivative work.

If you swap out just a marine heads for does it still look like a marine, or has it been transformed into a galactic jousting man from mars and is unreconizeable from a marine?

The issue of this assertion is the laws dealing with "art" explicitly restrict the number of directly reproduced instances. Produce too many of something that was created as "art" and its no longer given the legal protections of an artistic work. The law has a particular number of copies in the instances of open ended releases, but allows for an artist to produce a greater number of copies if the number is predetermined and limited to that, but there are limits to that as well.

spaceelf wrote:

paulson games wrote:
Gaming models depending on how it's spun are considered sculptural artistic works which are protected by an entirely seperate set of laws.

I would assume that the lawyers for CH are trying to spin gaming models in another light. One may be able to argue that they are functional pieces in a game.

We should also ask ourselves why this is ending up in court. Many other industries have more than their fair share of similar works. Take a look at TV shows, comics, and toys. There are tons of them. Thundarr the Barbarian and He-man. Aquaman and Namor the Submariner. Stone Protectors and Battle Trolls. I think that GW is simply being a bully. They are already by far the biggest player in the miniature market. They are just picking on the little guys. If GW spent their time listening to customers and making models then CH would not have beat GW to the punch with producing the Tervigon.

the fundamental problem with your argument is that it breaks down when you look at ownership. You'll find that once you look into the types of shows and who owns the rights and the production crews.... things are all in the same hands.. NOW! that said, an analogous argument from the world of television would be Walt Satan--whoopsies, I mean Walt Disney. They are the GW of cartoons/fairytales. Notice how Warner Brothers is no longer in the cartoon industry? Funny that, is this the first time Walt Satan-ah, i did it again--Disney has come up in this thread?

I'm a GW stock holder. At every board meeting, (not that I own enough to make a different, but I want to rep the "gamer"), I grab the floor and talk about what I feel needs to be done to serve the gamers, namely, all units come out quickly (not Dark Eldar quick) after a codex release and that artwork shows up in the codex, so it can be copy written.

I point out that the competition (GW only feels that PP is near their level), does more with less and does it better (that said, I hate the models, but like the rules).

I want CH to win.

I own a bunch of CH models. I think their models are inferior to GW's. But, CH released models that GW did not.

I want the board of GW to understand that they messed up. That another company read the description and made a model that is the logical implementation of that text and that this blocks GW from making that model.

I want GW to understand in a bottom-line way that it is not ok to do releases in the manner they have done in the past.

I want GW to understand that if they don't quickly execute on their ideas that somebody will enter that vacuum

I believe GW will write these units out of the codex in the future.

I don't think they will take away the correct lesson.

aka_mythos wrote:The issue of this assertion is the laws dealing with "art" explicitly restrict the number of directly reproduced instances. Produce too many of something that was created as "art" and its no longer given the legal protections of an artistic work. The law has a particular number of copies in the instances of open ended releases, but allows for an artist to produce a greater number of copies if the number is predetermined and limited to that, but there are limits to that as well.

Care to provide the source for that? Are you a IP specialist lawyer or like most everyone else just speaking from an arm chair posistion on something you don't have any formal background in?

If it were that simple then the case wouldn't still be in court. Under US federal law (which this case is being tried under) It doesn't matter how many copies of something is sold, art is protected under US law even if it's "art for the masses". Otherwise you'd see people doing whatever they wanted with Star Wars or Harry Potter, whos movies, toys, and statues etc have sold millions of copies and they are certainly still protected.

There is so much BS in this thread that uninformed people just toss in when they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.


Also there is nothing legally that prevents GW from putting out one of their models that's based on their concept art. Their art is out first, a 3rd party may copy that but it does not invalidate the original copyright by any means, so if GW decides to make a Tervigon kit for example the Chapterhouses version does nothing to impeed that. The only part where that could potentially matter is if they did a direct recast. Which I really doubt they'd do as GW has a certain aesthetic it holds it's models to.

Legally if GW can confirm their ownership of the Tervigon design they can not only bar CH from producing that kit anymore, they could recast the CH kit if they chose to as they own all rights to it. Even if CH did create their own model design GW could assume full rights over it as they own the original root concept. Conversely if an item is proven to not to have ownership by anyone (public domain) then anyone can produce models based on that design. So if it's fought out in court and GW can't prove it owns the design, then any company could legally make their own versions tervigons and GW could do nothing to sue over that.

That's what "dirty hands" refers to, you prove the plantif's rights to their design as invalid as they were derived from an earlier product.


If GW really wants to shut out 3rd party stuff all they'd need to do is release their own models and that'd kill the majority of the demand for 3rd party products. It won't eliminate it entirely as there's always people who want something differant, but the majority of people will use offical GW product if it's available. If the demand is elminated there's not a lot of profit in it and ultimately even 3rd party companies need a solid demand to keep their doors open.

I would expect that in the future GW will perhaps release all armies as a single wave with each slot supported asit'd be the simplest way to lock out any disputes.But who knows they seem to have their own "unique" mindset in how they approach doing business so there's no way to guess what they'll do.

Paulson,

I don't know where you've gotten your information. Maybe it was independent research. Maybe you're regurgitating what you heard from your lawyers, or even what you heard in settlement conferences. But wherever your information came from, it isn't entirely correct. Even if your source were reliable, it seems that you've managed to muddle it into some kind of inaccurate amalgam.

"Legally if GW can confirm their ownership of the Tervigon design they can not only bar CH from producing that kit anymore, they could recast the CH kit if they chose to as they own all rights to it. Even if CH did create their own model design GW could assume full rights over it as they own the original root concept." (emphasis mine)

Copyright does not protect concepts, merely expressions. Under US copyright law, no one can control a concept. That's pretty fundamental. You'll find it right under the section titled Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright.

You're right that nothing a third party does after an author produces a work of art vacates the copyright inherent in that work. Yet what applies to one author applies to all others. It seems that you're very hung up on the concept of derivative works. The holder of a copyright has rights to all derivative works. A derivative work is a separate copyright from the "root" work, but one that is controlled by the holder of the "root" copyright, because part and parcel to the rights of a copyright holder is the right to prepare derivative works. So you've got that concept down.

What you seem to be having problems with is how one determines if a work is derivative of another work. First, a work must be derivative of a protectible expression; not a concept, aesthetic, idea, etc. Second, it is in fact more difficult to establish that a work is derivative than it is to establish that a work is a copy, especially in terms of works of visual art as the definition of derivative work and much of the case law deals specifically with written expressions in a narrative form.

The "Tervigon design" as you call it, will never really be in the public domain Paulson, unless GW specifically puts it there, and that is becoming increasingly difficult to do deliberately. Many elements of the one extant expression produced by Games Workshop were drawn from public domain sources, but that does not mean the work is not entitled to copyright protection. As long as an author contributes something new to that which is in the public domain, that artistic contribution is protectible. The only salient issue is the scope of the copyright. The more minimal the artistic contribution is, the more narrow the copyright. Copyright should in any case only allow one to control copies of a work, not works that are similar, even if they are inspired by protectible expressions. "Substantial similarity" only exists to prevent would-be copiers from circumventing infringement by making insignificant alterations.

Derivative works must recast, transform, or adapt the root work, meaning that you start with the root work and then change it, literally. And I mean quite literally. Thus, an author controls derivative works because they essentially reproduce, in exactness, some fundamental essence of the root work, such as in the example of a translation, specifically mentioned in the definition of derivative work. The language of a translation is different, but the story is the same and the translation started with the entirety of the original expression. Similarly, an abridgment starts with an expression in its entirety and removes parts of it that are not essential elements of the core narrative. Compilations are derivative for obvious reasons. The law recognizes the artistic expression inherent in an arrangement or compilation, but that work does not allow one to control the protectible expressions of which it is composed. These are the issues that lead to the genesis of the derivative work concept. They are specifically referred to in the definition, and they guide one in determining what the definition means and how it should be applied.

"Dirty hands" just means that you can't sue me for doing something wrong that you've already done. Its an equity concept. If your work infringes another work, you can't sue me for infringement of that work. But in the context of copyright law, you wouldn't even have standing to bring a suit in the above example because you would have no protectible expression in the first place. A defendant in a copyright infringement suit is allowed to test the validity of a copyright, but it is also incumbent on the Court to define the scope (if any) of a copyright after a suit has been filed.

Did GW spook you in a settlement conference or something? I'm curious about where all of these GW favorable misconceptions came from.

In an earlier post you also concluded that useful articles were only covered by narrow design patents and not subject to copyright protection. This is quite untrue. US copyright code states that copyright protection does not extend to "useful articles" but only so far as the appearance is functional. To the extent that a useful article has non-functional aesthetics, those are protectible under copyright. Then there's always Trade Dress.

