Unfortunately, the bitz service never got off the ground the way they wanted it too. When I worked at GW, they came to my sales department and asked us to come up with different groupings of bitz we would think customers would want. Like 5 heads from this metal model, 10 arms from that model etc.

We started sending groupings with codes, but with personnel changes etc, the plan was pretty much kiboshed.

I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

d-usa wrote:I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Supposedly part of the reason they got rid of it was that the shelves collapsed and pieces got mixed together, with the cost in employee labor and time to resort the entire thing being far, far too excessive.

That's the way I've always heard it at least, couldn't confirm.

Kanluwen wrote:

d-usa wrote:I remember the bitz service that GW had on their website in the late 90's (not sure when they quit). You could basically build your own individual model, perfect for conversions.

I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Supposedly part of the reason they got rid of it was that the shelves collapsed and pieces got mixed together, with the cost in employee labor and time to resort the entire thing being far, far too excessive.

That's the way I've always heard it at least, couldn't confirm.

That wasn't the end of the bitz service, just a really cool sale. I bought 10lbs of metal bitz; that was 2002 or so. Bitz died a number of years later.

d-usa wrote:I am sure that they had a good reason for getting rit of it.

Keeping inventory of every part of every model you currently make is both time consuming, space consuming and money consuming. And replacing that bits service with a smaller service that sells only the 'best seller' items is a far better idea.

Note, they haven't actually done that second part. Instead they have a bloated and borderline useless bits service with overpriced 'conversion packs' that appear to be thrown together with no real mind towards market research, but the first part is true enough.

I think GW's old bitz service is rather moot in light of the fact that sort of cataloging doesn't work as easily with finecast and leaving us wanting for only random plastic sprues, from their current offerings.

GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

KGatch113 wrote:

Unfortunately, the bitz service never got off the ground the way they wanted it too. When I worked at GW, they came to my sales department and asked us to come up with different groupings of bitz we would think customers would want. Like 5 heads from this metal model, 10 arms from that model etc.

We started sending groupings with codes, but with personnel changes etc, the plan was pretty much kiboshed.

Dont they still do this?

I'm pretty sure I have bought 5 packs of meltaguns,plasma guns and some others in the last few years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here we go -

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440339a&rootCatGameStyle=

Not exactly cheap at £6.65 but you'll prolly pay a £1 each from a bitz site.

severedblue wrote:

Emerett wrote:Them not selling a magnetic combi melta requires you to either: buy more of their whole models to make what you need, or buy it from third parties.

So if they remove third parties, it boosts their business model.

I'm inclined to believe you that this may be their tactic. Before the tervigon was released for advanced order, the local GW store manager (who ran Tyranids himself and had them on display in the store) suggested that I buy both a carnifex AND an Arachnarok Spider from the Orcs and Goblins range.

That's $83 AUD + $96 AUD per tervigon! I'm not willing to pay ~AUD$190 per monsterous creature (when I will need 2 or 3 for a competitive list).

It definitely seems to be their business model. I am sure they expect these same gamers who converted tervigons to buy their new model as well. Moreover, they continue to produce expensive new plastic kits that lack options. Take for instance Dark Eldar Scourges. The kit should have included more than one of each special gun. It would have been nice it they included full sets of wings of each type as well.

It is because of this type of situation that gamers buy third party miniatures to use in GW games. It is good to see their greedy sales strategy fail.

mattyrm wrote:Its probably hard to say that GW has lost sales because of CH, because as I said, they dont make most of it. I bought 12 CH combi weapons because the best GW offer is a pack with one combi flamer in and a load of pre heresy bolters.

And therein lies the problem. GW is saying "You copied our stuff," to which CH responds, "What stuff did we copy?" GW is then left in a tough spot.

mattyrm wrote:Thats what I would do If I was in charge, I would monitor their website (CH), use my superior number of sculptors and resources and advertising, and then play them out of the game the hard way. If CH make some magnetic combi-weapons, GW should do the same and make them 50 cents cheaper. Everything they make, you make.

There's two problems with this: First, if they copied CH's work directly GW could be infringing CH's copyright. Second: CH makes small batches so can afford a quick turnaround. The lead time and expense of plastics means GW can't adapt as quickly. Plus, CH can afford to have the occasional bad sculpt in a way that GW cannot.

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

notprop wrote:Dont they still do this?

I'm pretty sure I have bought 5 packs of meltaguns,plasma guns and some others in the last few years.

Yeah, but they don't sell Thousand Sons heads. Wish I had bought more when they had the bits service.

So enlighten a noob like me, why on earth did they stop the bitz service?!

If they sold combi weapons at £2 a pop, I guarantee they would shift literally 10s of thousands of them. I checked ebay for months before I bought my CH stuff and the combi meltas were going for about 3-4 squid a pop. I would happily pay over the odds because I think GWs stuff looks way better. The GW combi-flamer looks brilliant, but I think its only available in one pack isnt it?

Put it this way, Im not hugely into the hobby, but ive got 15 sternguard, and if they were selling individual combi weapons for £2-3 quid a go I would have happily bought ten of the bastards.

Its a false economy if they think making bits hard to get hold of makes people buy more surely? Even a suit at GW HQ must be able to see that people arent going to buy 6 boxes of devestators to get their nice ten man 4 PC dev squad, they are going to buy two boxes and then find the other weapons via ebay and bits websites.

Was there a logical/admin reason for it? Because If not Ima going to take a walk down to Nottingham and beat Jervis with my common sense stick.

Its their buisness model, i have been complaining about it for years now, they sell you 3 wheel cars...

As to lost profits, I will add that it is the plaintiff's burden to prove lost profits, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the damages must be calculated with a "reasonable degree of certainty." In other words, mathematical precision is not required. However, the defendant is very much allowed to present its own evidence, which tends to muddy the water considerably, especially if the plaintiff did something entirely reasonable like perform internal market research about its percentage of market share. Such internal documents are generally viewed to be more "unbiased" than the opinion of an expert being paid hundreds of dollars per hour to generate lost profits in the specific context of litigation, especially considering that the defendant also has its own expert who disagrees with the plaintiff's expert.

And to mattyrm I will sum up my earlier point for your convenience: Ideas are not protected by copyright. The "game" is only protectible insofar as it is expressed in discrete works, which must be copied in order to be infringed. Finding that an accused work infringes an asserted copyright is effectively saying that the two works are the same thing. Hence it is called copyright, not you-took-my-idea-right.

And I will add, mattyrm, that within the above context you should consider the potential significance of your statement: "I would happily pay over the odds because I think GWs stuff looks way better."

As a businessman, I make the assumption that GW discontinued the bitz service because they judged that the same resources would be more profitably employed in some other capacity.

I can see the hassles involved in bitz. It looks like a complete nightmare to maintain the stocks and make up piddling small packages for people.

Things would have got worse the more product was shifted to polystyrene.

aka_mythos had the reason bitz was discontinued spot on in my opinion.

aka_mythos wrote:GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

Why let customers buy individual parts when a lot of them are willing to pay for the entire model just to get that part.

aka_mythos wrote:I think GW's old bitz service is rather moot in light of the fact that sort of cataloging doesn't work as easily with finecast and leaving us wanting for only random plastic sprues, from their current offerings.

GW's bitz service didn't fail because it couldn't make money, it wasn't even a case of not making enough margin. Its that GW saw bitz as a self competeting buisness where through its absence they could sell the entire kit, and not just a piece of a kit. From their perspective, instead of selling 50% of a kit 3 times... if they got rid of bitz and got just 2 of those 3 to buy full kits they've made more than if they continued the bitz service.

This is probley closer to the truth then whatever GW has said in the past.

My Wells; " Why just sell gun #X when we can sell the whole kit and make more money? I mean people will pay 10$-20 dollars for a single model that has a combi-melta so if they need 5 of them thats $100 bucks we have made instead of 5$ for just the gun."

Mr Kirby; " Great Idea! Kills the bitz service now! Anyone who speaks of it again will be banished to Swindon forever. So it has been said so shall it be done."

I think the writing was on the wall once the decision was made to move to plastic being the primary material.

It's one thing to offer bits when you are dealing with actual metal components (the other parts of a kit can be easily reused after all) but who is going to employ some to clip parts from a sprue leaving 90% of it to collect dust which you then have to pay storage on.

This is not really on topic for The Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Lets try to keep this thread alive by not going off topic.

GW stopped selling bits when they started casting them on sprues together with other bits that people might not want so much of.
When it was all metal it was alot easier.

FacelessMage wrote:This is not really on topic for The Chapterhouse lawsuit.

Lets try to keep this thread alive by not going off topic.

Pretty much.

Discussions/speculation/etc. on why GW stopped their bits service can we taken elsewhere, please.

Thanks!

biccat wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?

weeble1000 wrote:As to lost profits, I will add that it is the plaintiff's burden to prove lost profits, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the damages must be calculated with a "reasonable degree of certainty." In other words, mathematical precision is not required. However, the defendant is very much allowed to present its own evidence, which tends to muddy the water considerably, especially if the plaintiff did something entirely reasonable like perform internal market research about its percentage of market share. Such internal documents are generally viewed to be more "unbiased" than the opinion of an expert being paid hundreds of dollars per hour to generate lost profits in the specific context of litigation, especially considering that the defendant also has its own expert who disagrees with the plaintiff's expert.

Sorry, weeble - preponderance of the evidence?

I can understand not needing precise figures - as who can tell exactly what the market will do, after all. This does sound very complicated, however. I take it this isn't something likely to be done during the discovery process?

Weeble is essentially correct, although his explanation is a bit convoluted. The plaintiff has to establish loss and damage as a result of infringement. This is assessed after liability is established. Ideally, you can establish it from existing documents (projections etc), but it's often the subject of expert accounting evidence (because projections can be no more than wishful thinking and there will be many factors that might affect sales). This area can become very complex - there are several acceptable appproaches to calculating loss and damage - and it can be quite difficult to determine which products are affected even once liability is determined. As a rule, courts hate having to decide which expert is right, and noone except the accountants understand the numbers. However, in many cases the main aim is to prove liability. If you can do this, the defendant may be prepared to reach a settlement. You may even be able to put them out of business (I'm not suggesting that this would be GW's aim, or that they would succeed, but these are the normal dynamics of this kind of case).

Dysartes wrote:

biccat wrote:

Dysartes wrote:Actually, that raises a question for the lawyery-types in here - how do you go about proving that you've lost sales due to someone else's actions, generally?

Usually we just assume that any sales made by the infringer would have naturally occurred to the copyright holder. CH sells 100 of miniature X, that's 100 sales GW lost. CH should disgorge their profits.

Other ways include providing historical sales figures and projected sales of a product.

In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?
......

I would suggest that every magnetic combi-weapon sold would be claimed as 3 x (for melta, plasma, flamer non magnetic variants GW sells) whatever kit the GW version appears in (I think I'm right in assuming that GW don't sell seperate packs of combi-weapons. I.e maximising the claim.

The Stormraven expansion would be more difficult but I would expect a suitably obtuse inclusion (lawyers are good at that ).

Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

notprop wrote:I would suggest that every magnetic combi-weapon sold would be claimed as 3 x (for melta, plasma, flamer non magnetic variants GW sells) whatever kit the GW version appears in (I think I'm right in assuming that GW don't sell seperate packs of combi-weapons. I.e maximising the claim.

I read your post as saying GW should get 3x the value of each kit (say, assault marines, $50 or whatever they are now) for each bit?

This is incorrect, because the value of the individual bit CH copied is the actual loss by GW. Theoretically, people who buy the assault marine box will get additional value (7 marines, jump packs, whatever the heck is in the box). So GW would have to establish the value of the individual bit then sue CH for that value x however many sales GW lost out on.

Much easier to simply go after CH's profits for selling those pieces.

Dysartes wrote:In your (non-binding, I-acknowledge-that-you're-not-my-lawyer ) opinion, would they have grounds to claim for lost sales in this sort of case, where products (such as the Stormraven expansion kit or magnetic combi-weapon kit) do not have a direct analogue within GW's line?

If the products infringe on GW's copyright, then yes, GW would be able to recover lost sales in this case.

Whether CH infringes GW's copyright is the whole point of this case. Has GW included the stormraven and combi-weapons? I thought this was mostly about the tyranid and shoulder pads?

Dysartes wrote:preponderance of the evidence?

Evidence showing that it is more likely than not. Basically >50%.

Biccat, but that I figured that GWs lost sale would be the actual retail value of the sale (sorry not up to speed on where the combi-weapon appears).

The 3x would be because the CH kit can cover 3 options, to cover 3 options there might be upto 3 kits required (assuming say that each combi weapon appeared in a different kit) to match that utility. I would suggest this is suitably OTT for an opening gambit. The (reasonable) resolution would be somewhat less that this.

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

I agree completely

The only stuff I really have a problem with is the models (such as the eldar female exarch) which are direct sub-ins for readily available GW models, and are sold as such.

As for the rest of it? It's impossible for me to buy something like a true-scale set, and use it, without buying product from GW, most likely a tactical box. Same too with Maxmini heads and jump packs. What's more, I might not have bought those tactical marines if those Maxmini bits didn't exist. I've lost track of how many comments I have read concerning the StormRaven, "The chapterhouse kit makes it an acceptable model", so if anything a lot of these 3rd party components are actually promoting sale of GW products.

Not only that, but we've had Thunderwolf cavalry and Nid conversion kits which have helped gamers play with those options in their army, when otherwise they have been waiting years for a model to finally appear (and even then, you don't know it's coming until it is practically on top of you).

I realise in legal terms my opinion on this probably holds zero water, and that Chapterhouse and the dozen other companies like them are indeed using IP of GW without their permission (and making money from it). But in general terms and away from GW's perspective, those companies are fulfilling a customer need. If they didn't, then they would have long since closed down without GW's help.

And as I said before, for the most part I don't think these kits are impacting GW's revenue - you still need the GW boxsets to make them work. It might have been more prudent for GW legal, rather than pursuing Chapterhouse and others like them (who are probably only the niche of GW hobbyists, and not costing GW any money), to instead spend their energy to try and stop the increasing number of Russian and Chinese re-casters who are selling actual GW sculpts for a cheaper price, and are far more commonly available than this kind of thing.

But then again, you have to wonder how much money is going into the solicitors pockets, and the people who have advised GW to go for the jugular with this rather than turn a blind eye. Ultimately, they are the only ones who will win in this kind of situation.

Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

notprop wrote:Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

Curse GW for being the only company in the world that sells any of those things!

Kilkrazy wrote:Surely the Stormraven expansion requires the user to buy an original Stormraven kit.

If anything, GW's sales would be increased by the people who don't like the standard design but like the modified design.

Much like the Carnifex plus O&G spider = Tervigon example given earlier in the thread, maybe GW sees it unrealistically as lost sales since you could go with two stormravens kitbashed into one longer non-chibi chassis.

notprop wrote:Actually I have one for the true scale thing now; a CH sale costs GW in Green stuff, glue and sculpting tools. There easy!

That would actually be a tough one because the plaintiff would have to show that each (or at least a majority of) CH kit sold went to a buyer who would have otherwise bought a kit and scratch built a conversion themselves.

biccat wrote:
I read your post as saying GW should get 3x the value of each kit (say, assault marines, $50 or whatever they are now) for each bit?

This is incorrect, because the value of the individual bit CH copied is the actual loss by GW. Theoretically, people who buy the assault marine box will get additional value (7 marines, jump packs, whatever the heck is in the box). So GW would have to establish the value of the individual bit then sue CH for that value x however many sales GW lost out on.

Biccat is correct. What is interesting about this is that there has been some relatively recent precedent in patent law related to this issue in terms of microprocessors that goes back the other way. So let's say that I sell a microprocessor and one bit in it infringes some patent. Well the plaintiff is going to want a percentage of the sales of the microprocessor. But the processor involves a ton of stuff that does not infringe, and the plaintiff is not entitled to that revenue. In order to get the whole kit and caboodle, the plaintiff would have to show that the infringing bit was the single most important thing that drove sales of the product, i.e. people only buy it because of the infringing bit. If that is not the case, you have to use some calculus to determine how much the infringing bit is worth. In the realm of computer chips, one objective way to do this that has been held up in court is by calculating the percentage of space the bit takes up. So if the bit takes up 1% of space on the chip, and the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable royalty of 3%, the plaintiff would get 1% of the 3% of total revenue from the microprocessor.

In civil cases, monetary damages are intended to make you whole; i.e. repair the damage done. If you cut down a tree of mine, what is the tree worth? So in cases where a company does not itself divide up a product , there has to be some calculus to determine the value of the "bit" outside of the context of the entire product. Generally, you need an expert to perform these sorts of analyses because they aren't done in house as they are very specific to the facts of a case.

Edit: I'll add here another point about the nature of copyright law. Copyright, as I have reiterated many times, protects against copies; i.e. the same exact thing. If a work is found to infringe upon the exclusive rights of a copyright holder to make and distribute copies of the asserted work, then legally it is the same thing; it is a copy.

If you sell prints of a painting and I copy your prints and sell them, I am selling prints of your painting. Copyright says I don't have a right to do that. Thus it essentially goes without saying that if someone bought my product, they were buying a print of your painting. So if one finds that the combi-weapon infringes one of the plaintiff's copyrights, the finding is that the combi-weapon is that product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:Biccat, but that I figured that GWs lost sale would be the actual retail value of the sale (sorry not up to speed on where the combi-weapon appears).