Now, you seemingly would have everyone believe that defending an accusation of copyright infringement based on the fact that the accused works were designed as accessories would go nowhere because this would implicitly be an admission that the accused works were derivative of the asserted work. I do not at all think that your conclusion is in any way absolute. You have stumbled upon an area of limbo in US copyright law. The United Kingdom has fixed the inherent problem with the so-called must-fit and must-match exemptions. No such exemptions exist in US copyright law, but you are mistaken to believe that just because those exemptions do not exist, an "accessory" designed to be compatible with a protectible work of art must automatically be considered a derivative work, and thus the only defense is to prove that no copyright exists in the asserted work.

Those are rather bold assumptions Paulson, and I don't think they would hold a candle in US Federal Court. The essential problem is that gaming models are in a sort of between space between a useful article and a work of art. I agree with you that they will likely be considered works of art protectible under copyright to the extent that they are protectible. Copyright law must therefore control, but as I pointed out, there's no exemption for must-fit and must-match.

In the absence of those exemptions, what you have, conceptually, is a work that has certain dimensions in common with -some- part of the asserted work as well as an aesthetic that is generally consistent with that work. First, general aesthetics are not protectible, specific expressions are separately protectible. Second, in order for the accused work to be a copy, it must be substantially similar to the asserted work. Without even going into any particular example, the purpose of the accused work, in our theoretical example, is to be different and unique - NOT the same. Thus I think that it must be concluded that the work is indeed different. Now, we then have a work accused of infringement that is both different from and similar to the asserted work.

Here's the rub Paulson: the accused work must unfairly appropriate that which is protectible in the asserted work. Which is to say that the accused work must be substantially similar to the asserted work. That which is the same or similar between the two works, based on a side by side comparison of the works -in their entirety- must copy that which makes the asserted work unique.

If we turn to the example of a Space Marine shoulder pad, the mating surface between the big shoulder pad bit and the marine arm bit has NO artistic value in the context of the sculptural work. It isn't even seen by the viewer.

Now, you were harping on about derivative works. As I said before, it should be -harder- to show that a work is derivative than it is to show that a work is a copy, not easier. The derivative work definition is not intended to loosen the bounds of copyright infringement. In order for a work to be derivative it must -copy- the fundamental essence of the root work, not merely an insignificant portion of that work which is altogether completely irrelevant to the artistic value of the work.

paulson games wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The issue of this assertion is the laws dealing with "art" explicitly restrict the number of directly reproduced instances. Produce too many of something that was created as "art" and its no longer given the legal protections of an artistic work. The law has a particular number of copies in the instances of open ended releases, but allows for an artist to produce a greater number of copies if the number is predetermined and limited to that, but there are limits to that as well.

Care to provide the source for that? Are you a IP specialist lawyer or like most everyone else just speaking from an arm chair posistion on something you don't have any formal background in?

If it were that simple then the case wouldn't still be in court. Under US federal law (which this case is being tried under) It doesn't matter how many copies of something is sold, art is protected under US law even if it's "art for the masses". Otherwise you'd see people doing whatever they wanted with Star Wars or Harry Potter, whos movies, toys, and statues etc have sold millions of copies and they are certainly still protected...

Source, it's easy enough to look up online the US copyright and trademark office and see that an "artistic work" or piece of "art" as Paulson refers to it is a very specific category for protection. I'm not sayings this is all so simple, I'm just saying whatever type of protection GW has its not as a piece of "art". The art category explicitly excludes models and concept art used in the design of a product, which are still granted protection just not for their artistic merits. That should show the narrowness of the category.

Weeble, feel free to twist things how you want. Nowhere did I make any assertions about unclean hands being the only legal defense or tactic available. I'm not sure where you get that idea. It is one way of defending against those claims (and there's plenty of others) . I'm not going to speculate on how CH may go about launching a defense, nor do I care how their end of the case resolves.

So please don't try and put words in my mouth.

I'd have more respect for Chapter House if they at least partially veiled what they're doing... they just blatantly say 'Yeah, this stuff's for Space Marines'.

At least other companies make up stuff like 'Space Shock Troops' or something like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean if GW's IP is being that blatantly assaulted, I think that they had to sue just to save face!

Henners91 wrote:I'd have more respect for Chapter House if they at least partially veiled what they're doing... they just blatantly say 'Yeah, this stuff's for Space Marines'.

At least other companies make up stuff like 'Space Shock Troops' or something like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean if GW's IP is being that blatantly assaulted, I think that they had to sue just to save face!

I actually respect CH for being honest about what they are doing. The other companies are doing EXACTLY what CH is doing, except they try to hide behind veiled names that hint at their actually intended purpose. A shoulder pad sized to fit a GW Space Marine is what it is. Calling it a duck doesn't make it one or change its intended usage. CH, at least, had the balls to actually come right out and tell you what they do instead of hiding behind lame innuendo. Its not like the other 3rd party companies are making stuff and then going, "It works with a Space marine!?! Really!?! Wow! That's not at all what I intended when I designed it! Golly!"

If you are going to do something then I say come right out and do it. Damn the torpedoes attitude. CH has this attitude. Yes it has gotten them into hot water, but isn't over yet. And considering how this case may effect the entire 3rd party industry, I am surprised that none of the other guys have offered a helping hand to CH. Instead they just hide in their innuendos hoping to not get noticed until it is all over and they can reap the rewards of CH's endeavors. Kinda sad actually.

Paulson,

Yea, you mentioned more than one way to defend alleged "conversion bits" infringement. However, what you said is that most conversion parts don't modify the "original" design enough to not infringe, thus defending infringement would be "difficult," and that an alternative way to defend infringement would be to challenge the asserted copyright, which also probably wouldn't work.

I interpreted that to mean you thought that based on the idea that a conversion part is in all liklihood a derivative work, the only other viable means of defense would be to challenge the asserted copyright. I think that is a reasonable way to interpret what you wrote. And, as I pointed out, your opinions were based on an eroneous interpretation of the law.

I think it is very unreasonable to flatly conclude that "As most conversion parts for gaming only modify one aspect of the design it likely wouldn't qualify as being substantially different and therefore be considered derivative of the original design." That's your opinion, but it doesn't square very well with the way US copyright law works. You stated said opinion with some authority, being until recently a co-defendant in the litigation that is the subject of this thread, so I thought it was important to help ameliorate the potential damage to peoples' understanding of US copyright law.

Simply put, no, I did not put words in your mouth. I reasonably interpreted what you wrote, disagreed with it, and explained why.

I'm curious, though, about where you came by the information that you relied on to form your opinions.

I'm just glad that Paulson is finally off the hook in this case... since it was completely incorrect on GW's part to include him.

I do think the view you posted is not totally accurate, though Paulson... but that's why this case is in the courts, right?

weeble1000 wrote:I'm curious, though, about where you came by the information that you relied on to form your opinions.

Weeble, we may find that out once GW produces all the relevant papers as instructed by the court.

Cheers

Andrew

paulson games wrote:
Care to provide the source for that? Are you a IP specialist lawyer or like most everyone else just speaking from an arm chair posistion on something you don't have any formal background in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

Exclusive rights under VARA

VARA exclusively grants authors of works that fall under the protection of the Act the following rights
right to claim authorship
right to prevent the use of one's name on any work the author did not create
right to prevent use of one's name on any work that has been distorted, mutilated, or modified in a way that would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation
right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or modification that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation

Additionally, authors of works of "recognized stature" may prohibit intentional or grossly negligent destruction of a work. Exceptions to VARA require a waiver from the author in writing. To date, "recognized stature" has managed to elude a precise definition. VARA allows authors to waive their rights, something generally not permitted in France and many European countries whose laws were the originators of the moral rights of artists concept.
In most instances, the rights granted under VARA persist for the life of the author (or the last surviving author, for creators of joint works).

Covered works

VARA provides its protection only to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only, and existing in single copies or in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies, signed and numbered by the artist. The requirements for protection do not implicate aesthetic taste or value.

This is under a subset of copyright law known as "moral rights" it's more broadly protected in the EU than in the US.... It's how I think GW gets away with claiming that conversions are a major infringment, Unfortunaltly that doesn't fly as well, under US law.

Lanceradvanced wrote:"produced for exhibition only"

That means if a piece is made for sale it invalidates all those rights.

That law entry is for pieces that are on display as a public work or gallery, not for items which are being sold or transferred.

paulson games wrote:
Legally if GW can confirm their ownership of the Tervigon design they can not only bar CH from producing that kit anymore, they could recast the CH kit if they chose to as they own all rights to it. Even if CH did create their own model design GW could assume full rights over it as they own the original root concept. Conversely if an item is proven to not to have ownership by anyone (public domain) then anyone can produce models based on that design. So if it's fought out in court and GW can't prove it owns the design, then any company could legally make their own versions tervigons and GW could do nothing to sue over that.

I find this very difficult to believe. Just because someone makes something that infringes on you doesn't mean you now own it. While you can bar them from producing more, and sue them for all sorts of damages, you can't take their stuff for yourself. The other company still own the infringing sculpt, they just can't produce and sell it. It's still their unique expression, their sculpt.

Where a company makes something similar to something else (and Tyranid bits are all fair generic, GW don't own the 'aesthetic') but uses a name belonging to that other company - then the main issue is that the other company could demand they change the name, and they could in theory sue for losses if they could prove that the public was being misled or their brand name was misappropriated. Often the infringing company would just make up a different name for their product and stop using the copyrighted term, this occurs amicably often enough. Because lots of products look similar and sometimes people accidentally tread on the copyright term of someone else.

There's no way that the main company could say "Ah, you have a model that looks a bit like one of our drawings, and you have used the same name! Now we own your sculpt and will recast it for ourselves!"

This is rubbish. Nobody can recast other people's sculpts, even when they are infringing. You can be forced to cease production, but not hand your stuff over for someone else to profit from. By this logic, GW own your photographs if you take pictures of their stuff. No, you own the photographs but you may not be able to publish them without permission because the content in them is copyright.

Howard,

Paulson was referring to derivative works, and yes, I believe he was correct about that. I disagree with how he imagines one determines if a work is derivative, and I think that this is why his example assaults your sense of equity.

A derivative work, as I mentioned earlier in my text wall, is a -separate- copyright from the work that it was derived from. However, as the copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, control of the derivative work belongs to the holder of the root copyright. I'm fairly certain that's correct.

Your point is well taken though Howard, because it doesn't seem half fair in Paulson's example. It does seem fair when one considers the purpose and limitations of derivative works. Should an author of a novel not control a translation of that novel? It doesn't seem fair at all for an author to lose control of a novel because the words are transformed into a different language, hence where derivative works come in.

Similarly, should I be able to gain control over a narrative by creating a Readers' Digest version of it? Again, that doesn't seem fair, and derivative works comes to the rescue.

Derivative works again comes to the rescue with regard to motion picture adaptations. Should Spielberg control War Horse by adapting it for the silver screen? Should the author of that novel have no control over his unique narrative? I should hope not.

Those are all specific examples of derivative works as the law defines the term. Thus we see the scope and purpose of the derivative works concept.

First question to this case is? Has Games workshop Copyrighted the model in question, in the US, in a correct manner and if so before the lawsuit?

We do not know this nor all of the information concerning the lawsuit.

This is going to be a long case.

I personally believe that because of this case right or wrong, Games Work will be reworking all of their IP paperwork to insure that they have properly filed all of their works in a correct manner here in the US and perhaps abroad.

Adam LongWalker wrote:First question to this case is? Has Games workshop Copyrighted the model in question, in the US, in a correct manner and if so before the lawsuit?

We do not know this nor all of the information concerning the lawsuit.

This is going to be a long case.

I personally believe that because of this case right or wrong, Games Work will be reworking all of their IP paperwork to insure that they have properly filed all of their works in a correct manner here in the US and perhaps abroad.

One question I would like to ask. All these companys that have been put under by GW sending them C&D letters, would they be able to go after GW if it's proven gw didn't own said copyright/ IP / -insert legaleese term here- that they threatened to sue them over?

Would they be allowed to sell said models if they still had the molds for them?

We're unable to answer your question, Adam, because GW has not specified what was copied. I believe the court has required their attorneys to produce something in support of the defendant's motion to compel.

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:One question I would like to ask. All these companys that have been put under by GW sending them C&D letters, would they be able to go after GW if it's proven gw didn't own said copyright/ IP / -insert legaleese term here- that they threatened to sue them over?

No. Anyone can threaten to sue anyone else. Anyone receiving a C&D letter who did not "take it to court" CHOSE to stop producing the item(s) in question.

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:Would they be allowed to sell said models if they still had the molds for them?

They're allowed to sell them now. Just because a C&D was sent, that does not mean they can no longer sell the models. It means that, presumably, GW will sue them if they do. Regardless how the CHS suit ends up, anyone else can still continue doing what they're doing. One side or the other will use the CHS ruling as basis for it's side, however.
Even if CHS wins, that won't mean GW can't turn around and sue someone else for doing the same thing. It just means (a) they better have their ducks in a row this time and (b) you can expect their lawyers (presuming they fight GW) to try to lean on the CHS verdict as much as possible. If they lose, the same is true, except that it would be GW leaning on the CHS verdict.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:One question I would like to ask. All these companys that have been put under by GW sending them C&D letters, would they be able to go after GW if it's proven gw didn't own said copyright/ IP / -insert legaleese term here- that they threatened to sue them over?

No. Anyone can threaten to sue anyone else. Anyone receiving a C&D letter who did not "take it to court" CHOSE to stop producing the item(s) in question.

Not exactly. A C&D trying to enforce copyrights that GW knows it can't establish ownership over would be abuse of process.

This wouldn't help previous recipients of GW's C&D letters, but it would stop future letters.

I didn't say it wouldn't be an abuse. I just said they could do it.
I do hope a CHS victory here will stop (unnecessary) future C&D letters to aftermarket bits manufacturers. But, surely, you agree that it doesn't mean they literally cannot sent them?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:I didn't say it wouldn't be an abuse. I just said they could do it.
I do hope a CHS victory here will stop (unnecessary) future C&D letters to aftermarket bits manufacturers. But, surely, you agree that it doesn't mean they literally cannot sent them?

Eric

Fair enough.

But that does mean aftermarket suppliers could "go after" GW for sending a C&D letter as FabricatorGeneralMike suggested.

Laws against murder don't mean I can't literally set my neighbor on fire either. It just means there are consequences for doing so.

Waiting eagerly the result of this courtcase , as a matter of interest more than anything else /subscribed


a redshirt took exception to me recommending a CHS tervigon (because it's the best unit in the 'dex and GW does not produce it). It is their store and I am a guest but... there were 3 carnifexes to be bought at Australian prices.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face... I know the staff are paid to defend and market GW as the only universe in existence, but a savvy salesperson would have said, "that's still before the court, remember, and GW's position is that it's copyright infringement. That's an aside though, buy the carnifexes and get started on your conversion of the best unit in the 'dex" better to appreciate the reality of your customer and appear on their side rather than to hector or lecture them.

(and yes, in my area some still wear red shirts)

biccat wrote:But that does mean aftermarket suppliers could "go after" GW for sending a C&D letter as FabricatorGeneralMike suggested..

Understood and agreed.

biccat wrote:Laws against murder don't mean I can't literally set my neighbor on fire either. It just means there are consequences for doing so.

Pics or it didn't happen. Please? LOL


Eric

severedblue wrote:a redshirt took exception to me recommending a CHS tervigon (because it's the best unit in the 'dex and GW does not produce it). It is their store and I am a guest but... there were 3 carnifexes to be bought at Australian prices.
(...) better to appreciate the reality of your customer and appear on their side rather than to hector or lecture them.

If GW finds out, he will be fired, simple as that.
Better keep your job than appreciate the reality of your customer

biccat wrote:
But that does mean aftermarket suppliers could "go after" GW for sending a C&D letter as FabricatorGeneralMike suggested.

Unfortunately, most of those small pop companies (since they probably can't afford mom also!) can neither afford financially to defend themselves against a GW lawsuit nor go after GW for any inappropriate actions. GW has pretty much been relying on the small scale nature of the businesses they bully out of existence.

Hm... What are the rules for a "Class Action" suit? There seem to be a number of these small companies that GW has threatened out of existence. Would they be able to pull together?

My legal inexperience keeps me from knowing what the liklihood of that scenario.

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case..

How about Lego's 11 year battle to trademark their bricks, which they ended up losing, once that happened, there was a explosion of 3rd party stuff made to be compatable with Lego bricks, and Minifigs, among which are a number of companies, making.....

Shoulderpads...

Imagine millions of third party shoulder pads forcing GW to sell millions of Space Marines. The horror!
GW will end as LEGO: Prospering and making millions of profit!

Kroothawk wrote:Imagine millions of third party shoulder pads forcing GW to sell millions of Space Marines. The horror!
GW will end as LEGO: Prospering and making millions of profit!

That's what kills me about this whole thing. GW is making money off of CHS's work hand over fist. Why would you want to shut down a company that is making you money?

Because GW hates money.