The 3x would be because the CH kit can cover 3 options, to cover 3 options there might be upto 3 kits required (assuming say that each combi weapon appeared in a different kit) to match that utility. I would suggest this is suitably OTT for an opening gambit. The (reasonable) resolution would be somewhat less that this.

As Biccat has said, before you get to damages in any civil case, you first have to determine liability. It may help if you consider whether the trouble you are having getting your head around issues related to damages has any relation to issues related to liability.

I don’t think I'm having trouble, just suggesting that 1 CH combi-weapon could be construed as preventing the sale of up to GW 3 kits.

I'll leave recent development in case law to those that know.

I've always wondered on what level of work does GW's copyright reside? Is the sprue the copywrite work? Or is each bit off the sprue, independent of every other piece?

Either way, by virtue of the insubstantial contribution to the overall "work," the sprue... or the independent work of a "combo-weapon" relative to the whole sprue its a small part. So small GW would be hard pressed to actually claim a loss equal to the whole kit. While gamers maybe irrational enough to buy kits for individual pieces, liability determinations have to follow a rational reasoning usually based in proportionality. This is because there is no way to issolate who'd buy just for that piece and who'd buy for just other pieces.

notprop wrote:I don’t think I'm having trouble, just suggesting that 1 CH combi-weapon could be construed as preventing the sale of up to GW 3 kits.

You keep saying 3 kits, but most kits that contain a Bolter-melta also contain a Bolter-plasma(Chaos Lord being an exception).

And I can't think of a kit outside of Chaos Terminators that includes a Bolter-flamer(which ALSO contains a Bolter-melta).

Still, 2 kits at most.

I think notporop means (or at least I gather from the post) that if you wanted 3 combi meltas you would need to buy the kit it comes in 3 times. I think that's what notporop's getting at.

I'd like to thank biccat and weeble1000 again for continuing to provide examples, clarifying different ideas and opinions expressed in this most riveting thread concerning law and practices in our corner of hobby land

mrwhoop wrote:I think notporop means (or at least I gather from the post) that if you wanted 3 combi meltas you would need to buy the kit it comes in 3 times. I think that's what notporop's getting at.

Makes a bit more sense that.

Shows how often I even think about building a squad with multiple combi-weapons.

Platuan4th wrote:And I can't think of a kit outside of Chaos Terminators that includes a Bolter-flamer(which ALSO contains a Bolter-melta).

Does UM Chaplain Cassius still come with his bolter-flamer?

Dysartes wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:And I can't think of a kit outside of Chaos Terminators that includes a Bolter-flamer(which ALSO contains a Bolter-melta).

Does UM Chaplain Cassius still come with his bolter-flamer?

He should last time I saw the model.

Please keep this thread on topic - thanks!

Just a quick question, but now that GW has released the new Tyranid stuff, won't CH's fight be a lot more difficult for them?

Squigsquasher wrote:Just a quick question, but now that GW has released the new Tyranid stuff, won't CH's fight be a lot more difficult for them?

Why? GW hasn't even stated what pieces CHS makes that are infringing in their copyrights so the two are completely unrelated.

Squigsquasher wrote:Just a quick question, but now that GW has released the new Tyranid stuff, won't CH's fight be a lot more difficult for them?

Not at all.

If CH's already-published items are within the scope of copyright infringement of GW's newly-published items, then it is CH, not GW, that owns the copyright to those items.

If CH's already-published items were already within the scope of copyright infringement of GW's preexisting works, then GW still has to make that case.

If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

So hypthetically, IF Gw loses this case and the walls come tumbling down, would Paulson have had a case against GW over the Thunderwolf Kits?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:So hypthetically, IF Gw loses this case and the walls come tumbling down, would Paulson have had a case against GW over the Thunderwolf Kits?

Probably not. I assume Paulson's settlement with GW included some waiver of copyright infringement for Paulson's works. At least, it would if I were GW.

If not, then yes, theoretically Paulson could have a case agaisnt GW. Depends on how similar the works are.

Platuan4th wrote:

notprop wrote:I don’t think I'm having trouble, just suggesting that 1 CH combi-weapon could be construed as preventing the sale of up to GW 3 kits.

You keep saying 3 kits, but most kits that contain a Bolter-melta also contain a Bolter-plasma(Chaos Lord being an exception).

And I can't think of a kit outside of Chaos Terminators that includes a Bolter-flamer(which ALSO contains a Bolter-melta).

Still, 2 kits at most.

Whilst I definitely think that GW have a point here and Im not one of the vocal CH supporters, I think that this is misleading as well. Its like people downloading music, if you download a CD for free, but you think the band are only half decent anyway, you got it cos its free, not because you would have paid £12 for it in a shop.

I mean, I bought loads of CH combi weapons, and I clearly think that they ARE making loads of cash thanks to GWs game, but that doesnt mean I would go out and buy ten Chaplain Cassius just to get ten combi flamers.

If CH didnt exist, I would probably buy 2 or 3 and then badly convert a bunch.

biccat wrote:
If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

Hmm... I think I have issues with this...

Cyporiean wrote:

biccat wrote:
If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

Hmm... I think I have issues with this...

Why do you have issues with biccat's example, unless you were intending to be humorous and I missed it?

Copyright exists (to the extent that a work is protectible) as soon as the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. It is an inherent right, and one that an author must specifically give up if he or she intends to do so. In other words, as soon as you make a work, you are entitled to copyright protection. The work must be original in order to be protected, and is (in simple terms) only protected to the extent that it is original.

The same rules apply to all works, so date of creation is significant. If I create a work before you, your work must be distinct from mine in order to avoid infringing my copyright. Access to a work is also significant, because as copyright protects against copying, you have to have access to a work in order to make a copy of it.

Access to a work can be inferred from a finding of substantial similarity. In other words, if your work is found to be the same as my work, we can logically infer that you had access to my work as how else would you have been able to make a copy? However, a defendant can rebut an inference of access with the affirmative defense of independent creation. The defendant can provide evidence to prove that he or she did not have access to the work, and thus the fact that the two works are the same is a matter of coincidence.

If you want to decide for yourself whether the GW Tervigon model infringes the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit, and you are interested in applying the law to the facts as you find them, you would need to roughly go through the following steps:

Does CHS own the copyright (if any) inherent in the Tervigon Conversion Kit? CHS would have to show ownership of the work, date of creation, etc. You can't bring a copyright infringement suit without being able to prove ownership of a copyright. The burden of such proof therefore rests with the plaintiff. As with just about any legal case, the Defendant is allowed to present its own evidence on an issue, but the burden of proof on any issue rests with one party or another. In the above question it is the plaintiff's responsibility.

Is the CHS work protectible? Note that GW has claimed that the work itself infringes its copyright(s). If that were true, substantial similarity to GW's Tervigon kit would be a moot point as GW would control the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit. It may be a protectible work, but if GW's claim is successful, it would be a copy of GW's protectible work. In theory, these issues would likely be tried together before a single jury as the facts are largely the same.

If the CHS work does not infringe a prior-created GW work, a determination must be made regarding whether the work is an original work of authorship, and if so, to what extent?

Armed with that finding, you would then need to determine whether the GW Tervigon model is substantially similar to the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit, keeping in mind the scope of the copyright as defined by answering the above question.

If you found that the GW Tervigon model was substantially similar to the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit, you could then infer that GW had access to the Tervigon Conversion Kit. However, in this specific theoretical example, there is ample public record demonstrating that GW has had access to the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit. GW accused the kit of infringing its copyright(s), and it would be reasonable to expect that the kit, or an exemplar of it, has been produced in discovery regarding that issue. I don't think access gets much more clear than that. But there could be a question of when GW had access to the work in relation to when it fixed the Tervigon model work in a tangible medium of expression. Remember that date of creation is significant in any copyright infringement case.

I believe GW could rebut a finding of infringement under the above analysis (assuming that you found the works to be substantially similar) by providing evidence to prove a date of creation prior to the creation of the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit. Before you stray too far afield, remember that access is required in order to find infringement, so even if GW could show that its Tervigon model was created prior to the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit, the CHS work could only infringe that work if CHS had access to it prior to creating its work.

Those are basically the steps you would go through for any accusation of copyright infringement. Each step has its own complex nuances, but that is the gist. I think that example will give you an idea about the requirements of proving copyright infringement. The only quirky issue in the above example is that GW has accused the CHS Tervigon Conversion Kit of infringing a copyright that is not the GW Tervigon Model.

weeble1000 wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

biccat wrote:
If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

Hmm... I think I have issues with this...

Why do you have issues with biccat's example, unless you were intending to be humorous and I missed it?

Mostly humorous, but it is incredibly close to my copyrights.

Cyporiean wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

biccat wrote:
If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

Hmm... I think I have issues with this...

Why do you have issues with biccat's example, unless you were intending to be humorous and I missed it?

Mostly humorous, but it is incredibly close to my copyrights.

You own the rights to Bears? Are you some kind of omnipotent being?

Veering off topic again.

Take all conversation not pertaining to this particular topic... elsewhere.

Thanks!

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Cyporiean wrote:

biccat wrote:
If GW suddenly put out Codex: Bears, it would be GW, not Joey, who is infringing a copyright.

Hmm... I think I have issues with this...

Why do you have issues with biccat's example, unless you were intending to be humorous and I missed it?

Mostly humorous, but it is incredibly close to my copyrights.

You own the rights to Bears? Are you some kind of omnipotent being?

Old words of wisdom say, "When someone Asks 'Are you a God?', you say Yes!"

Not to bears in particular, but I do own a copyright on Badgers using Claw based weapons who throw grenades while charging into close combat.

Which I would be happy to talk about in a different thread.

Cyporiean wrote:

Not to bears in particular, but I do own a copyright on Badgers using Claw based weapons who throw grenades while charging into close combat.

I am not trying to pick on you, but I think this is another good opportunity to discuss the nature of copyright law.

What you have described sounds like an unprotectible concept. This is a good example of the difference between a concept/idea and an expression within the context of copyright law. There are many different ways that one could express the idea of badgers using claw based weapons who throw grenades while charging into close combat. You could write a story about it. You could write 100 different stories about it, each deserving its own protection. You could draw pictures of it, sculpt it, compose a symphony about it, etc. And even within those categories there's an amazing potential for originality.

Copyright protects what you actually make and does not extend beyond that. The fact that two works are expressions of badger-inspired creatures that attack with claws and carry grenades does not mean that one has been copied from the other. Your own idea doubtless owes much to the unique work of other authors that came before you, and you, like any author, are well entitled to borrow from, take ideas from, and be inspired by the work of others. What the law says you can't do is copy the work of someone else.

Copying in this context is specifically relegated to the realm of works fixed in a tangible medium of expression. As subjective as copyright law can be, it needs some semblance of a concrete basis. That basis is tangible expression. Copyright remains grounded by being very specifically limited to the realm of things, and specifically excluding the intangible realm of ideas. It may be called "intellectual property" because the idea was formed in your mind, but the only way to measure that idea and compare it to others is in terms of how you fix that idea in a specific expression in a tangible medium. You effectively freeze it in time as a self-contained artifact and gain the limited exclusive right to prevent others from reproducing it.

But what is amazing is that you can do it again, and again, and again, however long you like. You can create and keep creating. Thousands of works can flow forth from your ideas and they are each potentially entitled to protection independently. Copyright helps to encourage this process by allowing an author a means to exert personal control over his creations. What copyright does not do is undermine this process by providing authors an indistinct zone of protection that extends beyond his or her work into the ether of unexpressed and unimagined ideas. Authors do not defend fiefdoms of ideas from within keeps built of tangible expressions. Or, at the very least, copyright law is not written in such a way that this would be a reasonable way to interpret it.

So, with an on-topic query - has there been any progress in the case so far this year?

You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

biccat wrote:You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

I'm sad to hear that biccat, I've found your posts to be highly informative and helped me to understand the legal wranglings behind this case.

*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

It was already covered and disproven.

PhantomViper wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

It was already covered and disproven.

Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

Does this mean in Future GW will not put any reference in it's fluff for stuff it hasn't yet produced? It would stop Third parties beating them to the punch, but it would also limit gamers abilities to make their own interpretations. An interesting premise don't you think?

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:
Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

You are correct in the fact that those kits are made and have been held back from release for quite some time now.
You are also correct in saying that the reason that they were held back was because GW was advised not to release them on the grounds that because CHS had released a Tervigon conversion kit and a Thunderwolf conversion kit, then CHS had a claim to those kits and could sue GW.

This was a blatant mistake on GWs legal team (if indeed it was advice by their legal team that lead to this). GW has since procured new and better legal advice and under that advice released these kits.

CHS had nothing to do with any part of this decision making process since it was all GWs internal dealings, and neither has any agreement been reached on the case as far as I can tell (from reading all the legalese court rullings), or if it has it hasn't been made public in which case I highly doubt your friend would be aware of it (unless he is a personal friend of Mister Kirby for instance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mwnciboo wrote:Does this mean in Future GW will not put any reference in it's fluff for stuff it hasn't yet produced? It would stop Third parties beating them to the punch, but it would also limit gamers abilities to make their own interpretations. An interesting premise don't you think?

No, it means no such thing. This has also been discussed already.

PhantomViper wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:
Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

You are correct in the fact that those kits are made and have been held back from release for quite some time now.
You are also correct in saying that the reason that they were held back was because GW was advised not to release them on the grounds that because CHS had released a Tervigon conversion kit and a Thunderwolf conversion kit, then CHS had a claim to those kits and could sue GW.

This was a blatant mistake on GWs legal team (if indeed it was advice by their legal team that lead to this). GW has since procured new and better legal advice and under that advice released these kits.

CHS had nothing to do with any part of this decision making process since it was all GWs internal dealings, and neither has any agreement been reached on the case as far as I can tell (from reading all the legalese court rullings), or if it has it hasn't been made public in which case I highly doubt your friend would be aware of it (unless he is a personal friend of Mister Kirby for instance).

Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

It was already covered and disproven.

Okay, fair enough but disproven how exactly?
Keeping in mind this is the interwebz and that disproving something could just mean if enough people debunk it then it's not truthz.
Seriously though, on what grounds was this disproven?
I doubt the guy who told me would have lied to me.

As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

http://chapterhousestudios.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=81
Can you show me the Tyrant wings chapterhouse has that stopped that kit from being released?

Regardless - what you've said has been covered in this thread, and debunked in this thread. Your source probably heard a rumor and has latched onto it like gold.
The lawsuit hasn't fallen through. It hasn't been dismissed.
You should probably actually read the 70+ pages of this thread.

rigeld2 wrote:You should probably actually read the 70+ pages of this thread.

<Seconded.>

The thread has made it this far because it has remained topical & informative. Part of that is avoiding the need to repeat conversations every few pages.

The lawsuit hasn't "fallen through" - it's an ongoing legal dispute. If and when it does terminate, there are legal mechanisms in place that will make that clear.

SPARKEYG wrote:

biccat wrote:You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

I'm sad to hear that biccat, I've found your posts to be highly informative and helped me to understand the legal wranglings behind this case.

I'm going to second SPARKEYG's position here, biccat - though thanks for the link.

Last downloadable document seems to be from January, so it doesn't look like there's been much movement recently.

biccat wrote:You're free to follow the case at recap the law.

I'm not going to bother posting updates or anything else in this thread anymore, for personal reasons.

This I am really upset at hearing this, yours and Weeble's posts have been some of the best posts I have ever read. Thank you for putting your two cents in on this I have really enjoyed reading your thoughts and interpritation of the law.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:
Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him. Maybe he's been drawn into a rumour floating around HQ but until GW makes something public, I'll take his word for it :3

I think it'll be very widely known if the case 'falls through', not a rumour creeping out of HQ to your mate.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

Although many of the issues you have raised have been discussed previously, I will rehash the facts succinctly for the convenience of readers.

The lawsuit was filed by Games Workshop Limited in US Federal court, Northern District of Illinois. As the alleged copyrights asserted by the plaintiff are for the most part not registered US copyrights, UK law controls proof of ownership, as per the Berne Convention. In any case, US and UK copyright laws are very similar.

According to the public record, to date Chapterhouse Studios has no causes of action against Games Workshop. Additionally, the lawsuit is ongoing and has not been resolved. The Court's most recent scheduling order is as follows:

“Fact discovery closed 3/15/12. Rule 26(a)(2) by 5/1/12. Rebuttal to 26(a)(2) by 6/15/12. Expert discovery closed by 7/13/12. Dispositive motions with supporting memorandum to be filed by 8/14/12. The final pretrial order to be filed 10/19/12. A final pretrial conference is set for 11/20/12 at 3:30 p.m. Trial is set for 12/3/12 at 9:45 a.m. These are real and final dates.”

The questions regarding Games Workshop's most recent product releases have to do with the nature of trademark law. This is how trademarks work:

Trademarks identify a good or service. They mark goods for trade.

In the US, trademarks are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, trademarks exist as soon as they are used in commerce, to the extent that they are valid and enforceable marks. Thus, one can attempt to enforce an unregistered trademark so long as the mark is being used in commerce. In advance of actually offering a good or service, a party can file an intention to use a trademark, thus putting the public on notice that the mark will shortly be used in commerce. This provides a period of protection even when the mark has not yet been used in commerce.