I’ve always found that fact rather odd. None of the CH products are true replacement models outside of maybe the newer Eldar stuff released recently (Doom and the Tau superheavy doesn’t count as there is no GW counterpart models). Most of the CH products need a GW product anyway in order to work, thus generating the sale of the actual GW kit anyway. HBMC for example who is famous on Dakka for his well written criticisms of GW actually bought 2 Storm Raven kits just to make use of CH’s True Scale kit.

GW has always been perversely overprotective of their IP and most likely this is clouding their judgement.

GW secretly fears the whole company being found out as a bit of a fraud. "What, you ripped this bit off Nemesis the Warlock, this bit off Elric, this bit off Dune, and these bits from... a wide variety of popular 1980s genre movies, which leaves you with... hmm... Eisenhorn as the sole original idea in all of 40K?" So there's a massive, God-Emperor's New Clothes issue. The legal department has spent the past twenty-odd years frantically popping smoke, every turn, in the hope of making cover save after cover save, all the while desperately wanting no-one to spot the rule that you can only pop smoke once per game.

Kroothawk wrote:

severedblue wrote:a redshirt took exception to me recommending a CHS tervigon (because it's the best unit in the 'dex and GW does not produce it). It is their store and I am a guest but... there were 3 carnifexes to be bought at Australian prices.
(...) better to appreciate the reality of your customer and appear on their side rather than to hector or lecture them.

If GW finds out, he will be fired, simple as that.
Better keep your job than appreciate the reality of your customer

The manager of the store is a cool dude, he's been around for a while and I respect him because his opinion on many matters is very reasonable. I don't think he'd fire his staff member.

If the staff gave the standard disclaimer then said, "buy three carnifexes!"

- buy three carnifexes and convert into tervigons

does not intersect with

- buy three CHS tervigon kits



Semantics I know, but lecturing people doesn't really convince them to buy product.

It's amusing the "GW hate money quote."

That's the thing that amuses me most about this whole piece you have to buy the marines to buy the shoulderpads.


I remember there was one GW staffer who was a real gun... gun painter, gun gamer, cool guy. He gave one of the veteran sculpters / hobbyists at the hobby table magic putty to bake and make moulds for pre-heresy thousand sons helmets / shoulderpads. The sculptor wasn't copying an existing kit, he had had sculpted a shoulder pad out of green stuff and needed 30 of them.

Maybe that's why I don't see that GW staffer anymore... but of all of them I have met over the years, I respect him the most.

Another case... another veteran gamer recommending Tamiya colour stains for the Prism Cannon plastics and getting admonished by a staffer... now that gamer is a GW staffer as well lol. I wonder now if he chokes every time he has to sell something....



All as an aside of course.

Kroothawk wrote:

severedblue wrote:a redshirt took exception to me recommending a CHS tervigon (because it's the best unit in the 'dex and GW does not produce it). It is their store and I am a guest but... there were 3 carnifexes to be bought at Australian prices.
(...) better to appreciate the reality of your customer and appear on their side rather than to hector or lecture them.

If GW finds out, he will be fired, simple as that.
Better keep your job than appreciate the reality of your customer

Interesting thing is that this behaviour is what I'd expect in any store. Fairly normal situation as example. I go to a store to get product X which the store should have. If they don't have it (either don't sell that particular item or out of stock) I tend to ask which store around here should then carry it. I've never encountered a situation where I wouldn't get a proper answer to this.

GW does seem to hate money, why else wouldn't they let retailers have forge world stuff other than the books (and there was a huge snafu with that)?

But we digress, did the holiday season slow the battle down? If I recall GW likes to push legal action around this time.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/01/06/copyright-litigation-settlement/

Copyright litigation settlement

JANUARY 6, 2012

Games Workshop and Paulson Games are pleased to announce the settlement of the copyright litigation commenced by Games Workshop in federal court in Chicago. Paulson Games and Games Workshop have agreed on the range of products Paulson Games is permitted to sell without violating Games Workshop’s claimed rights in its Warhammer 40,000 characters and have agreed to terminate the litigation between them. Games Workshop’s case against Chapterhouse Studios continues.

I almosted gagged when I read the charmans preamble ugh

What does this mean btw to all those who understand this 'legalesse' ;

Since the last annual report the Group has changed its accounting policy for recognition of royalty income. Previously royalty income was recognised by spreading the guarantees and advances receivable over the term of the licence agreement until it was virtually certain that the level of income from the licence would exceed those guarantees and advances. At this point all guarantees and advances received under the licence were taken immediately to the income statement. All other income receivable was recognised in the income statement by reference to the underlying licensee performance, after allowing for expected returns and price protection claims. Under the new policy royalty income is recognised in the income statement when it can be reliably measured by reference to the underlying licensee performance, after allowing for expected returns and price protection claims, as notified to the Group by the licensee and following validation of the amounts receivable by the Group. Cash received as guarantees and advances are deferred on balance sheet whilst it is considered probable that future royalty earnings will at least equal the amounts received. Such amounts are recognised in the income statement at the point at which they are earned as royalties. In the event that it is no longer considered probable that future royalty earnings will at least equal the guarantees and advances received, the guaranteed and advance payments are taken to the income statement on a straight line basis over the remaining term of the licence agreement. Comparative amounts have been restated for each prior period presented as if the new accounting policy had always been applied (see note 3). The Group believes that the new policy results in a fairer reflection of licensee performance in the Group income statement.

Roughly that the royaly checque, where previously taken straight to income and margin in one chunk they will now be fed into the balance sheet over the life of the licenece and/or its performance.

In effect it evens things out and prevents spikes of income/turnover which, something accountand and MDS hate. Everyone like a nice even line/curve afterall.

This isn't really legalese, its a sub-dialect call accountspeek.

notprop wrote:Roughly that the royaly checque, where previously taken straight to income and margin in one chunk they will now be fed into the balance sheet over the life of the licenece and/or its performance.

In effect it evens things out and prevents spikes of income/turnover which, something accountand and MDS hate. Everyone like a nice even line/curve afterall.

This isn't really legalese, its a sub-dialect call accountspeek.

Thanks for that I do appriciate it. Accountspeek, Legalese, fine print, it's all the same crap to me, To-ma-to To-mat-o <--that was the only way I could think of writing it while hoping it made sence.

If you mean sense, then yes.

Fortunately I also understand Canuck.

notprop wrote:If you mean sense, then yes.

Fortunately I also understand Canuck.

'Tis a odd dialect offshoot of the 'Queens English', incorperating both slang american terms while still spelling Armour and Colour with a 'U'. And I can butcher it with the best of them.

Read that wrong lol

Sidenote, I've sent in an application to GW, the role? well it isnt one they have atm, but i've worked as an architect for 11 years and have studied and simultaneously worked as a PR guy, hired by both politicians and corporations that have had.. what we might call an image problem.
I took the liberty of submitting a Media intel. analysis along with a change management proposal with my cv

Aerethan wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Imagine millions of third party shoulder pads forcing GW to sell millions of Space Marines. The horror!
GW will end as LEGO: Prospering and making millions of profit!

That's what kills me about this whole thing. GW is making money off of CHS's work hand over fist. Why would you want to shut down a company that is making you money?

Because GW has a very outdated mentality wherein they believe that a monopoly is the highest achievement possible in the business world. However, in doing so GW is isolating themselves from additional markets, as true monopolies cannot exist unless there is legal precedent preventing competition. Monsanto would be a good parallel for what GW seems to be striving towards. However, it is this very practice that can turn out to be GW's downfall, for as they strive to control their own market, they effectively push out their own customer base. And when that pushed-out subset becomes large enough to form its own market, then companies based out of countries that simply do not recognize GW's legal control over the product will begin to flourish, as that new sub-set market will now be large enough to become profitable for newer companies.

Long story short: five years from now, you're going to buy your Space Marines not from GW, but from a Chinese company, and those Space Marines will be indistinguishable from the official GW models. And if you think that GW can go to the mattresses to stop this, then you should use Google to determine how many Disneyland theme parks there are in the world.

Monopolies are outmoded... it requires exponential effort to build a walled garden, and there are an exponential number of new entrants trying to break it. It is like trying to stop the tide with your hands- defeat is inevitable.

I'm surprised that GW does not have a royalty / licensing arrangement with after-market parts manufacturers.

I'd just say, "sure you can make those, but

1) pay a reasonable royalty to us

2) you must put disclaimers saying you are not GW

3) we reserve the right to say "stop producing that model because your quality is terrible"

"
I think GW would make more money, and have more control, from a royalty arrangement.

You know what they'd do though? They'd charge way too much for the license, and probably try to shut everyone down by saying the quality is "terrible" even when it's not.

No one else can make "finely detailed" models like this, after all...

But yeah, I wish GW would just stop with that "fortress wall" bs and become more like a real fething company, one that I won't be ashamed to admit I give money to.