The word "Tervigon" is not a registered trademark. The word "Tervigon" is currently being used in commerce by both parties in the lawsuit. Neither party has claimed that a "Tervigon" mark has been infringed. Games Workshop has accused the Chapterhouse Studios "Tervigon Conversion Kit" product of infringing a copyright. This claim has only to do with the visual appearance of the product as a sculptural work of art, and has nothing to do with the mark under which it is sold.

Those are the facts. They conflict with the objectively erroneous inferences that you posted.

Thanks for the summary, weeble! The dates are good... I can't believe how long these things take. But this means we'll see a trial before the year is out, IF it's going to go to trial, or they'll have to settle before that date- right?

Fact discovery closed 3/15/12. Rule 26(a)(2) by 5/1/12. Rebuttal to 26(a)(2) by 6/15/12. Expert discovery closed by 7/13/12. Dispositive motions with supporting memorandum to be filed by 8/14/12. The final pretrial order to be filed 10/19/12. A final pretrial conference is set for 11/20/12 at 3:30 p.m. Trial is set for 12/3/12 at 9:45 a.m. These are real and final dates.

I am no lawyer as you will soon see...

In 147.0 SECOND AMENDED complaint by Games Workshop Limited agains... it states
"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to
all issues so triable in this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:"

If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

Should have gone for trial by combat.

Bex wrote:If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

A Jury is more likely to be swayed by testimony regarding 'fairness' than a judge. They're not experts on IP law, and depending on the quality of each party's counsel, they could be persuaded (despite what the letter of the law says) to think "wow, those do look similar, obviously CHS is copying"... like many people in this thread.

Weeble, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't GW still not stated which specific works are allegedly being infringed upon? And has GW even shown proof of copyright to any of their works?

Furthermore, if GW has no valid copyrights in the US, can I go out and copyright one of these Doombulls sitting on my desk?

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:*IMPORTANT*

Didn't feel like going through 70+ pages to find out if this has been covered but:

I was told by one of guys down at my local GW that the lawsuit fell through due to CH being such a small company compared to GW and the fact GW are Brits and CH are American (different judgment system).
GW can't sue them, but they did reach an agreement regarding copyright and that's why GW have only now released the Hive Tyrant with Wings and the Thunderwolves.

In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

That's why the lawsuit fell through, considering the fact intellectual property isn't a patent or signed document stating what it actually regards.

Keep in mind, that's what I was TOLD by an inside source who visits HQ quite often as HQ is actually quite near my hometown.

Another piece of evidence that confirms this is the fact the Tyrant and other 2nd wave Nids are multi-part plastic and not Finecast. Same with the Thunderwolves. That's because they've been sat on a shelf since before Finecast was implemented which also matches the time CH have been selling Thunderwolves and Tyrant wings.

Again, sorry if this has been covered but there it is.

See weebles post for information about the Chapterhouse situation. However one thing to note which might have caused this mistake would be Paulson. He got dragged into this mess as well, but got separated out. There was some deal made between GW and him which he cannot write about. GW did post to their website a blurb which seemed to be just marketing "we proved our IP and cut things from the other side".

d-usa wrote:Should have gone for trial by combat.

Winner!

Trasvi wrote:

Bex wrote:If I am correct GW is the Plaintiff, why good is trial by jury for them?

Wouldn't trial by Jury see it as a large corp trying to pick on a little guy, you know with all the 1% stuff and the slow rebuilding economy that is going on here state side?

Is this a stall tacit? Is it a way for them to be able to file for an appeal later? Is it reverse psychology, does GW think by saying "We demand it" the judge will just say no?

A Jury is more likely to be swayed by testimony regarding 'fairness' than a judge. They're not experts on IP law, and depending on the quality of each party's counsel, they could be persuaded (despite what the letter of the law says) to think "wow, those do look similar, obviously CHS is copying"... like many people in this thread.

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

I have to wonder if GW has requested a jury trial because GW actually believes their case to be weak. I wonder if the jury request was made because they believe they have a better chance to win by pursuading an uninformed group of "peers" rather than convincing a judge who is an expert in copyright law.

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Aerethan wrote:Weeble, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't GW still not stated which specific works are allegedly being infringed upon? And has GW even shown proof of copyright to any of their works?

Furthermore, if GW has no valid copyrights in the US, can I go out and copyright one of these Doombulls sitting on my desk?

GW has few copyrights registered in the US. Copyright is an intrinsic right and must specifically be abandoned or transferred by the author of a work. Lack of registration requires the plaintiff to prove ownership. As the works were allegedly created in the UK, it means one would go to UK law to determine ownership. UK law and US law are slightly different regarding ownership, but I am not familiar enough with the details to adequately explain it.

So no, you couldn't get a copyright on the Doombulls on your desk, or at least you wouldn't be able to enforce it very well as you aren't really the author of that work. The works were protected by copyright the moment that they were "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Who owns the copyright, and the extent of what is protectable would be issues that would come up when the rights were asserted.

As to what specific works GW has asserted against CHS, discovery is largely not a matter of public record. The Court ordered GW to produce the best available exemplars of the asserted works, so presumably GW will be limited to the works for which it has produced an exemplar. The best you have on the public record right now is Games Workshop's claim chart, which was produced many months ago. That chart lists the accused works in one column and the asserted copyright it has infringed in the other. However, the chart is not very enlightening as it lists things such as "Games Workshop sells products decorated with piles of skulls." The chart has been attached as an exhibit to several motions from both parties. You can find a copy in document 83.2, Exhibit 3. The chart was allegedly responsive to one of the defendant's interrogatories, but I do not recall which one specifically. That information is in the public record because it has been referred to by both parties and even quoted, but you'll have to dig it out if you are interested.

As for proof of ownership, that issue has been discussed by both parties in many of the most recent motions to the court. The short version is that CHS requested discoverable documents demonstrating proof of ownership. GW says that it produced responsive documents. CHS does not think the documents that have been produced are responsive. I believe the judge ruled on the issue at some point. You'll have to consult the public record. In any case, on Feb 23rd the Court ruled that:

"Both sides are to serve sworn verifications of completeness of responses to written discovery by 3/2/2012."

Those have obviously been served by this point and are in the record.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hena wrote:However one thing to note which might have caused this mistake would be Paulson. He got dragged into this mess as well, but got separated out. There was some deal made between GW and him which he cannot write about. GW did post to their website a blurb which seemed to be just marketing "we proved our IP and cut things from the other side".

Good call Hena. The guy might have been confusing the Paulson situation with Chapterhouse Studios.

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

rigeld2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

Exactly!

Unfortunately, it happens all the time.

I used to work in the highly litigious field of Golf Ball R&D and the LAST thing we wanted was for a case to have to go to a jury trial.

Most juries don't do well with anything 'highly technical'...

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Ah, that's an interesting question. The Court will instruct jurors as to the law and it will make rulings prior to trial to limit the presentation of evidence to that which is material to the issues and not unfairly prejudicial. Counsel for both parties will likewise explain the law to the jury.

The jury is charged to apply the law to the facts as they find them. The Court can overturn a jury verdict that is inconsistent with the law. Additionally, before trial the Court will hear dispositive motions and may decided some issues as a Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL). Such a determination finds that no reasonable person appropriately applying the law to the facts could come up with a different decision.

Conceptually, a jury is able to bring collective wisdom to bear on an issue. As a whole, the group is able to make fair, informed decisions of greater value than any single member of the group would be capable of. So too, the jury system encourages a group of unbiased individuals to serve. Those with biases that would unduly influence their opinions about a case are in theory culled. Finally, counsel from both sides are typically allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, that is, they can dismiss a juror without having to explain why.

These processes are intended to result in a group of uninterested, unbiased peers that will come to an objective decision by appropriately applying the applicable law to the facts as they find them.

However as a trial consultant I can fairly tell you that this process never functions in a perfectly ideal manner. This is one reason why I have a job. Even so, the jury system in the United States is one of the best in the world. As an attorney friend of mine is wont to say, it works correctly 95% of the time. While that remaining 5% may be scary to consider, it is a very low margin.

Complicated cases, such as patent cases, place a great deal of strain on the system. They don't break the system, but they are significantly more difficult to present to a jury because in many cases, few of the parties involved are experts in the subject matter and there is often a great deal at stake. For example, like copyrights, a patent must be interpreted. An inventor is allowed to use terms in the patent how he or she wishes, so long as there is a basis in the patent for that definition. I hope you can see how this has the potential to cause a significant amount of problems.

Before trial, the claims of a patent must be interpreted. This is inevitably a mixed issue of law and fact. The scope of a patent claim is a matter of law, but to define that scope one must interpret the facts. The Court is responsible for defining this scope as a matter of law, but the Judge is often not an expert in the field. Therefore each party typically suggests interpretations to the Court, supported by expert testimony, which is in many ways an interpretation of the facts, and thus the province of the finder of fact; the jury. And yet the jury should not be defining the scope of the patent. The scope of the patent has already been defined by the claims, sanctioned by the USPTO when the patent was issued. The claims stand as they are written...but what that language means within the context of the patent is at issue. Should the plain and ordinary meaning of a word be used, is the word understood by a person skilled in the art to have a certain meaning apart from the plain and ordinary meaning, or did the inventor use the word in a particular way and give it a particular meaning apart from the plain and ordinary meaning? And once the Court construes a claim, the finder of fact is left holding that baggage.

I once saw a jury spend more than an hour discussing the meaning of one word in the Court's claim construction, which was itself an interpretation of one phrase in the patent intended to make the meaning of that phrase clear to the jury. In many ways, the whole case came down to this discussion because this was the only claim element with which the parties had a dispute. The defendant admitted that the accused product met all other elements of the claim. Now, this is not unusual in the world of patent law because the invention is often an improvement over existing technology. Thus, many elements of a claim describe things already in the prior art. The invention may simply be the one part that is new and useful. You can invent a better mouse trap, but to describe how it works will likely require you to describe many parts that are common to all mouse traps.

weeble1000 wrote:Lots of interesting and pertinent stuff

Thanks for your reply weeble.

So, in your opinion, what does GW have to gain by making this a trial by jury? Is their case really so weak from a technical standpoint that at this point they are willing to throw it all on a "roll of the dice" so to speak?

Well that was an abrupt departure by biccat...

rigeld2 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

Welcome to US law.

I would like to see the court case on Judge Judy. I bet she could make a good decision.

Well Judge Judy is a law unto herself and is nothing but a low level Civil judge sorting out minor issues. That programme is a joke. Could you imagine it in the UK "Lord Justice Blinkington-Smythe" just wouldn't work would it, they could do it in Magistrates as a Justice of the Peace. That could be entertaining.

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

Saldiven wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

I agree with the distinction in principle, but their is a difference between lying to your children about Santa Claus and various little white lies and lying underoath or admitting under oath to have deceived people. This is a matter of public record especially if the witness in question has a criminal record and therefore is entirely relevant, reasonable and pertinent to the swaying of a jury of sworn impartial peers to make a decision about the veracity of someones testimony.

There is no real alternative to Jury's for complex financial cases and highly technical cases, we just have to put our faith in our own people and the ability of Legal Professionals to articulate their complex issues in a way that the lowest common denominator can understand.

Saldiven wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Very true; juries are notorious for being swayed by appeals to emotion and the logically fallacious arguments that are so common in courtroom preceedings (such as pointing out that someone has lied in the past, thereby attempting to impune their current testimony. This is an argumentum ad hominem; their past lies do not address the veracity of their current statements, much as we emotionally think they should.).

It does bring into question their integrity and it is not unreasonable test of a jury of Peers to think on whether their testimony is worthy or not.

The problem with that line of court testimony is that, frankly, everyone has lied in the past. If the fact that someone has lied in the past means their testimony is suspect, then all testimony is suspect.

Additionally, if someone said, "1 + 1 = 2," an attorney would look pretty silly by saying, "Well, you can't trust them, they've lied in the past." The fact that someone has lied in the past doesn't address the statement they are making now; that's why it's considered a logical fallacy. However, it is often easier to prove someone has lied in the past than it is to prove their current testimony is inaccurate. Also, the ad hominem attack is a very seductive argument; if you can paint someone making testimony in an unflattering light, it is relatively easy to get an unsophisticated juror to view the testimony itself in the same light.

However that type of trick can also backfire if you come up against someone who answers every question completely honestly, no matter how badly it paints them.

Go Omar! http://youtu.be/oYj7q_by_2E

d-usa wrote:Should have gone for trial by combat.

A knife fight to the death in a back alley between Nick and Jervis. I would pay good money to watch that

Henners91 wrote:Well that was an abrupt departure by biccat...

Yes, well, like I said, personal reasons. As in, not something I'm going to discuss in the thread. I figured it was easy to simply state it up front.

weeble1000 has been doing most of the heavy lifting on this thread, and is doing a supurb job of it.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:In reality, GW have had the 2nd wave Nids and Space Wolves sat on a shelf for quite some time now whilst the lawsuit was being filed.
Chapterhouse claimed that the intellectual property regarding Tyrant wings and Thunderwolves was written and only existed in written-form. Using this loophole, they *created* both items and claimed intellectual property on the models/model parts they'd created which is why GW couldn't release their versions as CH could then counter-sue them for using their intellectual property.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:[Well, as I said, he's no liar and visits HQ as it's only a couple of hours from our hometown.
What he told me is solid logic any any case and I believe him.

Well, for a start, Chaperhouse never planned or actually created Tyranid Wings or Thunderwolf conversion kits. If your friend told you so, he lied and/or has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. Sorry to bring you the bad news.

PhantomViper wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:Lots of interesting and pertinent stuff

Thanks for your reply weeble.

So, in your opinion, what does GW have to gain by making this a trial by jury? Is their case really so weak from a technical standpoint that at this point they are willing to throw it all on a "roll of the dice" so to speak?

Those are interesting questions, but I can't comment about the case. At this point my participation in this and other such discussions is limited to information about the law in general and reiterating the facts of the case, to the extent that they have been made publicly available, for the convenience of those who would otherwise have to consult the public record. Although I do encourage those interested in the case to consult the record.

If you have any questions about the applicable law, I can help to give you an answer to the best of my knowledge, although I am not an attorney. The best I can say is that a bench trial is a different sort of beast than a jury trial, but the two are not as different as you might think. Even Federal Judges are people much like any juror. I have worked cases wherein deciding between a bench trial and a jury trial was a significant issue, and I have worked them when it is not a significant issue. I could be wrong about this, but I believe the Defendant in a case like this has rights to a jury trial and can assert them even if the Plaintiff makes no such demand.

In any event, the question is mostly moot because both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this case have made a jury demand.

PhantomViper wrote:But how can a case that should ultimately be decided by precise interpretations of a highly technical law be fairly tried by 12 (13?) people that have absolutely no expertise on that law?

If that confuses you, seeing how lawyers pick juries might make your head explode.

I'm not entirely sure of how things work in the states, but given that the commonwealth and former commonwealth countries are principled on the same system of governance, I feel confident in giving a canadian perspective. Trial by jury does not occur every time there is a trial. It's a myth perpetuated by bad television. In fact, the vast majority of cases are settled of court or even in non-court settings (even if a judge or a master is sitting in on say, a judicial dispute resolution, or other similar meeting set for resolving a matter).

Even then, not every case may warrant a trial by jury, if it's something sufficiently mundane, it may get rammed through the court without the jury, because if you can cut most of the crap out of the proceeding, the trial goes much faster. Trial by jury does not happen in every case. Anyway, I have the distinct feeling it's simply too soon to be talking about a trial here, and if this case does go to trial.... something has gone ridiculously wrong, because I simply don't see the courts as willing to entertain this kind of.... crap... when the court has so many more important cases to try. Trials are messy things that are hard to get, and though there is a pretending of "first come first serve" basis, more important things than this will get preference by the courts or the trial coordinator when trials are being booked.

While you're right, I believe GW is requesting a trial by jury - which they have every right to do.

I forsee twelve tired and very bored jurors by the end of this trial.

Breotan wrote:I forsee twelve tired and very bored jurors by the end of this trial.

depends on who gets picked. If these fora are anything to go by, then there could be quite a few hung juries. GW's best interest is to keep ruthless cutthroat business types.... in which case you may actually be right, as this is more than likely beneath them.

@rigeld2
requests appeals and motions all have the fundamental problem of needing to be allowed by the court. This could potentially be the same issue. Then there's also whether or not the court will try this or dismiss this out of hand, which, I'm not actually sure of the precedent for that happening....... time to play dat waiting game again....

I reckon a jury would side with GW wouldn't they?

The case seems pretty simple spelled out like that.

In 1987 a company made a game, said game is played by millions of people, then in 200X CHS started making bits for said game and making money selling them.

Pretty much boils down to that doesn't it? Regardless of our feelings on the matter, (GW is probably too aggressive regarding defending their IP) If CHS was making pieces for Monopoly then I think Hasbro would walk the case. Just because 40k isnt as well known, doesn't mean that CHS isn't making money thanks to someone else's invention.

It's more like:
200 BC Romans invented a number system. Since 1987, GW claims copyright on it but refuses to provide any documents supporting their claim, but tries to shut down Chapterhouse for using Roman numbers. They also claim copyright on arrows, fur, wings and Moorcock's Chaos symbol. They also accused an obviously wrong and arbitrary person to have sculpted a model and still claim it even after settling this specific case out of court.