Another thought... GW have licensed stuff before, like Relic's Dawn of War series. Maybe they are upset at people taking them on in their core business- i.e. miniatures?

I would say licensing Relic is more dangerous than licensing Chapterhouse. Given that GW doesn't have the expertise to develop and deploy computer games, at the same time Relic's offering is a much more enticing substitute than Chapterhouse... how many people have bought Dawn of War and thought it a better experience than buying minis?

DoW would reach more people in more demographic than the mini's would have, but some mini players who would have otherwise bought an army... would rather buy a video game where they neither have to paint nor assemble it to play.


At the very least for CHS, you still have to buy the core army models to add the aftermarket parts to. I would say licensing them is smarter than licensing Relic.

azazel the cat wrote:Long story short: five years from now, you're going to buy your Space Marines not from GW, but from a Chinese company, and those Space Marines will be indistinguishable from the official GW models. And if you think that GW can go to the mattresses to stop this, then you should use Google to determine how many Disneyland theme parks there are in the world.

Why five years?

Chinese companies have had lots of opportunity to copy GW stuff and (other than a few garage operations doing resin stuff) they haven't. The investment cost in the moulds is huge, even in China, and they would have to be extremely confident of big sales to make that investment. Given that GW can stop the stuff from being imported and there's not a huge wargames market in China it's a loser from the start.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Chinese companies have had lots of opportunity to copy GW stuff and (other than a few garage operations doing resin stuff) they haven't. The investment cost in the moulds is huge, even in China, and they would have to be extremely confident of big sales to make that investment. Given that GW can stop the stuff from being imported and there's not a huge wargames market in China it's a loser from the start.

The Chinese copy Gundam models (Bendi instead of Bandai) by using sand-cast molds, but the fit and detail is really crap... having put together a few of those kits, they're usually sold at 1/3 the price but are such a pain because the fit is so terrible. Fit wouldn't be a problem with GW models but the detail would definitely go down the crapper, in a similar way to a person recasting kits in a dodgy operation.

Perhaps those Gundam kits are copied because they are bigger in Asia and more mainstream... until GW set up a serious operation in Asia particularly in the China market, I don't think that's going to happen. Already there's a big market for MTG and Pokemon cards because, after Wizards moved in, there are so many fakes floating around. GW would also have to charge local asian prices for their product to be affordable, and then they'd have to deal with parallel importing from nearby markets such as Australia.

At that point CHS would be the least of their problems.

It's not like Gundam kits are very expensive anyway.

They are cheaper than GW kits and have more colours and details.

Have you paid Australian prices for a Gundam kit?? lol

I remember buying a MG Kampfer from Shibuya for $30AUD four years ago...

here to buy the same kit locally in Australia the same kit is $80... lol
be happy you don't have to pay the Australia tax :p




That being said, if the Gundam kits are less expensive, even more incentive for the Chinese to copy GW kits, bigger profit margin!

severedblue wrote:I'm surprised that GW does not have a royalty / licensing arrangement with after-market parts manufacturers.

I'd just say, "sure you can make those, but

1) pay a reasonable royalty to us

2) you must put disclaimers saying you are not GW

3) we reserve the right to say "stop producing that model because your quality is terrible"

I think GW would make more money, and have more control, from a royalty arrangement.

Because the after-market parts manufacturers have no obligation to share their profits with GW. Nor do they have any obligation to give GW a free pass to shut down their manufacturing.

severedblue wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
Chinese companies have had lots of opportunity to copy GW stuff and (other than a few garage operations doing resin stuff) they haven't. The investment cost in the moulds is huge, even in China, and they would have to be extremely confident of big sales to make that investment. Given that GW can stop the stuff from being imported and there's not a huge wargames market in China it's a loser from the start.

The Chinese copy Gundam models (Bendi instead of Bandai) by using sand-cast molds, but the fit and detail is really crap... having put together a few of those kits, they're usually sold at 1/3 the price but are such a pain because the fit is so terrible. Fit wouldn't be a problem with GW models but the detail would definitely go down the crapper, in a similar way to a person recasting kits in a dodgy operation.

Sand casting big chunks of model is nothing at all like copying GW minis. You can't sandcast a whole space marine, for example. Maybe a whole Rhino.

If we were to get models from china that were identical to the normal ones (like azazel the cat has suggested) then they'd need to be multi-part injected models. Never going to happen. There are plenty of injection moulded toys and models that outsell GW (Gundam, Transformers, etc) and we're not seeing direct copies of those.

Well, there seem to be companies that reproduce FW products in China. And not even half bad.
That's, of course, resin, but nothing would stop them to recast plastics in resin.

Bumped into a story on NPR that discussed another product that might exist in a similar situation as far as copy right goes- http://www.rifftrax.com/

Its the guys from MST3K who now produce separate tracks of smart alek commentary to be played as you watch a movie (added on almost like shoulder pads on a marine ) - movies they haven't bought the rights for. No need to apparently, as they're selling a separate product.
They clearly have to blatantly state which tracks are meant to cover which movies, which again they never bought any rights to, and yet the very scary and very huge IP law departments of the major movie studios have never moved on them.

I don't think that comparable at all. Firstly, while discussing something, they don't reproduce any sounds or images from the original films.

Secondly it's easy to argue it's being done for review purposes, which does come under fair use.

Scott-S6 wrote:
If we were to get models from china that were identical to the normal ones (like azazel the cat has suggested) then they'd need to be multi-part injected models. Never going to happen. There are plenty of injection moulded toys and models that outsell GW (Gundam, Transformers, etc) and we're not seeing direct copies of those.

Just a technicality, but there's a fairly large Transformer knock-off market among collectors. You'll often see rare pieces that get resized to smaller or much larger scale in dollar stores. It's really pretty common.

I actually know people in the industry who consider the first chinese knockoff for your product a sort of badge of honor marking that you've truly arrived.

They basically start like clockwork when you hit a certain level of popularity.

You should see the UZAY Star Wars figures. Some of the most highly prized of knock offs among collectors.

http://theswca.com/images-speci/yglesias/uzay.html

My favourite is the Death Star Gunner playing on a pocket calculator.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
If we were to get models from china that were identical to the normal ones (like azazel the cat has suggested) then they'd need to be multi-part injected models. Never going to happen. There are plenty of injection moulded toys and models that outsell GW (Gundam, Transformers, etc) and we're not seeing direct copies of those.

Just a technicality, but there's a fairly large Transformer knock-off market among collectors. You'll often see rare pieces that get resized to smaller or much larger scale in dollar stores. It's really pretty common.

There's also companies like CHMS which directly reproduce figures down to the packaging. No resizing, no mold alterations(apart from the copyright markings and even those are sometimes kept). They've gotten so good at it that the quality of CHMS' latest offerings match the quality of the original figure: my CHMS KO Henkei Screamer has the same plastic as my Hasbro Screamer, the only difference is the tightness of the leg joints and that's cause I've tightened my Hasbro Screamer's legs.

But for a more direct correlation between this lawsuit and the Transformers Fandom, look at companies like Perfect Effect, Renderform, Head Robots, Fansproject, and Maketoy which make add-on kits for HasTak's Transformers(many, such as City Commander and Protector requiring the exact measurements, dimensions, and angles of the HasTak figure to be created, just like CHS products with GW Figures). Some are even based in Japan alongside TakaraTomy, yet have never been taken to court despite knowledge that they exist. The stuff is even available to purchase at Botcon, the official Convention.

All this stuff about Chinese copies is interesting but it is OFF TOPIC!

Corvid, there's also probably a fair use argument in terms of satire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a thought for everyone:

GW has settled with Paulson Games. There's a confidentiality agreement and all, but this is what Games Workshop has publicly stated about the settlement:

"Paulson Games and Games Workshop have agreed on the range of products Paulson Games is permitted to sell without violating Games Workshop’s claimed rights in its Warhammer 40,000 characters..."

Presumably, then, Games Workshop agrees that everything currently for sale on Paulson's website (www.paulsongames.com) does not violate GW's claimed rights. There could of course be some type of license agreement, but I personally doubt that.

The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

Weeble: I'm not 100% certain but I think Paulson was included in the suit because of the "Heavy Walker" that is for sale on the CH website. I think someone mentioned early on that GW was under the impression that Paulson had something to do with its design.

agnosto wrote:Weeble: I'm not 100% certain but I think Paulson was included in the suit because of the "Heavy Walker" that is for sale on the CH website. I think someone mentioned early on that GW was under the impression that Paulson had something to do with its design.

There is no doubt that weeble1000 is well aware of that.....and that wasn't what his post was about at all.

weeble1000 wrote:The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

The only thing I can see (because it's the only thing I look at) is the bio-tendrils (lash whips) but he has a blog post saying they'll be gone for a re-design/recast.

weeble1000 wrote:There's a confidentiality agreement and all...

Blast, I was hoping that we could see details in the exhibits.

Cheers

Andrew

rigeld2 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

The only thing I can see (because it's the only thing I look at) is the bio-tendrils (lash whips) but he has a blog post saying they'll be gone for a re-design/recast.

It would be incredible if someone had a cached copy of the site's pages from before now so we could see a side by side comparison. I'm really interested to see what, if anything, that Paulson was forced to remove.

Steelmage99 wrote:

agnosto wrote:Weeble: I'm not 100% certain but I think Paulson was included in the suit because of the "Heavy Walker" that is for sale on the CH website. I think someone mentioned early on that GW was under the impression that Paulson had something to do with its design.

There is no doubt that weeble1000 is well aware of that.....and that wasn't what his post was about at all.

If it was a rhetorical question then I'm afraid I missed the point.

agnosto wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

agnosto wrote:Weeble: I'm not 100% certain but I think Paulson was included in the suit because of the "Heavy Walker" that is for sale on the CH website. I think someone mentioned early on that GW was under the impression that Paulson had something to do with its design.

There is no doubt that weeble1000 is well aware of that.....and that wasn't what his post was about at all.

If it was a rhetorical question then I'm afraid I missed the point.

Weeble's question wasn't rhetorical at all. It was referring to this quote from the GW statement:

"Paulson Games and Games Workshop have agreed on the range of products Paulson Games is permitted to sell without violating Games Workshop’s claimed rights in its Warhammer 40,000 characters..."

Considering this statement, we could discover some very interesting information if we could see a list of items for sale by Paulson both before and after the settlement. Any items that were removed would be items that were agreed to be infringing upon GW's IP/Copyright/whatever. Items that were available for sale both before and after the settlement will, therefore, have been admitted by GW to not infringe up GW's IP/Copyright/whatever.

This would be interesting to compare to CHS's situation if we could interpret a list of allowable precedents from the Paulson settlement.

weeble1000 wrote:
"Paulson Games and Games Workshop have agreed on the range of products Paulson Games is permitted to sell without violating Games Workshop’s claimed rights in its Warhammer 40,000 characters..."

Presumably, then, Games Workshop agrees that everything currently for sale on Paulson's website (www.paulsongames.com) does not violate GW's claimed rights. There could of course be some type of license agreement, but I personally doubt that.

The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

I know at one point, but I don't know if it was pre or post GW lawsuit, Paulson had some nice claws for bipedal combat walkers, as well as at least one sci-fi spaceship with a peaked prow. Those are gone, but again, I don't know if it was a result of the suit.

IIRC, the only thing GW took offense to was paulsons involvment in the not-Tau heavy walker chapterhouse sells.

Since he actually had no involvment at all in it, and nothing else of his was listed, he probably wasn't asked to remove anything. But he was smart enough to remove all pictures of GW models from his site before it all went down (he used to have shots of his not-Tyranid stuff on Tyranid warriors). He has taken stuff down on his own - like his not-Tyranid lash whip, which he's redoing.

Scott-S6 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Long story short: five years from now, you're going to buy your Space Marines not from GW, but from a Chinese company, and those Space Marines will be indistinguishable from the official GW models. And if you think that GW can go to the mattresses to stop this, then you should use Google to determine how many Disneyland theme parks there are in the world.

Why five years?

Five years is an almost arbitrary number representing the amount of time I think it'll take GW's consumer base to become so fed up with Finecast and rising prices that the sub-market will become large enough to allow the piracy to actually become profitable at a balance with a quality of product that said consumer base will be willing to purchase.

Scott-S6 wrote:If we were to get models from china that were identical to the normal ones (like azazel the cat has suggested) then they'd need to be multi-part injected models. Never going to happen. There are plenty of injection moulded toys and models that outsell GW (Gundam, Transformers, etc) and we're not seeing direct copies of those.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/G1-Transformers-Universe-KO-Prime-Ultra-Magnus-NMOC-/160662699000?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25683e3bf8#ht_4008wt_1007
Because I think The Changeable Just Leader begs to differ...


EDIT: Link works now

Saldiven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

The only thing I can see (because it's the only thing I look at) is the bio-tendrils (lash whips) but he has a blog post saying they'll be gone for a re-design/recast.

It would be incredible if someone had a cached copy of the site's pages from before now so we could see a side by side comparison. I'm really interested to see what, if anything, that Paulson was forced to remove.

The Way Back Machine has a few caches of Paul's site. Rigeld2 was correct as far as I can see. The only thing missing are the Bio-Tendrils.

azazel the cat wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:If we were to get models from china that were identical to the normal ones (like azazel the cat has suggested) then they'd need to be multi-part injected models. Never going to happen. There are plenty of injection moulded toys and models that outsell GW (Gundam, Transformers, etc) and we're not seeing direct copies of those.

You don't actually believe that, do you?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/G1-Transformers-Universe-KO-Prime-Ultra-Magnus-NMOC-/160662699000?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25683e3bf8#ht_4008wt_1007
Because I think The Changeable Just Leader begs to differ...


EDIT: Link works now

Even more, one of the following is a direct copy KO, no size or mold alterations like the above example. See if you can tell me which one:





However, this isn't really relevant to the actual case being discussed, as they're not fighting about KO's but add on kits.

spaceelf wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:The question this raises is: What was for sale on Paulson's website prior to the settlement that is not currently offered for sale on the website, if anything? Admittedly, I haven't been scrutinizing Paulson's website. Is anybody able to provide some insight about that?

The only thing I can see (because it's the only thing I look at) is the bio-tendrils (lash whips) but he has a blog post saying they'll be gone for a re-design/recast.

It would be incredible if someone had a cached copy of the site's pages from before now so we could see a side by side comparison. I'm really interested to see what, if anything, that Paulson was forced to remove.

The Way Back Machine has a few caches of Paul's site. Rigeld2 was correct as far as I can see. The only thing missing are the Bio-Tendrils.

Hrm, so what do you think, legal types? If everything that remains on Paulson's website has been agreed by GW to not be a violation of GW's IP, what can that tell us about other circumstances, specifically about what may or may not be the target of GW's suit against CHS? Or, since we do not have the specifics of the agreement, is there just not enough information to say?

Saldiven wrote:Hrm, so what do you think, legal types? If everything that remains on Paulson's website has been agreed by GW to not be a violation of GW's IP, what can that tell us about other circumstances, specifically about what may or may not be the target of GW's suit against CHS? Or, since we do not have the specifics of the agreement, is there just not enough information to say?

From the text of the agreement (what we've seen), everything on Paulson's site is either (a) not infringing on GW's intellectual property rights; or (b) licensed by GW. So I'll take the "not enough information" path.

If we could see what Paulson pulled then we would see what products GW believed were infringing and wasn't willing to license.

biccat wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Hrm, so what do you think, legal types? If everything that remains on Paulson's website has been agreed by GW to not be a violation of GW's IP, what can that tell us about other circumstances, specifically about what may or may not be the target of GW's suit against CHS? Or, since we do not have the specifics of the agreement, is there just not enough information to say?

From the text of the agreement (what we've seen), everything on Paulson's site is either (a) not infringing on GW's intellectual property rights; or (b) licensed by GW. So I'll take the "not enough information" path.

If we could see what Paulson pulled then we would see what products GW believed were infringing and wasn't willing to license.

That's kind of what I figured. I was hoping there might be a tidbit of information that might shed some light on how this whole CHS thing might turn out, but I guess without the text of the settlement, there's no way to know.

While I strongly agreed with biccat that there's really not enough information to go on when I started writing this post, I took a look at Paulson's blog just now..

On November 2nd Paulson posted the following on his website's blog:

Just giving a heads up to everyone that several of the parts are going to be discontinued.

As of Nov 7th the Bio-Swords and Monster Bio-Swords will no longer be in production.

I only have a small handful of these left, once they are sold they will not be restocked, peroid.



Some of my other parts are going to have some changes made so they may not be available for a while. They will be relisted once the new versions are finished. After the 7th the original sculpts will not be made available again.

The items reciveving resculpts will be:

Bio-Terror

Riding Wolves ( full kit version)

Bio-Tendril



If you are in need of any of these parts for your projects I suggest getting the orders in ASAP.

That was posted prior to the court-ordered settlement conference that took place on November 7th. The post does, however, specifically mention the November 7th date:

"As of Nov 7th the Bio-Swords and Monster Bio-Swords will no longer be in production."

"After the 7th the original sculpts will not be made available again."

The parties submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal on November 7th. Paulson's November 2nd blog post therefore seems to specifically indicate which products were involved in the settlement. I think one can infer from this that the products currently offered for sale on the website were not considered to be infringing, at least not in their current form.