Or in other words: If even GW's lawyers can't provide any details on what Chapterhouse might have done wrong, the case is not already won for GW. They can be glad that the case was not already dismissed as nonsense that maliciously cloggs the courts.

In other words, no, it isn't obvious that GW will "auto win" a jury trial!

Alpharius wrote:In other words, no, it isn't obvious that GW will "auto win" a jury trial!

Mate, explain how the feth you got me saying GW would "auto-win" from

I reckon a jury would side with GW wouldn't they?

don't you recall the romans passing on their numeric system unto GW?

Kroothawk wrote:It's more like:
200 BC Romans invented a number system. Since 1987, GW claims copyright on it but refuses to provide any documents supporting their claim, but tries to shut down Chapterhouse for using Roman numbers. They also claim copyright on arrows, fur, wings and Moorcock's Chaos symbol. They also accused an obviously wrong and arbitrary person to have sculpted a model and still claim it even after settling this specific case out of court.

Or in other words: If even GW's lawyers can't provide any details on what Chapterhouse might have done wrong, the case is not already won for GW. They can be glad that the case was not already dismissed as nonsense that maliciously cloggs the courts.

Oh come on, that's ridiculously unlike the facts of the matter. If CH make "combi weapons" for use with Space Marines in Warhammer 40k, how the feth is that Games Workshop attempting to patent fur and numbers? They might not be called "Games Workshop Combi Weapons for 40k by Chapterhouse" but thats exactly what 99% of purchasers used them for, so why be so deliberately obtuse?

This is another case of me saying common sense things and you saying silly things because of a personal distaste for GW. One of us is being impartial (me) and one of us isnt. (You)

I have no desire to see CH stop trading (check my gallery) and I think that GW are indeed far too aggressive with their lawyers, but can we stick to saying sensible things yes?

Me pointing out that CH make products that are 100% intended for use in Warhammer 40k is feth all like saying "Games Workshop want to claim IP on Roman numbers" so why say it?

mattyrm wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:It's more like:
200 BC Romans invented a number system. Since 1987, GW claims copyright on it but refuses to provide any documents supporting their claim, but tries to shut down Chapterhouse for using Roman numbers. They also claim copyright on arrows, fur, wings and Moorcock's Chaos symbol. They also accused an obviously wrong and arbitrary person to have sculpted a model and still claim it even after settling this specific case out of court.

Or in other words: If even GW's lawyers can't provide any details on what Chapterhouse might have done wrong, the case is not already won for GW. They can be glad that the case was not already dismissed as nonsense that maliciously cloggs the courts.

Oh come on, that's ridiculously unlike the facts of the matter. If CH make "combi weapons" for use with Space Marines in Warhammer 40k, how the feth is that Games Workshop attempting to patent fur and numbers? They might not be called "Games Workshop Combi Weapons for 40k by Chapterhouse" but thats exactly what 99% of purchasers used them for, so why be so deliberately obtuse?

This is another case of me saying common sense things and you saying silly things because of a personal distaste for GW. One of us is being impartial (me) and one of us isnt. (You)

I have no desire to see CH stop trading (check my gallery) and I think that GW are indeed far too aggressive with their lawyers, but can we stick to saying sensible things yes?

Me pointing out that CH make products that are 100% intended for use in Warhammer 40k is feth all like saying "Games Workshop want to claim IP on Roman numbers" so why say it?

But GW has not even declared that "combi weapons" were infringed. They have not given a clear list of what, if anything, was actually infringed.

Heck dice are made to be used in Warhammer 40K so are they infringing? Just because something can be used in a game system does not mean that it is infringing on said game system.

This year long case may actually become just a little clearer when GW actually releases a list of what it is they are accusing Chapterhouse of copying.

d-usa wrote:

Heck dice are made to be used in Warhammer 40K so are they infringing?

Do you really want me to answer that?

Chapterhouse (I happily buy from them) have sections on their website "Space Marine bits" "Tyranid bits" "Imperial Guard bits"

So there is no need for you, or anybody else to say "Oh look Matty thinks that GW own copyright on fresh air and fur! LOL!" because

a) Everyone can read exactly what I type. It's just above this post.
b) I didn't even say anything remotely of the sort
c) Tyranids are a race invented by GW for use in a GW game. If CHS and GW were arguing about fething numbers, fur, or any of the other ridiculous things I didn't actually say (I didn't, just scrolll up and have a look) you might have a point, but when CHS put their items for sale under headings like "Tyranid Bits" and "Imperial Guard bits" there isnt any argument whatsoever you can make to defend your position.

In short, if they even attempted to hide the fact that they make things for other game systems (to their credit they dont, which is why the items are listed under the games systems they should be used for Space Marine bits etc) you would have a point. But they don't, so you don't. If CHS are more than happy to advertise the fact that they make bits specifically for use in 40k why on earth are people not a part of the company (you and Kroot for example) attempting to argue a stance that CHS themselves dont take?!

There are maybe ten people on this entire board who have a bizarre desire to side against GW in some sort of personal quest. I remain entirely impartial and have no desire to see CHS stop trading, and yet when three or four of you get together and say laughable things like "GW want to patent numbers" I get called a troll or accused of being a majority shareholder in Games Workshop for pointing out that your argument is pitifully easy to refute and utterly at odds with the facts?

I dont get it....

Because "we make bits that can be used on Space Marines" is not infringing?

And if "we make parts that can be used on Space Marines" is infringing, then making dice that see if Space Marines hit with their weapons could be considered infringing as well.

You may hold trademarks and copyrights on stuff, but that does not mean that people cannot make additional stuff for it. Chapterhouse is not making Space Marines, they are making stuff FOR Space Marines.

I am not anti-GW, in fact I think they do a lot of great stuff. I am not a fanboi nor a white knight. I just have a problem with companies using wrong interpretations of IP law (intentional or not) to scare people with C&D letters knowing that even if these after market companies are right they will not have the money to fight. If a company I like is doing somethingi that I think is wrong, then I will say something.

There are plenty of companies who make car parts who define what cars it can be used for. GWs case does rest on proving CH is infringing their IP which to many people may seem like trying to prove they have copyright over roman numerals and upside down letters of the greek alphabet.

Not much to get.

d-usa wrote:Because "we make bits that can be used on Space Marines" is not infringing?

You may hold trademarks and copyrights on stuff, but that does not mean that people cannot make additional stuff for it. Chapterhouse is not making Space Marines, they are making stuff FOR Space Marines.

I am not anti-GW, in fact I think they do a lot of great stuff. I am not a fanboi nor a white knight. I just have a problem with companies using wrong interpretations of IP law (intentional or not) to scare people with C&D letters knowing that even if these after market companies are right they will not have the money to fight. If a company I like is doing somethingi that I think is wrong, then I will say something.

Well then we occupy almost the exact ground, I dont think CHS should be forced to stop trading, I just think that they clearly do make plenty of their income due to the existence of another companies game.

I was probably more directing my ire at Kroots absrurd statement. I just read his post again..

mattyrm wrote: I just think that they clearly do make plenty of their income due to the existence of another companies game.

Doesn't mean anything. allmakes4x4 make most of their income due to the existence of landrover, there is nothing illegal about that in itself.

ifStatement wrote:There are plenty of companies who make car parts who define what cars it can be used for. GWs case does rest on proving CH is infringing their IP which to many people may seem like trying to prove they have copyright over roman numerals and upside down letters of the greek alphabet.

Not much to get.

But how can it possibly be that when GW and CHS arent arguing about numbers of alphabet letters?!

What Kroot said was flat out wrong and ridiculous because neither company is arguing about numbers and letters, they are arguing about actual products and named trademarks such as "Imperial Guard" "Tyranids" and "Land Raider" not anything as stupidly wide ranging as numbers and letters.

Seriously, go look at CHS website. They sell Space Marine Land Raider doors and Blood Raven shoulder pads, so why on earth is Kroot (or anyone) arguing about numbers and letters when CHS themselves are happy to write in black and white what their products are intended to be used for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are essentially arguing on CHS behalf, about an issue that CHS aren't even disputing.

Matty just do us all a favour and read through the thread - it might take you a while but this whole line of thought and reasoning has been discussed ad nauseam and explained in great length by people who actually know what they are talking about as regards IP law, rather than the rest of us are just looking at it from a layman's perspective.

mattyrm wrote:

d-usa wrote:Because "we make bits that can be used on Space Marines" is not infringing?

You may hold trademarks and copyrights on stuff, but that does not mean that people cannot make additional stuff for it. Chapterhouse is not making Space Marines, they are making stuff FOR Space Marines.

I am not anti-GW, in fact I think they do a lot of great stuff. I am not a fanboi nor a white knight. I just have a problem with companies using wrong interpretations of IP law (intentional or not) to scare people with C&D letters knowing that even if these after market companies are right they will not have the money to fight. If a company I like is doing somethingi that I think is wrong, then I will say something.

Well then we occupy almost the exact ground, I dont think CHS should be forced to stop trading, I just think that they clearly do make plenty of their income due to the existence of another companies game.

I was probably more directing my ire at Kroots absrurd statement. I just read his post again..

Yeah, I think we are pretty close.

I think the steps that Chapterhouse has taken so far have been good. I think they used to advertise things like "Space Marine Rhino Doors", and have since switched things to say stuff like "Doors that can be used on Space Marine Rhinos TM by GW".

I think CH used to be a little bit more blatant with their "We are in the right and GW can't do anything about it" feelings. And GW of course came out of the gate very strong. So from the beginning this was a very polarizing case and that probably doesn't help peoples feelings about it.

Like I said earlier, it will be interesting to actually see some sort of document that shows exactly HOW GW thinks CH is infringing or copying their stuff. That would probably move things a lot more than the legal back and forth we have seen so far.

mattyrm wrote:

ifStatement wrote:There are plenty of companies who make car parts who define what cars it can be used for. GWs case does rest on proving CH is infringing their IP which to many people may seem like trying to prove they have copyright over roman numerals and upside down letters of the greek alphabet.

Not much to get.

But how can it possibly be that when GW and CHS arent arguing about numbers of alphabet letters?!

What Kroot said was flat out wrong and ridiculous because neither company is arguing about numbers and letters, they are arguing about actual products and named trademarks such as "Imperial Guard" "Tyranids" and "Land Raider" not anything as stupidly wide ranging as numbers and letters.

Seriously, go look at CHS website. They sell Space Marine Land Raider doors and Blood Raven shoulder pads, so why on earth is Kroot (or anyone) arguing about numbers and letters when CHS themselves are happy to write in black and white what their products are intended to be used for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are essentially arguing on CHS behalf, about an issue that CHS aren't even disputing.

You seem to have taken an interest in this topic. There is a link on the previous page or so to recap the law, which has many of the documents in the case. They are an interesting read. You would be surprised to learn that GW is arguing over numbers, and letters. This is why Kroothawk brought it up.

There are also some very informative posts in this thread on i.p. law. You just have to dig to find them.

filbert wrote:Matty just do us all a favour and read through the thread - it might take you a while but this whole line of thought and reasoning has been discussed ad nauseam and explained in great length by people who actually know what they are talking about as regards IP law, rather than the rest of us are just looking at it from a layman's perspective.

Righto... No sense flogging a long dead horse.

mattyrm wrote:

filbert wrote:Matty just do us all a favour and read through the thread - it might take you a while but this whole line of thought and reasoning has been discussed ad nauseam and explained in great length by people who actually know what they are talking about as regards IP law, rather than the rest of us are just looking at it from a layman's perspective.

Righto... No sense flogging a long dead horse.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to have a go, it's just that at this point, we don't want to get an interesting and informative thread derailed or locked by repeating circular arguments and reasoning. Filter the thread by Weeble or Biccat's posts - I'm pretty sure one or both of them have addressed the issue at some point.

The crux of it is that what might you might think is obvious infringement as an outsider looking in, is not necessarily true in IP law (and vice versa obviously).

mattyrm wrote:

ifStatement wrote:There are plenty of companies who make car parts who define what cars it can be used for. GWs case does rest on proving CH is infringing their IP which to many people may seem like trying to prove they have copyright over roman numerals and upside down letters of the greek alphabet.

Not much to get.

But how can it possibly be that when GW and CHS arent arguing about numbers of alphabet letters?!

What Kroot said was flat out wrong and ridiculous because neither company is arguing about numbers and letters, they are arguing about actual products and named trademarks such as "Imperial Guard" "Tyranids" and "Land Raider" not anything as stupidly wide ranging as numbers and letters.

Seriously, go look at CHS website. They sell Space Marine Land Raider doors and Blood Raven shoulder pads, so why on earth is Kroot (or anyone) arguing about numbers and letters when CHS themselves are happy to write in black and white what their products are intended to be used for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are essentially arguing on CHS behalf, about an issue that CHS aren't even disputing.

Mattyrm, you really should read through the entire thread.

Kroothawks remark was not absurd. GW has actually argued that everything marked with a roman numeral or a chevron or skulls is by its very nature GWs property. That, my firend, is absurd.....Kroothawks summary of that isn't.
Hell, GW attempted to claim that the presence of skulls on the base of ANY MODEL IN THE WORLD was an infringement of GW Intellectual Property, because GW feels they own the concept of skulls.
Not to mention that GW has made the claim that they own EVERYTHING contained/mentioned in the universe of 40K.....which would include such things as planet Earth, horses and the concept of armoured vehicles.

This is all done while GW refuses to accept that copyright doesn't protects concepts and settings, but only specific expressions of those concepts.

On top of that, GW has made all those claims without providing a single piece of evidence that they actually own these things.......They haven't even be able point out exactly what MODELS Chapterhouse is allegedly infringing. Read that agsin. GW have been unable/unwilling to say; "Chapterhouse's model named X is a copy of GW's model named Y and is therefore infringing".

When I have mentioned the name "Chapterhouse" I wouldn't miss the chance to point out that GW has asked CH to clarify where the inspiration for the name "Chapterhouse" came from......Implying that GW own the word "Chapter", "House" or "Chapterhouse". Can you see how absurd THAT is?

I repeat, you really should read the thread paying special attention to the legal documents shown and the excellent analysis provided by people such as Weeble1000 and Biccat.


...

mattyrm wrote:

Alpharius wrote:In other words, no, it isn't obvious that GW will "auto win" a jury trial!

Mate, explain how the feth you got me saying GW would "auto-win" from

I reckon a jury would side with GW wouldn't they?

Er, did you say that you reckon a jury would side against GW then?

GW clearly think a jury will go in their favour otherwise they wouldn't have asked for one. But judges often direct a jury a certain way if they think a certain outcome is clearly appropriate.

Juries often aren't good with handling a lot of complex legal ideas, the activities of some juries would frighten you, yet that is our justice system. GW could get a jury that simply thinks "A looks like B, so Chapterhouse are in the wrong" or they could get a jury that think they are all just kids toys and it's rather silly that a big company is going after something so small.

If this is legal anything is
Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean its illegal

d-usa wrote:
But GW has not even declared that "combi weapons" were infringed. They have not given a clear list of what, if anything, was actually infringed.

Heck dice are made to be used in Warhammer 40K so are they infringing? Just because something can be used in a game system does not mean that it is infringing on said game system.

This year long case may actually become just a little clearer when GW actually releases a list of what it is they are accusing Chapterhouse of copying.

GW has claimed that the CHS combi weapon kit infringes its copyright(s).

it is in row 34 of the claim chart (you can find a copy at 83.2, Exhibit 3)

"Each of the weapons is a GW weapon by name and look.

A combi weapon is a weapon such as a rifle or pistol which can have a second weapon mounted to it.

A melta gun fires a wave of energy that heats up the target, causing it to explode.
A plasma gun fires a ball of super heated energy.

In the Warhammer 40,000 background, Space Marines can use combi-weapons. In the games's rules this is represented by the Space Marine player having the option of arming his models with one of three types of combi-weapon: melta, plasma, or flamer. The rules also provide the option of attaching a grenade launcher to the Space Marine's combi-weapon. See Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines, page 97."

Additionally, if anyone is interested in what claims Games Workshop has made in this case, you can find the Second Amended Complaint at 147.0. This was the second time that Games Workshop amended its complaint, and it was filed on January 19th of this year. The first amended complaint was submitted in response to Chapterhouse's initial motion to dismiss which called for, in the alternative to a dismissal, that Games Workshop amend its complaint. The First Amended Complaint is document 32.0. CHS argued that the First Amended Complaint contained minimal differences from the initial complaint. Games Workshop, as any plaintiff, had the right to amend its complaint by a certain date. Games Workshop made multiple requests to the court for an extension of the timeframe in which it could amend its complaint. The Court's final order on that issue set the January 19th date. This is significant because barring a ruling by the Court, the Second Amended Complaint represents Games Workshop's final opportunity to amend its claims.

So far as the combi-weapon thing, could CHS argue prior art? I guess I'm not clear, are GWS arguing they own the concept of a combi weapon, or specifically the name and implementation?

I'm confused, weeble - I thought GW & Paulson had sorted themselves out in December (IIRC) last year, yet 147.0 still includes Jon Paulson as a defendant.

I'm still amused at how they can get away with some of what they put in that document: "and it invests great sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands" - where?

Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

Ouze wrote:So far as the combi-weapon thing, could CHS argue prior art? I guess I'm not clear, are GWS arguing they own the concept of a combi weapon, or specifically the name and implementation?

Prior art? Does that mean finding an instance where it was already done before GW?

If so then just point to an assault rifle with an under slung grenade launcher. Main weapon with a single shot (unless the person is carrying extra ammunition, which apparently Space Marines cannot do) secondary weapon attached.

Or Aliens where Ripley duct tapes a flame thrower to her pulse rifle (which also has a grenade launcher).

Or Deckard's pistol from Blade Runner, which has a single shot, high calibre pistol on top of the standard one.

In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

Kroothawk wrote:In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

In this context, I'd think a lot more along the lines of something like an M-16 with an underslung M-203 grenade launcher. Plenty of "prior art", dating to at least the Vietnam War there...

Valete,

JohnS

"Prior art" is a term used in the context of a patent. "Art" refers to a type of useful skill; a method, process, etc. of creating something or achieving a useful result. In other words, "art" is generally used to describe a field. A person skilled in the type of technology a patent relates to is said to be "skilled in the art." "Prior art" refers to anything relating to a patent that existed prior to the conception date; the date on which the invention was first conceived of and reduced to practice. A patent must be new, useful, and not obvious in light of the "prior art." In other words, if it was already known, you can't have invented it.

You've used the wrong term, but I understand what you mean within the context of copyright law. In order to be protectable, a work must be an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. In other words, if it is itself a copy of something someone else did, or of something within the public domain, it isn't protectable. And to the the extent that an element of a work is such, it is not protectable.

Further, concepts and ideas are not protected by copyright. See section 102(b) of the US copyright code:

"§102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

If something is indispensable from the concept or idea of which a work is an expression, then that work is not protectable to that extent. For example, if you draw a picture of a car, you cannot argue that my car is a copy of yours merely by virtue of the fact that both works depict four wheels, an axel, etc. Those are indispensable from the concept that both works express. As another example, my Film Noir movie is not a copy of yours just because they both have a femme fatale character and a monologuing private dick. Your work is protectable to the extent that it is original, i.e. what makes your drawing of a car or your Film Noir unique, which could be a ton of things. Those elements would need to be unfairly appropriated by the accused work in order for it to be a copy.

It sounds complicated, but that's only because the law allows for a copy to not be an exact, 100% reproduction. Even so, substantial similarity is interpreted to mean that any difference between the works are insubstantial; i.e. meaningless within the entire context of the works. That, however, can be very subjective as it ultimately wades into the realm of what makes art artistic; what makes a work meaningful.

Dysartes wrote:
Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

This just makes me giggle everytime I see it. So fething true.

How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Jurys aren't randomly picked. They randomly select a sample then carefully select jurors from that sample based on who can be unbiased regarding that particular case.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Yeah but would he be a GW hater or white knight?

mattyrm wrote: I reckon a jury would side with GW wouldn't they?

The case seems pretty simple spelled out like that.

In 1987 a company made a game, said game is played by millions of people, then in 200X CHS started making bits for said game and making money selling them.

Pretty much boils down to that doesn't it? Regardless of our feelings on the matter, (GW is probably too aggressive regarding defending their IP) If CHS was making pieces for Monopoly then I think Hasbro would walk the case. Just because 40k isnt as well known, doesn't mean that CHS isn't making money thanks to someone else's invention.

Please read the previous 70 pages, in which your assumption about the legal situation has been refuted many times.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

They would probably have to tell the court any knowledge of the case they have picked up prior to the trial. You are supposed to only consider the evidence placed in front of you, a person being swayed by information outside the court process could invalidate the trial and land them in hot water if they don't admit it. Not going to happen though, the number of Dakka users in the US is quite small.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

First hand info. Can't say more at the moment but hopefully I can give more info in the coming weeks.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Since one of the first questions that will be ask of a potential juror is going to be "Have you ever heard of Games Workshop?" and anyone who says "yes" will be dismissed be the GW attorneys, CHS attorneys as well, more than likely, I do not see it happening.

On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

CageUF wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

First hand info. Can't say more at the moment but hopefully I can give more info in the coming weeks.

Odd. You don't usually see companies changing legal counsel in the middle of a case; it's not usually advisable considering the potential damage it might have on their representation, bringing in a whole new set of people who weren't involved from the outset. It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

Shepherd23 wrote:

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Since one of the first questions that will be ask of a potential juror is going to be "Have you ever heard of Games Workshop?" and anyone who says "yes" will be dismissed be the GW attorneys, CHS attorneys as well, more than likely, I do not see it happening.

On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

It depends on the state. I believe voir dire (jury selection) in Illinois is evenly split between the attorneys and the judge; I don't know how many, or even if they're available, pre-selection challenges and peremptory strikes both sides will get; I believe Illinois law provides that parties will pass upon and accept the jury in panels of four, commencing with the state.

The point here being that just because someone is familiar with GW doesn't mean they'll be stricken out of hand versus, say, a person who hates large companies "picking on he little guy".

Sidstyler wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

No insult meant Sid. I know doctors, engineers, lawyers and even a priest who play with our little toys. I just would rather see an impartial jury selected and old lady retired school teachers and gruff steel worker types popped in my head as likely examples of those most likely not associated with this hobby.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

GW Lawyer: Juror Number 7, do you have any feelings either way towards the world miniature gaming?
Juror #7: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR KHORNE!
GW Lawyer: We'll take him.

By that you mean they just got a new job right?

Kroothawk wrote:In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

That's not a combi weapon, this is

Hello,
I would think a combi-weapon would be easier to define as some of the over-under shotguns 410 and .22 comes to mind. There was also a pistol (old) that was .45 above and .22 under. The more entertaining thought is more expensive models tend to be master-works with all kinds of extra grubbins on them.

Regards,
Carl

Dysartes wrote:I'm confused, weeble - I thought GW & Paulson had sorted themselves out in December (IIRC) last year, yet 147.0 still includes Jon Paulson as a defendant.

I'm still amused at how they can get away with some of what they put in that document: "and it invests great sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands" - where?

Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

If a settlement between certain plaintiffs and certain defendants is reached, those parties may file a partial discontinuance of action. Those parties are no longer involved in the original action, but to go and amend a statement of claim just because one party is no longer in the defendants is ridiculous. The action was still commenced by one plaintiff against a number of defendants. By removing the party from the style of cause, you essentially remove them from the record as if they were never sued. Since the action is commenced between parties, those parties remain on that action, even after all parties have settled. This makes it so that when you search for actions commenced against or by a party, you get all the actions they were a part of. The style of cause needs to be identical on each document, which is why even with a settlement between the plaintiff and one defendant, said defendant will continue to be referenced on the style of cause (let's say it's Her majesty the queen and John doe v. J. Smith. HMTQ will be seeking to recover costs for medical expenses incurred in treating me, while I will be seeking damages with respect to future cost of care. The action involved three parties, which is relevant to maintain on the record. There could be another file of HTMQ v J. Smith on criminal charges, as well as John Doe v J Smith on property damages... You're not filing things with the court just with regard to the action number, but the names have to match. It's a security measure to ensure that everything is being filed correctly and on the correct action) More importantly, if the matter proceeds to trial, documents relating to the settlement between the first two parties may be deemed relevant for some reason and require production at the trial.

As to GW getting new lawyers...

sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012; everything will need to be copied, shipped over, reviewed again, strategies re-done.... essentially it's starting from square one, but getting everything done on overtime, so none of this will be cheap. (lets say, legal fees may have been $20K this year already, but because of the change of lawyers, they have to go back and essentially fork our the $20k of legal fees they paid last year again this year to the new firm, bringing this years total to $40k.... hence why changing counsel is pricy)

Doesn't explain to me why even after the settlement, GW is allowed to claim in official documents the obviously false accusation that Paulson sculpted a Chapterhouse model. The judge allows GW to continuously make deliberately false accusations of an innocent citizen.

poda_t wrote:sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012; everything will need to be copied, shipped over, reviewed again, strategies re-done.... essentially it's starting from square one

Actually, if GW gets a lawyer who is able and willing to provide at least the minimum requirements for even filing a copyright suit, square one is a major step forward.

Shepherd23 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

No insult meant Sid. I know doctors, engineers, lawyers and even a priest who play with our little toys. I just would rather see an impartial jury selected and old lady retired school teachers and gruff steel worker types popped in my head as likely examples of those most likely not associated with this hobby.

Hey I am a gruff Ironworker and I would hand GW their balls on a platter, bias why no your honour not me. =o]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

GW Lawyer: Juror Number 7, do you have any feelings either way towards the world miniature gaming?
Juror #7: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR KHORNE!
GW Lawyer: We'll take him.

LMFAOOOO!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

poda_t wrote:..

sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012;

I am positive the new legal team will have nothing to do with the GW 2012 annual price adjustment. It was on its way anyways. Might sting a little more.

Last entry on http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/ is 01/20/2012 I know there has had to be more done after this, any one know where I can find it or can sum up what I am missing?

I don't know what is up with recap. There have been more docket entries since then, and I believe recap should show them even if no one has uploaded the actual document.

With the plugin running, PACER shows that documents all the way through 190 are available for free through recap. Recap also says that the docket was cached on 3/18/2012. The cached docket is almost up to date (the most recent entry was posted on the 23rd). There must be some issue with the recap website. It has that bit that says "documents in this range may be missing." I do not know why that is.

It seems like something you could contact recap about.

Recap is missing the CHS answer to the Second Amended Complaint and a bunch of motion practice regarding discovery disputes. These motions have all been ruled on. I believe I summarized the content of those motions, or some of them, a little higher up in the thread.

The only recent activity has been the withdrawal of a couple of attorneys. Scott Kaspar withdrew as counsel for Games Workshop, and was replaced by Jason Keener, a senior associate in the Foley and Lardner Chicago office with a specialty in intellectual property. Shane Witnov was withdrawn as counsel for Chapterhouse Studios.

This is not unusual. All of the withdrawals thus far in the case have been associates. They likely switched jobs/firms for reasons entirely unrelated to the case. The reason that I stress this point is so that you do not jump to the conclusion that someone has been fired, or otherwise removed as counsel due to poor performance in the lawsuit. For the most part, this is just business as usual.

Shane Witnov's profile page on Winston & Strawn's website no longer exists. I'm guessing he now works for a different firm.

PhantomViper wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:Lots of interesting and pertinent stuff

Thanks for your reply weeble.

So, in your opinion, what does GW have to gain by making this a trial by jury? Is their case really so weak from a technical standpoint that at this point they are willing to throw it all on a "roll of the dice" so to speak?

A bit late but:
Sort of like how GW suggests players should resolve rules disputes during games?

There are a few new documents available on recap 189.1 was an interesting read and shows how tired the judge is of the wrangling; it was dated in Feb...the newer documents, after that, aren't available for free so I don't know what happened at the early April phone meeting...

H.B.M.C. wrote:

GW Lawyer: Juror Number 7, do you have any feelings either way towards the world miniature gaming?
Juror #7: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR KHORNE!
GW Lawyer: We'll take him.

Now that made me laugh.

On Topic: Is this not similar to aftermarket car parts? I don't think Honda and Toyota run around suing everyone making different bumpers for their cars.....

SickSix wrote:

Now that made me laugh.

On Topic: Is this not similar to aftermarket car parts? I don't think Honda and Toyota run around suing everyone making different bumpers for their cars.....

You might want to search the topic as that comparison has been brought up dozens of times in this thread. The majority of people say yes but there are some very vocal holdouts who disagree. YMMV.

warboss wrote:

SickSix wrote:

Now that made me laugh.

On Topic: Is this not similar to aftermarket car parts? I don't think Honda and Toyota run around suing everyone making different bumpers for their cars.....

You might want to search the topic as that comparison has been brought up dozens of times in this thread. The majority of people say yes but there are some very vocal holdouts who disagree. YMMV.

Because the majority of people know nothign about copyright law:

"The first exception applies to spare parts which must be of a particular shape to fit another article, such as certain types of integrated circuits which must have a certain type of connector so that they can be installed in a computer.  The rationale is that spare parts should be freely available at a reasonable cost, otherwise manufacturers might be able to develop a monopoly over spare parts and charge excessive prices."

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/intellectual-property/unregistered-design-right.htm

They are absoultly not the same thing. There are specific legal exceptions sorounding the production of many spare parts with cars ( and computers) to prevent monopolystic behaviour in many parts of the world.

In the US it is more complex.
http://www.ficpi.org/library/lisbonForum/Synopsis1-7_Chambers.doc

Car makers can, and do, take legal action to stop people making parts for their cars when they go too far: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/23/daimler-crushes-unauthorized-mercedes-benz-300-sl-body/

It is a matter of where this line lies, and also the matter of trading on someone elses work and name. If a car parts manufaturer implied that there parts were genuin or in some way endorsed by the manufactrer there would be all sorts of hell to pay.

Electro wrote:
It is a matter of where this line lies, and also the matter of trading on someone elses work and name. If a car parts manufaturer implied that there parts were genuin or in some way endorsed by the manufactrer there would be all sorts of hell to pay.

Because that would potentially be trademark infringement, which has nought to do with copyright.

UK law has the so-called must fit and must match exemptions for copyright infringement, specifically, as you said, to protect the production of aftermarket accessories. US copyright law has no such exemptions. The issue has not really been raised in US courts with any frequency, at least not to my knowledge. Even so, US copyright law exempts useful articles from copyright protection. Were an accessory designed to fit with a useful article, it could not infringe a copyright as the work would not be protected in the first place.

On the flip side, works of art are protected as exactly that, unique works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. An accessory for a work of art, protectable only in terms of its aesthetic value and only to the extent that such aesthetic value is unique, would have to unfairly appropriate those protectable aesthetic elements in order to infringe.

I encourage you to roll that around in your mind. If you are talking about an accessory for a useful article, like as not you won't see infringement, unless said accessory copies the protectable aesthetics of the useful article, such as say a car door. UK law says that the public has an interest in allowing such accessories that emulate the aesthetics of the original product because were it otherwise the manufacturer would potentially be able to stifle competition. Hence must fit and must match.

If you are talking about a work of art that is not a useful article, what is the accessory intended to do? Certainly it cannot alter the function of the work, as the work has no function. If it is designed to alter the aesthetics of the work, well, then to infringe a copyright it must be substantially similar to the work it is allegedly a copy of. If it is allegedly a copy of the work it is an accessory for, surely it is designed to be different from that work, otherwise it would have no value. It would not be an accessory; it would merely be a copy of one portion of the work.

One must of course determine if the accessory is "substantially similar" to the work it is designed to function with, but does that which is similar constitute an unfair appropriation of the unique aesthetic value of the work it is intended to function with?

One issue may be the mating surfaces between the accessory and the work it is intended to function with. Forgetting the aesthetics, if the two pieces fit together, surely that indicates that some part of the work was appropriated by the accessory. But again remember to consider that the work of art is protectable to the extent that its aesthetics are unique. If this so-called mating surface were entirely not visible in the work, how then could it constitute any part of the protected aesthetics?

I think you will find that to a large degree, the so-called must fit and must match exemptions in UK copyright law are related to useful article exemptions. The car parts analogy is interesting, and very thought provoking, but the fundamental disconnect between it and the wargaming miniatures market is the useful article exemption issue. It remains to be seen whether the Courts view wargaming miniatures as useful articles, although I think it is far more likely that they will be considered discrete sculptural works of art. When you take out the useful article exemption, what you are left with is "normal" copyright law. Is one work substantially similar to another when the two works are considered side by side with a full and complete understanding of the extent of scope of the asserted copyright?

I take it that "useful articles" are those which perform some mechanical function that cannot be easily replaced.

It would seem that a wargame figure would not count since its function within the game could be as easily performed by a pawn or counter.

"A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is
not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An
article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”."

"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall
be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the
extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features
that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently
of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

weeble1000 wrote:
"A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is
not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An
article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”."

"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall
be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the
extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features
that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently
of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

Would miniatures be considered useful articles because 40k uses true line of sight?

There is clearly a sculptural element, in that some players use soda cans as drop pods.

...Might just being used in a game, make them be regarded as "useful articles?"

Interesting article today in the Denver post and while it does not appear to have direct merit to Chapterhouse, I think it would to "Chapterhouselike" companies not based in the US.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20406900/high-court-steps-into-copyright-case

Here is the one sentence synopsis.

"The issue at the Supreme Court is whether U.S. copyright protection applies to items that are made abroad, purchased abroad and then resold in the U.S. without the permission of the manufacturer."

Again, the article is details lite, but seems to harbor the question...if GW (or anyone else) does not make the product in the US, and the product is purchased overseas (Maelstrom) can it be "resold" without the permission of the manufacturer as far as copyright is concerned. I can't see manufacturer's setting up production on ever continent, so that could potentially lead to mini-embargos?

Shotgun wrote:
Again, the article is details lite, but seems to harbor the question...if GW (or anyone else) does not make the product in the US, and the product is purchased overseas (Maelstrom) can it be "resold" without the permission of the manufacturer as far as copyright is concerned. I can't see manufacturer's setting up production on ever continent, so that could potentially lead to mini-embargos?

GW has manufacturing sites in the US, though.

kronk wrote:

Shotgun wrote:
Again, the article is details lite, but seems to harbor the question...if GW (or anyone else) does not make the product in the US, and the product is purchased overseas (Maelstrom) can it be "resold" without the permission of the manufacturer as far as copyright is concerned. I can't see manufacturer's setting up production on ever continent, so that could potentially lead to mini-embargos?

GW has manufacturing sites in the US, though.

But not everything is manufactured in the US, take older products that predate a US facility or FW products for example; the question is still valid.

Shotgun wrote:Interesting article today in the Denver post and while it does not appear to have direct merit to Chapterhouse, I think it would to "Chapterhouselike" companies not based in the US.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_20406900/high-court-steps-into-copyright-case

Here is the one sentence synopsis.

"The issue at the Supreme Court is whether U.S. copyright protection applies to items that are made abroad, purchased abroad and then resold in the U.S. without the permission of the manufacturer."

Again, the article is details lite, but seems to harbor the question...if GW (or anyone else) does not make the product in the US, and the product is purchased overseas (Maelstrom) can it be "resold" without the permission of the manufacturer as far as copyright is concerned. I can't see manufacturer's setting up production on ever continent, so that could potentially lead to mini-embargos?

From reading the article, the case is about foreign edition text books which were imported to the US without permission of the publishing company. It will be an interesting case that will decide if manufacturers can fix the price of goods on a country by country basis. If Australia did not allow such practices, then GW would not be able to sell their stuff there so expensively.

[quote=spaceelfFrom reading the article, the case is about foreign edition text books which were imported to the US without permission of the publishing company. It will be an interesting case that will decide if manufacturers can fix the price of goods on a country by country basis. If Australia did not allow such practices, then GW would not be able to sell their stuff there so expensively.

susu.exp from Warseer wrote:Highlights:

- From 189.1, part 2:
THE COURT: So you're another group that are on my "once a week whether I really want to or not" schedule.

- GW note "The Star Fox is a fan created Space Marine Chapter.", but still maintain that they own the trademark "star fox". Aparently they now argue that if somebody names their army something, they gain trademark rights. That´s rather spectacular.

spaceelf wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
"A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is
not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An
article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”."

"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall
be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the
extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features
that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently
of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."

Would miniatures be considered useful articles because 40k uses true line of sight?

There is clearly a sculptural element, in that some players use soda cans as drop pods.

Think about it like this: If you can separate the aesthetic design from the utilitarian aspect of the object, that design is potentially protectable. The print on a piece of fabric is protectable, as you can separate it from the utility of the fabric, but the cut of the fabric in a garment is not protectable, as it has a utilitarian function that cannot be separated from the aesthetics. It may look pleasing, but the pleasing look is part of the utility.

One could argue that the function of a game piece is to be identifiable within the context of the game. So you make an interesting point that TLOS means that the overall size and shape of the game piece could be considered to be functional, as merely using a flat token would not have the same function.

But I think the question goes to the object itself. A garment is designed to be worn. That is its function, and one that is intrinsic in the object. You can use a shirt as a flag, but it is not considered a useful article because you could use it as a flag. One could possibly argue that the models are simply sculptural works of art with no intrinsic utilitarian aspects. You use the models in the game, but that is not their intrinsic function. I'm really just guessing here as I am not aware of any precedent that has addressed an issue like this.

Games Workshop does indeed say that it is a miniatures company, not a game company. I'd have to look into the nuances of making a useful article determination. My guess is that intent does not factor into it, considering the "intrinsic" language. The purpose of the useful article exemption is to prevent folks from getting patent-like protection from a copyright. I think the easiest question is, "should that be protected by a patent?" If the object in question was a cool-looking hammer that is shaped the way it is to maximize the application of force, I'd say "Yes, that should be a patent." So I would think that it would also be a useful article.

A hammer is a tool, and has an intrinsic use. Its form is almost entirely dictated by its function. So too with a sword. It may look cool, I may hang it on my wall, and there may be artistic things about it, but if those things cannot be separated from the function, they are not protectable by copyright. Think about a tsuba on a Japanese sword. They are often very artistic, but ultimately functional unless you can cleanly separate the design from the intrinsic utility.

weeble1000 wrote:
One could argue that the function of a game piece is to be identifiable within the context of the game. So you make an interesting point that TLOS means that the overall size and shape of the game piece could be considered to be functional, as merely using a flat token would not have the same function.

If you consider the entire form of the figure for TLOS, then alternative game pieces would need to be identical in form. Thus, this example seems to be very much like the cut of the fabric example that you provided. You cannot separate the form of the figure from its aesthetic. However, in practice gamers are almost never so finicky, hence soda can drop pods.

weeble1000 wrote:
But I think the question goes to the object itself. A garment is designed to be worn. That is its function, and one that is intrinsic in the object. You can use a shirt as a flag, but it is not considered a useful article because you could use it as a flag. One could possibly argue that the models are simply sculptural works of art with no intrinsic utilitarian aspects. You use the models in the game, but that is not their intrinsic function. I'm really just guessing here as I am not aware of any precedent that has addressed an issue like this.

weeble1000 wrote:Games Workshop does indeed say that it is a miniatures company, not a game company.

I do not mean to be argumentative, but their About Us page on their US website says otherwise. To me they have always been a game company, as their name suggests. Citadel Miniatures is the model company.

weeble1000 wrote:
I'd have to look into the nuances of making a useful article determination. My guess is that intent does not factor into it, considering the "intrinsic" language. The purpose of the useful article exemption is to prevent folks from getting patent-like protection from a copyright. I think the easiest question is, "should that be protected by a patent?" If the object in question was a cool-looking hammer that is shaped the way it is to maximize the application of force, I'd say "Yes, that should be a patent." So I would think that it would also be a useful article.

A hammer is a tool, and has an intrinsic use. Its form is almost entirely dictated by its function. So too with a sword. It may look cool, I may hang it on my wall, and there may be artistic things about it, but if those things cannot be separated from the function, they are not protectable by copyright. Think about a tsuba on a Japanese sword. They are often very artistic, but ultimately functional unless you can cleanly separate the design from the intrinsic utility.

Thank you for the extensive reply. I am sure Chapter House's and GW's lawyers are hard at work on such points as we speak.

Thank you for the explanation.

I'm of the opinion that the wargame miniature would count as an aesthetic rather than a utlilitarian creation as it can be replaced in the game by various differently designed items such as counters or miniatures of different appearance, without affecting its function as a game piece. (Except for the LoS point mentioned by someone above.)

Again, I think that the significant issue is intrinsic utility.

A hammer is a hammer. A jacket is a jacket. A car is a car. A chair is a chair. These objects have an intrinsic utility. Although they may be put to other uses, their form dictates a certain function. You can beat a man to death with a baseball bat, but it was not designed to beat someone to death with. It was designed to hit a baseball. Its intrinsic utility is to strike a thrown baseball.

I would think that one could make a strong argument that wargaming miniatures are first and foremost sculptural works that may or may not be put to use in a game with a defined set of rules. Take the baseball bat example again. I can use it to hit a golf ball, or we could play a game that involved throwing grapefruit instead of baseballs. But the design of the baseball bat is expressly intended to effectively strike a thrown baseball, whether or not it is used in the context of a baseball game. You could take it to a batting cage, for example. You would not take a golf club to a batting cage because a golf club is ill-suited to striking a thrown baseball, regardless of the context in which the baseball is thrown.

You could play Warhammer with Infinity models, for example, or even with Tonka Trucks. I think you would have to show that the design of the models was expressly intended to have a deliberate, almost patentable interaction with the game mechanics, and that the aesthetics of the models are inseparable from that functionality. There are arguments one could make in favor of this, however, such as that the models are supplied with specifically-sized bases.

At the end of the day though, wargaming miniatures are not, in my opinion, what one would classically consider a utilitarian article. The root utility of a game piece is to be representational, but that utility is highly mutable and subjective, which means that it is difficult to quantify unless jurisprudence were to indicate that one must always consider the context of the rules a game piece is intended to function with in order to make a useful article determination.

As I said, this is a rather untested area of the law. We're off the edge of the map and here there be monsters. What I can say is that a ruling from a Court one way or the other could have interesting implications even beyond wargaming. My best guess would be that ruling in favor of copyright protection as a sculptural work of art would be the conservative way to go, and thus more likely.

Weeble, I'm sure I speak for the whole of Dakka when I say thank you for your insight on this. The examples and the definitions you give are easy for laymen to understand and they make a ton of sense.

That said, do you think that since much of this may not make sense to a jury, would it not be better(regardless of which side wins) that a judge who is well educated on this matter decide the outcome?

I know if I was on either side of this that I wouldn't want John Doe saying that I lost when he has zero experience or training with IP law.

Or is it that GW thinks that the average uneducated(on IP law, not in general) juror will side with them out of ignorance or pure luck?

Arguably WYSIWYG and true LOS mean that you *do* need to use miniatures of a particular form, in games. Or else there wouldn't be a problem of modelling for advantage, or issues where people don't like to play against counts-as armies because they're too confusing.

But I agree, it's an untested area. It's difficult to separate form from function, in the case of wargaming minis. Yes, you could argue that one could have the same function using counters -- but I could argue that that's not the same function at all, because that's not even a miniatures wargame any more, it's a counters wargame.

You could argue that there's no need for *any* physical components for games any more, since you could play any game you fancied on a computer -- but that ignores the reality of the situation, which is that there are qualitative differences between digital games and non-digital games. I think I could make a case (as a games designer and game studies academic, not as a lawyer) that there are also qualitative differences between the experience of playing a counters-based wargame and the experience of playing a miniatures wargame.

But the problem arises that what we're dealing with here -- when we play games, or think about games -- is pure pleasure, not entirely distinct from the pleasure one gets from art. At that point, how can one distinguish wholly between the aesthetic pleasure of admiring a well-sculpted and well-painted miniature as a work of art, and enjoying a game partially because of the presence in said game , in the form of the game's components, of a number of well-painted, well-sculpted works of art?

I think on balance, I would argue that the aesthetic appearance *is* necessary for the gameplay experience -- it's an intrinsic part of the purpose of the miniature. We know from studies of people's reaction to the graphical content of videogames that said content is massively important to the gameplay experience (games studios spend enormous amounts of time and money getting the graphics right, and conduct their own studies to determine player reactions to particular graphics; Ryan & Rigby et al researched player reactions to graphics in a formal academic context and discovered, unsurprisingly, that graphical content is vital as a feedback mechanism, among other things). That's not just an aesthetic thing; graphics, like miniatures, allow experienced players to garner a huge amount of information at a glance, without having to read long descriptions or study complex charts.

Kroothawk wrote:

susu.exp from Warseer wrote:Highlights:

- From 189.1, part 2:
THE COURT: So you're another group that are on my "once a week whether I really want to or not" schedule.

- GW note "The Star Fox is a fan created Space Marine Chapter.", but still maintain that they own the trademark "star fox". Aparently they now argue that if somebody names their army something, they gain trademark rights. That´s rather spectacular.

Love that quote, kinda like a bad case of herpes here weather or not you like it it's there, and it's kinda hard to get rid of. =o[ Then again the Brits do love a valiant last stand where everyone gets wiped out.

Nintendo owns the trademark Star Fox.

You know, if this discussion of 'replacement parts' and Copyright being 'passable' for purposes of pure utility is all true, GW would actually want miniatures to be counted as objects d'Art- as if Wysiwyg, Tlos and all are intrinsic functionings of the models in pursuit of being tokens to play the game, that means that things like ''Space Knights" that are the same size, shape, and have interchangeable parts would be completely legal, and GW wouldn't be able to do anything to companies that create them.

And Killkrazy, Trade Marks are only protected when they are used specifically for the service they advertise or represent. This is why you can have an ACME Grocers, and an ACME Junkyard, with neither of them violating trademark.

The whole point to me, which I cant understand why GW doesnt seem to get, is that the majority of Chapterhouse stuff requires GW products to be complete. That causes/encourages people to buy GW stuff to go with CH stuff...OR...to buy more GW stuff, however you want to look at it.

In the end the result is sales for both companies, and I fail to see how GW can swing that as a bad thing.


If CH was selling full kit alternatives to GW products, that look exactly like GW products, that might be a bit of an issue. However, its common practice in the automotive industry, aftermarket collision repair parts are direct copies of original parts.

Mad4Minis wrote:However, its common practice in the automotive industry, aftermarket collision repair parts are direct copies of original parts.

ARGH. Seriously, they aren't the same thing. Read the last few pages of the thread at least.

One view that has to be decided is whether GW is a Games firm or a Model firm, I think then a conclusion as to whether the figures are utilitarian or aesthetic can be surmised.

GW have kind of shot themselves in the foot with the use of WYSIWYG, TLoS and modeling for advantage. Those three all require a practical functional element.

As an aside, do you think GW & CH read these threads?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:One view that has to be decided is whether GW is a Games firm or a Model firm, I think then a conclusion as to whether the figures are utilitarian or aesthetic can be surmised.

GW have kind of shot themselves in the foot with the use of WYSIWYG, TLoS and modeling for advantage. Those three all require a practical functional element.

As an aside, do you think GW & CH read these threads?

Cheers

Andrew

GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

I've always believed in this. I've always felt GW's contrary attitude as a bit of a cop out.

If GW was only a model company, they wouldn't nearly have been as successful

Ian Sturrock wrote:Arguably WYSIWYG and true LOS mean that you *do* need to use miniatures of a particular form, in games. Or else there wouldn't be a problem of modelling for advantage, or issues where people don't like to play against counts-as armies because they're too confusing.

Really you "need" to use a miniature of a particular form? Care to explain very carefully what that exact form is? Because about the only thing TLOS requires is that you use miniatures of roughly the same height as your oponent. They could be 15mm, 20mm, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 54mm, or even 90mm. So what particular form would that be? Can I not use Pig Iron miniaures to represent my imperial guard and still play 40k rules? Certainly I can. Hell I could use 2D card board print outs and paint them as space marines and play space marines and TLOS would pretty much be satisfied. So no you do not need to have a particular form to satisfy TLOS.

WYSIWYG maybe you have a better argument but then again how big of a component of the overall game is it? I could still play the game without WYSIWYG rather easily. Most of us do it to one degree or another already.

It is an interesting question but I would say that these have a very good chance of not being considered functional pieces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

I think you need to remember that everything has utility in some context but that isn't how the law decides if it has intrinsic utility.

You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

They are selling the models to make money. Everything else about it exists to make the purchase more attractive with the goal of making more money.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

The fact you can wouldn't necessarily alleviate the fact that the miniatures have that functionality beyond their aesthetic design.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

Actually you do not need miniatures to play a miniature game and perhaps more importantly you don't need GW specific miniatures to play the game. My point is only that the possible finctionality of the miniature is not tied to the game at all. Does it still posess inherent functionality? I don't know enough about it to make that call but just because a game has TLOS or WYSIWG doesn't impar that inherent functionality.

aka_mythos wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

The fact you can wouldn't necessarily alleviate the fact that the miniatures have that functionality beyond their aesthetic design.

Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

brettz123 wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

Actually you do not need miniatures to play a miniature game and perhaps more importantly you don't need GW specific miniatures to play the game. My point is only that the possible finctionality of the miniature is not tied to the game at all. Does it still posess inherent functionality? I don't know enough about it to make that call but just because a game has TLOS or WYSIWG doesn't impar that inherent functionality.

Especially when the miniatures GW makes themselves do not meet WYSIWYG. The majority of the models in the basic Chaos Space Marine set do not have bolt pistols, frag grenades, krak grenades or close combat weapons, which their rules all state that they have.

So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

Ian Sturrock wrote:You *could* play the game with cardboard counters that each had a bit of wire sticking up to denote the height of the mini, for TLOS purposes, and were numerically coded so as to identify what model they represented.

But, would it be as much fun? If not -- well, isn't the point of a game "to have fun"?

Certainly a miniatures wargame needs miniatures as part of its fun, just the same way a film needs visual and audio elements as its fun. Yes, you could understand the story of Star Wars just by reading the script -- but it wouldn't be most people's idea of fun.

None of which has any bearing of the law.

Ian Sturrock wrote:So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

Fair enough, but that still has nothing to do with the legalities of the matter. The law doesn't take into account how "pleasing" it would be to use the models.

Eric

Ian Sturrock wrote:So would you guys argue that the film Star Wars is just a more aesthetically pleasing version of the typewritten script? Or does it have some other quality beyond that?

Gotta say that as a 7-year-old hearing for the first time the Millennium Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley Spaceport, I would have disagreed with that stance. I'm pretty sure that as a 42-year-old film buff and gamer, I disagree, too.

I'm not sure what you are trying to ask? What does that have to do with anything?

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Anvildude wrote:You know, if this discussion of 'replacement parts' and Copyright being 'passable' for purposes of pure utility is all true, GW would actually want miniatures to be counted as objects d'Art- as if Wysiwyg, Tlos and all are intrinsic functionings of the models in pursuit of being tokens to play the game, that means that things like ''Space Knights" that are the same size, shape, and have interchangeable parts would be completely legal, and GW wouldn't be able to do anything to companies that create them.

And Killkrazy, Trade Marks are only protected when they are used specifically for the service they advertise or represent. This is why you can have an ACME Grocers, and an ACME Junkyard, with neither of them violating trademark.