The Way Back Machine crawled Paulson's site on Feb 7th 2011. That was prior to an initial status hearing on the case, which was originally scheduled on Feb 28th, 2011. However, I was only able to pull up an August 30, 2010 cache. That said, It appears that the riding wolf sculpts are the same, except that they are no longer supplied with the same bases. I don't have time to dig through the rest of the site at the moment, or to check to see if Paulson mentioned some other reason for removing the originally supplied bases. Edit: I think Paulson used to sell the riding wolves with saddles and legs. In the comment section of the post he wrote the following:

The discontinued items are all gone I no longer have copies in stock. The wolf rider saddles are being resculpted and the full kit version should be made available again in January. The same applies for the Bio-Tendrils, expect an updated version in Jan.

It makes more sense that GW would have had problems with that. If anyone can dig up a more recent cached version of the site pre-settlement, I think it would be illustrative.

So, although I still agree with biccat that there's not enough information to be conclusive, I think that there is enough information to make a reasonable, if tentative, inference that the product alterations mentioned in the November 2nd blog post were part of Paulson's settlement with Games Workshop. It would be interesting to see if anyone else could turn up additional information.

This post from Paulson is also consistent with a confidentiality agreement related to an out of court settlement:

Hi Guys, As it's already after the 7th those parts are no longer available and I'm sorry but I can't sell you any copies. I can't discuss their cancellation any further. Thanks, Paulson Games

The Not-Grotesques seem to have gone from Paulson's site, shame since they were pretty good!

I removed the cast resin bases from the wolves as they take extra time to cast and it's easier to use plastic ones which I've started using in their place. No big mystery behind it, it just helped cut down the time commitment for making those models which also allowed me to lower the wolf prices a bit as well.

I had them available seperately for a while but there wasn't much interest so I took them down. I also had hex bases available but they likewise weren't generating much interest and were removed. If people want them I can always run off more copies.


I've had a small handful of other items available that are no longer on the site (due to slow sales), however those were phased out and removed 6-10 months before the suit was filed.

.

Recap is showing new documents. It looks like doc 141 has a transcript of the Dec 19th hearing.

Still only goes to 139 for me. Edit: Nevermind, I found it. http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

Document 140:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The Court has reviewed the materials submitted by plaintiff for in camera review. The materials consist of plaintiff's settlement agreement with defendant Paulson, correspondence reflecting negotiation of the settlement, and a small amount of earlier correspondence regarding procedural matters. It appears that all of the correspondence is between plaintiff's counsel and Paulson's counsel, not Paulson himself. The settlement and correspondence relating to it are subject to a confidentiality agreement contained within the settlement agreement. Based on the Court's review, none of the correspondence is admissible or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and thus the Court declines to direct plaintiff to produce those materials. Though the settlement agreement itself is likely inadmissible under Rule 408, the Court directs plaintiff's counsel to produce a copy of the agreement to defendant Chapterhouse's counsel of record. Defense counsel are prohibited from disclosing the agreement or information about its contents to anyone other than defendant's outside counsel of record in this case, Paulson himself, and Paulson's counsel of record, unless the Court orders otherwise based on a showing of good cause made by defense counsel. Any filings containing information about the agreement must be made under seal and are likewise subject to the prohibition contained in the previous sentence. (mk) (Entered: 12/30/2011)

Doesn't look too important just a recognition of Paulson's exit from the horse and pony show this case has devolved into and the usual exchange of information.

Document 141:

MOTION by Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to compel discovery responses and privilege log by a prompt date certain (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas J. Kearney & Exhibits A - G, # 2 Declaration of Jennifer A. Golinveaux & Exhibits A - E, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 01/10/2012)

Which is followed by GW's opposition of the motion to compell and then a prompt motion to seal certain items.

Just more maneuvering looks to me.

Yep, 139 for me as well, any chance of a basic outline of what was said?

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ta very much.

Andrew

Just read 143.2 and have decided that I am in love with Jennifer Golinveau (don't tell my wife). That lady has the patience of Job dealing with an apparently illiterate opposing counsel.

Maybe one of our legal eagles can clarify if they're talking about the same thing because it seemed to me that Jennifer kept saying that they're ready for a custodial deposition and Jonathan kept saying that she was delaying and failing to agree to a document custodial...

Boggled.

It seems as if GW counsel's primary and only strategy is to obfuscate and delay. I suppose it's a good thing I'm not a judge because these childish antics would certainly anger me to the point of reporting both parties to the BAR....and then I'd report to the bar for a drink.

I have to say I did like the complaint about the document request served just before Xmas. Karmic retibution?

Agnosto, to be fair both sides are 'obfuscating and delaying'

Cheers

Andrew

agnosto -

The Northern District of Illinois has a local rule (37.2) that states the following:

"To curtail undue delay and expense in the administration of justice, this court shall hereafter refuse to hear any and all motions for discovery and production of documents under Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the motion includes a statement (1) that after consultation in person or by telephone and good faith attempts to resolve differences they are unable to reach an accord, or (2) counsel's attempts to engage in such consultation were unsuccessful due to no fault of counsel's. Where the consultation occurred, this statement shall recite, in addition, the date, time and place of such conference, and the names of all parties participating therein. Where counsel was unsuccessful in engaging in such consultation, the statement shall recite the efforts made by counsel to engage in consultation."

What you see in most of the motions and cross motions in this case is back and forth arguments regarding rule 37.2 requirements. The parties often present the same e-mail chains as exhibits supporting contrary arguments regarding rule 37.2.

With regard to the depo discussion you mentioned, the depo is under Rule 30(b)6. Basically, when you notice or subpoena an organization, the organization nominates one or more persons to testify on its behalf, and explains what matters the individuals are responsible for testifying about. In other words, a corporate rep.

The dispute between the parties, in a nutshell, is whether or not the parties had agreed to mutual 30(b)6 depos, as well as the issue of joint document production.

The Defendant basically argues that the Court directed the parties to set dates for joint document production, but that the Plaintiff has been obstructing this process by refusing to discuss dates. The Defendant argued to the Court that, under local rule 37.2(2), it had attempted to engage in consultation but was unsuccessful due to no fault of its own, i.e. genuine attempts were made to resolve the dispute, but the Plaintiff refused to engage in fruitful discussion about it.

The Plaintiff basically argues that the Defendant is being obstructive by linking its own discovery obligations to those of the Plaintiff. In other words, the Plaintiff says that the Defendant will deliberately not produce documents until the Plaintiff does so. The Plaintiff argues that there is no basis for this, and that the Defendant is being deliberately obstructive, and thus not meeting its obligations under local rule 37.2. In other words, the Plaintiff says that it is the Defendant's own fault that attempts to engage in consultation were unsuccessful. The depo issue is essentially the same. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant had ample opportunity to produce the custodian for a short deposition via telephone, but refused to do so on the grounds that the parties had agreed to mutual 30(b)6 depositions.

The Defendant has submitted a motion to compel, basically on the grounds that time is running out and the Plaintiff is holding up the show.

The Plaintiff opposes that motion by arguing that the Defendant did not meet its 37.2 requirements, and that the Defendant is the party holding up the show. It says that the Plaintiff has every reason to proceed with discovery in a timely manner, and that the Defendant is the party to whom delay is beneficial. It argues that the Defendant is attempting to delay discovery with unmerited motion practice which requires the Plaintiff to spend time responding to, thus preventing it from proceeding with discovery. The Plaintiff has cross-motioned to compel on the basis that if the Defendant wants to handle failure to produce discovery with motion practice, it is pleased to oblige because the Defendant, despite being a smaller entity with more significant representation, has been even more delinquent in its responsibilities than it has accused the Plaintiff of being.

That should just about sum up what the dispute is about. You'll have to decide for yourself who you agree or disagree with. The above is certainly a summary, and therefore an incomplete picture of the relevant documents, but that is the gist of what each party has argued to the Court.

Thanks Weeble, that was very informative and helped clarify the situation for me.

I enjoy reading the e-mails and thought it odd how informal Plaintiff counsel was in responses. Actually, all parties are more informal than I would expect given the circumstances and the fact that anything they type could wind up strung all over the internet.

I remember thinking "Why would anyone care if you're sitting in your kitchen, reading the e-mail?"

It appears that CH's motion to compel discovery responses was denied. A status hearing is set for 3/20/2012.

GW's legal counsel has submitted the revised complaint. There are some jewels in the document that I'm sure the defense's counsel will have a field day with:

None of the foregoing copyrighted works created in the United Kingdom are
United States works for which registration is required under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)

Yeah because your foreign copyrights hold so much cred here...

Games Workshop also has a large number of well-known unregistered trade
marks (including names of armies, Chapters, and other products) including without limitation:
Adeptus Mechanicus, Assault, Alpha Legion, Black Templars, Blood Angels, Blood Ravens,
Cadian, Carnifex, Chaos Space Marines, Chaplain, Chimera, Crimson Fists, Dark Angel, Death
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 147 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:15404847-7177-8316
9
Watch, Devastator, Dreadnought, Drop Pod, Eldar, Elder Farseer, Eldar Jetbike, Eldar Warlock,
Eldar Seer Council, Empire, Exorcist, Flesh Tearers, Gene Stealer, Grenade Launcher, Halberd,
Heavy bolter, Heresy Armour, Hellhound, High Elf, Hive Tyrant, Horus Heresy, Howling
Banshee, Imperial Fists, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Iron Hands, Jetbike, Jump Pack, Land
Raider, Land Speeder, Legion of the Damned, Librarian, Lightning Claw, Melta, Mk II Armour,
Mk V Armour, Plasma, Predator, Rhino, Salamander, Scorpion, Soul Drinker, Space Wolves,
Stormraven, Storm Shield, Tactical, Techmarine, Termagants, Terminator, Thousand Sons,
Thunder Hammer, Tyrant, Tyranid Warrior.

Emphasis mine. So, why are we here again? Oh yeah, trademark infringement on items that aren't trademarked. Great. But I guess that's where dilution comes in.

Many of the symbols associated with the characters and armies of the
WARHAMMER 40,000 universe, as well as the accessories for these characters and armies,
have also become well-known and immediately recognizable to the many fans of the game as
used on and in connection with the respective characters, including without limitation: skulls,
Wings (eagle wings, angel wings), Lions, Griffon, Triptychs, Broadswords, Skull with horns,
Storm bolter (gun) Sawblade with blood-drop, Clenched fist in a gauntlet, Snakes, Flaming
skulls, Flaming chalice, Salamander, Dragon/salamander scales pattern, Tau Symbol, Tau - Oval
vents, Tau - X marking on power/ammo packs, Tau – circle with diagonal line through it, Tau –
geometric grooves, Roman numerals (combined with) arrows, X crosses and inverted V, Cog,
Iron hands icon – gauntleted left hand shown palm downwards, Overlapping/banded armour,
Wolf fur, Wolf skulls, Wolf tails, Raven wings with blood drop in centre, I symbol (for
Inquisition), Scarab beetles, Spirit stones, Eldar iconography/symbols (seer icons etc), Eldar -
Spirit Stones, Eldar – decorative gems on weapons.

More nonsense, yeah we own such things as broadswords and putting x's on equipment....even skulls with horns...yeah nobody would ever think of that...or decorative gems on weapons; who other than most medieval cultures would think to put gems on weapons?

I especially love this next part:

The very name “Chapterhouse” is a direct reference to Games Workshop’s
proprietary Space Marines characters from the WARHAMMER 40,000 game, each of which
Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 147 Filed: 01/19/12 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:15424847-7177-8316
11
belongs to a specific “Chapter” (of which there are many), with each Chapter having its own
unique expressions, such as its own heraldry and iconography

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Dune was written before GW came along with their Marine "Chapters" and I've never heard "Chapterhouse" mentioned in relation to any GW produced fluff or material (but I admit I haven't ready all that much they produce).

Be sure to read part 37; it cracked me up. Since they allude to ownership of the term "Carnifex" wow, they own the whole Latin language now? Great.

This:

On information and belief, Paulson entered his agreement with Chapterhouse for
the “Super-Heavy Assault Walker” because of an inability to satisfy great consumer demand for
the product, which Chapterhouse now sells at retail for $285

How'd Paulson make it into the amended document? And I thought he had nothing to do with the walker anyway...

Exacerbating the injury to Games Workshop’s reputation, the quality of many of
Defendants’ products is materially inferior to the quality of Games Workshop’s originals, which
will cause injury to Games Workshop’s reputation among purchasers of Defendants’ products in
the original or secondary markets.

LoL. No need for a small company to injure GW's reputation, Finecast did that for them...

I could go on but I'll let you all read and comment. I am still amazed that they're claiming copyright to things that are obviously public domain such as inverted Vs, Xs, snakes, swords, etc...

Wow, how can lawyers so dumb and incompetent make so much money in USA? The judge should stopp them before he makes himself ridiculous.

I guess, Winston & Strawn LLP sees this lawsuit as comical relieve
And Paulson should sue GW for deliberately making false statements about him.

LMFAO, I love the un-regestered, Assault and Skull with Horns.... sorry GW satan wants his Skull with Horns back, you going to send him a C&D or take him to court?

Actually, honestly looking at those motions, this is sad. It's so sad to see the company I once loved just make fools out of themselves this much. I don't think the F&L lawyers are this idotic, this has to be from GWHQ.

In all honesty I just want to know how people can support this company?

I sort of doubt "Carnifex" can be trademarked in any way, shape or form; it refers to at least one geographical location (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnifex_Ferry_Battlefield_State_Park) and a number of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triturus_carnifex)...

agnosto wrote:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Dune was written before GW came along with their Marine "Chapters" and I've never heard "Chapterhouse" mentioned in relation to any GW produced fluff or material (but I admit I haven't ready all that much they produce).

Not to mention the fact that there are Chapterhouses on a number of medieval cathedrals...or considering the english alt rock band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapterhouse) that actually was formed the same year as Rogue Trader was published

GW should protect their IP, trademarks and copyrights, but this is rather ham-fisted and probably damages their long-term ability to do so. It reminds me of the old TSR books where they had slapped TMs and C's on everything from Nazi to Longsword

I think that it is those terms listed in relation to wargaming/modelling/hobbying and GWs games/universes rather than a claim to general usage and language.

I'm surprised that people are surprised at the way law is done. It wouldn't be expensive if they didn't prevaricate everything.

Well known brand in the gaming world? That's a fair point, the brand is immediately recognisable in the gaming world, however two things to point out. The gaming world is way bigger than the fan base of GW and those gamers generally have a far better understanding of what are GW products and what are 3rd party models. Second point, and it's connected to the first point, I would say that 80% of the GW fanbase isn't even aware of other systems or model making companies, so therefore unlikely to confuse Chapterhouse products with GW products.

Anybody who knows about Chapterhouse knows they aren't GW or an arm of GW, so therefore saying that the quality of their products is also affecting the image of GW products is just incredible.

notprop wrote:I'm surprised that people are surprised at the way law is done. It wouldn't be expensive if they didn't prevaricate everything.

Like ... accusing someone who has nothing to do with Chapterhouse to have made a sculpt for them, then after a year making an out of court feal with him letting him go, then again accusing him to have made a sculpt for Chapterhouse? Can't GW be sued for that?

To be fair W&S are the lawyers of Chapterhouse having a fun time, Foley & Lardner LLP are the guys who say that everyone thinks of Sanguinus when reading about angels in the bible.

GW doesn't own skulls and gems and 'banded armour' on wargames figures.

They are seriously over-reaching themselves demanding exclusive ownership of very generic things.

GW seem to been taken in by their own propaganda. They always behave as though they are the only miniatures company in the the world, here they make legal claims that would seem they actually believe it.

They say that the word "chapterhouse" is unacceptable, but it's only obliquely like their stuff. They only have 'chapters', if anything 'chapterhouse' appears elsewhere in literature. Basically GW seem to want to prevent anyone making stuff that partially looks or sounds to have any similarity to their own. That's just not going to wash, GW created their style of Space Marines and Eldar, but they didn't create skulls on armour or gems on swords, or animal furs. You can't hold rights to depicting animal furs.

If GW win this, they could target pretty much any wargames company out there. The claims are ludicrously generic. So hopefully, they'll just look stupid and it'll cost them a lot of money. If they win this, it will grant them a level of power highly detrimental to the rest of the industry, few companies will be safe.

Oh, and they still talk about owning the "inverted V" which in normal language we call a "chevron". Why don't they call a spade a spade? Probably because they know how stupid it is to claim any control over chevrons having been used by everyone from the Spartans to the US army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:

notprop wrote:I'm surprised that people are surprised at the way law is done. It wouldn't be expensive if they didn't prevaricate everything.

Like ... accusing someone who has nothing to do with Chapterhouse to have made a sculpt for them, then after a year making an out of court feal with him letting him go, then again accusing him to have made a sculpt for Chapterhouse? Can't GW be sued for that?

Did Paulson sculpt it or not? If not, was this agreed in the settlement? We don't know, because he's gagged.

No.. Paulson didn't sculpt the walker, a chap over in Australia did, and it was talked about on the Advanced Tau Tactica website for a WHILE when it was a WIP..


http://advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=8367

(look at the last page where he talks about Chapterhouse getting it to produce)