Unless the mark is famous, in which case one can make a dilution claim, which requires neither competition nor confusion. But then, dilution typically carries with it no damages, merely equitable relief, unless the dilution is found to be willful.

Like if someone with the last name of "Cola" could start a Coke (the fuel) company and call it Coke-o'-Cola... right?

But yeah, what Weeble said.

aka_mythos wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Holdenstein wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:
Many people do play the game with "counts as" armies though and models with different stances altering their weapon and eye positions, which indicates to the contrary. Even in PP's quite restrictive Conversion policy there's plenty of scope to modify your miniatures away from the standard, although it will have no game effect due to the way that those rules work.

I don't think the willingness of people in allowing a lax interpretation of the rules would have much bearing in whether there is a functionality beyond aesthetic.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Page 3:

The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow.

Page 47:

‘What You See Is What You Get’
Character models in particular tend to have a lot of options as to what weapons and wargear they can use – given in the army list of their Codex.
The rule is that such equipment must be visually represented on the model so your opponents can clearly see what they are facing.
This concept is often referred to as WYSIWYG, which stands for ‘what you see is what you get’.

So yes, the 40k rules absolutely refer to Citadel models, and WYSIWYG is a rule for characters that typically gets extended to all upgrades.

Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

MagickalMemories, my point isn't that adding visual elements to a game or other experience is only more "pleasing". My point is that it is an entirely different experience once you add colour and shape. The Star Wars thing was just an analogy.

There is plenty of psychological and sociological literature about the different qualities of different experiences. It's not just an aesthetic thing.

Why do you think TV advertising costs more than radio or magazine advertising? It's not just about audience numbers; humans respond to visually interesting information in a completely different way than audio or textual info. It's a *different* experience, not just a "more pleasing" one.

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

Clearly you aren't allowed to use that unit until GW can make a buck off it.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Holdenstein wrote:Sorry I'll change that.

Funny thing is there aren't any rules about WYSIWIG on standard troopers or what models you should be using in the rule book, although there is an assumption that you are going to be using Citadel miniatures. All that stuff has always been in individual tournament packs, social convention and store house rules.

Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

So what about units which Citadel hasn't done a model for?

There's no rules support for being able to use that unit.
Unofficially, conversions are fine - and even talked about in the rules. But that doesn't change what's printed.

Not sure that WYSIWYG and GW's stance on it is entirely relevant here. Maybe a good topic for a different thread?

Please endeavor to keep this thread on topic - thanks!

AndrewC wrote:

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:GW is a model firm first and foremost. The games are just there to help sell the models. GW is in the business of selling models to children aged 10-16.

Then you got Jervis blithing on about most of our customer's don't even play the games, and plastic space marine sales blowing him away that he things its a front for drugs... sighs I really miss the old Jervis.

But why are they selling those models? While I see your point, as the majority of their profits come from the models and not the rules, they do not seem to be selling the models as individual pieces but as part of the game. The last few times I have been in a GW store, I am always asked what system/army I play/own.

So yes, GW is in the business of selling models, but it is in the context of playing their games.

Cheers

Andrew

Actually no you are wrong, sorry to say it. GW's target audience is 10-16 year old children who will make a initial purchase starter box (AoBR, IOB, MoM) with supporting codex/army book, this customer will make some 'hobby' purchases like paint, tools, models and whatever else for the next 18 months or so. The plan is to get one or two big purchases like a birthday or christmas in there. After this the customer will drop out of the GW PLC Hobby.

That is GW's target audience. It's called churn and burn and it's been there MO for quite a while now. EVERYTHING else is just icing on the cake for them. I am shure if GW could ban vets they would as they make more money by churn and burn then they do from vets (according to them then again the GW higher ups live in LALA land so take that for what its worth). After the 18-24 months are up GW has made its target off of you and it's off to the next 'little timmy', get him a demo game and get him into the HHHobby.

Honestly have you read the 40k/Fantasy rules? They are terrible. The fluff is squarely aimed at kids/ teens now a days. The game mechanics are almost non existent. It is a good ruleset for what it is (beer and pretzels) but honestly, can you tell me the rules are anywhere near as good as they used to be? If they are so good why the huge threads on RAW vs RAI? Why do you have to roll a D6 to figure out who is interpretation is right? Why is it so complicated compared to complex?

I am not trying to be a duche, honestly I love the 40k universe. It's a great place to set stories in. But please take a good look at the vehicle they use to sell models.

brettz123 wrote:
WYSIWYG maybe you have a better argument but then again how big of a component of the overall game is it? I could still play the game without WYSIWYG rather easily. Most of us do it to one degree or another already.

I'd argue not that big a component since it's only in the 40K rule book. Fantasy and, as far as I can recall, LotR don't have WYSIWYG rules in them.

Anvildude wrote:You know, if this discussion of 'replacement parts' and Copyright being 'passable' for purposes of pure utility is all true, GW would actually want miniatures to be counted as objects d'Art- as if Wysiwyg, Tlos and all are intrinsic functionings of the models in pursuit of being tokens to play the game, that means that things like ''Space Knights" that are the same size, shape, and have interchangeable parts would be completely legal, and GW wouldn't be able to do anything to companies that create them.

And Killkrazy, Trade Marks are only protected when they are used specifically for the service they advertise or represent. This is why you can have an ACME Grocers, and an ACME Junkyard, with neither of them violating trademark.

If you look at trademark registration it's grouped into classes of business.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-applying/t-class.htm

Nintendo have registered Star Fox as a trademark in the business area of games and playthings (and several others). It would not be possible for GW to have the same trade mark for a plaything.

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E2503795
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ohim?ohimnum=E5209432

rigeld2 wrote:
Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

Not everything in the rule book is actually a rule.
No where in the book does it say that you're required to use GW/Citadel models as part of the game rules.

Ian Sturrock wrote:MagickalMemories, my point isn't that adding visual elements to a game or other experience is only more "pleasing". My point is that it is an entirely different experience once you add colour and shape. The Star Wars thing was just an analogy.

There is plenty of psychological and sociological literature about the different qualities of different experiences. It's not just an aesthetic thing.

Why do you think TV advertising costs more than radio or magazine advertising? It's not just about audience numbers; humans respond to visually interesting information in a completely different way than audio or textual info. It's a *different* experience, not just a "more pleasing" one.

That still has nothing to do with IP law and has no bearing on this case.

Eric

So wouldn't GW's stance on always mentioning that the games are to be played "only" with Citadel Miniatures imply the functitonality of said models? If you read any of the rulebooks it does clearly state Citadel Miniatures throughout. This alone would give at least a measure of functionality. Their hardline stance of only Citadel Miniatures in events (even ones not run by them.) should also imply a level of functionality.

Their attitude towards conversions that use other companies pieces should also imply functionality. I have never purchased a single model kit from any other model kit company that listed this restriction. Most model building events/competitions encourage mixing kits for better detail. 3rd party brass, resin and plastic kits exist just to make existing models more detailed and I do not recall ever hearing complaints about it until GW.

Even the way GW packages their miniatures may imply functionality. If I am buying a model for display or for the joy of ownership, typically it is not packaged in a squad sized set that states "for use in Alpha army of the Beta game system.". Only miniatures that have the intended purpose of being used in a gaming setting are packaged like that AND include the actual intended use right on the package. I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV, but that seems to imply all kinds of functionality to me.

As for WYSIWYG...if GW has such a restrictive policy built into their gaming system, but do not actually produce models with all of the WYSIWYG options available, then I would say they have no real argument against a company that makes a buck/Pound/Euro picking up their slack.

The same goes for models not produced, but represented in the rules. If GW does not produce said model, then someone who does should not suffer for giving people what they want. I believe that this also has a chance to imply functionality. Which models get produced and when they are produced are directly related to game release schedules as well as how popular they are in the game. As an example of this...new models get produced when a new army book/codex is released. Not all of the models though. Some models are never produced because after the book comes out, GW finds that no one is using said unit because the rules are crap or the points cost is to high, etc., so they never produce the model becaus it would not sell. The Ork Codex unit "Flash Gitz" are a perfect example. Horrible unit that only got a single "direct only" model. Others never even see that one model.

So I most definitely believe that GW models do exist for the express purpose of functioning as playing pieces in the various game systems that GW supports. All of the other uses for said miniatures are a secondary consideration for GW. If collectors where , in fact, their target audience, they would not produce miniatures in the manner that they do.

Shepherd23 wrote: Some models are never produced because after the book comes out, GW finds that no one is using said unit because the rules are crap or the points cost is to high, etc., so they never produce the model becaus it would not sell. The Ork Codex unit "Flash Gitz" are a perfect example. Horrible unit that only got a single "direct only" model. Others never even see that one model.

Would this not mean that GW is a Games company, then, and that the miniatures are only shaped and sized as they are in accordance with how they're meant to be used in the games?

I know that Flash Gitz might not be popular to use in games, but they're one of the favorite squads for Ork and non-Ork players to convert and paint. If GW made a Flash Gitz kit with decent detail and character, it'd sell like hotcakes just for the modeling and painting potential.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nintendo have registered Star Fox as a trademark in the business area of games and playthings (and several others). It would not be possible for GW to have the same trade mark for a plaything.

What does that tell us about GW's lawyers that they claim to have that specific trademark in an official lawsuit?

MagickalMemories wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

Not everything in the rule book is actually a rule.
No where in the book does it say that you're required to use GW/Citadel models as part of the game rules.

Except it does. Everywhere the word model is used, it actually means Citadel model. The word model is used in a lot of places, including actual rules.

I think that implying functionality is different from "an intrinsic utilitarian function." In other words, a useful article's very nature is to have a specific utilitarian function that is "not merely to portray the appearance of the article or convey information." Again, as I mentioned previously, the ultimate point of the useful article exemption is to prevent copyrights from providing patent-like protection.

Rules cannot be protected by copyright, and they enjoy limited patentability. Most patents concern useful articles; things that have a utilitarian function, such as a hammer or a chair. Games are rather hard to patent, and are most commonly protected as an apparatus that performs a specific function, such as the Scrabble board. The Scrabble board with the insets for tiles was patented as an apparatus, the purpose of which, in conjunction with the tiles, was for placing the tiles in walled cells so that they would not shift. The form is specifically dictated by the function, as with most patented inventions.

Even the Magic: The Gathering patent has a strong relationship to a specific function dictated by form, specifically the cards. The patent claims methods of physically manipulating the cards, such as the so-called "tapping" method. The cards have a utility, but certainly the art on the cards can be cleanly separated from the intrinsic utility of the cards.

I think that to argue Citadel miniatures have an intrinsic utilitarian function, you'd have to show that the form is specifically dictated by function. In other words, that a given miniature is sculpted to have a specific physical functionality. Given this, can one say that the posing of an Imperial Guard Lord Commissar is specifically dictated by the function of the model? Even were the models considered to have a function in terms of their scale, I think you'd still have a strong argument that the aesthetics are separable from the utility.

Imagine the barest minimum that you would need to effect the utility of the Imperial Guard Lord Commissar model. The model is a 28mm heroic scale humanoid on a 25mm round base. It must be distinguishable from any other 28mm heroic scale humanoid model on a 25mm round base. That can be effected by a mere label, and yet this purpose is to convey information, isn't it? And it would be merely to convey information. What about WYSIWYG? Isn't that also to convey information? There is TLOS to consider, but I firstly think that TLOS does not create an intrinsic functionality. Secondly, the model could be completely featureless and merely roughly a consistent size in order to appropriately function within the rules. You might go so far as to say it must be humanoid in shape, and must be holding weapon-shaped things, but if you look at the Citadel range you'll see a wide variety of posing even among what is considered to be the exact same model within the rules. This suggests that at the very least, posing is separable from utility.

I'll go back to my hammer example. If the grip of my hammer is ergonomic and rubberized, that form has a specific utilitarian function, namely to make it comfortable to hold. The ergonomic shape may look really damn cool, and may have been designed to make the hammer look really cool, but it nevertheless has an intrinsic utilitarian function.

The useful article definition contemplates exempting aesthetics from protection so long as those aesthetics are tied to an intrinsic functionality, such as a handbag. Those are essentially "dressed up" utilitarian articles. It seems like what we're doing is the reverse: taking a sculptural work of art and trying to read into it an intrinsic utilitarian functionality with the liberal application of context.

I think the GW sculptors are most likely directed to sculpt to a certain scale, but don't they sculpt in 3-up anyway? So wouldn't that mean the sculptures aren't even created in the scale at which the game is played?

At the end of the day, I think the intention is for Citadel miniatures to be designed for the purposes of GW's games, but I don't think that this intention means that the aesthetic aspects of the models are inseparable from the intrinsic utilitarian functionality of the articles. At the very least, that is a hard hill to climb, and cuts across what are usually considered to be useful articles: articles that first have a utilitarian function whose utilitarian elements are manipulated for aesthetic impact. When you remove those aesthetic elements, the item no longer functions. Remove the cool-looking ergonomic rubberized handle from my hammer and it is a hammer with no handle. Remove the colorful stitching from a handbag and it falls apart. Remove the delicately carved legs from a chair and it doesn't stand up.

Remove the flame decal from the handle of my hammer and it is still a usable hammer. Remove carving from the back of a chair and it still has a back. Remove the printed design from the fabric of my wife's handbag and her girly things don't fall out. File the details off of an Imperial Guard Lord Commissar model and it is still a 28mm heroic scale humanoid wargaming miniature on a 25mm round base.

Ah, thanks, weeble, that does clarify things. Ignore all that stuff I was saying about visual info being inherently useful then. I guess the law may take a while to get around to taking such findings into account, if it ever does!

Anvildude wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote: Some models are never produced because after the book comes out, GW finds that no one is using said unit because the rules are crap or the points cost is to high, etc., so they never produce the model becaus it would not sell. The Ork Codex unit "Flash Gitz" are a perfect example. Horrible unit that only got a single "direct only" model. Others never even see that one model.

Would this not mean that GW is a Games company, then, and that the miniatures are only shaped and sized as they are in accordance with how they're meant to be used in the games?

I know that Flash Gitz might not be popular to use in games, but they're one of the favorite squads for Ork and non-Ork players to convert and paint. If GW made a Flash Gitz kit with decent detail and character, it'd sell like hotcakes just for the modeling and painting potential.

YES!!! GW may call themselves a miniatures company that sells games, but the reality of it is far from that thought. GW has spent decades fostering a cult-like following of "The Hobby". "The Hobby" is what they used to be loved for. The current incarnation, though, is far from what it was. This is why I no longer participate in "The Hobby". (The 3 nights in that hotel with the parents and that guy that screamed a lot had nothing to do with it. Honest!)

GW is a gaming/hobby company. They produce as much as possible to provide total support of that game/hobby. They have more in common with Micheal's or Jo Ann's Fabric (Hobby companies) than Reaper (A model company). Their denial of this fact is just a marketing tool designed to foster the belief that they produce the best models in the industry, something they mention often despite evidence to the contrary. I cite Finecast and Fantasy Minotaurs as examples to the contrary.

GW DO produce some of the most detailed models in the industry and DOES, generally, lead the way in gaming model technologies. However, GW did not invent the retractable pin used in injection molding, despite what some gamers may think. They did use it first though! The primary reason GW produces models with such high detail is not for the artist value, however. That is a secondary result, NOT the motivating factor. The high level of detail means that more models will be sold and more money earned. If more models are sold then, potentially, more rulebooks, paints, terrain, flock, etc. get sold and more money is earned. (I forgot to mention glue. Sell that glue, boys!) GW claiming that the models are produced for artist reasons and trying to use that defense is rather lame IMHO. (Ok. IMO as I am not real humble.)

I am not a lawyer and I know NOTHING about IP law. I am rather opinionated, though, that's why I fit in well here. IMO, if functionality vs. form is actually a viable argument, then GW is trying to backpedal 20+ years of history to get people to believe that their models are for artsy people. I hope that CH wins this. I hope that the other 3rd party companies that make a living off of supporting GW gamers say "Thank you" to CH for fighting the good fight for them. It could have been one of them instead. (No, I am not some CH fanboy. I own nothing from them and never will as I do not play GW games anymore. I just like what they and others do.) And, finally, I hope GW is able to get some of the former attitude they had instead of this new "ignore the customers" attitude they now have. Oh, and bring Paul "Fat Bloke" Sawyer back as the WD editor. It was best under his rule and watching him eat crabs is just good clean fun. (Not actually clean, but it is fun!)

Ready, set, argue!

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:Actually no you are wrong, sorry to say it. GW's target audience is 10-16 year old children who will make a initial purchase starter box (AoBR, IOB, MoM) with supporting codex/army book, this customer will make some 'hobby' purchases like paint, tools, models and whatever else for the next 18 months or so. The plan is to get one or two big purchases like a birthday or christmas in there. After this the customer will drop out of the GW PLC Hobby.

That is GW's target audience. It's called churn and burn and it's been there MO for quite a while now. EVERYTHING else is just icing on the cake for them. I am shure if GW could ban vets they would as they make more money by churn and burn then they do from vets (according to them then again the GW higher ups live in LALA land so take that for what its worth). After the 18-24 months are up GW has made its target off of you and it's off to the next 'little timmy', get him a demo game and get him into the HHHobby.

Honestly have you read the 40k/Fantasy rules? They are terrible. The fluff is squarely aimed at kids/ teens now a days. The game mechanics are almost non existent. It is a good ruleset for what it is (beer and pretzels) but honestly, can you tell me the rules are anywhere near as good as they used to be? If they are so good why the huge threads on RAW vs RAI? Why do you have to roll a D6 to figure out who is interpretation is right? Why is it so complicated compared to complex?

GWs target audience is not at arguement, nor is their business model. I agree with what you write. However this is about the arguement whether GW can claim their models are pieces of art or funtional models in relation to a set of game rules, no matter how badly written. Weeble has provided some very useful information on how difficult it would be to claim that the models are completely functional in nature and design, but I think he would agree that there is sufficient, contrary, information to cast doubt on the claim that all models are artistic.

I am not trying to be a duche, honestly I love the 40k universe. It's a great place to set stories in. But please take a good look at the vehicle they use to sell models.

To be honest, you were missing the point I was trying to make, so I am tempted to reply 'Try harder' but I say it in jest. And again the vehicle you describe is the business plan, so I ask you, how do they package that vehicle? You said it above, get him playing a game and to buy the models to play that game at home. They didn't sell him the models as a piece of art, they sold them as game pieces.

Cheers

Andrew

weeble1000 wrote:I think that implying functionality is different from "an intrinsic utilitarian function." In other words, a useful article's very nature is to have a specific utilitarian function that is "not merely to portray the appearance of the article or convey information." Again, as I mentioned previously, the ultimate point of the useful article exemption is to prevent copyrights from providing patent-like protection.
...

Based on that... would you say GW's copyright on their models design does not extend to utilitarian functionality of the interfacing geometries? That is to say shape and design of tabs, holes, pins, gluing surfaces, etc necessary for the assembly of the model? That is to say while GW's copywrite might keep you from making something that looks like their work, it affords them no protection to prevent anyone from producing something that mates with those interfacing points.

aka_mythos wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:I think that implying functionality is different from "an intrinsic utilitarian function." In other words, a useful article's very nature is to have a specific utilitarian function that is "not merely to portray the appearance of the article or convey information." Again, as I mentioned previously, the ultimate point of the useful article exemption is to prevent copyrights from providing patent-like protection.
...

Based on that... would you say GW's copyright on their models design does not extend to utilitarian functionality of the interfacing geometries? That is to say shape and design of tabs, holes, pins, gluing surfaces, etc necessary for the assembly of the model? That is to say while GW's copywrite might keep you from making something that looks like their work, it affords them no protection to prevent anyone from producing something that mates with those interfacing points.

I do not want to comment specifically on the scope of GW's copyright claims. In terms of general copyright law, I have earlier expressed the viewpoint that copyright extends to the aesthetic elements of a work. From my understanding of US copyright law and the precedent that I am familiar with, it is what a viewer can perceive that defines a copyright. Copyright also has a great deal to do with meaning. What does a work of art convey? What impact does it have on the viewer? Considering this, I don't think that underlying mechanical elements in a work of art that are not perceptible to a viewer of said work would be protected by copyright, although I am not aware of any precedent that specifically addresses this question. There may be something, but I'm not a lawyer, so don't often go looking for specific precedent.

Even so, underlying mechanical elements of a work of authorship does not seem to be something that could be protected by copyright. If anything, it seems to be within the realm of patent protection. For example, copyright protection for a novel would not extend to the binding of the book would it? Nevertheless, the binding is an integral part of assembling the pages in the correct order. That I use gesso to prime a canvas for painting, which may be incredibly important to keep the paint on the canvas, would not be an element of the work protected by copyright. At the very least I think it would not be protectable on its own divorced from the context of the work.

Finally, in interpreting the law, if an answer to a question is found within the plain language of the code, Courts often weigh this more strongly than argument or even precedent. Take note of section 102(b) of the US copyright code:

102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,
principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Note that "in no case" does copyright protection extend to a procedure, process, system, or method of operation. The mechanism by which a copy of a work of authorship is assembled would seem to me to clearly fall into one or more of those categories.

This is going great!

Since I am now in college for paralegal this case is helping me touch up on my inference of how law works. I love it!

In about a week or so I willdrop a nice giant post on what I have seen in order to sumuraize what Weeble has been saying. IF he does not beat me to it first. . .

Mind you looking at the Combimelta from both companies they look nothing alike. . . .

I think everyone is well aware of this fact, but I'm going to reiterate it for the record. I am not an attorney, nor do I hold degrees in any field related to the study of law. The views that I have expressed are not legal opinions, nor should they be taken as legal counsel or advice of any kind. The views that I have expressed are merely the way I prefer to interpret the law to the extent that I am aware of it. I think I have a pretty good handle on a few things, but that is just what I personally think and these views carry no authority of any kind.

Considering this, feel free to disagree with me about anything in particular. I could be very wrong. I may disagree with you right back, but that does not mean my interpretation inherently carries more weight than anyone else's. Folks should make up their own minds.

Shepherd23 wrote:

The primary reason GW produces models with such high detail is not for the artist value, however. That is a secondary result, NOT the motivating factor. The high level of detail means that more models will be sold and more money earned. If more models are sold then, potentially, more rulebooks, paints, terrain, flock, etc. get sold and more money is earned. (I forgot to mention glue. Sell that glue, boys!) GW claiming that the models are produced for artist reasons and trying to use that defense is rather lame IMHO. (Ok. IMO as I am not real humble.)

I do get a kick out of that statement above. Of course every company is guilty of this as well - every company wants you to buy their stuff. It keeps their lights on and their employees get a pay check as a result.

I've been lurking on this subject for a long time - IMHO if I'm going to sell my product by plugging in someone else's product, I should be paying a licensing fee/ royalty to that company. If I want to sell clothes and accessories for Barbie dolls, Matel would be all over me and would watch me like a hawk to make sure I didn't use their product to sell their product by showing pictures of their products next to mine. Why because they make similar looking accessories and they don't want you confusing their accessories with theirs. Now if you were to have an agreement in place such as a licensing/royalty agreement, then they would be compensated for the use of their product in their marketing and their would be a contract in place. Don't believe me when people confuse GW bits with CH bits, go on eBay and you will find a number of users who call their bits Forgeworld bits. Would my parents or wife know the difference between the bits? Not at all. Would I know the difference? Yes. Do I think CH should change their marketing of their product? Yes. Should they be allowed to sell their product? Yes. Just don't use GW references when you sell them and don't show a GW model when you're marketing the bits.

boyd wrote:Don't believe me when people confuse GW bits with CH bits, go on eBay and you will find a number of users who call their bits Forgeworld bits.

What 3rd parties call their wares isn't the responsibility of the original company. CH do not sell their accessories as Forgeworld/GW. If Joe Bloggs purchases a set of shoulder pads from CH and then resells them as Forgeworld/GW then it's Joe who has committed the crime, not Chapterhouse.

Cheers

Andrew

Update.

Yet another status hearing set for May 16.

boyd wrote:I've been lurking on this subject for a long time - IMHO if I'm going to sell my product by plugging in someone else's product, I should be paying a licensing fee/ royalty to that company. If I want to sell clothes and accessories for Barbie dolls, Matel would be all over me and would watch me like a hawk to make sure I didn't use their product to sell their product by showing pictures of their products next to mine. Why because they make similar looking accessories and they don't want you confusing their accessories with theirs. Now if you were to have an agreement in place such as a licensing/royalty agreement, then they would be compensated for the use of their product in their marketing and their would be a contract in place.

This why there are fair use laws. Weeble has explained it better than I could a few pages back, but I'll have a go:
Fair Use laws are designed to allow you to state factually what your product does in relation to another product. It is for cases when using anything other than the specific name of the target product is detrimental to users. Have a look at iPhone covers, which you don't need a license to produce. If you make an iPhone cover, it is factually incorrect to say 'compatible with smartphones', and would cause more harm than good as people buy the cover to use on their Razer or what have you. To prevent confusion to the customer, you must be able to say 'compatible with iPhones', or 'cover for iPhone', as that is the only way that you can completely and unambiguously tell people what your product does.
For Barbies, if you say your doll clothes 'fit dolls including Barbie', you are just stating a fact, and are legally allowed to do that. If done correctly (and with proper disclaimers) it does not confuse the customer or detract from the brand in question. Its questionable whether CHS's original terminology was ok, but their current names are perfectly ok. Even if the original names weren't ok, it would be extremely unlikely for any judgement against CHS because they sought legal advice on the matter before naming their products, and changed the names after the lawsuit was brought.

Don't believe me when people confuse GW bits with CH bits, go on eBay and you will find a number of users who call their bits Forgeworld bits. Would my parents or wife know the difference between the bits? Not at all. Would I know the difference? Yes

To be honest with you, none of my family could tell the difference between an unboxed miniature of any kind. My girlfriend calls my Dystopian Wars stuff 'Warhammers'. I probably couldn't tell you outside of 3 or 4 manufacturers. But when you are buying a new product from the respective websites (or in store packaging) it is quite immediately obvious, and there is no confusion, and that is what is important. It is not the responsibility of CHS or GW to require secondhand sellers to use the correct terminology.

Do I think CH should change their marketing of their product? Yes. Should they be allowed to sell their product? Yes. Just don't use GW references when you sell them and don't show a GW model when you're marketing the bits.

They have (slightly) changed the marketing of their product since the suit was filed. If you think that their marketing should change further but they should still be allowed to sell the product, what do they change it to? Anything other than using the specific terminology is detrimental to consumers - as we see time and time again with Scibor et al with people asking 'are these shoulderpads for PA or TA'? Similarly, if CHS need to show how the Storm Raven conversion kit actually fits onto a Storm Raven, then the only way to do this that keeps consumers best interests at heart is to show an actual GW product - and if CHS does this with the correct disclaimers, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

boyd wrote:I do get a kick out of that statement above. Of course every company is guilty of this as well - every company wants you to buy their stuff. It keeps their lights on and their employees get a pay check as a result.

I've been lurking on this subject for a long time - IMHO if I'm going to sell my product by plugging in someone else's product, I should be paying a licensing fee/ royalty to that company. If I want to sell clothes and accessories for Barbie dolls, Matel would be all over me and would watch me like a hawk to make sure I didn't use their product to sell their product by showing pictures of their products next to mine. Why because they make similar looking accessories and they don't want you confusing their accessories with theirs. Now if you were to have an agreement in place such as a licensing/royalty agreement, then they would be compensated for the use of their product in their marketing and their would be a contract in place. Don't believe me when people confuse GW bits with CH bits, go on eBay and you will find a number of users who call their bits Forgeworld bits. Would my parents or wife know the difference between the bits? Not at all. Would I know the difference? Yes. Do I think CH should change their marketing of their product? Yes. Should they be allowed to sell their product? Yes. Just don't use GW references when you sell them and don't show a GW model when you're marketing the bits.

That's all well and good, provided you don't forget that your opinion does no = law.
I'm NOT insinuating you are doing that, just using that as a reminder for, well, everyone.

That said, you should look at the resin stuff being sold on feebay. The majority of people who are advertising the stuff as Forgeworld aren't necessarily doing it because they're confused about what it is. They're doing it because a lot more people search feebay for "Forgeworld" than "Chapterhouse." I've seen more than a few people hawking their OWN resin stuff (like one guy who makes resing models that look like demonic Vallejo paint droppers) as Forgeworld. That's not because they forgot that they're confused about who created it.

As for confusing GW pieces with Chapterhouse, you need to compare like to like.
"Mrs. Smith, do you see this plastic piece? It's called a 'Jump Pack.' Now, look at this resing piece. It's a 'Jump Pack,' as well. Do they look the same to you."
How many are going to say that they do? Really?

Eric

I'm pretty sure a company can't be held responsible for 3rd parties purposefully improperly labeling their product, when the reseller bought it knowing it wasn't what they then claim it to be. Even if the reseller doesn't know how does someone measure that confussion.

Damn! Today was the first time I found out about Chapter House too! I went and checked out their website and the first thing I thought was "Wow those wheeled Chimera conversion kits are insane and I want some" but the very next thing I thought was "Why haven't GW sued these guys? I cannot tell you why I thought the latter as I have no idea. It just seems like the kind of thing that would happen and now it has. I still want those Chimera wheels though.

If you want them, nightside, I'd suggest ordering them

nightside wrote:Damn! Today was the first time I found out about Chapter House too! I went and checked out their website and the first thing I thought was "Wow those wheeled Chimera conversion kits are insane and I want some" but the very next thing I thought was "Why haven't GW sued these guys? I cannot tell you why I thought the latter as I have no idea. It just seems like the kind of thing that would happen and now it has. I still want those Chimera wheels though.

You know I ask the same thing about alot of companies... not because I believe they've done any wrong, but because I believe GW has a history and reputation for being incredibly litigous, to such a degree they have brainwashed most of us through the forced capitulation of otherwise innocent organizations and parties into believing they are right more times than they are wrong.

People constantly point out the flaws in GWs strategy and corporate character and yet so many are still willing to believe when it comes to GW interpretation of the law that they're somehow smarter or better and out perform, in this area, the rest of their company.

@Dysartes Definitely going to get on that quickly

@aka_mythos I can understand both sides of the story. On one side GW holds the rights to products associated with their game systems and would be losing out on a fair bit of revenue if third parties could make and sell embellishments and add-ons to those game systems. On the other hand, the very nature of 40k and the games systems and mythos GW have invented (for me in any case and I don't think I'm alone) gives rise to invention and creativity and it is these aspects of the hobby that I believe keep it alive and well. It would be interesting to see what Rick Priestly and Nigel Stillman think on this matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hahahaha and yes I do tend to look at some things and think "you gonna get sued by GW"

GW's rights are limited just like everyone else's. They may have many rights that others do not relating to this issue, but in this case, the legal proceedings are not going as swimmingly as GW might like.

Look at the settlement with Paulson. Paulson Games was also named in the suit, negotiated their exit and still offers very appropriate parts for 40k conversions.

GW's rights are not as endless and far reaching as they'd like us to believe.

Essentially, the Giant believed itself invulnerable. This time, it went to step on a 'lesser' being, and found that creature not as amenable to destruction as it had thought. Even if GW manages to win this, they'll have learned that you can't just stride along on your reputation and size, but that you need to actually spend money on people who know what they're doing. This might force a re-structuring of the entire company, and a re-organization of their entire policy, especially if Chapterhouse wins the suit.

nightside wrote:
@aka_mythos I can understand both sides of the story. On one side GW holds the rights to products associated with their game systems and would be losing out on a fair bit of revenue if third parties could make and sell embellishments and add-ons to those game systems. On the other hand, the very nature of 40k and the games systems and mythos GW have invented (for me in any case and I don't think I'm alone) gives rise to invention and creativity and it is these aspects of the hobby that I believe keep it alive and well. It would be interesting to see what Rick Priestly and Nigel Stillman think on this matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
hahahaha and yes I do tend to look at some things and think "you gonna get sued by GW"

No one is disputing their rights, just the extent to which their legal team asserts it and through that assertion mislead people to believe GW's overreaching view. That view that GW should have control of all products associated with it may be a justifiable view, but it isn't reality. It isn't how the law is written or really intended. GW only gets to control what it creates and has a right to ensure what someone else creates isn't by design confused with their product.

rigeld2 wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Still incorrect. Every time you see the word model you should be reading Citadel model - as the quote from page 3 shows. Which means that the rules *dictate* Citadel models only.
Not that everyone follows that, but the rules do say that.

Not everything in the rule book is actually a rule.
No where in the book does it say that you're required to use GW/Citadel models as part of the game rules.

Except it does. Everywhere the word model is used, it actually means Citadel model. The word model is used in a lot of places, including actual rules.

This is rules lawyering- and that's a legal field that I have a lot of experience in. Ultimately, the "Citadel Only" rule is inconsistent with the practices of the company, and the legal GW store or GW sanctioned tournament rules.

Citadel is the main brand of miniatures that are allowed in GW games- but there are others. Forge World, is the currently produced brand, but Maurader used to make quite a bit of great minis that were legal in GW's games. Then there's Forge World USA, Armorcast and a few others (I have a titan in my back room that was GW sanctioned).

The truth is, GW has a standing policy that out dated minis are still legal- and no one will ever harass you for using the old Maruader Giant or Wyvern (they were featured in White Dwarf even).

odinsgrandson wrote:
The truth is, GW has a standing policy that out dated minis are still legal- and no one will ever harass you for using the old Maruader Giant or Wyvern (they were featured in White Dwarf even).

LOL, unfortunately you're wrong about that last part. Every once in a while, a thread gets posted on dakka asking about the legality of using OOP minis. The backstory usually involves a red shirt younger than the mini in question not believing its an official GW release.

GW only gets to control what it creates

M'learned friend informs me:

Under Copyright this is true. Under Trademark it is absolutely untrue. One need not create anything in order to Trademark it. Furthermore whilst Copyright exists de facto and continues to exist even if breached and undefended, Trademark is lost if it is not defended. trademark law is basically terrible but companies must act in ways that seem extreme to outsiders in order to defend it. In this case I suspect GW are defending both Copyright and Trademark which are terms easily confused by laymen anyway and thought to be pretty much the same, which they are not. You can throw in patent as another sort of 'company property' but it doesn't seem to have any bearing in this particular case. It however is differnet again both in protections offered, how violations are established and how it must be defended.